Australia v New Zealand 2nd Test at the MCG December 26-30

[Ohitsthatguy]

Henry will be better than Boult anyway, never much swing over here and Boult without swing is kinda pointless.

 

[Dez!]

I repeat, this is about how bad Harris has performed not how good Burns has performed.

Actually it's not.

Harris had 6 Tests to establish himself in Australia and did a solid job, he struggled in England like everyone outside of Smith.

Joe Burns
34 innings.

0 = 5 times

1-10 = 9 times

11-20 = 5 times

More than half the innings he's played he's been out for under 20, he's like a bargain bin flat track bully.

 

[Pykie]

You come across as critical of them? I'm not sure the scheduling is all down to their choosing imo.

It is.

The NZCB have prioritized short format cricket over long format cricket over the last decade.

 

[Gethelred]

Which needs to be tempered somewhat by the fact that strike rates are also effected by the relative increase in scoring rates. Attack goes up = frequency of wickets probably does too

Also worth noting that at one stage I’m fairly sure SA fielded Steyn, Rabada, Morkel and Philander - 41, 40, 51 and 47

Mmmm, I'd rather think you'd need to prove that before arguing it. Not necessarily saying it's not a factor or a possibility, but that's a fairly extensive claim to make.

 

[imadodgyumpire]

It is.

The NZCB have prioritized short format cricket over long format cricket over the last decade.

Oh right. Your criticism is understandable, and I recognise their pov.

 

[PhatBoy]

Mmmm, I'd rather think you'd need to prove that before arguing it. Not necessarily saying it's not a factor or a possibility, but that's a fairly extensive claim to make.

If I could be bothered I would actually like to research it but I do know I’ve read numerous articles about the evolution of scoring rates and they are definitely higher in recent times

 

[Gethelred]

If I could be bothered I would actually like to research it but I do know I’ve read numerous articles about the evolution of scoring rates and they are definitely higher in recent times

That is undoubted, more the connection you're making between scoring rate and bowler's strike rates. Correlation does not equal causation, ergo I'd like to see it proven before one discounts bowling performance on that basis.

 

[PhatBoy]

Replace New Zealand with your Football team in the GF (or mine) getting spanked...

Tell me how you feel then?

This isn't Saturday morning school sports... this is professionals and their livelihood. Even more so than an AFL team, it's for a country.

I don't want any team I follow giggling and smiling while they are getting smashed.

Scowling doesn’t hit boundaries or take wickets.

 

[PhatBoy]

That is undoubted, more the connection you're making between scoring rate and bowler's strike rates. Correlation does not equal causation, ergo I'd like to see it proven before one discounts bowling performance on that basis.

That’s fair enough. I think it would be a big oversight to dismiss it as a potential factor though.

Clearly the current Australian pace attack are absolutely elite. Not arguing that they aren’t by any means. But I think strike rates when sides are routinely in the habit of playing a relatively defensive brand of cricket, which most sides apart from the WI were in that period, will naturally be a bit higher. Just a theory anyway.

 

[Gethelred]

That’s fair enough. I think it would be a big oversight to dismiss it as a potential factor though.

Clearly the current Australian pace attack are absolutely elite. Not arguing that they aren’t by any means. But I think strike rates when sides are routinely in the habit of playing a relatively defensive brand of cricket, which most sides apart from the WI were in that period, will naturally be a bit higher. Just a theory anyway.

It also doesn't help discussing it when using Australian strike rates; Australian bowling (it could be argued) has been better than world average as far as wicket taking is concerned for the better part of the last 30 odd years. If you look at that all time list posted a few pages back, there's a lot of recent bowlers in there, so that would seem to support your theory (almost).

 

[Marklar_33]

You come across as critical of them? I'm not sure the scheduling is all down to their choosing imo.

Especially since 5 away series in 3 years is identical to Australia...

 

[Gethelred]

Rory Burns 6th most runs this calendar year? Never would've picked that.

TBH, Smith was leading the ICC for test runs scored this year halfway through the Ashes. It hasn't been a strong year for batting.

 

[PhatBoy]

Rory Burns 6th most runs this calendar year? Never would've picked that.

As much a symptom of how much more cricket England play than anything else

 

[ams4crows]

When was the last time Australia traveled to NZ? Would have been during the 2015 World Cup where we beat you at Eden Park.

About time Australia played a test series in NZ, you won't be looking so good over there.

Totally agree we need a series over there, I much prefer Away series purely because its more of a game, These Australian cricket summers where we just beat the s**t out of visiting teams are getting boring.

At least last Summer India came to play and becuase we were missing Warner and Smith it was much better viewing even though we lost the series.

 

[Linda Lovelace]

Burns record stems from playing in that same period as Voges where we played weak teams for the most part on very flat wickets. As soon as things got tricky it became very clear he has a technical problem and wouldn't be up to it. It's the whole reason he was dropped and why he was ignored despite what would normally look like a solid Test record until we had nowhere else to turn.

A lot of people pointed to his record against New Zealand as proving he could handle good bowling but as we've seen they're pretty much toothless in conditions that don't suit and when he had success they weren't even using Wagner (aside from one Test).

I can't stand Harris but the whole reason he was persisted with was because he scored some tough runs against a world class India attack. Burns has never done anything of actual note, even Voges had that one knock against the Windies when we were in trouble to his name.

You are arguing about Joe Burns' mediocre record to someone who already thinks he is sh*t, and in doing so have wound up in the position of defending the record of a guy who averages 24. People will try to take a contrarian position no matter how ridiculous.

Yes, let's keep picking Harris because he made two half-centuries against India in a series we lost over there. Maybe he can open the batting with Peter Siddle, who did the same thing in one test the time before that when we lost 4-0. Genuinely, Sids' recent efforts with the bat have been better than Harris' overall record. Sids averaged 28 vs England in 3 tests.

Let's be serious. Remember, I'm not even defending Burns. I think he should be dropped for Khawaja who, again, I think also currently sucks. But Khawaja is probably the least worst choice.

 

[Linda Lovelace]

Actually it's not.

Harris had 6 Tests to establish himself in Australia and did a solid job, he struggled in England like everyone outside of Smith.

Joe Burns
34 innings.

0 = 5 times

1-10 = 9 times

11-20 = 5 times

More than half the innings he's played he's been out for under 20, he's like a bargain bin flat track bully.

Ok mete. You win, Harris should be immediately reinstated as Australia's opener because Burns is almost as sh*t as Harris.

 

[Ohitsthatguy]

But I think strike rates when sides are routinely in the habit of playing a relatively defensive brand of cricket, which most sides apart from the WI were in that period, will naturally be a bit higher. Just a theory anyway.

I've got a theory for you Phatboy.

We have a battery of brilliant fast bowlers.

How much do you hate that?

 

[Ron The Bear]

Boult out for the series

Chalk it up as a one-percenter to Starc.

 

[PhatBoy]

I've got a theory for you Phatboy.

We have a battery of brilliant fast bowlers.

How much do you hate that?

Not much because aside from Starc I actually really like them.

Nice try though.

 

[Ohitsthatguy]

I sense your rage

 

[PhatBoy]

I sense your rage

At the lack of competition perhaps

 

[to1994]

Yes, let's keep picking Harris because he made two half-centuries against India in a series we lost over there. Maybe he can open the batting with Peter Siddle, who did the same thing in one test the time before that when we lost 4-0. Genuinely, Sids' recent efforts with the bat have been better than Harris' overall record. Sids averaged 28 vs England in 3 tests.

Yes, let's ignore where I specifically said I can't stand Harris. I don't think Harris should return but there is an argument that he's a better prospect then Burns despite both being bottom of the barrel.

I'm on the Khawaja to open boat as well but I also get the feeling he's had his cards marked by Langer now.

 

[TubbsFarquhar]

Makes me laugh when everyone shits on New Zealand being poor when they’ve ended up with the same result as every touring team that’s toured here since I can remember, with the exception of Bumrah

It's not that you're losing, it's the manner in which you're doing so. With the most strongest NZ side in years and being ranked #2, it was expected that NZ would at least put up a fight but, instead, they've rolled over and have displayed no spirit. Even though India didn't win a series here until last year, they would at least put up a fight, and occasionally, win a test. Heck, NZ even won a test here this decade and were close in the first D/N in 2015.

 

[Marklar_33]

It's not that you're losing, it's the manner in which you're doing so. With the most strongest NZ side in years and being ranked #2, it was expected that NZ would at least put up a fight but, instead, they've rolled over and have displayed no spirit. Even though India didn't win a series here until last year, they would at least put up a fight, and occasionally, win a test. Heck, NZ even won a test here this decade and were close in the first D/N in 2015.

Sure, but every strong side comes here and gets rolled. It’s rinse and repeat. Like strong Australian sides going to the subcontinent

 

[PhatBoy]

Sure, but every strong side comes here and gets rolled. It’s rinse and repeat. Like strong Australian sides going to the subcontinent

They don’t though. It’s not true.

Yes, more often than not, that happens.

But in 18 series at home since 2008-09 they’ve lost 5 and drawn 1. Now all 5 of the teams to win here were good, but only the first two SA sides that won were very good/great.

In the same period India has played 21, lost 1 and drawn 1.
In fact in that period India has only lost 4 tests in total.


In theory it should have been more likely for NZ to compete in this series than for anyone to compete in India.