***Official*** West Indies in New Zealand 2013/14

[Flem274*]

ftr I'm still backing my Milne call followed by Bennett but an in form Gillespie trumps both as they are right now, but that's getting less and less likely to ever happen again. I'm not convinced on Butler: he's never really needed pace to get his wickets because he's half mad but he's prone to his bad days and at his pace if he errs from the awkward length he bowls he will get smoked now he can't fire in the odd one in the 140s down the other end. I love his attitude towards batsmen but I'm not convinced yet.

 

[Flem274*]

Wasn't Ian Butler described as 'pea-hearted' a few years ago? Wagner's not exactly a smart bowler, but the **** runs in hard all day.

Yeah he was, can't remember who by. Seems to be a much tougher bloke nowadays though if it was true.

 

[Bahnz]

Any of the below and in no particular order;

Bennett
Gillespie
Bates
Henry
Milne
McClenaghan (if fit)


I don't even have a particularly great argument for any of them (especially with Gillespie's form in the PS this year) which speaks volumes about how mediocre I think Wagner is. The guy's just too erratic for the pace he bowls. I'd perhaps forgive him if he got it through in the 140s. So often this series he undid the good work done by the other bowlers.The fact he got some cheapish wickets in both 2nd innings of both tests flattered to deceive his true form. Come to think of it even Arnel or Butler would give more control as 1st-change bowlers backing Boult and Southee.

Hmmm...the thing to remember is that in his one Plunket Shield match this season, Wagner came in and steamrolled an otherwise highly successful Canterbury side (9/143). A performance like that provides a bit of context for the season figures of the rest of those bowlers you listed..

 

[Flem274*]

Canterbury have been collapsing all season tbf. Apart from Brownlie's run of half centuries and twin 50s in one game for Latham, Ellis and Tastle down at 7 and 8 have been squeaking them to decent totals before letting Henry, Bennett and Tastle demolish the oppo with Stewart continuously picking up part timer wickets.

This is a team which has dropped one opener already and another has a high score of 2 for the season.

 

[Prensel]

Who would the selectors most likely choose out of these? Why is Bracewell in the squad ahead of the names mentioned?

 

[Zinzan]

Hmmm...the thing to remember is that in his one Plunket Shield match this season, Wagner came in and steamrolled an otherwise highly successful Canterbury side (9/143). A performance like that provides a bit of context for the season figures of the rest of those bowlers you listed..

Except Wagner's success at domestic level has never been in question hence why we were all excited about his eligibility in the first place, so there's nothing new there. The problem is he hasn't been successful at Test level no matter how you dress it up, so why not give someone who could be, or in Gillespie's case, has been a chance?

 

[Bahnz]

But Wagner hasn't really been that poor in test cricket...at least not for a while. He's average 33 since becoming a regular against England. Yeah he was poor in Dunedin and during the first innings at Wellington, but it's a bit over the top to suggest dropping him just for that. Southee was poor in the first couple of tests v England, and Boult was poor on the tour of Bangladesh. Yes Wagner hasn't been as good as those two the rest of the time, but a couple of bad performances on their own should not be enough to call an established player's place into question.

 

[Athlai]

Bennet is next man in.

 

[Zinzan]

But Wagner hasn't really been that poor in test cricket...at least not for a while. He's average 33 since becoming a regular against England. Yeah he was poor in Dunedin and during the first innings at Wellington, but it's a bit over the top to suggest dropping him just for that. Southee was poor in the first couple of tests v England, and Boult was poor on the tour of Bangladesh. Yes Wagner hasn't been as good as those two the rest of the time, but a couple of bad performances on their own should not be enough to call an established player's place into question.

The fact that even after filtering his stats the best you can get his average to is 33 kind of sums up his ordinariness don't you think?

 

[Bahnz]

I can't help but feel that you've been a bit over-spoiled by Southee and Boult if you think that 33 since March is drop worthy. Chris Martin rarely managed much better than that over a year and excepting the one occassion when Bond was fit he was deservedly first name on the fast bowling list from 2008-2011. And if the challengers aren't producing the numbers to demand their selection, then I struggle to see the reasoning behind the big push for his replacement.

 

[Flem274*]

I think a lot of people in this thread (likely me included at times) are hanging their flags on extreme ends of the field regarding Wagner. At Dunedin when I was able to watch (I missed the Chanderpaul wicket) he was awful, truly awful, and he continued to be awful during the first two sessions we bowled at the Basin. But his spell after lunch was quality bowling, and I'm not quite sure why Hendrix and some others refuse to acknowledge it because it makes their views no less valid. If you showed fans that footage in isolation they would get excited.

But there can be no denying Wagner's poor spells were spells where Hawke Cup batsmen would have tucked in, and if we were facing opposition who were handling Southee and Boult better we would have been in serious trouble because against more developed sides than the West Indies it would have been match losing stuff. Hashim Amla would have eaten him alive in a similar manner to his century in Perth. While two poor games is a harsh dropping in most circumstances, his longer term average of 33 is flattering to his current offerings and you can't afford to carry a bowler bowling so poorly for very long because you will lose games. We are already carrying a young wrist spinner and we have brought in Anderson as an insurance policy for him: Anderson can't be expected to cover for two.

If Wagner bowls as poorly as he has for most of the series in Hamilton then unfortunately he needs a spell on the bench to get into a place where he can be test standard every game.

 

[Prince EWS]

It's not so much what he's done in that period, but the low hopes we all have for him going forward. I think he over-performed a bit against England and Bangladesh, and even got better figures than he deserved at different times. If he continues to be a 33 average bowler who offers something a bit different to the rest of the attack then that's fine, even if he gets there by having the odd really bad game, but I just don't think he will. He doesn't deserve to be dropped based on his figures, certainly not for Bracewell, but that's not to say we all have to be happy about his place in the side and optimistic about what he's going to offer in the matches ahead.

 

[Bahnz]

I don't disagree with any of that, and Wagner will certainly be very precariously placed if he produces another poor effort at Hamilton. Still my point remains that all of the other probables are doing a piss-poor job of making a case that they deserve his place. Bennett is probably in front in that respect, but I can't help but feel that he's been out of competitive cricket for too long and just doesn't have enough matches under his belt. Still, he's got 3 more PS games before the India tests, so if he continues to improve through those then maybe he does deserve to be in the equation.

 

[Zinzan]

I can't help but feel that you've been a bit over-spoiled by Southee and Boult if you think that 33 since March is drop worthy. Chris Martin rarely managed much better than that over a year and excepting the one occassion when Bond was fit he was deservedly first name on the fast bowling list from 2008-2011. And if the challengers aren't producing the numbers to demand their selection, then I struggle to see the reasoning behind the big push for his replacement.

This is the exact reason I was calling for Martin's head well before others on this forum - as I'm sure you'll recall. His consistent selection epitomised the acceptance we had for mediocrity at the time. I don't mean that as an insult to Martin either, because he did bowl some fine spells and the guy had a big heart, but he was mediocre, plain and simple. I can't for example think of a time he won a test for us when we set a side a reasonable 4th innings score. So I'm afraid Martin's probably not the best comparison to convince me of Wagner's prowess.

 

[Bahnz]

Except that Martin was also a lot better than any other bowler during the period save O'Brien. Southee was rubbish, Boult was crocked, Tuffey was pointless, Arnel even more so and Franklin was finished as a test cricketer. Martin may have been mediocre, but his position wasn't secure because of an acceptance of that mediocrity but because there was no one even close to being as good as him. Likewise, while Wagner may be a deeply mediocre player, I remain to be convinced that there's anyone else currently who will do better than him given the chance.

And yes I appreciate the irony of this discussion starting with me vehemently denying that Wagner had taken Martin's place in my cricketing heart.

 

[Prince EWS]

I don't disagree with any of that, and Wagner will certainly be very precariously placed if he produces another poor effort at Hamilton. Still my point remains that all of the other probables are doing a piss-poor job of making a case that they deserve his place. Bennett is probably in front in that respect, but I can't help but feel that he's been out of competitive cricket for too long and just doesn't have enough matches under his belt. Still, he's got 3 more PS games before the India tests, so if he continues to improve through those then maybe he does deserve to be in the equation.

Yeah, I obviously can't speak for everyone, but as probably the biggest Wagner sceptic on this forum since forever (along with, ironically, you!) I don't think he should be dropped right now. His performances since his recall have been satisfactory and although I don't think he'll maintain those figures, there has been virtually no pressure put on him from those immediately below him in domestic cricket. I don't think people are looking for alternatives so they can drop him immediately regardless though; they're looking for alternatives because he's not really good enough so one is inevitable, probably sooner rather than later. As it stands there aren't any particularly good ones, but if there were I and probably you would be keen to axe the guy.

It's really just a wait and see proposition on the bowlers in domestic cricket. The ones that really could've threatened Wagner immediately have produced:

Gillespie - 16 @ 40
Milne - 6 @ 39
Bracewell - 9 @ 43

They've been so poor that we're talking about the likes of Bennett, Henry, Neesham and Wheeler as alternatives.. not because they should really be in the frame right at this minute, but because the Wagner expiry date has probably been pushed back a bit by the next in line guys not really doing anything, so the players with more to do (either through lack of experience or just coming back into cricket) have come into the equation as potential successors.

Zinzan is probably a bit different, but for everyone else I think the "who will replace Wagner" discussion is just a realistic assessment of Wagner's limitations moving forward, more than a impetuous need for Wagner to never play again.

 

[Flem274*]

Yeah, I obviously can't speak for everyone, but as probably the biggest Wagner sceptic on this forum since forever (along with, ironically, you!) I don't think he should be dropped right now. His performances since his recall have been satisfactory and although I don't think he'll maintain those figures, there has been virtually no pressure put on him from those immediately below him in domestic cricket. I don't think people are looking for alternatives so they can drop him immediately regardless though; they're looking for alternatives because he's not really good enough so one is inevitable, probably sooner rather than later. As it stands there aren't any particularly good ones, but if there were I and probably you would be keen to axe the guy.

It's really just a wait and see proposition on the bowlers in domestic cricket. The ones that really could've threatened Wagner immediately have produced:

Gillespie - 16 @ 40
Milne - 6 @ 39
Bracewell - 9 @ 43

They've been so poor that we're talking about the likes of Bennett, Henry, Neesham and Wheeler as alternatives.. not because they should really be in the frame right at this minute, but because the Wagner expiry date has probably been pushed back a bit by the next in line guys not really doing anything, so the players with more to do (either through lack of experience or just coming back into cricket) have come into the equation as potential successors.

Zinzan is probably a bit different, but for everyone else I think the "who will replace Wagner" discussion is just a realistic assessment of Wagner's limitations moving forward, more than a impetuous need for Wagner to never play again.

Howsie and I have something to say about that thank you very much.

 

[Prince EWS]

Howsie and I have something to say about that thank you very much.

Wasn't Howsie talking him up before he was selected?

 

[Zinzan]

Except that Martin was also a lot better than any other bowler during the period save O'Brien. Southee was rubbish, Boult was crocked, Tuffey was pointless, Arnel even more so and Franklin was finished as a test cricketer. Martin may have been mediocre, but his position wasn't secure because of an acceptance of that mediocrity but because there was no one even close to being as good as him. Likewise, while Wagner may be a deeply mediocre player, I remain to be convinced that there's anyone else currently who will do better than him given the chance.

That may all be true, but it doesn't change the fact that Martin himself was nothing more than mediocre in his last 3-4 years and I certainly don't have confident memories of him with the new ball in his hand as the leader of our bowling pack. I do think we had better options in the country in his last few years. Off the top of my head, It's a travesty Adams only played 1 test in that era and I'd need to think back to the years 2009-2012.

 

[Zinzan]

Zinzan is probably a bit different, but for everyone else I think the "who will replace Wagner" discussion is just a realistic assessment of Wagner's limitations moving forward, more than a impetuous need for Wagner to never play again.

Nah, I'm not so far removed from the above statement, although I wouldn't exactly be depressed if he pulled a hammy prior to the next test

Edit: Although the selectors would then go with Bracewell