Cricket: NZ vs Aus
-
@No-Quarter Yeah - looked out to me - but, I guess not enough supporting evidence from snicko or hotspot.
A bit of payback for the CdG one in Perth.
Ball has got a bit older and a few overs in the Aussie quicks legs. Doesn't look quite as difficult as it did first thing this morning. Tommy Latham has had a piece of luck and done a good job - a pity Rossco isn't still out there with him.
-
@ACT-Crusader said in Cricket: NZ vs Aus:
@hydro11 said in Cricket: NZ vs Aus:
Still lots of gaps in the Aussie team though. Wade, Head and then Paine is a weak 5, 6, 7 (especially in foreign conditions). They also don't pick a proper all-rounder. I don't think they are anywhere near India's level although it will be good to see the series next year.
Also, I wonder who they will pick as their spinner when Lyon goes which could happen in the next two years.
They are definitely in a transition stage with their middle order. They bought back Wade which was a big call and then have a young guy like Head just coming through.
The fact is that with their bowling lineup they are always a chance to take 20 wickets so are going to be in test matches.
Yeah - last year, at home, they lost 2-1 to India - but that was without Warner, Smith and Labuschagne (he played in the 4th test). With those three they probably win at least 2-1 - they lost a low scoring first test by 31 runs.
But, playing in India would be a different ballgame - hard to see them winning there.
-
@Chris-B said in Cricket: NZ vs Aus:
@ACT-Crusader said in Cricket: NZ vs Aus:
@hydro11 said in Cricket: NZ vs Aus:
Still lots of gaps in the Aussie team though. Wade, Head and then Paine is a weak 5, 6, 7 (especially in foreign conditions). They also don't pick a proper all-rounder. I don't think they are anywhere near India's level although it will be good to see the series next year.
Also, I wonder who they will pick as their spinner when Lyon goes which could happen in the next two years.
They are definitely in a transition stage with their middle order. They bought back Wade which was a big call and then have a young guy like Head just coming through.
The fact is that with their bowling lineup they are always a chance to take 20 wickets so are going to be in test matches.
Yeah - last year, at home, they lost 2-1 to India - but that was without Warner, Smith and Labuschagne (he played in the 4th test). With those three they probably win at least 2-1 - they lost a low scoring first test by 31 runs.
But, playing in India would be a different ballgame - hard to see them winning there.
They'll need two spinners. Who have they got?
-
@Rapido looking at this now (hindsight) the preparation of this team hasn’t been right to deal with the challenges - Coaches and Selectors will need to think about this for next time. The batsmen have all struggled with the bounce (more than the speed though they are additive ). And don’t know what they are doing with our spinners - getting a bit complicated? They have selected Ajaz and Sommerville for sub continent, but revert to Santner and Astle for this tour.
-
@kev said in Cricket: NZ vs Aus:
@Rapido looking at this now (hindsight) the preparation of this team hasn’t been right to deal with the challenges - Coaches and Selectors will need to think about this for next time. The batsmen have all struggled with the bounce (more than the speed though they are additive ). And don’t know what they are doing with our spinners - getting a bit complicated? They have selected Ajaz and Sommerville for sub continent, but revert to Santner and Astle for this tour.
What the fark is that about? They can't use the "horses for courses" chestnut because Sommerville has played a lot of Sheffield Shield cricket for NSW so knows the players and the conditions. It is mystifying
-
I think Santner has been their preferred option for a while - the others getting more chances because he was out injured.
I guess it's one of those cases where you only get to choose one guy, but I'm not convinced any of our spinners would have had a great time in these first two games.
That being said, they couldn't have done a lot worse.
-
-
@kev Without doubt.
Problem for me is that I thought Ajaz looked more dangerous than Somerville when they bowled together in Sri Lanka - but in NZ Ajaz played a couple of tests and didn't take a wicket.
Somerville has only played three tests on the subcontinent and is 36 years old, so he's definitely not the future.
Todd Astle has only played a handful of tests spaced apart and hasn't done much.
And Ish can't bowl six good balls in a row.
All that being said - Santner got his chance in Perth as was obviously ineffectual, so it was a bit surprising to see him given another run here.
-
How many wickets has Lyon taken this series? Santner isn't the answer, even a cricket layman can see that. Sommerville would give us a couple of years I reckon, he should have played given his familiarity with the opposition players and the conditions. Unfortunately selecting Mitch was us shooting ourselves in the foot. Too many passengers in this side are being exposed
-
112/7. Latham out for 50.
The thing I hate most - we are not even putting up a fight. Even if Aussie got 400 and we battled to 280 or 300 or whatever, at least we made a go of it, knowing their quicks on these pitches are tough. But we look like fucking bunnies in headlights.
-
This is the most one-sided test series I can remember in some time.
Completely out-coached and out-captained. Dominated at every level of the game from tactics and gameplans to application to mindset and attitude, we're a distant second in every single department.
-
@No-Quarter don't forget talent
-
@KiwiMurph said in Cricket: NZ vs Aus:
@No-Quarter don't forget talent
We're not that far behind on talent. This Aus team is very good, especially with their tall quicks, but they've got a few passengers themselves. That's the most frustrating part of the whole series - we've just played absolutely brainless cricket. Like a possum in the headlights, we've completely frozen up on the big stage and it's looked like men vs boys out there despite us having some of our best ever players in the side.
-
Our batting has some issues - we're batting a keeper as an opener because apparently domestic cricket isn't developing test quality openers, using our actual keeper at number 6, and playing Santner as an all rounder in case we need his batting, but now Santner's bowling isn't up to even holding up an end, so it's being found out as a plan.
Latham, Williamson, Taylor, Nicholls is an excellent specialist batting spine, but we've still got weaknesses i.e. the other opener, and obviously we feel we need a batting number 8 for some reason, even though Watling and CdG do pretty well at 6-7. Meanwhile, we don't have any other medium term spinning options because the others don't really take wickets and can't bat as well as Santner.
Maybe we just need to bite the bullet, play a 4th seamer, Kane rolls the arm over where required, and we accept that number 8 isn't actually a batting position.
-
This has been the best we've played in a long long time. Our batting has been disciplined, our bowling has been accurate and aggressive.
Having a solid presence at first drop makes an enormous difference. It means Smith is coming in at 2/100, rather than 2/30.
NZ have bowled well and I think against previous iterations of this side may have skittled us for under 300. But we've shown uncharacteristic patience and ability to bat through long periods without losing a wicket.
The Kiwi batting has been pretty shithouse though. I've been pretty disappointed with Kane especially. Not sure the 'big 3' really exists anymore. It's Smith and Kohli and then a big gap to the rest at the moment.
-
@barbarian said in Cricket: NZ vs Aus:
This has been the best we've played in a long long time. Our batting has been disciplined, our bowling has been accurate and aggressive.
Having a solid presence at first drop makes an enormous difference. It means Smith is coming in at 2/100, rather than 2/30.
NZ have bowled well and I think against previous iterations of this side may have skittled us for under 300. But we've shown uncharacteristic patience and ability to bat through long periods without losing a wicket.
The Kiwi batting has been pretty shithouse though. I've been pretty disappointed with Kane especially. Not sure the 'big 3' really exists anymore. It's Smith and Kohli and then a big gap to the rest at the moment.
This is what happens when the pretenders who are also poor cousins and owners of the world #2 test ranking come to town. We are getting a big brother beat down
-
