New Zealand vs Australia: 3rd T20I AS IT HAPPENED - Rain causes havoc before tourists continue hot streak

Short is the significantly better player Putting aside the fact that I don't have the time to dig into the statistics to give Stoinis is fair due, these are their overall T20 domestic statistics: Stoinis: 257 games at 29.86, strike rate of 136 Short: 101 games at 26.96, strike rate of 143. So no, Short is not 'significantly better' at all. When you factor in that a huge number of Stoinis games have been at either international level of in the IPL, it makes the comparison even more favourable to Stoinis. And Short has been in the IPL; 6 games, average of 19.5 and a strike rate of 127.17. In contrast; Stoinis: 82 games, average of 27, strike rate of 140. I wonder why Stoinis has picked up a contract this year and Short hasn't?

It’s not rubbish at all. Great players who don’t have a name in India do not get picked for the IPL because it’s all about viewership in India. For some bizzare reason the Indian fan base consider Stoinis a recognisable face and he attracts fans - Short is the significantly better player, but is relatively unknown outside Australia - compare Short vs Stoinis in BBL and you’ll see Short is the better player. If he was picked for the T20 World Cup and performed well, Lo and behold the Indian media would get onboard and he would get an IPL slot. The best players don’t necessarily all play IPL - Only those that are popular in the subcontinent diaspora.

Players are picked on reputation and global appeal to Indian audiences more so than how well they actually perform on the cricket field. This is just rubbish. They're professional sporting teams, not Bollywood productions. Players are picked to win. You might not rate him, and at his age he could be past it, but you don't play in the IPL for ten years cause of brand recognition, he's not Tendulkar. Stoinis was picked, for the tour, he was just injured. Short had a shot in the IPL and as someone else pointed out, couldn't play spin and so he doesn't have a contract this year... not a good sign for a tour of the Windies.

Terrible ground but in the end it didn’t matter. The best team won, the state that’s been dominating cricket in recent times added another trophy.

An IPL contract doesn’t mean everything. Players are picked on reputation and global appeal to Indian audiences more so than how well they actually perform on the cricket field. Short’s form is far superior to Stoinis’ in literally all facets of the game. You’d hope the fact that Short went on the NZ tour whilst Stoinis didn’t is a sign they are looking towards the better player.

What a shocking ground to play cricket. Half the seats have no view worth mentioning. Cricket Central,ptth. Pitch not seasoned. Etc. North Sydney would have been miles better.

Stoinis has been of the boil lately, but his T20I record is good and unlike Short, he has an IPL contract, so those in the know consider him a better talent… and I’m not a Stoinis fan

I think Short goes over Stoinis – what on earth does Stoinis offer? Other secondary spinner is probably Agar but I think they see themselves playing one spinner plus Maxwell/Short.

I agree Short is the better opener, but someone needs to take the gloves, and I’d have Inglis as the keeper over Wade, because he is a better keeper. I suspect the selectors will go the other way though.

They should have had the preferred XI locked down for this series, as a serious/proper work out – as a team – heading into the WC This is very much how I feel about it! However, others on the Roar have suggested to me that the selectors do in fact know who their best XI, or at least most of their best XI, is and this was just a series to give some fringe players a shot. The theory being that the core team will get plenty of match practice in the IPL over the next few months. My issue with that approach, if that was indeed what the selectors were doing, is that Smith shouldn't fall into this category of player. If the point of all this rotation in the last week was to give fringe players a go, then why did we recall David Warner for a single game? He's literally the most known quantity in the format Australia has. But more pressingly, why did we give Smith a shot - he's also an extremely known quality in this format and at the age of 34, surely we knew what we could expect. Smith's been a phenomenal batsman for Australia over the last decade, though I think it's fair to say that this has always been the format he's underperformed in. The time has surely come for Australia to move on from him in the white ball versions and it's time to give other's a chance. What is more perplexing is who is our second spinner? I appreciate NZ isn't exactly a spinner's dream, but surely we're taking two to the Windies? If the squad includes Inglis as a backup batsmen, and thus doubling as the backup keepers, then you've probably got Head, Warner, Marsh, Maxwell, Inglis, David, Wade and Stoinis as the eight batsmen/keepers, Zampa and another spinner and then five quicks, of which Cummins, Starc and Hazlewood are likely shoe-ins. Not sure who out of Johnson, Ellis, Doft and Bartlett they take as the remaining to quicks (I'd go Johnson and Ellis) and who other spinner is (Agar?).

It's pretty frustrating that, as the last hit out before the 15-man squad selection for the WC, that Smith was included in this 15-man "best of" squad (i.e. in the best top 7 T20s batters in Australia?). Smith is in the very top 7 T20 batting specialists in the country. Really? And if he is not (which he clearly isn't, by a mile), then seriously, what are the Australian selectors actually doing? Because with this sort of selection, they certainly don't seem to be doing the job they are being paid to do. Just pay me to do it. "Oh, I'll just pick Steve Smith in my squad, because, you know, he's a big name and an all-time Test great. And I like him. He's Smudge!". Very school-oval PE type approach it seems to national selection. Not only Smith though. At the pointy-end of WC squad selection, seems like the selectors have been all over the shop here. They should have had the preferred XI locked down for this series, as a serious/proper work out - as a team - heading into the WC. Do they really not know who should be selected at this point? What do they really think they will learn from chopping and changing at this late stage by giving certain players one or two opportunities to "perform"?

Matt Short should be played before Inglis. If Inglis doesn't open, and he won't, there's no room for him.

Very important innings from Cartwright - securing the three peat!

"What possible high quality program on a Sunday arvo could then possibly have preferred to show?" Police Ten 7?

Not sure you can really take anything out of a T10 game, though New Zealand need to get some catching practice in before the T20 World Cup, cause you won't be winning anything trophies with those drops. From Australia's perspective, you can really only say we've learned that a line needs to be put through Smith. I want to say that Johnson and Ellis made cases to be there instead of Cummins at least, but again, not sure what you can take away from a situation where the NZ batters were basically out of it after the first over or two.

Still annoying in this day and age. I presume New Zealand is like Australia and has 'extra' channels that the networks could move the game onto or move the news onto or whatever. The game finished at 4pm New Zealand time right? What possible high quality program on a Sunday arvo could then possibly have preferred to show?

Hilton just sent a free hit over a passing bus.

If not Connolly and Hobson are there.

Aussies taking the catches that NZ were dropping

It is FTA in NZ