Any surprises for the tour of New Zealand?
By Brett McKay, 16 Feb 2010 Brett McKay is a Roar Expert
- Tagged:
- Australian Cricket, Cricket, New Zealand cricket

New Zealand bowler Chris Martin (2nd left) reacts after dismissing Australian batsman Andrew Symonds. AP Image/Dave Hunt
Despite the rugby season kicking off on Friday night, and even though all this debate (and I use the word loosely) about the supposed death of the 50 over game is, frankly, boring me to tears, I am determined to press on writing about cricket for the time being.
But given I’m not likely to win any fans while trying to find positives in the current one-day series against the West Indies, I’m turning my attention to Australia’s tour of New Zealand in March.
It’s the epitome of the modern cricket tour, this month-long excursion across the Ditch: two Twenty20 and five One-Day Internationals out of the way early, and then two back-to-back Tests. In football season.
It’ll bring back the crowds, for sure.
So then, can we expect any selection surprises? Well, no, probably not.
Such is the lottery of the T20 game sometimes, the touring squad might as well be the first eleven Australian cricketers to pass Customs at Wellington airport. In reality, it’ll be the same side that played Pakistan the other week, and who have two more games against the Windies next week.
Even the team for the one-dayers will be largely the same as what’s currently on show. I would give serious thought to Brad Haddin delaying his departure by a week or so, and playing Tim Paine in the first few outings, but Haddin will probably come straight back in.
One guy I do think would be worthy of inclusion in a probable 13- or 14-man squad is young New South Wales all-rounder Steven Smith. We’ve already seen a little of him in national colours this summer, and truth be told, I thought we would have seen in the one-dayers already.
On the low, slow decks in New Zealand though, Smith is surely worth a punt. His leg-spin is certainly on the improve, and wouldn’t look out of place in tandem with Nathan Hauritz. Smith more than holds his own as a lower-order plunderer of runs, and his sharp fielding is fuelled by the enthusiasm and speed of youth.
Of course, should this come through and Smith does remain for the ODIs, it means he’ll have to forego all or part of his freshly-signed IPL contract with Bangalore. That obviously wouldn’t be a concern of the national selectors – you’d hope – and indeed, the reasons for them picking Smith would be the same as what made Smith an IPL target.
Plus, New Zealand themselves have built their one-day side around three and four pretty handy all-rounders over the years, so I guess there’s also an element of fighting fire with fire behind including Smith. Furthermore, he’d be a better long-term prospect than what Adam Voges is currently offering.
For the two Tests, I’m again not expecting any real surprises. But there will be at least one forced change from the Hobart Test, with Peter Siddle ruled out of cricket for upwards of five months due to stress fractures in his back. And this could be where it gets interesting.
I would expect a Test squad of no more than 13 players. For only two Tests, there’s no real need to take a squad bigger than that, and even in the worst-case scenario, a replacement can always been flown in from home should injury strike.
The current Test team, minus Siddle, will be there. Despite what we may think of the form of certain players, they’re coming off a 5-0 summer. That’s ten of the thirteen then.
Clint McKay was twelfth man for the Pakistan series, and plenty of experts – of both the actual and armchair varieties – are suggesting he should be the man to take Siddle’s place. But I’m not so sure.
McKay has bowled reasonably well in the one-dayers, but in reality, he’s not that much different a bowler to Siddle, and Siddle himself proved over the summer that running in and hitting the deck hard doesn’t always bring the rewards.
On the other hand, Ryan Harris is having the month of his cricketing life, and to disregard such irresistible form with the ball would lack any selection logic. Ignore the colour of his current attire, and that of the ball too, and you’re left with a guy bowling 140km/h-plus outswingers. And if that’s not impressive enough, he’ll pitch them on your front toe for fun. Regularly.
My smokey for the tour has been the subject of an email discussion over the last week with Roar regular and general voice of reason, Greg Russell. Both of us are claiming dibs on the first call for Queensland quick Ben Cutting’s inclusion, resolution of which will have to be for another day (it was me, Greg).
The short of it is that Cutting is the best-performed bowler in the Sheffield Shield by daylight. 33 wickets from 7 matches, and at an average of just over 20, puts him a long way in front of the next-best state seamer, and at 22, he’d be the first of “the next wave” of young quicks putting their hand up. Never mind the future, Cutting is ready to go now.
This leaves me with one spot. Greg had concerns about possible reserve batsmen options, and offered up Michael Klinger, but I’m going to solve that by not taking one. In my mind, Australia will probably need a proper second spinner in New Zealand, rather than a part-timer.
But Marcus North, the guy we’re told is the second spin option, hasn’t bowled in the last three Tests, with Simon Katich being preferred in Melbourne and Hobart.
And so despite still not believing he’s ready for this, Steven Smith has to be the one. Jason Krezja has dropped so far off the radar he’s lost his Tasmanian spot, and there really is no-one else. I honestly think Smith is a good 18 months off being ready for Test cricket, but Cricket Australia have declared him the heir apparent, and unfortunately, the spin cupboard is getting a little bare again.
Of course that means I’ve just killed off Smith’s Indian summer completely. So perhaps that would be the surprise of the New Zealand tour after all.
Recommend this story.
Follow Brett McKay on Twitter: @BMcSport
The Turkey 10
The Turkey 10 teams have now been selected, as Wild Turkey Bourbon's sport sponsorship kicks into the next exciting phase.
Choose which side you're going to support and get in the running to win $2,500!
Simply visit Wild Turkey Australia on Facebook for your chance to win.
Find out more.
- Explore:
- Australian Cricket, Cricket, New Zealand cricket


February 16th 2010 @ 12:05pm
Brett McKay said | February 16th 2010 @ 12:05pm | Report comment
G’day everyone, it’s nice to see some agreement with my selections for a change; a nice contrast to the feedback to the Test team of the Decade!
Scanning through the comments above, it seems the concensus is that I’m giving Marcus North more love than the rest of you, and that almost no-one considers the selection of Steven Smith in all three squads to be that big of a suprise. Most of you have McKay in the 13 in front of Ben Cutting, but that isn’t altogether shocking.
Interesting and timely hundreds in this latest Shield round from Phillip Hughes and Smith too…
I haven’t considered Ben Hilfenhaus for NZ, and my understanding is that he hasn’t played that much since his attempted comeback about three weeks ago. I don’t believe he’s keeping Siddle company on the long-term injury list, but that they’re trying to get him right again for the Pakistan series in England.
Eric, “hitting the deck hard” is one of those funny cricket terminologies that seems to defy logic, and maybe physics. Siddle is no quicker than Johnson or Bollinger, for eg, but regularly seems to get big bounce and carry through to the ‘keeper from his action. Brad Haddin was quoted as saying Siddle is the most difficult to ‘keep to for this very reason of uncharacteristic explosive bounce, even saying Siddle “bowls a big ball”, which is not a literal thing, but says that Siddle hits the gloves harder than you’d expect for his pace. Not sure if that clarifies much actually, just reading it back.
“Clean hitting” is pretty self-explanatory I think. Think anyone clearing “Cameron White corner” as we heard the other night. Chris Gayle on his day, Kieron Pollard most of the time. Think Tim Paine during the Big Bash, Ponting the other night, and White earlier these ODIs. Brad Haddin can be a clean hitter when he wants to be. Hell, I can be a clean hitter when I want to be, just doesn’t always work out that way…
February 16th 2010 @ 12:16pm
Jameswm said | February 16th 2010 @ 12:16pm | Report comment
Fair enough on Hilfy Brett – I wasn’t sure how fit he is.
A clean hitter is someone who times it well really. Seems to hit it in the middle often with a minimum of effort.
Hitting the deck hard – some bowlers (like Lee, Tait and Johnson) are more skidding, slinger types. They don’t get as much bounce, tend to bowl fuller and swing it more. Hit the deck hard bowlers tend to come from higher, bowl shorter, and do less in the air or bring it back in (I’m talking right hander to right hander).
Does that make sense or was the question a stir?
February 16th 2010 @ 12:25pm
formeropenside said | February 16th 2010 @ 12:25pm | Report comment
Smith? Seriously? I know he played in the T20 (and made a duck, or was it 1?), but thats one of the craziest selections ever made.
February 16th 2010 @ 1:16pm
Brett McKay said | February 16th 2010 @ 1:16pm | Report comment
FOS, I said in the column that I still don’t believe Smith is ready for Test cricket, but I think atthis point in time it comes down to a simple question of if not Smith (as the second spinner), then who else?
February 16th 2010 @ 1:37pm
vinay verma said | February 16th 2010 @ 1:37pm | Report comment
Brett,I think,as a society,we are becoming more conservative than when I was growing up.Think of Woodstock and the Rolling Stones and Bob Dylan. Also in that era we were picking a young Neil harvey at 19 and Ian Craig as a Test Captain at 21. Garth who was inducted yesterday was 19 and Lillee was just 21. Doug Walters,the Chappells were in their early 20′s ..It hink Doug W was 19. If you are good enough age is irrelevant. Put Smith in now and let him learn the ropes. He will prosper and will only reach his peak in another five years.
February 16th 2010 @ 1:47pm
MyGeneration said | February 16th 2010 @ 1:47pm | Report comment
Vinay, but do any of those selections compare with choosing Shane Watson as a test opener? Just a(nother) thought.
February 16th 2010 @ 3:19pm
vinay verma said | February 16th 2010 @ 3:19pm | Report comment
MyGen,not sure about your question but Watson as an opener is different to being picked at a young age and my point to brett was about conservatism as opposed to punting on talent. And sledgecross is not that far left field as it may appear. Warner has been pigeonholed as a twenty20 merchant and maybe he can be a Hooksey at number 6. We’ll never know if we dont give him a chance.
February 16th 2010 @ 3:47pm
MyGeneration said | February 16th 2010 @ 3:47pm | Report comment
Vinay, was just pointing out that the selectors are willing to take a gamble, wasn’t exactly disagreeing with you, maybe just nitpicking re what you meant by “conservatism”. The Watson selection was conservative age-wise, but not in most other respects, although Watson is ultra orthodox in his batting style.
Although Watson has certainly proved naysayers like me wrong (up to a point, considering some of the opposition), I reckon in the long term it would have been better to show a bit of faith in Hughes, and I doubt it’s done his (Hughes) confidence any good. I just think with his unorthodox technique, Hughes has the ability to really demoralise a bowling attack, which is a good attribute in at least one opener.
February 16th 2010 @ 2:11pm
Brett McKay said | February 16th 2010 @ 2:11pm | Report comment
Vinay my concerns about Smith are nothing to do with age, or ability even. I just don’t think he’s ready for Test cricket. That said, I also didn’t think Shane Watson could be a Test opener, as MyGen brings up.
My concern can even be narrowed down to his bowling, probably. 10 or 15 wickets (apologies, I should know what the number is) at more than 70 is struggling at First Class level, nevermind contemplation for the Test side. But there is no doubt about his potential – as you allude to – and so here he is, genuine Test option. I don’t have his bowling figures for this season handy, perhaps they’d be a better marker.
But I don’t think that’s growing conservatism either, I think we’re just not used to potential Test debutants barely in their 20s. Take out Hughes, and the next youngest debutant that comes to mind was Siddle, and even he was 23 or 24 (? – how old’s he now?). Hussey, Haddin, North, Krezja, all of these guys came into the side after long First Class apprenticships. Smith was playing Milo cricket last week!!
Funnily enough, if we were becoming more concervative, as you feel we are, we wouldn’t even be considering a guy with a bowling average that high. Ever. At any level!!
February 16th 2010 @ 3:25pm
vinay verma said | February 16th 2010 @ 3:25pm | Report comment
Brett,I’ve seen him live at North Sydney at also in the SCG nets. Seen all his bowling on TV and what strikes me is not his figures but the ability to bowl the wicket taker under pressure. He relishes the bigtime atmosphere and is up for the challenge. He thinks on his feet and as it is with youth sometimes he takes the wrong option but generally he has displayed all the attributes of a champion in the making. He is an absolute standout. The century two days ago would not have harmed his chances. I still hope the selectors will recall Hughes.
February 16th 2010 @ 2:31pm
southernwaratah said | February 16th 2010 @ 2:31pm | Report comment
…and everyone is forgetting that S.K.Warne had an average….. um…… average at 1st class level before his first Test which as we well know was a shocker..
Picking Smith for NZ you loose nothing but gain everything if he kicks on
February 16th 2010 @ 2:36pm
Brett McKay said | February 16th 2010 @ 2:36pm | Report comment
45.4, SouthTah, you were nearly at the point of the thread where it was discussed…
February 16th 2010 @ 3:54pm
southernwaratah said | February 16th 2010 @ 3:54pm | Report comment
Clearly the Reply option isn’t being utilised as it should….
February 16th 2010 @ 12:33pm
Jameswm said | February 16th 2010 @ 12:33pm | Report comment
Shane Warne was picked for his first test with a grand total of 4 first class matches under his belt, and a bowling average of around 50. That selection was crazier.
February 16th 2010 @ 1:14pm
Brett McKay said | February 16th 2010 @ 1:14pm | Report comment
yeah Jameswm, an interesting little bit of info in the SMH today on that too. It had often been said that Warne’s figures at First Class level, were actually worse than Smith’s now, but I’d never been able to quantify that, nor did I really believe it. From the piece in the Herald this morning, Smith currently has a bowling average just over 70 from 10 or 11 matches, while Warne before his Test debut was sitting on an average of 45.4 from four matches for the Vics.
Of course, we wouldn’t even be contemplating Smith as a Test player were it not for his batting, and that obviously is a long way in front of Warne (even where Warne finished)…
February 16th 2010 @ 1:56pm
sledgeross said | February 16th 2010 @ 1:56pm | Report comment
Now, Ive come into some stick for my selection, but I would like to throw a name in that has absolutely no chance, but I would love to see picked for Norths spot.
David Warner!
Now, I know people will shout me down (and probably rightly so), but I have been really impressed with his maturity this summer. He hasnt just come out in the 20/20s and 1 dayers and gone whack, he’s actually crafted (as well as you can in the shorter formats) innings. Hes also displayed a solid defence, and his “big” shots are actually correct cricket shots. My spies at the SCG nets also tell me he can bowl some handy spinners as well. In addition, he is also an exceptional fielder.
I know he has only played a few shield games, but I think that is only because NSW selectors are content with mediocrity and afraid to gamble even when the team is running stone motherless. I mean, are blokes like Rohrer etc actually that much better than him?
Imagine Warner getting time to grow into a Test role. We’ve done it before with blokes like Clarke and Ponting, I think the time to be bold is now. We bat pretty deep with no real bunnies, so I think it might be worth it. Oh, the high octane blasting of blokes like Warner, Haddin and Johnson down the order.
I implore you, if you are talking about Smith, please also consider Warner
Thanks you for listening!
February 16th 2010 @ 2:15pm
Brett McKay said | February 16th 2010 @ 2:15pm | Report comment
Sledgie, you make some fair points, but I’m going to overlook Warner for the same reasons I’m overlooking Krezja. Neither can hold a Shield spot currently…
February 16th 2010 @ 2:39pm
sledgeross said | February 16th 2010 @ 2:39pm | Report comment
Ahh yes Brett, but not holding a shield spot doesnt necessarily mean they wont be good enough for a Baggy Green.
Nathan Hauritz struggled for a 4 day match for years but got picked. I think Warners average is something like 25 from 4 games in SHield cricket. I honestly believe if he had played the amount of games as some of the other blokes sputtering along in the Blues middle order, he would be averaging in the 40s.
February 16th 2010 @ 3:03pm
Brett McKay said | February 16th 2010 @ 3:03pm | Report comment
you’re right Sledgie, it doesn’t mean their not good enough, but it’s been a pretty good barometer for 100+ years!!
February 16th 2010 @ 3:59pm
southernwaratah said | February 16th 2010 @ 3:59pm | Report comment
I’m with you sledgeross, can somone please explain the validity of Thornley being picked to play ahead of Warner int he Shield game the other day? With the greatest of respect to the carrot top, he’s not exactly the future of NSW cricket (although he has been a valuable servant to NSW cricket)
February 16th 2010 @ 4:01pm
southernwaratah said | February 16th 2010 @ 4:01pm | Report comment
I’m with you sledgeross, can someone please explain the validity of Thornley being picked to play ahead of Warner in the Shield game the other day? With the greatest of respect to the carrot top, he’s not exactly the future of NSW cricket (although he has been a valuable servant to NSW cricket)
February 16th 2010 @ 4:04pm
southernwaratah said | February 16th 2010 @ 4:04pm | Report comment
I’m with you sledgeross, can someone please explain the validity of Thornley being picked to play ahead of Warner int he Shield game the other day? With the greatest of respect to the carrot top, he’s not exactly the future of NSW cricket (although he has been a valuable servant to NSW cricket)
February 16th 2010 @ 4:25pm
vinay verma said | February 16th 2010 @ 4:25pm | Report comment
MyGen, sorry about being slow on the uptake. I see where you are coming from and it is not nitpicking. But I think the Watson decision was conservative. The better one would have been to persist with Philip Hughes. His confidence would have taken a beating but he has bounced back. I fully agree he is the future. Good luck to Watson and he has proved a versatile cricketer so he can easily slot in at 6. Hughes and Katich are the openers for me.
February 16th 2010 @ 4:30pm
formeropenside said | February 16th 2010 @ 4:30pm | Report comment
Vinay – I think that the Ian Craig as Test captain at 21 had a great deal to do with NSW-Vic cricket politics at the time (including the role of Keith Miller) and little to do with conservatism or lack thereof (this was the dreaded Menzies era of the 50′s, let us not forget).
As I have said, if it was not for Smith’s batting, we would not be talking about his bowling. I dont think we need a specialist lower order batsmen, and to me Smith offers little if any that Cameron White does not (ie, a lower order batsman).
February 16th 2010 @ 6:16pm
vinay verma said | February 16th 2010 @ 6:16pm | Report comment
formeropenside,interesting you mention the politics and I would love to read anything on this era. I am aware that Fingleton was close to Menzies and this initself was ironical as Fingleton was more Labour than Liberal. Point me in the direction of the literature on the Vic/NSW cricket politics as I may have missed something. Talking of Fingleton and Menzies they were both instrumental in getting Larwood to settle in NSW.
Actually it is Smith’s bowling that enthuses me more than his batting. I see in his bowling the heart of a genuine spinner. The willingness to toss it up in the face of an onslaught.
February 16th 2010 @ 6:56pm
JohnB said | February 16th 2010 @ 6:56pm | Report comment
Vinay – I think FO would be talking about cricket politics there. Ian Johnstone as test captain before Craig was very much a matter of cricket politics (and shafting Miller) I recall reading in something by Gideon Haigh.
When it comes to picking the test team – 5 of the top 6 pick themselves, and include a decent 5th bowler, so the 6th member of the top 6 should be the best available batsman – not some sort of project player. If Smith is good enough for that role, he should demonstrate it by batting up the order in shield cricket and making runs there. Same comment for White.
February 16th 2010 @ 7:01pm
vinay verma said | February 16th 2010 @ 7:01pm | Report comment
Got a hundred two days ago in a pressure situation,JohnB..and against the Vics
February 16th 2010 @ 7:40pm
JohnB said | February 16th 2010 @ 7:40pm | Report comment
Fair enough Vinay (although don’t mention the bowling figures – I almost did), and batting at 5 as he has the last couple of games does give him more credibility than batting at 7 as he did before that – but let’s see him do it in the first innings to set up a game, and then repeat the dose a few times, before deciding he’s the next big thing, a la Phil Hughes.
February 16th 2010 @ 8:11pm
Brett McKay said | February 16th 2010 @ 8:11pm | Report comment
John, Vinay, apart from hearing the result and about Hughes’ and Smith’s centuries, I actually haven’t seen any score cards – how did Smith go with the ball?
February 16th 2010 @ 8:28pm
JohnB said | February 16th 2010 @ 8:28pm | Report comment
http://www.cricinfo.com/ausdomestic-09/engine/match/417659.html
Raw figures show first innings failure, second innings ton. Quality of that – can’t really say! Similarly, can’t say whether it was “let’s see if we can save this” or “it’s lost, let’s have some fun and see how many we can get”. Figuring out those questions is where selectors earn their money!
February 16th 2010 @ 8:31pm
vinay verma said | February 16th 2010 @ 8:31pm | Report comment
Brett,Smith had 1 for 70 odd off 21 overs in the first innings and 7 overs for 46 bowling flighted ones to a attacking David Hussey.
JohnB I prefer to plump for Smith BEFORE he scores three or four tons in a row. It would be easy to get on his bandwagon after the event and I am sure many will.
February 16th 2010 @ 9:06pm
JohnB said | February 16th 2010 @ 9:06pm | Report comment
And that’s fine Vinay. I think he (like everyone else) needs to show he has the quality required before being propelled the next (big) step up. That doesn’t necessarily mean having to make lots of hundreds or take lots of wickets. It’s a question of showing you have that “something” needed to put you above all the other very good players running around in shield cricket. Plainly any quality in his bowling is almost all hat and just a hint of cattle, at the moment. When it comes to batting, he’s certainly made runs (which is why people are taking notice), but I think batting mostly at 7 or below he’s not yet had the chance to really show how good he is. One hundred at 5 is a good start, and maybe the selectors saw enough in that one innings, on top of his earlier efforts down the order, to pick him in a test side – but it doesn’t strike me as enough.