In a spin: Breaking down the Patel snub
Hindsight is a wonderful thing, and makes it even clearer that Ajaz Patel should have played at Trent Bridge and Headingley. So how did it come to this, where the country’s top spin bowler was omitted, as the Black Caps lost the series 3-0 to England?
Before the first test I wrote Patel should miss out at Lord’s, usually a spinner’s graveyard, and play the last two, in the expectation England would prepare dry surfaces to help nullify the Black Caps’ pace attack. This is not an ‘I told you so’, but more a wider look into why Michael Bracewell was preferred.
What has hurt the Black Caps is the surfaces they play on, in New Zealand. The test pitches are green and made for the hosts to win test matches, which is fair enough because of the points the Black Caps can accumulate in the World Test Championship. The* issue is the surfaces in Plunket Shield cricket.
What coach Gary Stead and fellow selector Gavin Larsen are looking for is a spinning allrounder (formerly Mitchell Santner, and now Bracewell) who can play in every away test and the odd test at home. The out-and-out spin bowler is becoming redundant everywhere bar the subcontinent.
At first-class level we need to create flat wickets from day one, bat-first wickets so every team has to pick a spinner and use them as wicket-takers instead of making up the over rate, or bowling a few before the second new ball.
Also, it will create pace bowlers who have to run in and hit the wicket hard and fast, instead of medium pace seamers having success.
Games also have to go four days, and let’s change the bonus point structure. A point for every three wickets a team takes, and a point for passing 200, 250, 300, 350, 400 before 105 overs, would encourage teams to bat more aggressively.
Back to Patel. I can see the thinking behind Stead and captain Kane Williamson picking Bracewell, as the pace bowling unit has earned and deserves all the trust. With the history of Leeds, they would have been thinking ‘we need the runs on the board’, and deeper batting with the top order missing out this series.
It also showed how much they missed Colin de Grandhomme for team balance. England were never going to let Bracewell settle. His lack of bowling experience was exposed. He will learn from this.
Test cricket is about taking 20 wickets, and I believe Patel was one of the four best bowlers in that Black Caps side. This is someone who took 10-for in an innings against India just seven months ago. With his left-arm spin turning the ball away from the right-hander and his control, and past experience to fall back on in pressure situations, he would have been a great selection.
If they’re looking for a spinning all-rounder to bat seven or eight, Santner remains a viable option, especially with his career runs per over of 2.78.
Rachin Ravindra is in the wings as the next option, but he needs time and to know his role – to score runs and to bowl overs to control the run rate and pick up a wicket or two an innings.
We need to be patient, and whoever Stead picks as the spin bowling option, let’s give them some time instead of hanging them out to dry after a game or two. New Zealand has only two spin bowlers to take over 100 test wickets (Dan Vettori and John Bracewell), so it’s not our strong suit. I would like to see Patel get a good run and be an option for the home summer when England and Sri Lanka visit.
Stead and Larsen do have some tough calls on the makeup of the side. I would open with Devon Conway, push Nicholls up to four, Mitchell five and Blundell six. Then New Zealand have the option of playing Patel, or an extra batter at seven which would be Will Young if they want to play four seamers at home. Before then, it’s a tough tour of Pakistan where you’d expect Patel will be front and centre.