Anyone for cricket?

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Lee has been playing around with his run up, trying to regain his touch, which is not a good sign IMO. He was in the side to bowl flat out express, to intimidate batsman. He's far from that at present.

I think the slow over rate issue is pushing on that and it is not unusual for fast bowlers later in their careers to reduce their run up.

Having said that his afternoon spell has been far better with more pace and getting some swing. A good sign.

Brad Haddin is struggling though.

[QueenC 74]

I think the slow over rate issue is pushing on that and it is not unusual for fast bowlers later in their careers to reduce their run up.

Having said that his afternoon spell has been far better with more pace and getting some swing. A good sign.

Brad Haddin is struggling though.

I actually thought Haddin looked better out there today than he has throughout his test career thus far. He just seemed more relaxed, so hopefully that can translate into his batting which is something he is struggling with. Although I can't see an obvious replacement atm and he has earned the right to be there.

Lee was far better this afternoon the wicket he took was after an outstanding spell and hopefully he will grab that and go forward.

Oddly enough all the quicks had just about the exact same figures at the end of play.

[titan_uranus 25,042]

I'd certainly rather take Hauritz's current figures of 2/47 off 11 overs, than Brett Lee's return of 0/49 off 13 overs with 6 no balls, any day. Beginning to feel a little concerned for Brett Lee's future in the top flight. He can turn his form around, he just needs to do it and quickly. He usually has a day out against the Kiwi's.

Brett Lee wont see out the SA series the way he is going.

He is running out of chances and flat decks just make him look even more insipid.

???

Not at all.

When Lee is not bowling well he looks all the more lame on good batting strips.

He loses his outswing and is not bowling at 140kmh he becomes fodder (eg India 2008, Adelaide 2008, Aust vs India 200

He is a wonderfully athletic bowler but has never struck me as overly clever bowler particular in good batting conditions. At 32, he really needs to have developed more ways to remove a batsman.

I understand he has been through alot on the field (cricket, illness) and off the field. It may be appropriate to rest him at some stage if the view is that they want at least experienced bowler for the Ashes tour.

I had thoughts similar to those above, but now Lee has hit back well I think. The way he set up Flynn, with outswingers before an inswinger, was well thought out and executed. And he bowled something like 6 overs for 3 runs at one stage in that third spell.

And now he's got McCullum with a slower ball. He's getting variation in his bowling now. NZ 7/269

[titan_uranus 25,042]

We're wrapping up the tail nicely. NZ 9/270. O'Brien caught behind off Lee for 0, Southee caught by Katich off Johnson for 2, McCullum caught behind off Lee for 30. Lee has 3/66 off 25 overs. Not bad.

Edit: All out 270. Lost 4 for 8 in 40 minutes. Vettori left stranded on 18*, Lee gets 4-for. 270's not a good total first up in Adelaide. And they were 3/194 at one stage.

[QueenC 74]

I had thoughts similar to those above, but now Lee has hit back well I think. The way he set up Flynn, with outswingers before an inswinger, was well thought out and executed. And he bowled something like 6 overs for 3 runs at one stage in that third spell.

And now he's got McCullum with a slower ball. He's getting variation in his bowling now. NZ 7/269

So maybe people shouldn't be so quick to write a champion off?

Finished with 4-66 and polished off an admittedly poor tail, nicely.......

Bowled well last nght and did well again this morning, so maybe a little respect would kill <_< .

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

So maybe people shouldn't be so quick to write a champion off?

Finished with 4-66 and polished off an admittedly poor tail, nicely.......

Bowled well last nght and did well again this morning, so maybe a little respect would kill <_< .

No one is writing him off prematurely but recognising what he has been through and where he is at with his cricket.

The lack of quality of the batting is neither he nor there. He bowled with far better rhythm than he has for month and was better shaping the ball. He is great when he can do that. But when he is not pinging he looks pedestrian very quickly.

BTW, for the cricket fashionistas, I always liked the cable stitch jumper of the Australians (minus the sponsorship logos). NZ used to have a similar one. But what has happened? Their white jumpers with the banding on the next and shoulders looks hideous and amateurish (matches their batting). A sporting rival for last years MFC away guernsey??

[H_T 3,049]

So maybe people shouldn't be so quick to write a champion off?

Finished with 4-66 and polished off an admittedly poor tail, nicely.......

Bowled well last nght and did well again this morning, so maybe a little respect would kill <_< .

Brett Lee was never written off. He was however, out of form prior to the Adelaide Test. And had figures to back this up.

Good to see some return to form and good to see him knocking over the Kiwi's in his customary style.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Both Lee and Haddin have made the most of their opportunities today and all strength to them.

And Ponting's catch at 2nd slip off Lee today was a ripper, as good as it gets.

[H_T 3,049]

Bring on the Sth Africans....

Observation: NZ have the longest tail in test history.

[titan_uranus 25,042]

All over. NZ all out for 203, we win by an innings and 62 runs. McCullum not out 84.

Lee bowled brilliantly today, it's a pity he didn't get 6-for to make it 10 for the match. But he ripped their top order apart.

Hauritz was pretty good actually, but he's not anywhere near as dangerous as Krejza was. I guess Krejza and Watson will have to come into consideration for the Perth match. Clark was underwhelming in Adelaide, so maybe Watson will come in for him as the 3rd seamer, and Krejza for Hauritz. Probably just Krejza for Hauritz.

[H_T 3,049]

All over. NZ all out for 203, we win by an innings and 62 runs. McCullum not out 84.

Lee bowled brilliantly today, it's a pity he didn't get 6-for to make it 10 for the match. But he ripped their top order apart.

Hauritz was pretty good actually, but he's not anywhere near as dangerous as Krejza was. I guess Krejza and Watson will have to come into consideration for the Perth match. Clark was underwhelming in Adelaide, so maybe Watson will come in for him as the 3rd seamer, and Krejza for Hauritz. Probably just Krejza for Hauritz.

Agree with Krejza. Let's see what the Perth deck will be like. Lee is safe now.

[QueenC 74]

Observation: NZ have the longest tail in test history.

Yeah, it starts at about number four......

[QueenC 74]

Lee is safe now.

No, you weren't writing him off at all !!!

[45HG 1,559]

Queen, better hope he doesn't have one more bad test, or he'll be in trouble again!

[H_T 3,049]

No, you weren't writing him off at all !!!

You're not bad are you? I really love being taken out of context.... You will find that I had said previously in the thread (prior to the Adelaide Test) that if Lee doesn't turn his form around soon he may make room for another. Which is only natural. As the selectors look to see who is well out of form and who is over a period of time. Lee was out of form throughout India and the Brisbane Test. The alarm bells were certainly ringing. Of which I'm sure you agree QueenC, being an avid fan of Lee. Regardless of the fact he has taken over 300 wickets. He was bowling eratically, inconsistent rubbish until Adelaide. I'm glad for him and for your sake that he turned it around.

He must keep his form for the Sth Africans are coming. They won't be pushed aside as easily as the Kiwi's were. As you stated before the Kiwi's tail starts from four. Which also points to the ease of which Lee took wickets... Sth Africa bats a lot lower than NZ does. It will be interesting to see how Lee does against the Spring Boks.

And no, I'm not writing Lee off.

[45HG 1,559]

Surprised to see McCullum at 7 since we're talking of the NZ tail.

Their problem, in my view, is that they have no distinct strategy, especially when batting.

They seem to go into "test match" mode or "one day/twenty/20" mode and struggle to find a balance in between.

Their batsmen would either get stuck trying to defend, blocking out over after over to survive at the crease, or would go hell for leather attempthing to add quick runs to the total.

The first hour in Adelaide saw half an hour of 7 runs, and then half an hour of 35.

They started their second innings at over four an over, yet after losing their first wicket spend the next 20 overs going at under 2. (28 overs for 45 runs)

Periods of "test match" mode let the Australians dictate terms, to pick a target as the batsmen refused to look for the quick, easy singles (something NZ really should be pretty good at), and whilst in "one day" mode would all too often, as is to be expected, gift their wicket away.

I'm not sure if the Kiwi team had the talent that it once had, but it certainly used to have more brains than it seems to at present.

And I honestly do not believe Brett Lee was ever in any immediate trouble, certainly not before Stuart Clark. His 56 wickets this year, 62 in the past calendar year, at sub career-averages certainly points to his standing in the australian team and relative safety. He's hardly the first fast bowler, or Australian bowler for that matter, to have a tough time in India, especially with such little support, and I doubt he'd have been dropped unless he endured a poor Australian Summer. And I'm talking the full 5 tests plus the one-day series.

[H_T 3,049]

Surprised to see McCullum at 7 since we're talking of the NZ tail.

Their problem, in my view, is that they have no distinct strategy, especially when batting.

They seem to go into "test match" mode or "one day/twenty/20" mode and struggle to find a balance in between.

Their batsmen would either get stuck trying to defend, blocking out over after over to survive at the crease, or would go hell for leather attempthing to add quick runs to the total.

The first hour in Adelaide saw half an hour of 7 runs, and then half an hour of 35.

They started their second innings at over four an over, yet after losing their first wicket spend the next 20 overs going at under 2. (28 overs for 45 runs)

Periods of "test match" mode let the Australians dictate terms, to pick a target as the batsmen refused to look for the quick, easy singles (something NZ really should be pretty good at), and whilst in "one day" mode would all too often, as is to be expected, gift their wicket away.

I'm not sure if the Kiwi team had the talent that it once had, but it certainly used to have more brains than it seems to at present

IMO the NZ team struggle big time at Test level, they sruggle with the concept of occupying the crease. They just can't stay out there long enough. Some of the ways they went out was embarrassing. They cannot defend. When they play shots, their technique and timing of shots is what gets them out.

McCullum, he is the only true international cricketer along with probably Taylor that NZ have. And perhaps Shane Bond, but he wasn't present.

McCullum should probably open.

[45HG 1,559]

Vettori fits the standard, he carries that team, no matter how mediocre they are.

Bond should be allowed back

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Surprised to see McCullum at 7 since we're talking of the NZ tail.

Their problem, in my view, is that they have no distinct strategy, especially when batting.

They seem to go into "test match" mode or "one day/twenty/20" mode and struggle to find a balance in between.

Their batsmen would either get stuck trying to defend, blocking out over after over to survive at the crease, or would go hell for leather attempthing to add quick runs to the total.

The problem with NZ batting is technique and more importantly application. Its got nothing to do with strategy. Their batting was not good enough to implement a simple strategy of building an innings What we have learnt is that there is real question marks about the batting order there. But this is not surprising given the impact of retirements of key players like Fleming, Astle etc which has robbed NZ of leadership, experience and character. There was a good article by Peter Roebuck on the malaise in NZ cricket.

http://content-aus.cricinfo.com/magazine/c...ory/380440.html

The first hour in Adelaide saw half an hour of 7 runs, and then half an hour of 35.

They started their second innings at over four an over, yet after losing their first wicket spend the next 20 overs going at under 2. (28 overs for 45 runs)

I have no problem with the first hour as NZ lost no wickets. 0/42 is a great position to be after the first hour of a Test. New ball, fresh attack, possibly something in the wicket.

2nd innings started on a belter of a pitch and the Australian attack early bowled poorly and the next morning the Australian bowlers in particular Lee found their line and got success where once again technique and application were found wanting.

Periods of "test match" mode let the Australians dictate terms, to pick a target as the batsmen refused to look for the quick, easy singles (something NZ really should be pretty good at), and whilst in "one day" mode would all too often, as is to be expected, gift their wicket away.

NZ were fv%ked once they were all out for a paltry 270 on a 450+ pitch at Adelaide. You cant dictate anything if you dont put runs on the board.

I'm not sure if the Kiwi team had the talent that it once had, but it certainly used to have more brains than it seems to at present.

Its got none of what it needs at the moment.

And I honestly do not believe Brett Lee was ever in any immediate trouble, certainly not before Stuart Clark. His 56 wickets this year, 62 in the past calendar year, at sub career-averages certainly points to his standing in the australian team and relative safety. He's hardly the first fast bowler, or Australian bowler for that matter, to have a tough time in India, especially with such little support, and I doubt he'd have been dropped unless he endured a poor Australian Summer. And I'm talking the full 5 tests plus the one-day series.

Lee is there as a strike bowler. In India he did not strike. He was second fiddle to younger and more inexperienced bowler in Johnson. While many bowlers have struggled there, it did not hide that Lee had a very poor tour. Calendar year records go out the window if you start stringing together bad tests.

His recent return to form has certainly given him breathing space to stamp his ticket for the Ashes tour. However, he needs to carry his revitalised form in against the SAs. If he lapses again the questions will come up about him and at 32 I think he realistically has about 2 years left at the top level.

[45HG 1,559]

Lee may have had a poor tour, but I do not think that would've warranted him being dropped.

Of course there are simple tactics a team can use to try and gain the ascendancy. I think the NZ batsman were able to stay at the crease for periods of time, but while they were doing that they were not putting any pressure on Australia. They saw out overs without purpose, and when they attempted to change the course of the innings, they were found wanting which is understandable.

What frustrated me was when they looked like building a partnership, they didn't seem to try to tick the scoreboard over.

They allowed the Australian bowlers to find their rythym because the Aussies knew the Kiwis would either not score or would throw their wicket away.

I'd call it lazy cricket without application, hopefully they can learn the necessary application...

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Lee may have had a poor tour, but I do not think that would've warranted him being dropped.

Of course there are simple tactics a team can use to try and gain the ascendancy. I think the NZ batsman were able to stay at the crease for periods of time, but while they were doing that they were not putting any pressure on Australia. They saw out overs without purpose, and when they attempted to change the course of the innings, they were found wanting which is understandable.

What frustrated me was when they looked like building a partnership, they didn't seem to try to tick the scoreboard over.

They allowed the Australian bowlers to find their rythym because the Aussies knew the Kiwis would either not score or would throw their wicket away.

I'd call it lazy cricket without application, hopefully they can learn the necessary application...

I was not calling for Lee to be dropped but he was using up his "Get Out of Jail Free cards". And had his poor form extended across the NZ and SA series then there would have been serious question marks about him for England.

The simplest tactic to adopt in batting is occupation of the crease. NZ could not do that. Batsman dont make runs in the pavilion. The stats suggest that NZ could not bat for more than 100 overs even on the best batting wicket in the world, had only three partnerships that exceeded 50 and only 3 batsman that scored more than 50 at any time. Its an appalling peformance.

The very least they could do would be to occupy the crease and when you are there the runs will eventually come. The high number of NZ dismissals to catches forward of the wicket highlights the technique and application issues. I was surprised to see many of the NZ batsman were late 20s in age. I would probably ditch Flynn, Fulton and question what future Ryder has at 3 if at all.

[45HG 1,559]

I see what you mean about Lee, but I also think it's a bit far-fetched.

Of course any player who has a poor overseas tour, and then follows it up with two poor home tours would then be in trouble. No big surprise there.

Yeah, NZ batting was pretty woeful. Though I felt, and perhaps it was misguided, that many of their cheap wickets fell from frustration at not being able to keep the runs flowing easily. It seemed they would stick around for 8-10 overs, unable to rotate the strike, and then play a ridiculous stroke trying to force the play.

(The Brisbane test is a difficult one to get a gauge on, as both teams played incredibly irresponsibly (Save for Katich, Clarke (in one innings) and Taylor.

It's an interesting article you quoted, I love Roebuck, but I think it also underpins the lack of intelligence in the Kiwi squad at present.

Application is their biggest problem IMO

[H_T 3,049]

Vettori fits the standard, he carries that team, no matter how mediocre they are.

Bond should be allowed back

Vettori...of course. How could I forget the skipper.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

McCullum should probably open.

On the back of one innings?

McCullum has a wonderful eye and is a beautiful striker of the ball when required for a cameo but I dont think his application and technique are not suited to opening the batting and he is better at No 7.

FWIW, Haddin is a similar style and I would not open with Haddin.

In fact I dont like the concept of keepers being Test opening batsman. After a hard slog in the field it must be hard to have the necessary application to see off the new ball.

[H_T 3,049]

On the back of one innings?

McCullum has a wonderful eye and is a beautiful striker of the ball when required for a cameo but I dont think his application and technique are not suited to opening the batting and he is better at No 7.

FWIW, Haddin is a similar style and I would not open with Haddin.

In fact I dont like the concept of keepers being Test opening batsman. After a hard slog in the field it must be hard to have the necessary application to see off the new ball.

Had a feeling I might have a reaction with this statement of mine.

Excuse the Kiwi accent I am about to put on RR. Its based on an opinion I have - that NZ is a different kettle of "fish". McCullum ran out of batting partners and he was well aware of this, which is one reason why he went into 20/20 mode.

No, my thoughts of this is not based on one innings. I've seen what he has done in the past. He has a good batting average for a "non-australian" in a struggling side.

He shouldn't be batting at No.7. N.Z. openers make Glenn McGrath look like a very good batsman. They're technique leaves a little to be desired too. Maybe I'm being a "little harsh" on NZ. But their cricket side is so far off the Sir Richard Hadlee and Martin Crowe days, its not funny.

1/ McCullum opens in the one day format.

2/ He is one of the most exciting batsmen in the world when in full flight

3/ He and apart from Vettori would be the only players eligible for qualification of being "world class"

4/ If I can't convince you for McCullum to open, I can negotiate for him to come in at 3 or 4. But no way No.7. Or dare I say it "6" (sux).