**Official** New Zealand v Australia

[Slow Love™]

If it's just a horses for courses idea, it won't be the first time a player has been ditched temporarily when conditions merited another player coming in.

In the context of a longer-term replacement occurring though, I think that people are getting too carried away. I think Lee's been bowling really well, but it's not as if his figures have been incredibly superlative - and for those of us who are fans, there's obviously some amount of relief involved now that he's looking closer to his intimidating best. Kasper's still done plenty enough to keep his test spot. Dunno about the possibility of Gillespie being left out for Lee - it seems to me that the many media beatups about this issue are suddenly being interpreted as "well, the selectors think..." when we don't actually know what will happen.

Personally, I don't think it's that good an idea to replace a player in form with another whose credentials in the longer game are in doubt. If the incumbent player(s) isn't performing, by all means give the guy seeking another chance the opportunity.

 

[Retox]

Cumming might do alright, he is definitely better suited to tests than ODIs. Papps would be next in line though I would think.

What about James Marshall? Dunno could work

 

[mavric41]

Solve the problem and play all four fast bowlers for the tests. I can't see NZ putting up the big totals that would worry the Australians. A bowl-off for three tests. For the winners - a place in the Ashes test team.

 

[Retox]

What about James Marshall? Dunno could work

How I see it How/Papps Tests and Papps/??? ODIs in the future?

 

[_Ed_]

What about James Marshall? Dunno could work

Maybe...definitely hope he stays in the ODI team despite averaging less than 10 in his first 3 games, showed enough to suggest he will be really useful to the NZ team.

 

[Zinzan]

Obviously, the selectors feel that Australia could bowl BETTER if they had Lee. I certainly think he's fairly likely to destroy New Zealand. Not sure about how he would go against England, but it's certainly with future series in mind that the selectors are considering this, to see if Lee can sustain his great form. There's no doubt that Australia are extremely likely to dominate the series regardless of which seamers they pick.

On current form I think there a good chance he'd give England the jitters in the Ashes. Clearly he's bowling both faster and with more control than any other time in his career. What batsmen love facing 150-160 kms of accurate hostile fast bowling??

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Solve the problem and play all four fast bowlers for the tests. I can't see NZ putting up the big totals that would worry the Australians. A bowl-off for three tests. For the winners - a place in the Ashes test team.

I think the Australian selectors want to try and get a settled batting lineup for the Ashes, which means that six specialist batsmen will be used, plus Gilchrist. The team of Langer, Hayden, Ponting, Martyn, Clarke, Katich has never actually played together before aside from in the 4th test in India, so they would like to give it a run and try and get it settled. Given that, and the fact that Warne won't be dropped, it's three seamers. This, in my view, IS Lee's bowl-off. He's been wanting another chance, and now he's performed in the ODIs and got it. If he takes it well he will play in the Ashes, and if he doesn't Kasprowicz will.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Where was this talk when Lee was averaging over 50 on the last Ashes tour, with Miller, Fleming & Bichel on the sidelines and in great form.

As I said, the reason Lee is being given a special opportunity where say Kasprowicz might not get it under the same circumstances is because of his pace. Allan Border has said several times (as have other selectors) that he would like to have Lee in the team because his pace offers variety. On those few occasions in recent times when the batsmen have got on top of the McGrath/Gillespie/Kasprowicz combo many observers have recognised that Lee's pace might prove a bonus because it breaks up the one-paced nature of the bowling attack. Whether or not you agree (and I'm not certain that I do, since pace in and of itself isn't always a major asset) the selectors have been very consistent on this. What they are risking for it is Kasper's reliability, in return for Lee's ability to destroy teams with a devastating spell. Obviously the selectors think it's worth a shot to see if Lee can do it, and if he can't they will go back to Kasprowicz. If he can chances are Kasprowicz will find himself carrying the drinks for a while.

But yes, Lee is getting an opportunity when others might not, not because he is from New South Wales but because he is hands-down the fastest bowler in the world.

 

[Retox]

Maybe...definitely hope he stays in the ODI team despite averaging less than 10 in his first 3 games, showed enough to suggest he will be really useful to the NZ team.

There is to much pressure on him to be as good or better as his brother straight away. Give him a fair chance.

 

[mavric41]

As I said, the reason Lee is being given a special opportunity where say Kasprowicz might not get it under the same circumstances is because of his pace. Allan Border has said several times (as have other selectors) that he would like to have Lee in the team because his pace offers variety. On those few occasions in recent times when the batsmen have got on top of the McGrath/Gillespie/Kasprowicz combo many observers have recognised that Lee's pace might prove a bonus because it breaks up the one-paced nature of the bowling attack. Whether or not you agree (and I'm not certain that I do, since pace in and of itself isn't always a major asset) the selectors have been very consistent on this. What they are risking for it is Kasper's reliability, in return for Lee's ability to destroy teams with a devastating spell. Obviously the selectors think it's worth a shot to see if Lee can do it, and if he can't they will go back to Kasprowicz. If he can chances are Kasprowicz will find himself carrying the drinks for a while.

But yes, Lee is getting an opportunity when others might not, not because he is from New South Wales but because he is hands-down the fastest bowler in the world.

A well written and thought out post. I don't agree with it, but you have clearly put forward the possible thoughts of the selectors.

I still think they take too much heed of what the media says. I think the only recent time they have gone against the media view was picking Hayden for the OD tour.

 

[Top_Cat]

Hmmmmmmmmmm..............all of this talk of the Ashes is a bit premature. There's still a Test series to be played and won and when most teams (even great ones) have been blindsided by supposedly weaker teams is generally when they take their opposition a bit too lightly and NZ in NZ is not the team to take lightly.

Case in point (even notwithstanding bad umpiring); WI in NZ 1981.

 

[mavric41]

Hmmmmmmmmmm..............all of this talk of the Ashes is a bit premature. There's still a Test series to be played and won and when most teams (even great ones) have been blindsided by supposedly weaker teams is generally when they take their opposition a bit too lightly and NZ in NZ is not the team to take lightly.

Case in point (even notwithstanding bad umpiring); WI in NZ 1981.

From what I hear NZ had 13 men on the field for that series.

But you are right, NZ do have some good players and they have a particular perchant for getting up the noses of the Aussies.

 

[marc71178]

Solve the problem and play all four fast bowlers for the tests.

And drop Warne?

 

[Top_Cat]

Another case in point for when a supposedly much strong team took a supposedly much weaker team too lightly; Australia vs Zimbabwe 1983 WC.

 

[Kippax]

Who do you guys think when Cummings fails they will bring in to open

Papps?
How?

Surely NZ can't take Papps to Africa next spring, so I'd have to question the merits of playing him before then. If Cumming doesn't do well enough I'd start grooming Marshall or How, perhaps v SL at McLean Park.

I know some people will be groaning 'god, don't ruin Marshall by making him into a makeshift test opener'. If we think about it though, when Styris and Oram come back (let's say either Vincent or McMillan do reasonably well), a more permanent top-order home needs to be found for Marshall. I know you shouldn't read too much into ODI's, but I think he's showing us that he's one of the few options in the country who has the technical and mental requirements to cope.

As for Papps - it started off as a bit of a joke last season, with SA journalist Neil Manthorp describing how the Proteas were rubbishing Papps as "completely one-dimensional", and how he'll be risking brain damage if he kept shuffling forward and flinching against quick bowlers on quicker surfaces. "Extreme pace and bounce" said Graeme Smith when asked what the Black Caps could expect when the sides next met, perhaps only half-jokingly.

The injuries Ian Butler and Brett Lee have inflicted on Papps on slow NZ pitches in the last couple of years has taken it beyond a joke for me. Sure he's gritty and has bounced back from nasty blows before, but if NZ is playing a test on a hard track or against an express bowler I don't want him anywhere near the NZ side, and because of that I'd question whether we should pick him in more placid situations. Even if Papps averaged 1000 in domestic cricket, IMO it may be better to try and develop a consistent pair that we feel comfortable sending out to face any new ball attack in the world.

 

[mavric41]

And drop Warne?

Quote the whole post marc. It never implied to drop Warne but to play one batsman short.

 

[marc71178]

Quote the whole post marc. It never implied to drop Warne but to play one batsman short.

So go with 5 bowlers, at least 1 of which will hardly have the chance to bowl.

What exactly will that tell you?

 

[mavric41]

So go with 5 bowlers, at least 1 of which will hardly have the chance to bowl.

What exactly will that tell you?

Are you discounting NZ that easily? I think they will put up alot more resistance than a lot of people think. Get ready for the return of dull, grinding, defensive cricket.

 

[marc71178]

In any side with 5 bowlers, 1 is always underused - it's the nature of modern Test Cricket - 26 or so overs a session means that 4 bowlers can cover it.

 

[mavric41]

In any side with 5 bowlers, 1 is always underused - it's the nature of modern Test Cricket - 26 or so overs a session means that 4 bowlers can cover it.

90 overs in a day equates to 18 overs each - a fair workout.