NZTailender
I can't believe I ate the whole thing
Rachin gone for a breezy 12 off 13. Hope he gets a second dig.
Bugger... he's gone. Looked in the pooch and he had so much time to play both Archer and Broad. Of the number of balls he faced he's straight driven, glanced, back foot punched and flicked... geez. Very aggressive bat by the looks of it. Shame he didn't block the one he got out.Rachin gone for a breezy 12 off 13. Hope he gets a second dig.
I think the selection strategy was (1) we need a containing spinner, because we back ourselves to get most 2nd innings wickets from new ball + Wagner short stuff, (2) if we don't need the spinner to take wickets, they need to be able to bat at #8, (3) Santner is the best fit, (4) and if Santner in injured, Astle is the like-for-like.Picking Astle as backup for Santner at home is strange - he needs lots of bowling, hasn't had it and his control looked poor in the warmups in SL.
Picking Astle over both Somerville and Ajaz to tour Australia is absolutely bizarre. Visiting spinners struggle at the best of times in Australia, so to choose a legspinner who sometimes struggles to land it is asking for a world of pain.
Still would've picked Somerville over Santner for Australia too. Santner might have scraped into squad as second spinner, or not.
Somerville double hundred pls.Somerville and Patel are playing this match. Would be hilarious if they bagged 5 each or something.
edit: and scored 50s
I agree this is the thinking - we've used the Santner + CDG combination to cover bases at home quite well for the last few seasons. I think the approach is ok for the two home England tests (with Somerville replacing Astle), but I don't agree with it for Australia.I think the selection strategy was (1) we need a containing spinner, because we back ourselves to get most 2nd innings wickets from new ball + Wagner short stuff, (2) if we don't need the spinner to take wickets, they need to be able to bat at #8, (3) Santner is the best fit, (4) and if Santner in injured, Astle is the like-for-like.
(1) (2) (3) I am OK with, (4) I think Sommerville is a better fit, have been impressed by his tenacious batting in his short test career.
Astle has also done nothing to win his spot, which Somerville and Ajaz have.I feel like poor old Tastle is getting a bit of a rough go here.
If you go back a couple of years he and Santner were, with some justification, #1 and #2 on the pecking order. Purely due to injuries, Patel and Somerville got a go in favourable subcontinent conditions and did well.
I'm not trying to understate the importance of Patel and Somerville actually proving themselves on the international stage, but (maybe being Devil's Advocate to an extent) I also don't really see what Astle has done wrong to definitively fall behind them, especially when we are talking about totally different conditions where all of them are completely unproven at international level?
Of course, all of this ignores a more nuanced technical assessment of current form. Maybe Astle will turn out to be completely out of form, short of a gallop, or just ineffective in Australia conditions. I'm just saying, he never reaaaaaaally did anything wrong to lose his place.
Re: Santner, I still have some hopes for him, but as he doesn't have the body of work behind him as a frontline spinner I am more readily able to understand the criticism. I tend to think NZC still have plans for him for the future, although that was undermined somewhat by how quickly he was dropped in Sri Lanka.
Hey, remember when Santner was an automatic pick and Ish Sodhi was our clear #2?
Didn't Astle win/hasn't Astle won his spot due to years and years of good domestic performances?Astle has also done nothing to win his spot, which Somerville and Ajaz have.
I think it’s just down to using some common sense as a selector, rather than defaulting back to “this guy is the incumbent because he got the nod three years ago”.
When the reason Larsen gives for selection is bolstering batting (when Somerville has outperformed Astle by far in batting at test match level) and experience in conditions (again, huge advantage to Somerville in that department), then yes, I think common sense is lacking. Add to that the reluctance of the touring party to give Astle a go in Sri Lanka, which must say a bit, and I just don’t get it. To me he doesn’t get the spot on incumbency, or horses for courses.Didn't Astle win/hasn't Astle won his spot due to years and years of good domestic performances?
Is it "common sense" that your best option 12 months ago (not 3 years...but for injury he was playing in Pakistan) is no longer your best option when you have no direct basis for comparison between him and his competitors?
Look, I totally get why you want the guys who have picked up crucial poles in the subcontinent, but I just don't think it's that black and white.