**Official** New Zealand in Australia 2015

[Moss]

Brownlie is a better FC batsman than Guptill, but I still don't back him at all as an opener.

Another thing to consider: has Brownlie improved against spin? As an opener there will be a lot more opposition focus on him and can see spinners being given the new ball without hesitation against him.

 

[Prince EWS]

Another thing to consider: has Brownlie improved against spin? As an opener there will be a lot more opposition focus on him and can see spinners being given the new ball without hesitation against him.

Of all the things that might be a become a bigger problem if he opens, this isn't one of them.

 

[Athlai]

Of all the things that might be a become a bigger problem if he opens, this isn't one of them.

was thinking this myself

I mean, yeah spin could be brought on early but 95% of the time that'd still be when the ball is like 15 or so overs old.

 

[Skyliner]

Haters here they att

Every time someone says that someone is not up to it, that's not hate. I don't hate the person Martin Guptill. There is a tremendous amount of fan-boying over players, something I don't understand. The aim of the game is to win cricket matches. The team and NZ winning is paramount, weaker players are cast aside and the arms race to build a better outfit than the opposing countries continues.
If people - invested fans - say a certain All Black isn't performing and should be dropped, that's a considered opinion - a valid opinion - and not hate.

If I am not performing at work, and I get told by the boss that I need to improve, and I do - I don't get to double back and rip strips off him / her. The criticism is not suddenly invalidated just because I've started performing.
If a cricketer isn't performing, and comes in for some criticism, and they score some big runs - they, the media and the talk-back units start ripping into the critics. But the criticism is still valid. The criticism is not suddenly invalidated just because I've started performing.

 

[NZTailender]

Guptill has had 5 Tests and I feel as though that's not quite enough time for him to try and cement a place, even if his returns are more. My feeling is he should get the Sri Lanka series, but then that's problematic as if he fails then we have someone coming in fresh against Australia.

Solution: Give him Dunedin. Needs a 100 in one innings or a 50 in each innings maybe, to give him the rest of the home summer. Otherwise Brownlie comes in for one test to get back into Test level and then we can see how he handles the Aussie quick attack.

 

[Hurricane]

No McCullum rating? How about a 2 : poor use of the review system, frenetic field changes on Day 1 at Gabba added to a nightmarish day, naive and inept tactics, poor selections - 2 spinners on a greentop that lasted 3 days (Smith took one look at the amount of grass and sent O'keefe home), a pig-headed need to keep playing Mark Craig and keep bowling him at absolutely the wrong times - including at the injured Starc and on the last day when runs were as valuable as gold,
Weak batting that an 80 in a lost cause at the Gabba cannot redeem: when it game to setting up a game he never contributed a thing. His slogging style seems to have infected several members of the team, with the outcome that they are becoming as useless as he is.
He gets his 2 for his specialist fielding - running around like a maniac, flying through the air, hitting the deck like a sack of spuds - all with a back that it apparently so stuffed he can hardly get out of bed. Also for the mysterious way he has the NZ media eating out of his hands like he is some sort of deity come down from on high to grace us all with his presence. Consistent lime-light stealer who pushes his more talented and more humble team mates into the shade.

Brilliant.

My only beef is Craig. It was the right call to play him. You need a specialist spinner. They played Lyon, and we played our specialist: Craig. When we drop Craig we drop him. Until then he is our number 1.

Regarding the Guptil affair and the question of is 5 games enough?

Ingram got less than 5 games on the basis he didn't look the part. Munro got less than 5 games on the basis he didn't look the part. Guptil is doing somethings out there that are ill advised. Plus he has been on the merry go round before so should get a shorter leash this time around.

I don't have faith in bionic forearms man being the long term answer. I don't have high hopes in Brownlie either. He only averaged 29 in the middle order for New Zealand. Opening is harder than the middle order, so I doubt he will achieve the average of low thirties Athlai wants or 35 some others of us want.

I can't think of anyone. Best case is Brendon back to opening, it allows us to bring a better batsman in at number 5 who will bat more seriously than Baz and the opening won't be any worse off.

Team

Latham
Brendon (retirement year)
Kane
Taylor
Young (going by scorecards - I didn't like what I saw on the Georgie Pie Super Smash from a technique perspective). The only other option is Corey becomes a specialist number 5 batsman - but he only has 3 FC hundreds. Which isn't the pedigree you want. Mind you Santner and Young only have 2 each. Not good enough.

 

[kiwiviktor81]

If I am not performing at work, and I get told by the boss that I need to improve, and I do - I don't get to double back and rip strips off him / her. The criticism is not suddenly invalidated just because I've started performing.
If a cricketer isn't performing, and comes in for some criticism, and they score some big runs - they, the media and the talk-back units start ripping into the critics. But the criticism is still valid. The criticism is not suddenly invalidated just because I've started performing.

Sure, but imagine you're in your second week of work and the boss starts ripping the **** out of you because you haven't made the company a million dollars yet. You'd say, hang on, give me time.

 

[kiwiviktor81]

Regarding Santner, I reckon he's got what it takes to be a long-term 5. He scored 80 runs in Adelaide and got himself out to dumb shots. I don't mind that in a young player as much as I mind getting out to technique flaws, because mental application will naturally improve with age whereas technique goes up and down depending on what's coming your way.

I reckon he has an unusual hand-eye talent and will end up higher than Anderson.

 

[Skyliner]

Sure, but imagine you're in your second week of work and the boss starts ripping the **** out of you because you haven't made the company a million dollars yet. You'd say, hang on, give me time.

Poor analogy, given that this isn't Guptill's first rodeo. His prior experience as a test player + compelling form and experience in white ball cricket + two series' against strong opposition = a verdict on whether he is up to the task or not.

 

[Prince EWS]

Where the odd minnow bashing does give representation of his ability?

I think tours against England and Australia do give a representation of his ability in the long form. You would see Kane's performances overseas against the quality Test sides as being credit to his quality and versatility as a batsman, why should the same not apply to Guptill?

I think Athlai's point is that there literally isn't anyone in New Zealand that he'd expect to do well on tours of England and Australia as an opener who isn't already in the side. So if Guptill fails against them it doesn't really matter as such because everyone else will too. Failing on tough tours and scoring some runs at home and against weaker opposition is basically the height of his hopes for the position Guptill is filling at the moment

It's a tad defeatist and I'm not sure I completely agree, but it's a fair enough position to take if you take the view of the alternatives he does.

 

[Skyliner]

Brilliant.

My only beef is Craig. It was the right call to play him. You need a specialist spinner. They played Lyon, and we played our specialist: Craig. When we drop Craig we drop him. Until then he is our number 1.

Ok; the last time we saw a green seamer in Australia our spinner was injured, we went in with four seamers & we won the game. The brains trust immediately concluded that 4 seamers was the magic formula in all conditions - crazy thinking - and that became the norm for a short utterly mad while.
(Why do we have to stumble on the right selection via accident and injury - why can't we put the politics of it aside and do horses for courses?)
But it remains a valid formula in the right conditions, and it worked on that previous notable occasion.
I don't subscribe to doing what the opposition are doing; we should do what gives us the best chance of winning. Santner could have done a job in the Adelaide test, selection justified with him being a genuine all-rounder, and play 4 seamers.
That was the smart play, that was the play that was ignored because it became important to vindicate Craig - not just his selection but vindicate him as a decent player to the Australian's after all they said about him.

 

[Hurricane]

Another thing to consider: has Brownlie improved against spin? As an opener there will be a lot more opposition focus on him and can see spinners being given the new ball without hesitation against him.

Ok; the last time we saw a green seamer in Australia our spinner was injured, we went in with four seamers & we won the game. The brains trust immediately concluded that 4 seamers was the magic formula in all conditions - crazy thinking - and that became the norm for a short utterly mad while.
(Why do we have to stumble on the right selection via accident and injury - why can't we put the politics of it aside and do horses for courses?)
But it remains a valid formula in the right conditions, and it worked on that previous notable occasion.
I don't subscribe to doing what the opposition are doing; we should do what gives us the best chance of winning. Santner could have done a job in the Adelaide test, selection justified with him being a genuine all-rounder, and play 4 seamers.
That was the smart play, that was the play that was ignored because it became important to vindicate Craig - not just his selection but vindicate him as a decent player to the Australian's after all they said about him.

He got Smith out.

 

[Skyliner]

He got Smith out.

Smith heard the dinner bell ringing, he came charging down in his haste to gorge himself on tasty junk, and in his greed infused state he got himself in a hopeless tangle.

But it is undeniable that Craig got Smith out.

A proton torpedo in the small exhaust port of the Death Star I had constructed.

But would someone else have got Smith? We'll never know.

 

[Bahnz]

Ok; the last time we saw a green seamer in Australia our spinner was injured, we went in with four seamers & we won the game. The brains trust immediately concluded that 4 seamers was the magic formula in all conditions - crazy thinking - and that became the norm for a short utterly mad while.
(Why do we have to stumble on the right selection via accident and injury - why can't we put the politics of it aside and do horses for courses?)
But it remains a valid formula in the right conditions, and it worked on that previous notable occasion.
I don't subscribe to doing what the opposition are doing; we should do what gives us the best chance of winning. Santner could have done a job in the Adelaide test, selection justified with him being a genuine all-rounder, and play 4 seamers.
That was the smart play, that was the play that was ignored because it became important to vindicate Craig - not just his selection but vindicate him as a decent player to the Australian's after all they said about him.

To be fair, even with all the talk of extra grass being left on the wicket, nobody expected batting to be as difficult as it was. In fact there were numerous comments on these forums predicting a complete road after getting a look at the pitch 24 hours out. It is Adelaide afterall, going with 4 seamers definitely wasn't a slam-dunk selectoral decision going into the match.

 

[Skyliner]

To be fair, even with all the talk of extra grass being left on the wicket, nobody expected batting to be as difficult as it was. In fact there were numerous comments on these forums predicting a complete road after getting a look at the pitch 24 hours out. It is Adelaide afterall, going with 4 seamers definitely wasn't a slam-dunk selectoral decision going into the match.

I thought playing 2 spinners was not warranted. I come back to Smith's comments when he sent O'Keefe home.

I think the added factor of it being under lights & at night and the anticipation that there would be swing. So you'd have assistance from the wicket, and also conditions conducive to swing bowling. The was expected to be plenty there for seamers. And so it proved to be.

Green seamers have been talked up in the past and come to nought - happens quite a bit here in NZ. Usually they shave the grass off prior to the match or the grass is not in areas that the seamers are targeting. This was a pitch with even grass cover that they were never going to shave because they were determined to protect the pink ball as much as possible.

 

[Hurricane]

I thought playing 2 spinners was not warranted. I come back to Smith's comments when he sent O'Keefe home.

I think the added factor of it being under lights & at night and the anticipation that there would be swing. So you'd have assistance from the wicket, and also conditions conducive to swing bowling. The was expected to be plenty there for seamers. And so it proved to be.

Green seamers have been talked up in the past and come to nought - happens quite a bit here in NZ. Usually they shave the grass off prior to the match or the grass is not in areas that the seamers are targeting. This was a pitch with even grass cover that they were never going to shave because they were determined to protect the pink ball as much as possible.

It didn't look that green in the photos and although it jagged around - it was really the swing that was deadly. And the swing was all due to the lights and the pink ball.

They knew about the lights but not about the pink ball swinging so much during the day.

I wouldn't be opposed to playing all cricket with a pink ball - seems to make it a better contest.

 

[adub]

I wouldn't be opposed to playing all cricket with a pink ball - seems to make it a better contest.

I think the extra grass not just on the pitch but also the general square made a big difference. That was for the pink ball obvs, but no reason it can't be done generally. Outfield was a little too lush, but the bit of grass in the middle really brought the bowlers back into the contest. They might have got the balance a little too much in favour of the ball, but it makes for so much more interesting cricket when batsmen have to work hard.

 

[Skyliner]

I honestly think the roads we saw earlier in the tour were always intended to be roads. I think Australia saw fragility in their batting line-up, they were worried by T&T, and they saw pace as where they had the wood on us. They'd protect their batsmen while blasting us out with Starc and Johnson. They got it exactly right at the Gabba and went too far with it at the Wacca.
I don't know how the Wacca curator could keep a straight face when he said the pitch was going to be throw back pitch with pace and bounce and carry....that was the roadiest road that ever roaded a road.
I don't think Australia are keen on gassy pitches, wicket blocks et al. They love to score 500, then crumble the opposition with pace and good spin. That was a one-off pitch where the need to prevent the pink ball test becoming a farce over-rode strategic considerations.

 

[Hurricane]

That was a one-off pitch where the need to prevent the pink ball test becoming a farce over-rode strategic considerations.

You post like a quintessential New Zealander. The pregnant use of "strategic considerations" is very dry and effective.

Keep it up.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

The only other option is Corey becomes a specialist number 5 batsman - but he only has 3 FC hundreds. Which isn't the pedigree you want. Mind you Santner and Young only have 2 each. Not good enough.

Henry Nicholls has 4. Also talking openers I know that Jeet Raval gets written off on CW, but he does have 11 first class centuries.