***Official*** South Africa in New Zealand 2012

[wellAlbidarned]

I wrote a long response but will try again to be briefer. Our batting looks better in this game. But in the previous games unless we had've rolled SA for a score less than 100 we weren't going to win such were the totals our batsman were putting up.

I do agree with you a balanced approach is needed which is why I said I would bring in another all rounder instead of Guptil. I have been reading your posts and I agree that our 3 seamers would do better if they had someone else to lighten the load. Who that all rounder would be I don't know. Just pick the best all rounder in the country (except Franko).

And I maintain that adding a 6th mediocre batsman won't change that at all, while significantly weakening our bowling. I reckon you're severely underestimating the boost having an extra pace option creates, while overestimating the effect of an extra batsman.

 

[Hurricane]

And I maintain that adding a 6th mediocre batsman won't change that at all, while significantly weakening our bowling. I reckon you're severely underestimating the boost having an extra pace option creates, while overestimating the effect of an extra batsman.

" I reckon you're severely underestimating the boost having an extra pace option creates,"
I reckon that person would be good enough for 1-2 wickets in the test. And would give the other bowlers a much needed breather.
I reckon an all rounder would be good enough for 1 wicket per test and could give the others the same breather.

"while overestimating the effect of an extra batsman"

Just bringing in KVW instead of the non performing (in Aussie anyway) Reece Young has made a major difference even though Kruger is only scoring 25 or so. He is forming partnerships while he is out there and giving some respectability to the scores. Also the extra batsman they played in this game was Brownlie...

As mentioned twice now I do know that team balance is an issue. Hence I am proposing this team

McCullum
Flynn
Williamson
Taylor
Brownlie
All rounder (would have to research who)
Vettori
KVW
Bracewell
Gillespie
Martin

The only flaw to my argument is Vettori. As straw man has pointed out he is starting to fall out of consideration of the top 4 bowlers in the country - whereas before this series he used to always chip in with a couple of wickets. You can make a good case that you can not take 20 wickets with only 3 seamers and someone who is only good at tieing up an end plus an all rounder.
So for my team to work Vettori must rediscover his mojo.

 

[SteveNZ]

Have to say, I think that for both days play, the decisions to end play for bad light have been ridiculous.

It is. I always think back to the 2002 series when we played England. I was at Eden Park for one of the greatest days of Test cricket I have ever experienced. The lights were on, there was no thought of light being offered to batsmen as we wanted to push on and set a target. It was scintillating. Yet today, we can't see every stitch of the ball so we go off.

And we wonder why Test cricket is 'in danger'? Because T20 is everyone's boner now? Only a part of the problem.

As for the make-up of the side, yes it would be great if our batsmen were scoring runs. They aren't. No one else will. The fourth bowler is doing nothing. Simple. Six batsmen, three seamers. A holding spinner. A keeper. Yes we'd all like to live in an ideal world but we live in NZ and we follow cricket.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

It is. I always think back to the 2002 series when we played England. I was at Eden Park for one of the greatest days of Test cricket I have ever experienced. The lights were on, there was no thought of light being offered to batsmen as we wanted to push on and set a target. It was scintillating. Yet today, we can't see every stitch of the ball so we go off.

And we wonder why Test cricket is 'in danger'? Because T20 is everyone's boner now? Only a part of the problem.

As for the make-up of the side, yes it would be great if our batsmen were scoring runs. They aren't. No one else will. The fourth bowler is doing nothing. Simple. Six batsmen, three seamers. A holding spinner. A keeper. Yes we'd all like to live in an ideal world but we live in NZ and we follow cricket.

I don't buy that for one minute.

Anyway, the plan you state was the one we used to use, and we still collapsed for sub-200 on a regular basis back then.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

He didn't do anything directly, but there's a major psychological boost gained knowing that there is a fourth "proper" full-time pace bowling option, even if they end up sucking like Arnel. Which is irrelevant, because Boult should've played anyway, and he's going to end up a proper main NZ bowler in future.

 

[straw man]

My thoughts on this are not as black and white as I might have made out, but what pushed me far into four seamer territory for this particular match is:

- we're 1-0 down and it's the last match of the series
- the match was always likely to be rain affected
- we're playing a team that is better than us
- that team has shown (surprising) batting frailties but no bowling frailties whatsoever
- so to compete we must exploit those batting frailties
- I rated us (before the match) far more likely to pull off a win than a draw* in this test assuming at least 4 full days play are possible
- it's at home where our seamers are more competitive than most other places
- edit: one I forgot - Wellington is damn hard work for the bowlers

...and after all that, if they do want to go and play the extra batsman instead THEN FFS BAT FIRST!

* I'm not fundamentally against stacking the batting and targeting a draw in a match where he have absolutely no chance of a win, like against the great Aus teams of recent years. But we're not in that situation here.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

Yeah, I agree with the above basically. Though I have much less faith in our ability to bat out a draw than you, even with a stacked batting line-up. Might as well try to put the opposition in some difficult positions by rolling them cheaply once or twice.

 

[Hurricane]

My thoughts on this are not as black and white as I might have made out, but what pushed me far into four seamer territory for this particular match is:

- we're 1-0 down and it's the last match of the series
- the match was always likely to be rain affected
- we're playing a team that is better than us
- that team has shown (surprising) batting frailties but no bowling frailties whatsoever
- so to compete we must exploit those batting frailties
- I rated us (before the match) far more likely to pull off a win than a draw* in this test assuming at least 4 full days play are possible
- it's at home where our seamers are more competitive than most other places
- edit: one I forgot - Wellington is damn hard work for the bowlers

...and after all that, if they do want to go and play the extra batsman instead THEN FFS BAT FIRST!

* I'm not fundamentally against stacking the batting and targeting a draw in a match where he have absolutely no chance of a win, like against the great Aus teams of recent years. But we're not in that situation here.

Gun logic - some minor quibbles - people in favour of stacking the batting want to win just as much as you do. We just figure that you need to score over 250 with the bat in order to win. Because the most you are going to bowl SA out for with 4 5 6 or even 8 bowlers is 230ish

Based on this case which no one else has put forward before - I can go along with 5 bowlers on one condition that the batsman had've been

McCullum
Flynn
Williamson
Taylor
Brownlie

Anything with Guptil as part of the equation of 5 batsman or Nicol sends shivers up my spine.

Even though I am saying all of this - if left to my own devices I would have selected an all rounder as I see the major role of the 4th seamer as being a workload releiver.

Just trying to think of the attack in the 80s.

Chatfield
Hadlee
Morrison
Bracewell
and Coney to get through a few overs

That was more than good enough

 

[straw man]

Gun logic - some minor quibbles - people in favour of stacking the batting want to win just as much as you do. We just figure that you need to score over 250 with the bat in order to win. Because the most you are going to bowl SA out for with 4 5 6 or even 8 bowlers is 230ish

Based on this case which no one else has put forward before - I can go along with 5 bowlers on one condition that the batsman had've been

McCullum
Flynn
Williamson
Taylor
Brownlie

Anything with Guptil as part of the equation of 5 batsman or Nicol sends shivers up my spine.

Even though I am saying all of this - if left to my own devices I would have selected an all rounder as I see the major role of the 4th seamer as being a workload releiver.

Just trying to think of the attack in the 80s.

Chatfield
Hadlee
Morrison
Bracewell
and Coney to get through a few overs

That was more than good enough

With regards to scoring over 250, our batting is still enormously dependent on McCullum, Taylor and Vettori anyway. Adding one extra guy (the extra guy to me is Flynn as opener) does not greatly increase our chances there. Our batting is highly variable and will remain so.

Fair enough on not wanting Guptill - personally I would have left him in for now and left the Flynn experiment for the Windies tour - but that's mainly from the perspective of wanting to ease Flynn back in.

It's a pity we do not have anyone in the Oram mold at present. In fact not even close if we consider that Ellis is at the top of the selectors' agenda. So that's a 'no' to all-rounders.

Obviously the 80s attack had a truly great bowler and that's probably all the difference that's needed. Other query is whether current Vettori and Gillespie are offering more right now with the ball than any of those 80s support bowlers did then. I'd be fine with whatever Vettori and Gillespie dish up if our other two bowlers were Wasim and Waqar, but they're not.

 

[Hurricane]

With regards to scoring over 250, our batting is still enormously dependent on McCullum, Taylor and Vettori anyway. Adding one extra guy (the extra guy to me is Flynn as opener) does not greatly increase our chances there. Our batting is highly variable and will remain so.

Obviously the 80s attack had a truly great bowler and that's probably all the difference that's needed. Other query is whether current Vettori and Gillespie are offering more right now with the ball than any of those 80s support bowlers did then. I'd be fine with whatever Vettori and Gillespie dish up if our other two bowlers were Wasim and Waqar, but they're not.

The extra guy was Brownlie - when they dropped Nicol Flynn was always going to play. had Brownlie have not scored 50 in his last dig for Cantabs then who knows Boult may have played.

So yes I think Brownlie makes a major impact on the teams ability to score 250 instead of 170

Your other question - I think the old Bracewell only took 100 wickets - but in my minds eye - and I have rose tinted glasses on - he got more turn that Dan and more loop. So was more of a wicket taking option. Especially in this series. Last year Dan looked fine to me. Despite what TH was posting.

And would rather have Morrison than Gillespie easily.

Would rather have Doug than Chats.

 

[Hurricane]

^Also if you believe that scoring 250 is beyond us - then developing a strategy of hoping to bowl out SA for say 100 runs is unrealistic. Unless you knew in advance that Kallis would not be playing. Even without him they are strong. But with him it would be a unrealistic objective except on a green top.

We can not roll SA on a normal wicket.

 

[Flem274*]

Hurricane - Harry Boam and Sam Wells could fit your side I guess, though they are bolters. Both can bowl some medium pace and both can/should bat top six in FC (come to CD plz Boam).

We can not roll SA on a normal wicket.

I think we can tbh, if NZ bowl like we know they can, especially considering Martin loves South Africa.

Martin hasn't taken Smith out of the equation as immediately as he used to which is a shame, and we're letting Alviro Petersen off the hook in this innings and a couple of others. Amla and Kallis in early will always give us an opportunity.

Anyway, my main issue with the four bowler theory is it's really three and a half bowlers and if Gillespie has a bad day, it's down to two and a half. We need 500 runs on the board to make that work.

It's uncanny how the best player on our team ****s the balance so much because he's batting too low and even if he bats high, our best bowlers aren't known for their batting prowess.

Structurally I can see Vettori moving up and Wagner slotting in at eight for Gillespie as a likely option. Wagner can genuinely bat and is a strike bowler, but his mercurial nature means Gilespie would have to go.

I wish Franklin was actually good.

 

[Mike5181]

- we're 1-0 down and it's the last match of the series

The first two games we played with your team balance and we were thrashed.

- the match was always likely to be rain affected

- it's at home where our seamers are more competitive than most other places

More reason to play three seamers especially with Kallis and now Amla out. There have been 79 overs in two days of test cricket. These guys should be 100% during their spells. We just haven't bowled well enough to exploit that. Bowling is our strength so the theory that if we took the roles of Southee and Arnel out from the first and second tests respectively this bowling attack would still perform to a reasonable standard against a weakened South African batting line up is understandable. The batting on the other hand would've been much the same if Boult was selected over Brownlie.

- that team has shown (surprising) batting frailties but no bowling frailties whatsoever
- so to compete we must exploit those batting frailties

No, if anything was shown in the first two tests it's that an all-round approach to selection was needed and we were never going to win a test match no matter how fast you destroy the oppositions batting line up. To compete we need to perform to a reasonable level in bowling, batting and fielding.

- I rated us (before the match) far more likely to pull off a win than a draw* in this test assuming at least 4 full days play are possible

There's more ways to win a test match then just bowling well.

* I'm not fundamentally against stacking the batting and targeting a draw in a match where he have absolutely no chance of a win, like against the great Aus teams of recent years. But we're not in that situation here.

We aren't targeting a draw. If Martin, Bracewell or Gillespie had taken 2-3 early wickets we would be right in this game with the added solidity of Flynn and Brownlie. These three bowlers just haven't bowled as well as they have done in the past.

I know people were going on about Vettori bowling lots of overs because of this negativity caused by the three seamers but he bowled 47 overs in the first test and again bowled 19 overs in the first innings of the second test with four seamers.

 

[Hurricane]

Is there an online database for NZ FC scores to sort averages by. I know there is that cricinfo link that Flem posted but it is a devil to navigate to.

 

[Mike5181]

I just look at CricketArchive of all the main players. I know Flynn averages something like 42 now in the Plunket Shield.

Btw. Is that forecast good to look at or what?
http://www.metservice.com/towns-cities/wellington

 

[indigo1]

" I reckon you're severely underestimating the boost having an extra pace option creates,"
I reckon that person would be good enough for 1-2 wickets in the test. And would give the other bowlers a much needed breather.
I reckon an all rounder would be good enough for 1 wicket per test and could give the others the same breather.

"while overestimating the effect of an extra batsman"

Just bringing in KVW instead of the non performing (in Aussie anyway) Reece Young has made a major difference even though Kruger is only scoring 25 or so. He is forming partnerships while he is out there and giving some respectability to the scores. Also the extra batsman they played in this game was Brownlie...

As mentioned twice now I do know that team balance is an issue. Hence I am proposing this team

McCullum
Flynn
Williamson
Taylor
Brownlie
All rounder (would have to research who)
Vettori
KVW
Bracewell
Gillespie
Martin

The only flaw to my argument is Vettori. As straw man has pointed out he is starting to fall out of consideration of the top 4 bowlers in the country - whereas before this series he used to always chip in with a couple of wickets. You can make a good case that you can not take 20 wickets with only 3 seamers and someone who is only good at tieing up an end plus an all rounder.
So for my team to work Vettori must rediscover his mojo.

I agree with your team here and I would put Franklin in that all rounder spot. He showed he was comfortable facing the extra pace of the RSA bowlers and has an excellent average in domestic cricket this season.

We missed a guy like him to do the donkey work into the wind yesterday. We had a guy like Gillespie building pressure from one end, but it was all being undone by vettori at the other end.

 

[kingkallis]

Amazing driving by JP! He is @ his best when he drives...

 

[Mike5181]

Come on run outs!

 

[Zinzan]

Well played Duminy....although I'm still confident NZ will get a wicket today, watch the space.

 

[SilentOne]

**** OFF Vettori! Your hurting this team rather than helping it.