Australia v NZ - CH Series I
-
When I saw Neesham listed at four I assumed it was a mistake and that Munro would be there
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11760500
-
It's easy to see what they were thinking though. Munro and de Grandhomme are big hitters. Munro has a strike rate of 108 in List A cricket - that isn't very suited to batting 4. Then they wanted Watling at 5 because he needs a bit of time to get in and probably just tick the strike over.
-
I don't agree with anything Adams says in that article. Neesh isn't an international 4 but Munro is? Give me a break. Without Rosco we were always going to struggle to find a suitable replacement. Neesh at 4 worked really well, and his partnership with Guppy had Aussie under some pressure for a while there. I wouldn't change the order for the 2nd ODI.
-
@hydro11 @No-Quarter Completely agree.
Neesham looked good at 4 - he might not be a proper 4 but he looked better suited to 4 than Munro. I agree that Watling being elevated was a game-situation decision - they wanted to save the big hitters for the end and have Watling turn the strike over. It didn't work but could see the logic.
-
@No-Quarter said in Australia v NZ - CH Series I:
I don't agree with anything Adams says in that article. Neesh isn't an international 4 but Munro is? Give me a break. Without Rosco we were always going to struggle to find a suitable replacement. Neesh at 4 worked really well, and his partnership with Guppy had Aussie under some pressure for a while there. I wouldn't change the order for the 2nd ODI.
Last time I checked Neesham had a test match 100 to his name, the guy can bat up the order just fine and was doing so until he left that shot down the ground 2m short
-
I thought the batting lineup calls on the night were spot on. Neesham at 4 was playing well (despite a shit shot to get out on) and he is probably the best bet of all of them to succeed. Bringing BJ up at that point was also the right call, give him time, act as the foil for Guppy. He struggled, and then got out to a screamer of a catch, but that's hindsight.
Munro was pretty ordinary i thought. The board shows a good score at a decent clip. But he batted us in to a hole by not being able to get off strike. The overs leading up to Guptill getting out were very lean for us, and a lot of them were big swings for naught by Munro. He then got runs when the game was done, and the result made to look less bad by some agricultural stuff by Henry.
For all that, to get that score when 2 of our 3 best players got fuck all, given our lineup, was not a bad result. What killed us was catching, and the inexperience of our attack. When we lost our way through the middle overs, Williamson didn't have a senior guy to throw the ball to, except his premier bowler. That's not an ideal position for a captain to be in. 255 should have been nearly enough, because 4-100 should not have turned in to 325.
-
Yep. Poor bowling at the end, and poor batting at the end, too. When I flagged, they were 250/7 with plenty of overs, and I thought hmmm. Unlikely, but a chance. Was disgusted to read the next morning they were all out for 256.
Quite a shock to the system for our lower order to be so spineless. I miss the days of Vettori et al, where no matter what fuckups the top and middle performed, the bowlers could be relied upon to come out and irritate the fuck out of the opposition with a dogged 10-20 each, starring those butt ugly but highly effective jerk slog fours. I'm especially disappointed in Santner. For a long time, it seemed he could be relied upon for a good 30 runs each innings. Lately he's been adding jack shit. Which sucks. Because you know, like Southee, he is capable.
-
@Donsteppa said in Australia v NZ - CH Series I:
When I saw Neesham listed at four I assumed it was a mistake and that Munro would be there
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11760500
Yes. Munro should be given the higher position, and the responsibility, and the chance. Post baz and rosco.
Other than that article is just Auckland coach (and ex-team mate) reckons his mates should bat higher than some of the others.
Not much basis for the rest if it. CDG's domestic List A record is shit. Don't think he's a good late order hitter either though, as he doesn't really improvise unless improvising means trying to clear mid wicket boundary. Not a good option up the order as he doesn't rotate.
Suspect he's too orthodox for ODIs. But hoping for the best. Don't think he's better than Neesham or Watling.