***Official*** England in New Zealand series 2013

[_Ed_]

Ugh, yeah, really bad.

Bartin playing is fair enough IMO.

 

[straw man]

Heh, McCullum defending the batting of a 'ball-striker' who sometimes hits the ball without thinking about the consequences and gets out. Never would have seen that coming .

I do generally agree that Southee's best bet when batting is to attack as that's his strength, and he's made it fairly clear he's not going to try to be a 'proper' batsman anyway (like Bracewell might one day be)... but ideally slogger Southee would bat at 10.

 

[Days of Grace]

Wouldn't be too upset if Boult missed out, tbh.

 

[Mike5181]

Nah, looks good to go, tbh. Sorry, Wagner.

Really hope the selectors realise how Wagner got his wickets and not just look at the tally.

Replacing Wagner with Bracewell would be one of the more nonsensical things we could do to be honest. You don't drop your most effective seamer in the series, especially for a guy averaging 50 with the ball in the last 12 months.

 

[Days of Grace]

Yes, now that I have thought more about it, Wagner might be a better bet than Boult. Then we would have a swing bowler, a seam bowler, and a bowler who will run in HARD with a BIG HEART all day.

 

[Prince EWS]

I've got no beef with how Southee bats if he's going to bat 9; he's actually one of the best 9s in world cricket.

However, if he's to bat 8 then his first objective is to build a partnership with whatever batsman is still left and ensure that batsman doesn't get stranded. This is why Dougeh bats 8 despite the fact that Southee regularly scores more runs than him and why Bruce Martin should be at 8 in this lineup.

 

[Prince EWS]

Leaving Boult out for Wagner and Bracewell would be ridiculous. If you don't want to drop Wagner then you don't play Bracewell; it's that simple IMO.

 

[Howsie]

**** off

If either Boult or Southee are dropped I'll just give up, why don't we just drop Taylor while we're at it.

 

[Prince EWS]

Cricinfo has this to say in their preview:



I worried briefly the writer might have some inside information, but then the same article also has the following to say, which suggests there's not much real insight going on here.

Bahahaha

 

[Mike5181]

Yeah, as far as the seam bowlers go it should really be:

1. Southee
2. Boult
3. Wagner
4. Bracewell

And if number three has done enough to keep four out, you don't replace 1/2.

 

[Jezroy]

Cricinfo has this to say in their preview:



I worried briefly the writer might have some inside information, but then the same article also has the following to say, which suggests there's not much real insight going on here.

Cricinfo preview of NZ tests often seem to be written by someone with no idea, and are often quite incorrect when it comes to their (probable) teams.

 

[straw man]

I've got no beef with how Southee bats if he's going to bat 9; he's actually one of the best 9s in world cricket.

Really? Doesn't have many test runs apart from debut we-lost-already slogging v England and a solitary good fifty v Pakistan. Surely there are some better 9s around than that.

I'm encouraged that his slogging has proceeded to the point where he's scoring domestic hundreds but he's still there for a good time not a long time. Can see his batting going the way of Zaheer Khan or Kyle Mills - looks promising early in career but then batting doesn't just stall, it actually goes backwards. Now if he could just be as good a bowler as Zaheer Khan...

 

[Jezroy]

I'm encouraged that his slogging has proceeded to the point where he's scoring domestic hundreds but he's still there for a good time not a long time. Can see his batting going the way of Zaheer Khan or Kyle Mills - looks promising early in career but then batting doesn't just stall, it actually goes backwards. Now if he could just be as good a bowler as Zaheer Khan...

OR Kyle Mills

 

[Prince EWS]

Really? Doesn't have many test runs apart from debut we-lost-already slogging v England and a solitary good fifty v Pakistan. Surely there are some better 9s around than that.

He consistently plays little cameos though; that's what you want from your nine, especially once he gets in with ten and jack. He averages over 20 in his last 15 Tests at a strike rate over 80. You don't really want your nine to be the guy capable of hitting a ton and then getting five consecutive ducks because that theoretical to will probably end up 20* anyway. I'd liken his batting more to Swann than Zaheer.

 

[Zinzan]

Cricinfo has this to say in their preview:



I worried briefly the writer might have some inside information, but then the same article also has the following to say, which suggests there's not much real insight going on here.

Haha, I saw that. Perhaps the writer was in a time-warp of sorts since Auckland was actually the capital of NZ between 1841 and 1865. Joking aside, it really is a shocking mistake for a journalist to make.

 

[Jezroy]

Haha, I saw that. Perhaps the writer was in a time-warp of sorts since Auckland was actually the capital of NZ between 1841 and 1865. Joking aside, it really is a shocking mistake for a journalist to make.

When did Cricinfo start employing actual journalists?

 

[Prince EWS]

Haha, I saw that. Perhaps the writer was in a time-warp of sorts since Auckland was actually the capital of NZ between 1841 and 1865. Joking aside, it really is a shocking mistake for a journalist to make.

I considered that it was perhaps a crack at The Basin, but that'd be even more unforgivable.

 

[straw man]

He consistently plays little cameos though; that's what you want from your nine, especially once he gets in with ten and jack. He averages over 20 in his last 15 Tests at a strike rate over 80. You don't really want your nine to be the guy capable of hitting a ton and then getting five consecutive ducks because that theoretical to will probably end up 20* anyway. I'd liken his batting more to Swann than Zaheer.

I suppose an average just over 20 is all we can expect from a number 9; I'll be interested in seeing if he can maintain or improve that (and not with easy runs or we've-already-lost runs). Swann has scored runs when it matters for England, while I'd be pleased if Southee could just contribute the occasional 40 when runs are difficult or we're in a bad situation.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

I've got no beef with how Southee bats if he's going to bat 9; he's actually one of the best 9s in world cricket.

However, if he's to bat 8 then his first objective is to build a partnership with whatever batsman is still left and ensure that batsman doesn't get stranded. This is why Dougeh bats 8 despite the fact that Southee regularly scores more runs than him and why Bruce Martin should be at 8 in this lineup.

Exactly, and I'd have no problem with Southee being promoted to 8 (or even 7) if we needed quick runs to set up a declaration, knowing that if he plays an ugly swipe and gets out, it's no great loss. But trying to avoid the follow on, he should definitely be at 9.

Also, Bucko has looked pretty solid for a man making his Test debut so it's not like we've putting some numpty ahead of him.

 

[Bahnz]

I imagine the comments about potentially dropping Boult are based on a couple of assumptions by the journalist:

1) Southee, as the leader of the bowling attack, is undroppable regardless of current form.
2) Wagner has taken enough wickets that there's no way he'll be dropped.

Therefore, Boult is the one who would be replaced. I think that such a conclusion would be nonsense. But given how Boult was dropped after just 1 so-so test against SA last year, you can't rule it out entirely.

Good to see that we're finally likely to get a full 5 days play. It really irritates me that McCullum is once again premeditating to bowl first, especially given how badly things played out at Wellington.