Blackcaps In Australia: The Curious Mess
Having followed a rather settled Blackcaps team that enjoyed great success in Aotearoa and simmering success overseas, one loss has many folks stressing about all sorts of selection changes. Aotearoa were generally out-played in every aspect of the first Test vs Australia, although the loss came in rather difficult circumstances against an group of Aussies eager to stamp their authority - on this series and throughout the summer.
A few days removed from the first Test, the leading thought going through my noggin is that the Blackcaps did pretty damn well. Prior to this series I wrote about how very few changes have been forced in recent years with the Test team and thus, if one or two blokes from the 1st 11 were forced to miss a Test in Australia, the challenge changes dramatically for the Blackcaps.
The Blackcaps need their 1st 11 playing to win in Australia at the moment and if you take out Trent Boult, for a day/night Test where the ball's nipping around under lights, the expectations have to change slightly. The Blackcaps still managed to take wickets and stay somewhat competitive in a niggly situation. It wasn't a lack of skill or Test match class that I noted from the first Test, it was all about the vibe from the two teams as Australia lived up to every Australian cricket stereotype and the kiwis couldn't quite kick it with the big donnies of the South Pacific. Considering that there was no Boult, then Lockie Ferguson's out of action after 11 overs and this whole situation isn't overly surprising.
Right now though, you would think that the Blackcaps lost to Sri Lanka in Aotearoa as all sorts of selection changes are being mentioned. Considering my belief that the Blackcaps need their 1st 11 playing to beat Australia in Australia and any deviation from that 1st 11 impacts the chances of success, I'm leaning towards these lads being given an opportunity to chase a positive result. If there's anything I know rather well about the Blackcaps; they learn and adapt swiftly.
Unfortunately for the Blackcaps, they have created a messy situation that didn't really need to be created. On October 1st, 2018, I wrote this about Jeet Raval's run-scoring slump…
Last summer then saw Raval dabble in runs vs Bangladesh and Sri Lanka in Aotearoa, before Raval scored 24 runs in two Plunket Shield games to start this summer. Raval didn't even feature in the top-50 for Plunket Shield runs this summer and all of this was laid out prior to the series vs England, prior to the strange idea of naming one squad for two series in two different countries.
Despite Raval's form slump being blatant and across international and domestic cricket, no batsman was selected in that squad for both series. This is the most 'out of form' Blackcaps Test cricketer I've seen in a number of years, remember this isn't just Raval's lack of runs in Test cricket as he's dipped into a Plunket Shield slump as well and as I explored in last year's 'underground slump' thingy; Raval struggled for Yorkshire in County cricket last year.
And yet there was no batsman selected as cover.
The Blackcaps decision-makers may have done that because they have immense faith in Raval and knew that they would give him both series to suss out his Test future. Lovely and I have no issue with that, the alternative though is that very smart cricket folks believe Tom Blundell is the answer to cover any position in the batting line up. That's a bit weird, to limit yourself to one option in the likely event that Raval's form slump continues ... in a rather difficult environment to get out of a slump.
All that had to be done, was selected one bloke in the squad as batting cover. Then you have could have a top-order batsman, Blundell as back up wicket-keeper/batsman and bowlers as cover in the squad. For whatever reason, the skeleton squad was selected and this tells us that Blundell is the next-best batsman.
Blundell scored a century on Test debut, as the Blackcaps jacked up 520/9 against a touring West Indies team. Perhaps one of the more cozy scenarios to make your Test debut in and Blundell then had scores of 28 and 1 in the next Test. Don't get me wrong, I definitely have Blundell as the bloke who would replace BJ Watling right now, however the message we are receiving is that Blundell's the best option as a Test batsman. Even the idea of Watling or anyone else moving up the order and Blundell sitting in the middle order, is weird considering the tinkering required. Just have another batsman in the squad, simple.
Tom Bruce (CD), Tim Seifert (ND), Glenn Phillips (Auckland) and Henry Cooper (ND) all have higher First-Class averages than Blundell. Daryl Mitchell (ND) and Rachin Ravindra (Wellington) have similar numbers, while folks like Martin Guptill (Auckland) or Hamish Rutherford (Otago) at the very least have international experience. Any of these lads, in any context would be fine selections in a Blackcaps squad as batting cover.
Just batting cover, that's all and as we're seeing with Kyle Jamieson, the idea of bringing younger players into the squad to ease the transition is fabulous. No specific batsman cover was offered and now it's a case of ride with Raval or bring in Blundell. I found this weird because the Blackcaps forced themselves into an unfavourable situation, when many exit routes were available throughout the past few weeks.
Again, I like Blundell and he should be in every Blackcaps Test squad if he's viewed as the next wicket-keeper/batsman in line. I don't quite align with what we are being fed, that Blundell is the next best Test batsman in Aotearoa though.
In defence of Raval, let's not pretend like batting was easy in Perth for the Blackcaps. The Blackcaps team was dismissed for less than 200 twice, meaning that Raval was not the reason the Blackcaps lost that Test and while Raval played his role in the loss, making him the scapegoat is a lazy solution. The whole Blackcaps batting unit needs to be better and should get a slightly easier package of conditions to be better in Melbourne, where the MCG pitch is likely to be rather favourable for batsmen.
Remember that I have twice given detailed accounts of Raval's run-scoring slump, twice in consecutive years. I have outlined that Raval's woes are deep and while everyone else was loving themselves some Blackcaps, I discussed Raval's lack of runs in international and First-Class cricket. Considering that the Blackcaps didn't selected a back up batsman and that batting at the MCG should be easier, I believe the best move to make right now is to leave Raval in for this Test.
Which is ultimately a last chance for Raval.
Part of this is Raval's issue because he's not scoring many runs. Dig deeper though and the Blackcaps put themselves in this tricky position with their own decisions.
As for Jamieson's selection, this is a nice move as squad cover. I bet all you have heard about Jamieson is how tall he is and that's a fact, but no bowler is going to be selected because they are tall or short are they? Bowlers who move through the levels towards Test cricket do so because of what they do with the ball and like any other bowler in this Blackcaps Test group, Jamieson is capable of swinging the ball, nipping it both ways.
Take Lockie Ferguson for example, as there are some similarities here. All people could talk about with Ferguson was how fast he bowls, which doesn't do Ferguson justice considering his unique package of moving the ball into right-handers/away from lefties. Ferguson has a First-Class average of 24.60 and anyone who has watched Ferguson's Plunket Shield wickets, knows that this comes via Ferguson's hooping the ball into batsmen, with pace.
Jamieson has a FC average of 27.93 because he can swing away from righties, while also angling into righties, with his frame offering awkward bounce. Discussion around these type of bowlers has been far too simple (Ferguson bowls fast, Jamieson's tall) and these blokes have earned their selection via their craft and skill, mixed in with those more simple elements.
Imagine selecting bowlers to tour Australia because they bowl fast and/or are very tall.
I'd suggest that most Australian batsmen would happily face fast or tall bowlers in Australia, considering that's their diet of bowling. Such simple analysis doesn't do these kiwi bowlers justice and anyone selected to bowl in Test cricket is done so because of their skill with the ball.
I'd also suggest a slow-cooking approach with Jamieson. Tom Bruce made his FC debut in February 2015 and has played 42 FC games, while Jamieson made his debut (for Canterbury) in October 2014 and has played 25 FC games. Injuries have hampered Jamieson's game time a fair bit and I' thoroughly of the belief that Jamieson needs to be eased into the Test squad, then managed through the early phase of his Test career.
This also takes me back around to ideas about Matt Henry, who apparently didn't exist when Ferguson came into the Blackcaps squad for the series vs England and apparently doesn't exist now that Jamieson has been called up. The Blackcaps definitely know Henry exists, however the narrative laid out from the expert media folks is that Henry's vanished once again.
Henry and Jamieson shouldn't play at the MCG. The Blackcaps need the Boult, Tim Southee, Neil Wagner and Colin de Grandhomme crew to beat Australia. Henry's next in line with Ferguson out and Jamieson's there as proper cover, absorbing information and catching the Blackcaps vibe.
Australia have also called up a seamer, with Peter Siddle coming into the squad to cover Josh Hazlewood. Same situation as the kiwis and yet there has been no mention of Henry in discussion around Blackcaps selection and folks are also talking as if Jamieson will play in Australia. Meanwhile...
Any time someone mentions Jamieson's height, ponder to yourself who the best short-ball bowler in the world is.
Mr Wagner's not very tall is he?
Hit an ad to support the Niche Cache, or jump on Patreon and join the whanau. Chur.
Peace and love 27.