All I’ll say is I am disgusted that they picked Scott Kuggeleijn. For the obvious reason primarily, but also because Wagner could have been selected instead.
Can someone please explain what justification there is or could ever be to pick Kuggelijn over Wagner. It was so seriously mind boggling to see Wagner out there fielding, knowing he wouldn't get a crack at Hazlewood. Ridiculous stupidity.
And as has been stated already, Santner had to be next in line, almost irrelevant of their pitch 'read'. Have they forgotten about bowling partnerships? Having Santner at one end could have helped the other three seamers be more effective.
Wagner took two 4-fers vs England last summer, has played domestic red ball cricket and taken regular wickets in both nz And England. Yes his pace is down but compared to Kug he is left arm, more controlled when required with the added ability to trouble lower order with the chin music. I know it’s water under the bridge but I’ve seen no sign of him losing ability to take wickets and think he could’ve played a key role in what should have been his swan song.
Nick I think it comes down simply to Wagner having lost pace to the point his method is no longer effective. Yes he did bowl us to victory at the Basin last year but he looked slower and toothless throughout much of that series, and that was 12 months ago. Father Time is catching up with him. The Kuggeleijn selection is interesting, more than anything I think it shows our succession planning has been lacking as we’ve barely used him or seen him in NZ squads / colours. I’m not saying that he’s a better pick for this test than Wagner, frankly either would have shown we’ve not planned ahead.
Think Scott was pick to give the black caps more batting depth Yes another dud selection by stead and co. We could write an essay on the black caps selections or non after the World Cup test champs win . I’m still not convinced that Tim is a great captain at test level, where was the thought process when we need one more wicket .
If it wasn’t so predictable it’d qualify as one of the most disappointing days cricket I’ve watched in a while.
Their bowling on an improving pitch put our under par effort yesterday into true perspective.
However, the real underlying reason is that Australia are a superior side to us and they know it. You can pick apart individual incidents from different angles but we weren’t clinical with our lines and lengths (Matt Henry aside) whereas they were bang on.
There’s always been talk about fire breathing Aussie pace attacks but the bit that goes under the radar is how accurate they are, and that includes the ability to hit perfect areas with the new ball (and underrated skill).
A lot of Kiwis understandably get their hopes up and desperately want us to beat big brother, but that doesn’t mean it’s going to happen.
An interesting side play has been the barely concealed contempt Brendon Julian has shown in the comm box for our local crew, and to be fair it is woeful.
I have the SEN commentary going, significant improvement on the TV (aside from occasional predictable grumpiness from Ian Smith).
The lack of imagination in field settings and team selection have made this even more of a disappointment to me. Both tests are sold out miles in advance but somehow it’s like the series snuck up on the team management and coaches, as well as the players, and they didn’t plan for who they were about to play eg Dylan’s point about not bowling on the stumps to Hazlewood or Kane somehow forgetting that Labuschagne is the best fielder in that position and regularly runs batters out from there. It’s just bizarre. We were always going to need our A game against Australia but either we forgot that or don’t have one. The first WTC final seems like a million years ago now.
I'm in hospital having had a hip upgrade this morning. After I'd recovered sufficiently to take an interest in the wider world I thought I'd catch up on the cricket. And the sad thing is I wasn't even disappointed because in the back of my mind was that little mantra, " It's the Aussies, we're stuffed". It could possibly have been the anesthetic but I'm sticking with the former.
The constant ignoring of spinners at home is bemusing. Lyon an easy 4 fer on Day 2. We could have covered. the 4th Seamer with Mitchell. Then had Santner to bat. A glimmer of hope tonight, likely to chase 400 though.
Probably the most inept day of cricket I've witnessed from us ever, and we have had some dooozeys...
How many visitors have to come and take wickets with spin before we pick a spinner? Sure if the choice is between a spinner or prime Wagner, Boult, KJ then it becomes a difficult decision but to not select Santner in favour of a 4th right arm trundle is just shocking. Santner would have begged for the ball in that final partnership you would think.
I didn't understand at the time why Southee was selected captain ahead of Latham, I just don't see him have any influence in the field - it's the old poke a stick 'do something!'
I can handle losing to Australia but man would it be nice to play a competitive game against them rather than just getting slapped.
Another thing you won't find in effective leadership - case studies involving teams led by Gary Stead.
And as for Latham, he's been a liability for a while now. But there's nothing below him, unless we think Sean Solia is capable of being Test class. Not expecting anything from him in the 4th innings (although he did get 80 in that Basin miracle a year ago)
Do we "play the results" on a shot like Kuggeleijn's dismissal a bit? Matt Henry got a lot of credit for his innings, but on his second ball from Lyon also attempted a "reckless" big shot... which went for six, unlike Kuggeleijn's. With what appeared to be the same strategy, Henry goes on to get 42, but Kuggeleijn gets 0. Clearly there was a gameplan to be aggressive against Lyon, even with the tail. Just wonder if we're guilty of judging the results instead of the strategy
I'm really curious as to how Kuggeleijn fits into that team as a bloke. They all know the details and accepted facts. In a team full of nice guys and family men, plenty of whom have daughters, I just wonder how they feel behind the veneer of professionalism.
Also, Wagner would have bowled better and batted with more hear than that...
Would love you guys on the BYC to discuss the salaries Aus players are getting which allows them to skip T20 comps and pretty much just play for Australia.
All I’ll say is I am disgusted that they picked Scott Kuggeleijn. For the obvious reason primarily, but also because Wagner could have been selected instead.
Can someone please explain what justification there is or could ever be to pick Kuggelijn over Wagner. It was so seriously mind boggling to see Wagner out there fielding, knowing he wouldn't get a crack at Hazlewood. Ridiculous stupidity.
And as has been stated already, Santner had to be next in line, almost irrelevant of their pitch 'read'. Have they forgotten about bowling partnerships? Having Santner at one end could have helped the other three seamers be more effective.
And is Doug Bracewell available?
Wagner took two 4-fers vs England last summer, has played domestic red ball cricket and taken regular wickets in both nz And England. Yes his pace is down but compared to Kug he is left arm, more controlled when required with the added ability to trouble lower order with the chin music. I know it’s water under the bridge but I’ve seen no sign of him losing ability to take wickets and think he could’ve played a key role in what should have been his swan song.
Nick I think it comes down simply to Wagner having lost pace to the point his method is no longer effective. Yes he did bowl us to victory at the Basin last year but he looked slower and toothless throughout much of that series, and that was 12 months ago. Father Time is catching up with him. The Kuggeleijn selection is interesting, more than anything I think it shows our succession planning has been lacking as we’ve barely used him or seen him in NZ squads / colours. I’m not saying that he’s a better pick for this test than Wagner, frankly either would have shown we’ve not planned ahead.
Think Scott was pick to give the black caps more batting depth Yes another dud selection by stead and co. We could write an essay on the black caps selections or non after the World Cup test champs win . I’m still not convinced that Tim is a great captain at test level, where was the thought process when we need one more wicket .
If it wasn’t so predictable it’d qualify as one of the most disappointing days cricket I’ve watched in a while.
Their bowling on an improving pitch put our under par effort yesterday into true perspective.
However, the real underlying reason is that Australia are a superior side to us and they know it. You can pick apart individual incidents from different angles but we weren’t clinical with our lines and lengths (Matt Henry aside) whereas they were bang on.
There’s always been talk about fire breathing Aussie pace attacks but the bit that goes under the radar is how accurate they are, and that includes the ability to hit perfect areas with the new ball (and underrated skill).
A lot of Kiwis understandably get their hopes up and desperately want us to beat big brother, but that doesn’t mean it’s going to happen.
An interesting side play has been the barely concealed contempt Brendon Julian has shown in the comm box for our local crew, and to be fair it is woeful.
I have the SEN commentary going, significant improvement on the TV (aside from occasional predictable grumpiness from Ian Smith).
The lack of imagination in field settings and team selection have made this even more of a disappointment to me. Both tests are sold out miles in advance but somehow it’s like the series snuck up on the team management and coaches, as well as the players, and they didn’t plan for who they were about to play eg Dylan’s point about not bowling on the stumps to Hazlewood or Kane somehow forgetting that Labuschagne is the best fielder in that position and regularly runs batters out from there. It’s just bizarre. We were always going to need our A game against Australia but either we forgot that or don’t have one. The first WTC final seems like a million years ago now.
I didn't think the commentary could get any worse, and then Brad Haddin turned up.
I'm in hospital having had a hip upgrade this morning. After I'd recovered sufficiently to take an interest in the wider world I thought I'd catch up on the cricket. And the sad thing is I wasn't even disappointed because in the back of my mind was that little mantra, " It's the Aussies, we're stuffed". It could possibly have been the anesthetic but I'm sticking with the former.
The constant ignoring of spinners at home is bemusing. Lyon an easy 4 fer on Day 2. We could have covered. the 4th Seamer with Mitchell. Then had Santner to bat. A glimmer of hope tonight, likely to chase 400 though.
Probably the most inept day of cricket I've witnessed from us ever, and we have had some dooozeys...
How many visitors have to come and take wickets with spin before we pick a spinner? Sure if the choice is between a spinner or prime Wagner, Boult, KJ then it becomes a difficult decision but to not select Santner in favour of a 4th right arm trundle is just shocking. Santner would have begged for the ball in that final partnership you would think.
I didn't understand at the time why Southee was selected captain ahead of Latham, I just don't see him have any influence in the field - it's the old poke a stick 'do something!'
I can handle losing to Australia but man would it be nice to play a competitive game against them rather than just getting slapped.
Amen
Another thing you won't find in effective leadership - case studies involving teams led by Gary Stead.
And as for Latham, he's been a liability for a while now. But there's nothing below him, unless we think Sean Solia is capable of being Test class. Not expecting anything from him in the 4th innings (although he did get 80 in that Basin miracle a year ago)
Do we "play the results" on a shot like Kuggeleijn's dismissal a bit? Matt Henry got a lot of credit for his innings, but on his second ball from Lyon also attempted a "reckless" big shot... which went for six, unlike Kuggeleijn's. With what appeared to be the same strategy, Henry goes on to get 42, but Kuggeleijn gets 0. Clearly there was a gameplan to be aggressive against Lyon, even with the tail. Just wonder if we're guilty of judging the results instead of the strategy
I'm really curious as to how Kuggeleijn fits into that team as a bloke. They all know the details and accepted facts. In a team full of nice guys and family men, plenty of whom have daughters, I just wonder how they feel behind the veneer of professionalism.
Also, Wagner would have bowled better and batted with more hear than that...
Has there been any hype or promotion of super round in Melbourne?
Yes on Stan sports ..
Would love you guys on the BYC to discuss the salaries Aus players are getting which allows them to skip T20 comps and pretty much just play for Australia.