Well played Australia. Thoroughly outplayed us for the most part. I was heartened that we took the last 8 wickets for, what, 70 odd runs? Before the tour I was more worried about the bowling than batting, considering we couldn't take 20 poles last time (technically we didn't here, but just as well as as did). Considering we lost a bowler early on, the never say die attitude of NZ bowlers was admirable - but then, Aus lost a bowler even earlier and smoked us. What we needed was an epic bowling performance on day one, the kind that Boult produces. Southee bowled exceedingly well - shaved a good 10 runs of his average vs Aus. Wagner did his thing. A ***y Boult spell of a few wickets would've made for a closer test, but so would have some ****ing runs from the openers. You can blame the toss, but even if we had somehow knocked them out in two sessions we still would've crumbled under lights. The only hope we had was to get them out early day two and bat ourselves in before lights, but oh well.
Re: Raval. Dude looks shot. This is easily his toughest challenge, and he hasn't exactly feasted on the weaker teams leading up to this. But who repalces him? I would only want a like for like replacement. Floating the idea of opening with Santner is ****ing stupid considering he couldn't contend with a relatively old ball, how is he going to go against a new nut? Ridiculous. Ditto Astle. Blundell isn't the worst idea but honestly I don't see him getting past 50. Flying Seifert over is really the only option if you were to replace Raval. Sticking with Raval, I hope someone just gives him a decent talking to in an encouraging way, just let him be boring, face some quicker balls in the nets. It probably is his last tour if he doesn't shake whatever it is that's dogging him.
The rest of the batting line up just needs to get their **** together. The bowling attack worked as a team but the batsmen all seemed like individuals in their own private war. There didn't seem to be any plan to the bowlers, just take it as it comes and not realise there were fairly obvious traps set up. That said, Australian bowlers were just class. If, and I stress if, Starc has turned a corner with his bowling after 'tweaking' his action, this attack will be a very scary prospect in the next few years. Cummins deserved more wickets, and Lyon bowled exceptionally well. Australia's fielding was in another dimension compared to our very average effort. Occasionally our players will pull off stunners which seem to gloss over the very straight forward stuff we shell, and we hardly ever look like running anyone out - even basic throws seem to be fairly off.
Overall, apart from obviously replacing Fergsuon, I wouldn't change the side for the next test. Santner needs to get his **** together the most, even more so than Raval, because he needs to both contain at one end, exploit any turn that appears, and hang around with the likes of Watling and CdG. I'm still a strong advocate for Patel/Somers but MCG is less likely to afford areas of turn like the Perth pitch did.
One thing that does give me some positive feeling for the next test as we've done this many times - lose a first test of a series overseas quite badly, only to come back and win in the second. I'd be happy with a 2-1 series loss to some extent. 2-1 our way seems extremely unlikely but would be ****ing incredible. Anyway, expecting a much better contest at Melbourne. Our poor batting display aside, I thought this match was a cracker on many levels. Great contest between NZ bowlers and Aus batsmen (who knew they'd end up with a third decent bat?) and I can't begrudge seeing quality fast bowling, even if Starc is a monumental dickhead.
