***Official*** New Zealand in Australia 2011

[Jono]

India are in deep **** IMO

Great at home but very ordinary away (i.e. situation normal) and that situation will only get worse as their greats retire

Other than England, where else have they been "very ordinary" away at in the last few years?

 

[Jono]

Ah that was fun.

New Zealand fans going on about how they're going smash 450-500 and beat this rabble no bother, to wanting their batsmen hung drawn and quartered and the utter despair at a crushing defeat. Always from one extreme to the other, players are either heroes or villains.

Bring on the Second Test. A stodgy surface should level the playing field.

Honestly, only a twisted individual who enjoys strangling puppies would take pleasure in seeing a team like NZ, who gets starved of test cricket, lose.

 

[straw man]

Why does New Zealand not produce good openers? Watching Guptill in this test was depressing to be honest - he's simply not up to it. Here are his stats :

v Australia 123 @ 20.50
v Bangladesh 245 @ 245.0
v India 245 @ 27.22
v Pakistan 251 @ 27.88
v Sri Lanka 105 @ 26.25
v Zimbabwe 109 @ 54.50

Take out the minnows, and he's in the Cumming/McIntosh/Bell territory. How do we think he'll do against Steyn, Morkel and Philander later in the summer?

Yes, I know, easy to criticise, but is there anyone better around? Watling doesn't seem any more likely to succeed. Has anyone seen Jamie How bat recently? Is he doing anything differently than when he was in the test side?

The only thing I can say for Guptill is that he looks like the sort of guy who could have 5 balls in a row go past the outside edge, not be worried by it, and then hit the next ball for 4. Unfortunately he's just not very good at this point in his career.

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

Honestly, only a twisted individual who enjoys strangling puppies would take pleasure in seeing a team like NZ, who gets starved of test cricket, lose.

Hehe.

 

[Flem274*]

...dont you think that this typifies the modern test cricket thing though?
It seems to me that even pretty decent bowlers - like Steyn - have lost the ability to think independently and if they come across someone from leftfield, with a bit of talent, that they haven't had a weeks seminar on, they struggle. As soon as Hughes' technical deficiencies against pace were seen and filmed he was boiled like a bunny.

Modern man lacks basic core strength, through not having to work hard for a living I guess. Therefore, when you find someone gifted with the ability to bowl fast, you wrap him in cotton wool before his spine gives in. You then programme him to bowl to order. Likes of Larwood shoveled coal, at a face, on their knees, for 12 hour shifts, six days a week - you cant replicate that in a gym without being had up for cruel and inhuman treatment - (thank god). The modern bowler just doesn't bowl enough to out think a batsman who isn't in the script.
How many overs a season did Trueman or Lindwall bowl?

And then he clubbed some seals over the head, dragged them back to his man cave, and used them as practice balls to bowl bouncers at his wife and kids.

Back in my day...

Bring in Watling, he's in the squad and likely to offer up more than Young IMO.

Although probably a very unpopular move, I would say Southee must be close to being dropped with Boult and Arnel pressing hard. A great ODI and T20 bowler but he hasn't taken a 5 wicket-hall since his debut, averages 43 with the ball and seemed lost in Brisbane.

My team for the 2nd Test in batting order would be:

Guptill, Watling, Taylor, Williamson, Ryder, Brownlie, McCullum, Vettori, Bracewell, Boult, Martin.

Young is a better batsman than Watling. Selecting Watling and Guptill only weakens the opening combination.

 

[Woodster]

I was very disappointed NZ's top five failed to produce the kind of performances we know they're all capable of, and as a result fail to put the pressure on the Aussie line-up. I think in an ideal world, imo, McCullum would have the gloves and drop down the order with an opener coming in, yet with his injury problems it obviously becomes highly unlikely.

I have said previously I'd prefer to see Williamson at least a place lower in the order, he's a very talentede batsman but coming in at number three is asking just too much of him at this stage. The skipper had a poor game with the bat, in complete contrast to the qualities shown with the bat by the Aussie leader. Taylor's shot in the first innings was loose and came at a poor time, while his shot in the second innings was just as bad to his first delivery.

Vettori again showed his capabilities down the order and helped resurrect the first innings with Brownlie, who can be pleased with what he's done this Test. It's high time the specialist batsmen stepped up a gear and started producing.

 

[straw man]

McCullum is exposed at the top

I thought this would be a tough season for McCullum against Australia and South Africa but I didn't expect the calls for his head to start after one match! Admittedly Rattue's article is fairly reasonable but I can see the anti-McCullum sentiment in the media getting stronger and stronger unless he scores runs very soon.

Think we just need to accept McCullum's fairly significant limitations and at least allow him (but no-one else in the top 6) some licence to attack. He doesn't have the defensive technique to do otherwise and all other openers are worse than Guptill. McCullum's first 30 or so in the first innings did show what he can do for us on the days when luck goes his way - the Australian bowlers were genuinely rattled. This took the pressure off Guptill who was struggling at the other end and should have been content to try to muddle his way through the first 15-20 overs. But instead he gave his wicket away with a ridiculously loose shot. No doubt that affected McCullum's game too.

 

[Flem274*]

Rattue rarely writes a reasonable article on any sport though so who cares. One bad game and you're toast with him.

McCullum recently saved a test match for us in India. Yes, the pitch was flat but no other opener in the country would have scored that double hundred. He's the best we have, and we just have to hope he bats in favourable conditions as often as possible because he's not the type to last long against bowling friendly conditions.

 

[Flem274*]

Tbh the only openers who deserve to come in with their weight of runs are Watling, How, Ingram and Murdoch. Watling isn't ready, How has had enough chances, Ingram will never get picked so it's irrelevant what you think of him, and all I know about Murdoch is he likes the onside. So really, we should probably sick with the devil we know.

 

[Woodster]

On the McCullum issue, I was against his promotion to the top of the order at the time because I felt his wicket was too important to the NZ side to risk losing him early against the new ball, which can at times be very likely with his style of play. The middle order now, while not exactly established, does have a promising look and so McCullum should have certain allowances at the top to play with the kind of attacking freedom that makes him so dangerous. He is now still an important wicket, but with the likes of Taylor, Ryder, Williamson and the possibly Brownlie beneath him in the order, NZ should still have the batting to risk losing McCullum as he aims to get his side off to a flyer.

As he showed in the first innings, he can put a lot of pressure back onto the bowlers and disrupt their plans, but when he does get these starts it is important for him to go on.

 

[Flametree]

I thought this would be a tough season for McCullum against Australia and South Africa but I didn't expect the calls for his head to start after one match! Admittedly Rattue's article is fairly reasonable but I can see the anti-McCullum sentiment in the media getting stronger and stronger unless he scores runs very soon.

.

I actually think McCullum has one of the best defensive techniques of any kiwi top order player. (Damning with faint praise?.... yeah, maybe). I also think he's a determined little bugger and will want to prove the likes of Rattue wrong. So I suspect he'll have an ok summer.

However, there seems to be a gung-ho attitude prevalent through NZ cricket - coming into this series, particularly on the back of the batting against Australia "A", it seems they (=the batsmen or the management?) decided the Aussie attack wouldn't cope if McCullum and co went at them hard. For about 20 minutes on the first morning it appeared to be working.

But there never seems to be a plan b or a willingness to guts out the tough times - as Bryan Waddle points out in practically every commentary spell he does, there are times when opposition bowlers do actually bowl well, and batsmen just have to resolve to survive to enjoy easier times later.

You would think John Wright is exactly the sort of guy to impress that upon the side. Whether the players in the top 5 are able to alter their mindset is another matter.

 

[Howe_zat]

Honestly, only a twisted individual who enjoys strangling puppies would take pleasure in seeing a team like NZ, who gets starved of test cricket, lose.

What if they're playing Bangladesh?

 

[Jono]

You can enjoy seeing Bangladesh (or Zimbabwe) win against NZ. But taking pleasure in the fact that NZ are losing is a whole different matter.

I doubt Scaly took joy in Australia winning yesterday. His delight was solely in NZ losing.

Its almost psychotic

 

[FBU]

What's the Hobart wicket going to be like? I think top cat described it as rolled mud. Is this the regular batsman-friendly but slow-scoring rolled mud or do they put something different in it in Tasmania? Any swing, seam or spin?

This is the last game I remember from Hobart

The Home of CricketArchive

 

[Furball]

Other than England, where else have they been "very ordinary" away at in the last few years?

1st Test in South Africa. Utterly, utterly woeful. They were very good in the other 2 Tests but the 1st Test performance was absolutely shocking.

 

[Pup Clarke]

My issue is not so much with the batsman at NZ's disposal, because four of them are good to very good players, but where they are batting. You can't have three very attack minded batsman ( I actually think Ryder isn't one of them) on pitches where there is a bit of bounce and seam.

I mean McCullum, Taylor etc aren't quite in the Suresh Raina level of incompetence against the bouncing ball, but genuine question, how often will the likes of Guptill faced a bowler bowling close to 150kph. It's like the theory behind Phil Hughes having to work out his technique against the moving ball and not squaring up AT TEST LEVEL.

I think it's the bounce that's unsettling the batsman imo.

 

[Tricia McMillan]

Alright guys, I'm all settled in and ready for a thrilling final day of play scheduled to start in 9 minutes. Let's see ho..

... oh wait a minute here.

 

[Jono]

1st Test in South Africa. Utterly, utterly woeful. They were very good in the other 2 Tests but the 1st Test performance was absolutely shocking.

Clearly he meant in general. Obviously that was a bad test, but I can point to these two tests when they played at home:

HowSTAT! Match Scorecard
HowSTAT! Match Scorecard

where they were absolutely woeful too. Doesn't mean they are overall "very ordinary" at home.

Saying India are very ordinary away from home as if that is the norm is plain wrong. Saying they will be ordinary away from home from now onwards or in the near future is a fair enough prediction. But you can't change the past.

 

[Days of Grace]

Goes back to not having that extra warm-up match on an Australian pitch with a bit of bounce in it, no matter who the bowling attack was.

 

[vandem]

I know Australian fans won't give a flying about this (and nor should they) but I want to know why the hell Arnel is going over there.

Is it a rark-up for our bowlers? Surely the batsmen deserve that more. Our batting let us down in Brisbane, plain and simple. I thought Martin bowled well, Bracewell had good periods and was unlucky and Vettori was Vettori. Southee was by and large rubbish, and you can include his batting in that. So maybe it's a rocket at him?...

I suspect that Arnel is there as a possible 3rd seamer. Listening to radio commentary, sounded like Bracewell created chances and asked some questions of batsmen on day 3 when bowling a fuller length. So mark him in for the new ball in Hobart. But Southee couldn't build any pressure, comments were that he was bowling "along the pitch". Perhaps he was brought back from injury a month too soon?

Without a strong 5th bowler option, there is an argument that for balance the team needs a 3rd seamer who can bowl up to 25 overs a day at around 2.5 rpo, and chip in with the odd wicket. Allows Martin and Braces bowl shorter spells. Boult does not fit, at this stage in his career he seems like an opening bowler. Aldridge, Mills and Arnel match the 3rd seamer profile, and of these Arnel is fit, in form, and has some (limited) test experience.