NZ in Australia 2011

Very disappointing from the visitors - I got up early yesterday and the match was over!  Pattinson looks the part , but some of the shot selection was mystifying. I like the way Clarke leads the side and he's in a rich vein of form at the moment too.  Ponting's showing real professionalism and looked likely to make another ton before falling lbw. Mitchell Johnson will be looking on and I think will be rather worried - all the youngsters did well , Australia appear on the mend.

It's a perfectly acceptable tactic in my book. Put the opening batsman under more pressure ahead of the 2nd Test, hopefully inducing an error in the game. NZ are clearly lacking in talent, why not employ every method possible to get inside the heads of the Aussies? Of course it's hypocritical coming from a man who looked all at sea at the Gabba and it would suit NZ better if he did the talking with the bat but I don't see anything wrong with what he said.


Edited by BackwardPoint - 06 December 2011 at 12:00am

For me, it has a lot to do with the fact that Vettori would never have made such a comment about an opposition batsman during a series. On the contrary, he praised Nathan Lyon for his aggressive approach to off spin bowling.

The kiwis should do better with the bat at Hobart.  Well, which team doesn't?  Its too good a batting track.

NZL's batting is really good on paper, I mean Ross, Ryder, Guptill, McCullum, Vettori and you a very good bunch of players there, I always thought it'll be their bowling that'll let them down but the bowlers actually did well.

I agree with BP. Sam , you over glamourise certain players on the basis of some exciting performances. McCullum is barely test standard with the bat and he so rarely makes a ton that I can't really understand how he could justify giving up the gloves. He took a massive risk by doing that and for him to open the batting is an even bigger risk.

I know Vettori has been in good form of late, but as mentioned above, if your best batsman is also your best spinner then there's something wrong with your top order. Guptill also hasn't shown enough consistency, while Taylor is a touch overrated. Ryder is the only real test quality batsman in that top 6.

Originally posted by sam_ahmed What I believe is that if you are a good ODI player then you can be a good Test player too!

I'd turn that around completely - Alistair Cook has proven himself in the test arena and has surprised many by upping his strikerate in limited overs cricket.  I'd say if you can bat properly , then you can adapt and learn to play one day cricket effectively.

Langer is a poor example. He barely got a shot at ODIs, and in his few appearances had a strike rate of 88 - very high, particularly at the time he played. Another example is MacGill, who was expensive, but very useful in one day cricket , yet seldom got an opportunity to prove himself.

A better example to fit into your theory BP is Michael Slater. Awesome stroke maker, fast scorer and aggressive (but like Laxman above, a poor runner between wickets), yet he was absolute crap in ODIs.

New Zealand's woes continue and actually started before the toss when Vettori was ruled out with a hamstring injury.  Worse was to follow when Clarke won the toss and opted to bowl on a pretty green wicket.  It proved a good move with all the seamers getting help and the New Zealand batsmen looking out of their depth. Pattinson was the star again , taking another 5fer and ably backed up by Siddle (3) and Starc (2).   New Zealand skittled for just 150 with only the impressive grinder Brownlie gettting 56 , extras 2nd top scored with 20 !
           Australia 12-1 when rain stopped play , Hughes gone for 4 to Martin who had yet another 1st ball duck !!

               The criticism of the New Zealand batsmen highlighted by several members in this thread looks sound and any sort of lead should see another resounding victory for the Aussies and probably within 3 days !


Edited by Sledger - 09 December 2011 at 6:33am

Mikey – fair point. Langer only played 8 ODIs so was being a bit harsh. I will agree with you on Slats.

Raj – yes, I was mainly referring to Raina and Yuvraj. I honestly cannot believe anyone can claim that these two are Test standard. You say that they cannot perform under pressure but how many Tests has Yuvraj got under his belt? In excess of 35 Tests for an average in the mid-30s. Sorry, but if you have those returns in 35 plus Tests then you are not cut out for Test match cricket. As for Raina, the guy has also been given a fair number of chances, he was played in all 4 Tests in England so he was clearly backed to perform yet he disappointed. Also, pressure for your place almost always exists. Cook was under pressure for his place after PAK series last year and look at how he has turned it around. Great or even just capable Test batsman should be able to perform under any sort of pressure. Also, Gambhir was averaging well over 50 by the time he had played the same number of Test matches as Yuvraj so he doesn’t further your case in any way.

Yuvraj and Raina have obviously struggled in foreign conditions with the ball swinging and bouncing. They have also not exactly excelled in home conditions. This is partly because, even more than flaws in their game, they don’t have a Test match mindset. They throw their wickets away, they can’t bat for long periods, they don’t appear to be run-hungry. They don’t possess the skill of someone like a Sehwag who can make his attacking skills bare fruit even in the 5 day version. Also, which teams exactly (outside of India, England and SA) would they have “walked into as premier batsmen”?  Simply put, they are not Test standard batsmen and this is just plain fact regardless of how much your biases cloud your judgement.

Back on topic, NZ just outrageously bad again. It never ends well when someone like a McCullum tries to play within himself, he doesn’t have a solid defensive technique. He shouldn’t even be opening but if he is going to open then why not just give it a whack. I understand the conditions were favouring the bowlers but I hate to see batsman try and play a certain way when it is apparent to all that they do not possess the skill to do so. Now that their best batsman isn’t even playing this game, I expect NZ to get completely blown away.

Pattinson looked class again and Siddle again gave it everything. It will be interesting to see how AUS progress on this wicket, I am keen to see how Warner, in particular, bats and what his approach will be. Only downside for the Aussies – Phil Hughes. I feel like I am repeating myself here but what is this bloke doing opening for Australia in a Test match? I can only hope that when Marsh and Watson return, this guy will be discarded but they seem intent on playing him.

Originally posted by BackwardPoint Back on topic, NZ just outrageously bad again. It never ends well when someone like a McCullum tries to play within himself, he doesn’t have a solid defensive technique.

 I can't get my head around that either BP. He falls between two stools , scared to play his natural game because that's not test cricket and then battles because he doesn't know how to construct a test innings and see off the new ball.

Originally posted by BackwardPoint  Only downside for the Aussies – Phil Hughes. I feel like I am repeating myself here but what is this bloke doing opening for Australia in a Test match? I can only hope that when Marsh and Watson return, this guy will be discarded but they seem intent on playing him.

 Hughes just can't play properly and almost anything that leaves him outside off he goes after and nicks - surely a test batsman can be taught to leave properly?  No idea what his stats show , but I expect almost all his test dismissals are caught behind the wicket.
 

The problem you mention Sledge has been there for a considerable amount of time now. He should have addressed it and looked to remedy it but I see nothing in his game that indicates he has attempted to do so. If they want an aggressive opener then Warner is a far better choice. Ideally, Marsh plays ahead of both of them and opens with Watson (if they decide to continue opening with Watson) with Khawaja at 3 then Ponting, Clarke, Hussey, Haddin to follow. That would be their best choice at the moment.  If Watson decides to drop down and Marsh doesn't want to open then they have big problems since Khawaja and Ponting would probably have to make way to accommodate Marsh and Watson down the order and they would be forced to play Hughes and Warner to open. 

Fine fightback by the Kiwis, but Australia proved 2 games ago that they can chase 300 against a good attack, on a decent wicket. It was a green wicket Sledger, but more so in appearance than on how it actually played (I think 250-300 is gettable). Batsmen these days aren't conditioned that well to play against seam bowling.

This wicket had 4cm of grass, in domestic games it is double that. That's why you'll see young batsmen around Australia averaging in the 30s (like Marsh and Ferguson) and bowlers averaging low 20s (like Copeland and George).

what a fight back by NZL! great to see that as well, Mikey is right the track seems to be easing up a bit, and something around 300 will be chasable, NZL need to bat long and give AUS something around 370-380 to have a real chance of winning it, that would mean another 225 runs or so from here on.

Originally posted by BackwardPoint Gambhir was averaging well over 50 by the time he had played the same number of Test matches as Yuvraj so he doesn’t further your case in any way.

The point I raised was about not able to perform to the best of ability, when place is not assured.