**Official** New Zealand in Australia 2015

[Bahnz]

Can understand the frustration but it's a bit too far. Sometimes you gain, sometimes you lose

I really don't think it is. I mean, don't get me wrong, Australia deserved their series win. To have come back from 118/8 and posted another 100 runs before opening up NZ's top order like that showed awesome resiliance and they deserve to win the series for it. But let's be honest, if that had been correctly given out, then NZ would've most likely finished with a 50-60 run first inning lead. Further, we would've had another hour of batting in the less challenging evening session. I don't think it's exaggerating to say that it probably resulted in a 100 run swing Australia's way which in such a low-scoring match was always going to be vital.

Again though, you make your own luck. Australia lost their best bowler and still found a way to win, they deserve the 2-0 scoreline.

 

[Skyliner]

When the next option will average even less, it becomes acceptable. You don't set your standards to what Australia can have, you set them against what NZ has. Like it or not, Guptill has consistently been a part of almost all of our best Test partnership pairings over the years. No one is saying he shouldn't be under pressure but the merry go round shouldn't spin so fast that we chuck in players before they're truly putting their hand up. Look what happened with Rutherford, promising in FC cricket, great debut, and then years and years of absolutely nothing.

Sure these have been roads but come on, it's the new ball against Australia. The only harder tests for us are England and South Africa.

Yes, but some players - Graham Hick for example - just do not perform at the highest level, and he was incredible in first class cricket. Others defy their stats and do perform. If you say you cannot compare us to Australia then you are beaten before you start: they've had some seemingly indifferent material to work with but they do not shy away from the belief that you must perform to a certain standard to be in the side, otherwise someone else with get the chance.
You cannot state that someone else who is tried will average less than what Guptill is now: that is un-proven assumption. You could have stated prior to the Adelaide test - many people did - that Santner would perform worse than Craig and when that hypothesis was tried out through Santner actually being selected, it was proven to be incorrect.

 

[Skyliner]

Given Latham is only in his second full season of international cricket, I think they'd be reluctant to bring in an inexperienced partner for him.

The bloke Latham already looks like an old head. Out chasing a wide one in second dig at Adelaide but he's light-years ahead of Guptill overall. I don't know what age has to do with it at the end of the day. We always find a way of being nervous-nellies about selections: the role of the openers is to go out and take the shine off the new ball while getting a bit of impetus into the innings. Why do you need some old head averaging 28 out there dispensing advice to the calm young bloke who already seems to know what he's doing & averages 38? It's about individual performance, and if two younger players can do the job then so be it.

 

[Athlai]

Yes, but some players - Graham Hick for example - just do not perform at the highest level, and he was incredible in first class cricket. Others defy their stats and do perform. If you say you cannot compare us to Australia then you are beaten before you start: they've had some seemingly indifferent material to work with but they do not shy away from the belief that you must perform to a certain standard to be in the side, otherwise someone else with get the chance.
You cannot state that someone else who is tried will average less than what Guptill is now: that is un-proven assumption. You could have stated prior to the Adelaide test - many people did - that Santner would perform worse than Craig and when that hypothesis was tried out through Santner actually being selected, it was proven to be incorrect.

You could say that, but I didn't.

And no, we aren't beaten before we start, NZ have two roles where we fall behind the majority of Test nations in terms of strength and depth. And those are our openers and spin options. That doesn't mean we can't build a team to match anyone, SA arguably has more holes in their XI than we do and they're #1, because the sum of the parts is still strong.

I'm making my Guptill call from my own knowledge and assumptions from first class cricket, from what I've seen of these players, what I've seen of Guptill and what I've seen of the Australian attack. Dropping Guptill isn't magically going to solve problems, and I've always been a proponent that a low 30s average is good enough for a NZ Test opener. Latham appears to be capable of a little more than that, and while we do have a few youngsters that have the potential to surpass that, Guptill is the most fit for the job from the known quantities.

Rolling the dice constantly helps no one.

 

[GIMH]

Kiwis expect so much more from 8-11 than they should. Most teams would kill to have a "bad" series where the 8-11 averaged 17.66.

Besides Australia and South Africa that would probably be a GOOD series with the bat for the tail.

Hi

 

[Bahnz]

Yes, but some players - Graham Hick for example - just do not perform at the highest level, and he was incredible in first class cricket. Others defy their stats and do perform. If you say you cannot compare us to Australia then you are beaten before you start: they've had some seemingly indifferent material to work with but they do not shy away from the belief that you must perform to a certain standard to be in the side, otherwise someone else with get the chance.
You cannot state that someone else who is tried will average less than what Guptill is now: that is un-proven assumption. You could have stated prior to the Adelaide test - many people did - that Santner would perform worse than Craig and when that hypothesis was tried out through Santner actually being selected, it was proven to be incorrect.

I'm torn on Guptill. On the one hand he scored a couple of very handy 50's in challenging conditions against England earlier this year (which is more than you can say for any of our non-Latham openers since Craig retired). However, both of these innings were the results of straightforward chances being missed. What's more, as you note, nothing's really changed about his style of play in the last 4 years. He's still getting out in the exact same ways which is concerning for someone who's had as many chances as Gup has had. I also don't buy the argument that Guptill is the best we have - as noted once you subtract for Zimbang his record really isn't any better than any of the other openers who've been tested over the last decade. Having said all that, Guptill is undoubtedly a gifted player by NZ standards. I do believe his ceiling is loftier than any of the other potentials knocking around in NZ cricket. For that reason I'm inclined to give him at least the Sri Lanka series to find some touch.

 

[hendrix]

Disagree with Athlai. These guys are professionals and should bat with application.

But don't disagree that the series wasn't bad for the tailenders.

 

[Skyliner]

What if Craig was bowling to a pre-determined plan to get Aussie batsmen caught in the deep(?)
I.e. he was directed to bowl what I refer to as tripe (or filth) by Baz / Masceranus / Hobbit. The directive would be to “attack” by bowling a bit shorter in order for the ball to do it’s work off the deck and turn appreciably, not to be “defensive” and keep the ball up to the batsmen.
On the last day at Adelaide he went away from the plan of his own accord but ended up betwixt and between, still bowling enough tripe to keep the Aussies in clover.

Similar to what happened to Henry: previously bowling like a champ, then after a while in the BC’s environment started bowling licorice all-sorts, including loads of short pitched rubbish.

Baz has short-man syndrome; loves giving his bowlers plans and lives vicariously through them. A frustrated fast bowler trapped in a half-backs body.

 

[Athlai]

Hi

Yeah you guys average less than that.

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

Awkward.

 

[straw man]

Oh and Craig can **** the **** off. Yeah we kinda expected him to bowl pies, but not to this extent. What's more we at least expected him to bat with some brains and not continuously sell his top order batting partners short. "Oh but he always comes good to win us one in the closing stages of a series!!!!". **** off.

Craig's batting actually annoyed me more than his bowling. Sure his bowling was largely terrible and a disappointing regression from how he bowled in the second test against England, but I had relatively low expectations*. Whereas in Brisbane with the bat I was the impressed with how he handled the pace of Starc and Johnson, before gifting his wicket to Lyon. And again in Perth when Taylor was on track for 300. And then wafting away from his body in Adelaide, though a little more understandable given the movement the seamers were getting.

I would not be unhappy to see Santner retained and one of Neesham, Anderson, Milne, Tastle, Henry or Wagner selected for the next series, depending on fitness and conditions.

* Expecting more from your bowler's batting than you do from their bowling of course says a lot about their place in the side and the relative merits of the other candidates.

 

[Athlai]

What if Craig was bowling to a pre-determined plan to get Aussie batsmen caught in the deep(?)
I.e. he was directed to bowl what I refer to as tripe (or filth) by Baz / Masceranus / Hobbit. The directive would be to “attack” by bowling a bit shorter in order for the ball to do it’s work off the deck and turn appreciably, not to be “defensive” and keep the ball up to the batsmen.
On the last day at Adelaide he went away from the plan of his own accord but ended up betwixt and between, still bowling enough tripe to keep the Aussies in clover.

Similar to what happened to Henry: previously bowling like a champ, then after a while in the BC’s environment started bowling licorice all-sorts, including loads of short pitched rubbish.

Baz has short-man syndrome; loves giving his bowlers plans and lives vicariously through them. A frustrated fast bowler trapped in a half-backs body.

It'd be a particularly cunning plan to not set your field to actually try catch them out in the deep. False sense of security no doubt.

#craigisaspud

 

[Athlai]

I'd like to see this as our team for Australia's return series

Guptill/MBracewell
Latham
Williamson
Taylor
McCullum
Anderson
Watling (+)
Santner
Bracewell
Southee
Boult

Would be our strongest team since Vettori's one off return.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Kiwis expect so much more from 8-11 than they should. Most teams would kill to have a "bad" series where the 8-11 averaged 17.66.

Besides Australia and South Africa that would probably be a GOOD series with the bat for the tail.

Yeah, not sure about this. England have a pretty good tail and doesn't Ashwin still bat 8 for India? The more frustrating thing was their batting strategy. Bout is a legit good 11 and got out slogging.

All in all, a really weird game. We made so many dumb plays, tactical errors and had an umpiring howler and yet still could've pulled it off in the end.

 

[Skyliner]

It'd be a particularly cunning plan to not set your field to actually try catch them out in the deep. False sense of security no doubt.

#craigisaspud

I'm just trying to fathom what was going on. I was at the Gabba, and watched Craig bowling on day 1 from ground level, and then from high up in the stands. I watched from various vantage points. Where-ever I was watching from, I got a horrible sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach whenever Craig came on to bowl. Never have I witnessed a scene of such awful carnage, with the ball being dished up to the Aussie batsmen on a silver platter and then rapidly making it's way too or over the boundary with alarming regularity. Baz didn't seem particularly perturbed, therefore I could only conclude Craig was bowling to plan.

 

[adub]

I though Craig's bowling plan was to create the most random pitch map in history.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Baz has short-man syndrome; loves giving his bowlers plans and lives vicariously through them.

I don't really mind cricket captains doing this.

 

[Athlai]

Yeah, not sure about this. England have a pretty good tail and doesn't Ashwin still bat 8 for India? The more frustrating thing was their batting strategy. Bout is a legit good 11 and got out slogging.

All in all, a really weird game. We made so many dumb plays, tactical errors and had an umpiring howler and yet still could've pulled it off in the end.

Yeah but they still average less than that with the bat per wicket over the last 3 years. It wasn't a good series for our tail but we inexplicably keep talking about how poorly they performed when it was pretty much a slightly above average tail sorta series and when our 5-7 did SFA.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

I though Craig's bowling plan was to create the most random pitch map in history.

The infinite monkey theorem of cricket bowling.

 

[GIMH]

Yeah you guys average less than that.

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

Awkward.

We wouldn't consider 17.66 'good' though

What's more. Change your filter to post-Ashes 2014 (ie starting point for the 'current' England team) or even just go with 2015 and we average 19+

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

so um yeah every team other than Oz and Saffa...

Awkward

 

[Bahnz]

It'd be a particularly cunning plan to not set your field to actually try catch them out in the deep. False sense of security no doubt.

#craigisaspud

Yeah, that was such a wtf moment and one of the worst bits of captaincy in a poor game from BmC. Keeping a spinner on against a strong, capable lower order bat with only one scoring option (the front foot wog over midwicket) was a highly dubious decision to begin with. Not having a deep midwicket back for the first half of the over was just plain stupid. Hurts all the more as that over may actually have cost us the game.