*Official* New Zealand in Australia 2019/20

[Spark]

Tbh "the batsmen were **** so let's drop a bowler" seems a very common thing amongst cricket fans in general

 

[Bahnz]

Only NZ fans spend all their time complaining about the spin bowling allrounder at 8 from a Test where we scored 343 total from both innings, and didn't even bowl poorly after losing a frontline bowler. Jesus ****ing christ, get a grip.

Who scored 2 runs. Also - never looking like taking a wicket on a pitch that was ragging from the 2nd afternoon doesn't suggest he bowled particularly well either.

Seriously mate, between this and the whole "Southee forever, Henry never" campaign during the CWC, Athlai Promotions Inc is in serious trouble.

 

[Jukesy]

Aussies usually struggle against a quality left arm spinner.
Whats Vettori doing at the moment?
Surely he would do a better job than santner lol
(wishful thinking)

 

[Jezroy]

Only NZ fans spend all their time complaining about the spin bowling allrounder at 8 from a Test where we scored 343 total from both innings, and didn't even bowl poorly after losing a frontline bowler. Jesus ****ing christ, get a grip.

But this isn't about one test is it?

Despite the fact that we got a spanking in Perth, there are 8 guys in that side who have a body of work good enough for no one to really question their place in the side - no matter how they played.

There are 3 others. Boult comes in for Ferguson (fingers crossed).

Then there's Jeet - his downward form slump has been alarming for the last year. So no surprise people are looking at him closely, and suggesting he goes.

And Santner is the other one. Why would you not have a look at him? Or should we also pick a pace bowler who's economical and doesn't get wickets, but is handy with the bat at #8?

Yep - the batting sucked. But you aren't going to drop Latham, Kane, Ross, Nicholls, or Watling.

And why should you not look at ways to improve the team? I don't really care that he got 100 against England. Fair play to him, but in the context of the bigger picture it's about as important as Jerome Taylor or Saqlain Mushtaq getting a test 100. He's not there for his batting. It was very helpful in one test vs England, but it's also not his main job.

It would be like a McD's Burger Maker being rubbish at their main job, but going "Oh hey though, remember that time the cleaner didn't turn up and I cleaned the toilets REAL GOOD!". So ****ing what buddy? Make the burgers.

 

[honestbharani]

I agree with the posters here pointing out that the batting was the problem and not the bowling. Sure, the seamers could have done better on day 1 session 3 but really, the batsmen let them down fully in this game and that is what they need to fix first and foremost.

 

[thierry henry]

Santner obv isn't the problem (and I actually was happy with his selection) but no doubt there are sound arguments for picking other spinners with significantly better records as specialist bowlers. It doesn't have to be misdirection or a fundamental failure to understand why we lost, to say we should be picking Astle or Somerville.

But yeah basically we need our good batters (which we have) to bat good and we'll be competitive.

 

[Athlai]

Who scored 2 runs. Also - never looking like taking a wicket on a pitch that was ragging from the 2nd afternoon doesn't suggest he bowled particularly well either.

Seriously mate, between this and the whole "Southee forever, Henry never" campaign during the CWC, Athlai Promotions Inc is in serious trouble.

Never looked like taking a wicket? His two spells towards the end of the first day were quality. It certainly wasn't a great game from him. But it wasn't a great game for 80% of the bloody team. Santner won a ****ing Test match 2 games ago and while he played poorly, didn't disgrace himself either.

Raval though, hes in utter shambles, hasn't scored a run all summer.

Also I stand by Southee forever, Henry never. Henry did play genuinely some good cricket, particularly against India, but in a world cup that came down to bowling in the death overs maybe the bowler we actually can use in the final 10 might have given us a different result.

 

[Ultra Instinct]

Sometimes it's really difficult to support this team.

Toss, warm up matches and 40 deg heat aside that was an abysmal effort with the bat in both innings.

Really disappointing, we went from the commentators respecting us as the #2 team in the world to being plucky underdogs and them talking about India being the only team who can beat Aus in Aus while the first match was still ongoing.

Bit of a reality check of our ability in Tests and our ranking, we may be ranked #2 in the world but we certainty aren't the second best Test team in the world.

Props to Wagner, Southee, Taylor and CdG though, they did well and can walk out of the match with their heads held high.

 

[Moss]

The other punishing thing on commentary was how the Aussie commentators kept going on about Starc and Cummins being 15kph faster than Wagner and Southee and so it was going to be harder for NZ to face bouncers blah blah blah. But as Ian Smith pointed at some point, the problem with Wagner is not his pace but because he's a lot shorter than those two bowlers and that's why he's more awkward to play. Well from a viewer's perspective anyway...

Took a good 3+ years of Wagner using short pitched bowling as his main thing before CI came out with an article that properly analyzed him, so not really surprising.

Thing is NZ did succumb most times bouncers were dished out - eg. CdG and Taylor, so unless the batsmen up their game it'll look as though there's a big gulf in the pace bowling too. Pace does matter more in Australia than most places.

 

[SteveNZ]

Only NZ fans spend all their time complaining about the spin bowling allrounder at 8 from a Test where we scored 343 total from both innings, and didn't even bowl poorly after losing a frontline bowler. Jesus ****ing christ, get a grip.

We're debating the only droppable batsman ad nauseam. Santner is an all rounder, so his runs and general output are in the gun.

We're now 0-1 down in the series. Its going to be dry for the final two Tests. Definitely won't be a seamer paradise, may turn. How is Santner's 0-80 off 30 uneventful overs going to help? We're now getting 1 or 2 for 60 from CDG and Southee is tight as well. We'll just see how it plays out.

 

[Ultra Instinct]

Never looked like taking a wicket? His two spells towards the end of the first day were quality. It certainly wasn't a great game from him. But it wasn't a great game for 80% of the bloody team. Santner won a ****ing Test match 2 games ago and while he played poorly, didn't disgrace himself either.

Raval though, hes in utter shambles, hasn't scored a run all summer.

Also I stand by Southee forever, Henry never. Henry did play genuinely some good cricket, particularly against India, but in a world cup that came down to bowling in the death overs maybe the bowler we actually can use in the final 10 might have given us a different result.

Santner bowls some good balls here and there, but you never think he's a chance of actually taking a wicket. Not consistent or good enough to pick up wickets. We have to play a specialist from hereon, I think Astle will probably outscore Santner in Aus too. Never felt confident about Santner against quality pace bowlers particularly on quicker tracks.

Raval out, anyone in.

Santner out, Astle in.

 

[Jezroy]

We're debating the only droppable batsman ad nauseam. Santner is an all rounder, so his runs and general output are in the gun.

We're now 0-1 down in the series. Its going to be dry for the final two Tests. Definitely won't be a seamer paradise, may turn. How is Santner's 0-80 off 30 uneventful overs going to help? We're now getting 1 or 2 for 60 from CDG and Southee is tight as well. We'll just see how it plays out.

TBF we're not even debating that Raval needs to be dropped.

We're just wondering when the selctors will do it, and what they're going to do to plug the gap.

 

[Athlai]

You don't win matches against Australia at home by spinners taking wickets, its trench warfare. Santner did the job with the ball he was asked to do. He did not let the Australians score freely. He was poor at that job, I'm sure the team, and the man himself would be disappointed in his performance. But he didn't actively contribute to us losing the game either.

He held up his end, he got quick overs through, he got us a good long chance with the new ball under lights day 1. It isn't pretty cricket but it's effective. It's just part of how NZ has so often in recent times been in situations where the opposition is 200/2 but the game is still relatively even, because our bowlers aren't letting the batsman dominate and the likes of Wagner are able to work established batsman over into making an error. Santa is PART of that weapon.

Sure it'd be absolutely gun if he was as good as Herath or Lyon, but hes not and no one in NZ is. Tastle can't do that job, neither could Craig, neither can Ajaz. Somerville probably could tbf, but its pretty clear a great deal of trust is placed in Santa's ability to deal with pressure. Everytime any other spinner is under the pump, Kane takes them off almost immediately and doesn't go back to them.

You can't pick players in a team that the captain won't use.

 

[Moss]

Santner obv isn't the problem (and I actually was happy with his selection) but no doubt there are sound arguments for picking other spinners with significantly better records as specialist bowlers. It doesn't have to be misdirection or a fundamental failure to understand why we lost, to say we should be picking Astle or Somerville.

But yeah basically we need our good batters (which we have) to bat good and we'll be competitive.

Santner selection more a symptom than cause maybe (of conservative thinking which was never likely to work) ? Unfair I suppose to dwell too much on it as selectorial consistency is a huge part of NZ's success.

 

[Ultra Instinct]

As someone who doesn't follow domestic cricket, how good is Will Young in FC cricket and does he open? I know he's injured, I'm thinking about after this series.

 

[Ultra Instinct]

You don't win matches against Australia at home by spinners taking wickets, its trench warfare. Santner did the job with the ball he was asked to do. He did not let the Australians score freely. He was poor at that job, I'm sure the team, and the man himself would be disappointed in his performance. But he didn't actively contribute to us losing the game either.

He held up his end, he got quick overs through, he got us a good long chance with the new ball under lights day 1. It isn't pretty cricket but it's effective. It's just part of how NZ has so often in recent times been in situations where the opposition is 200/2 but the game is still relatively even, because our bowlers aren't letting the batsman dominate and the likes of Wagner are able to work established batsman over into making an error. Santa is PART of that weapon.

Sure it'd be absolutely gun if he was as good as Herath or Lyon, but hes not and no one in NZ is. Tastle can't do that job, neither could Craig, neither can Ajaz. Somerville probably could tbf, but its pretty clear a great deal of trust is placed in Santa's ability to deal with pressure. Everytime any other spinner is under the pump, Kane takes them off almost immediately and doesn't go back to them.

You can't pick players in a team that the captain won't use.

Do you think Santner is going to score many runs against Cummins or Starc this series?

Seems pretty unlikely, may as well get Astle in who is a better bowler and handy with the bat. Can't do much worse and would give Kane a wicket taking option rather than a bowler who can bowl at an end and give the fast bowlers a rest.

 

[Athlai]

Do you think Santner is going to score many runs against Cummins or Starc this series?

Seems pretty unlikely, may as well get Astle in who is a better bowler and handy with the bat. Can't do much worse and would give Kane a wicket taking option.

I don't think Tastle is a better bowler at all honestly. He is certainly a better "wicket taking option" but I don't think cricket is that black and white.

In games that Santner is playing Wagner averages 22.71, Boult 28.07 and Southee 27.58 (and in matches he isn't) Southee 30.26, Boult 27.50, Wagner 30.46. One day I'll do a big old stats dig of wickets that fall at the other end during Santa spells of 4 overs or more, but I'm fairly confident it's going to strongly outweigh what we see when playing other spinners.

 

[jcas0167]

Confirmed Ferguson out for the rest of the series - knew it was very unlikely but had a tiny bit of hope he'd be back for the third test. So disappointing to barely see him bowl this series and I'm sure when it's flat in the next two tests it'll be back to the familiar refrain of 'wish we had someone to bowl 145 to make something happen here'.

Very interested to see who they pick to replace him in the squad though.

Assuming that it won't be Sommerville, then I'd like to see Hamish Bennett for the warm-up game vs Victoria.

 

[Bahnz]

You don't win matches against Australia at home by spinners taking wickets, its trench warfare. Santner did the job with the ball he was asked to do. He did not let the Australians score freely. He was poor at that job, I'm sure the team, and the man himself would be disappointed in his performance. But he didn't actively contribute to us losing the game either.

He held up his end, he got quick overs through, he got us a good long chance with the new ball under lights day 1. It isn't pretty cricket but it's effective. It's just part of how NZ has so often in recent times been in situations where the opposition is 200/2 but the game is still relatively even, because our bowlers aren't letting the batsman dominate and the likes of Wagner are able to work established batsman over into making an error. Santa is PART of that weapon.

Sure it'd be absolutely gun if he was as good as Herath or Lyon, but hes not and no one in NZ is. Tastle can't do that job, neither could Craig, neither can Ajaz. Somerville probably could tbf, but its pretty clear a great deal of trust is placed in Santa's ability to deal with pressure. Everytime any other spinner is under the pump, Kane takes them off almost immediately and doesn't go back to them.

You can't pick players in a team that the captain won't use.

This is wrong. Last year India and in 2010/11 England both had spinners playing vital roles in winning performances. They only way you can win games in Australia without a spinner who can at least contribute is if you've got 1+ ATG fast bowlers (Steyn, Ambrose, Hadlee etc). And by the way, I'm not talking about rattling through opposition sides a la Shane Warne or Stuart MacGill at the SCG. But a spinner who can take a few wickets here and there is essential as there are times when conditions will favour that spin, and you can't just sit on 0/140 off 40 overs and say "yep that'll do."

Furthermore, with CdG proving so able in the role of Gavin Larsen mk.2, I really think NZ can take a bit more of a risk in choosing who their spin bowler is. If you've got a guy who you can bank on bowling 12 overs for 30 (and maybe give you a sneaky wicket) each day, then if the spinner starts taking a bit of punishment then that represents much less of a problem.

 

[Bahnz]

I don't think Tastle is a better bowler at all honestly. He is certainly a better "wicket taking option" but I don't think cricket is that black and white.

In games that Santner is playing Wagner averages 22.71, Boult 28.07 and Southee 27.58 (and in matches he isn't) Southee 30.26, Boult 27.50, Wagner 30.46. One day I'll do a big old stats dig of wickets that fall at the other end during Santa spells of 4 overs or more, but I'm fairly confident it's going to strongly outweigh what we see when playing other spinners.

Is that for their entire careers, or just since Santner made his debut? Because when I looked up their records in matches not involving Mitch Santner since 26 November 2015 (i.e. Santner's debut), I found that Wagner averages 24.6, Southee 24.58 and Boult 25.15 - so really not a substantive difference (and on balance probably slightly better) without Mitch.