NZ squads for England

[Timbo]

I think his point - which I agree with - is that those two exemplify the old 'shit gets wickets' trope.

I have seen Wagner bowl some excellent spells that have earned him nothing, and I've seen those two dish up absolute custard and pick up poles.

The value of someone bowling well without wickets is often overlooked. And to think of replacing him with the Jesse Ryder of bowling in Bracewell is very risky indeed.

 

[JJ]

Yeah, I get it, and I admit I am biased.

Wagner was talked up as some pacey world beating Seth Effrikan, at one stage it sounded as if being a left-armer he'd be rushed in ahead of Boult (who for a long time was doing exactly what you're saying, bowling great spells with no reward).

The difference for me is that Boult was consistently beating the bat, or finding the outer half of the bat - Wagner finds the middle of the bat - yes he bowls consistent spells, but he is wholly unthreatening, notably with the new ball - he's decent with the old ball, but that's defensive thinking imo - the others simply need to become better at that. I fail to see how he can threaten good players, except via boredom...

We've had a lot of rhetoric here about getting decks that push bowlers to bowl quick, and Bond increasing the pace of the quicks - I just see Wagner as a modern day Chatfield, which is useful enough - but with Bracewell, Henry and Milne we have what we've been wanting, and the current regime wants to be aggressive, so I figure we should roll the dice with that

 

[vvvrulz]

I think his point - which I agree with - is that those two exemplify the old 'shit gets wickets' trope.

I have seen Wagner bowl some excellent spells that have earned him nothing, and I've seen those two dish up absolute custard and pick up poles..

Yep that's exactly it.

Wagner was talked up as some pacey world beating Seth Effrikan, at one stage it sounded as if being a left-armer he'd be rushed in ahead of Boult (who for a long time was doing exactly what you're saying, bowling great spells with no reward).
that

I gotta admit Wagner's lack of pace was disappointing, I expected him to at least touch the high 130s. But like I said earlier he makes up for it with intent, enough to become a very decent third seamer. He's not the world's greatest bowler but he's still (imo) done enough to nudge out Bracewell for the time being. I have a soft spot for him because he bowls his backside off for us, and I do believe we haven't seen the best of him yet.

I like the look of Henry but I get the feeling Milne at the moment doesn't have the control and will turn into a Mohammad Sami, where he'll belt deliveries down at top speed and get hammered everywhere.

 

[Timbo]

vvv, that's why I'm with you by the way. Wagner bowls himself into the ground. Bracewell is so lazy it isn't funny.

 

[JJ]

We've always had bowlers that do a job, the problem remains with the top 6 - I don't see anything about Wagner that we haven't seen before, and I am not sure his load has been that much bigger than Boult and Southee

 

[vvvrulz]

We've always had bowlers that do a job, the problem remains with the top 6 - I don't see anything about Wagner that we haven't seen before, and I am not sure his load has been that much bigger than Boult and Southee

What really!?

In the last couple of decades you can count our genuine quality bowlers on your left hand.

Hadlee, Bond and Vettori were world class and they never (or rarely) played alongside each other.
The former two would carry the team and Vettori badly needed a spearhead alongside him.

Cairns was great at one point but his injuries finished him off too soon.
Nash was also savaged by injury.
Morrison had his moments but was again the lone ranger too often.

(--- In my opinion Wagner fits about here on the scale ---)

Doull, Oram and Tuffey had a good spell in them sometimes but were hardly reliable strike bowlers.

Chris Martin, Chatfield and Ian O'Brien were good honest toilers who'd give you a hard days work but couldn't do much else most of the time.

... but then what?

We're talking a huge assortment of mediocrity: Franklin, Su'a, Heath Davis, Shayne O'Conner, Wiseman, de Groen, Patel...

I believe the recent Boult/Southee/Wagner/Craig combination is the first time in my lifetime we have fielded a complete, fit and able bowling attack capable of taking 20 wickets.

 

[JJ]

I was referring to Wagner specifically - ignoring injuries there is nothing that makes him better than Chatfield, Martin or O'Brien - in fact for my money he's not as good as any of them.

The Hadlee, Collinge, Chatfield, Cairns, Bracewell et al eras wer obviously good - we were behind only the Windies then and equal or better than anyone else - because the bowlers were good (Hadlee great) and the batsmen showed the application you're lauding Wagner for (only Crowe and Turner were great - Turner is ridiculously underrated imo) Wright was world class towards the end as were Howarth and Reid for brief periods - but the rest batted time and sold their wickets dearly

I was generally making the comment that our bowlers have been serviceable, and I think the fact that our batsmen have shown an inability to bat multiple days contributed to some of the injury issues

 

[WaznTheGreat]

What about the great Andre Adams

 

[Meth]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4CvA4cy6Yc#t=139

wow

Jeetan Patel a Wisden cricketer of the year

 

[African Monkey]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4CvA4cy6Yc#t=139

wow

Jeetan Patel a Wisden cricketer of the year

Yes he's a match-winner at Warwickshire.

 

[vvvrulz]

What about the great Andre Adams

Actually his test match bowling stats are pretty damn good.... but that says more about our green tops in those days where even he became unplayable.

 

[Manu Vatuvei]

What really!?

Umm, yes. Fast-medium bowling has always been our strength. Our conditions have also tended to favour it and there's nothing wrong with playing to your strengths.

You claim Vettori as one of our few world-class bowlers, yet compare his test numbers to ANY regular quick bowler we've had during Vettori's career- Vettori's figures will be worse.

That's not really a slight on Vettori, more a recognition that (a) his style of bowling simply isn't likely to take bags of wickets regularly, and (b) our conditions are often more favourable to seam bowling.

However, none of the above detracts from the reality that in NZ test matches, on average, Vettori would be less effective with the ball than whoever our top 2-3 seamers of the time were. Whether that happened to be Nash, Cairns, Doull, Tuffey, Franklin etc.

Big difference with Vettori was his longevity and consistency over that long period, not that at any given time he was our most effective bowler, because he almost never was.

 

[Red Bear]

Umm, yes. Fast-medium bowling has always been our strength. Our conditions have also tended to favour it and there's nothing wrong with playing to your strengths.

You claim Vettori as one of our few world-class bowlers, yet compare his test numbers to ANY regular quick bowler we've had during Vettori's career- Vettori's figures will be worse.

That's not really a slight on Vettori, more a recognition that (a) his style of bowling simply isn't likely to take bags of wickets regularly, and (b) our conditions are often more favourable to seam bowling.

However, none of the above detracts from the reality that in NZ test matches, on average, Vettori would be less effective with the ball than whoever our top 2-3 seamers of the time were. Whether that happened to be Nash, Cairns, Doull, Tuffey, Franklin etc.

Big difference with Vettori was his longevity and consistency over that long period, not that at any given time he was our most effective bowler, because he almost never was.

Vettori's bowling helped those around him by keeping pressure on the batsmen. Much like his role in the world cup side. Greentops and mediocre fast mediums are more effective when the batsmen can't get the guy plundering through overs up the other end away.