Over the three Tests a most enjoyable series - particularly for an Australian.

I'd probably have a few Kiwis in a combined team though. Smith would  be lucky to make it at an average of 26. Thoughts?

I haven't seen any Series Averages for batting and bowling for both teams.

If anyone has seen them, it would be great to post them here.

I thought the runscoring rate seemed a bit slow over the series. Particularly, with Australia being the home team it seemed as though they’ve scored runs more quickly in recent series at home. 

Most runs

Player	Mat	Inns	NO	Runs	HS	Ave	BF	SR	100	50	0	4s	6s
M Labuschagne (AUS)	3	6	0	549	215	91.50	940	58.40	2	3	0	49	3
DA Warner (AUS)	3	6	1	297	111*	59.40	505	58.81	1	0	0	25	0
SPD Smith (AUS)	3	5	0	214	85	42.80	627	34.13	0	2	0	20	1
TM Head (AUS)	3	5	0	213	114	42.60	445	47.86	1	1	0	26	0
TA Blundell (NZ)	2	4	0	172	121	43.00	344	50.00	1	0	0	21	0
JA Burns (AUS)	3	6	0	155	53	25.83	384	40.36	0	1	1	15	3
TD Paine (AUS)	3	4	0	153	79	38.25	337	45.40	0	1	1	14	0
LRPL Taylor (NZ)	3	6	0	152	80	25.33	270	56.29	0	1	0	18	0
C de Grandhomme (NZ)	3	6	0	148	52	24.66	223	66.36	0	1	0	15	2
TWM Latham (NZ)	3	6	0	126	50	21.00	383	32.89	0	1	1	10	0
MS Wade (AUS)	3	5	1	119	38	29.75	242	49.17	0	0	0	11	1
BJ Watling (NZ)	3	6	0	105	40	17.50	353	29.74	0	0	0	10	0
MA Starc (AUS)	3	4	0	76	30	19.00	86	88.37	0	0	0	8	2
HM Nicholls (NZ)	2	4	0	61	33	15.25	125	48.80	0	0	1	4	1
KS Williamson (NZ)	2	4	0	57	34	14.25	101	56.43	0	0	1	10	0
GD Phillips (NZ)	1	2	0	52	52	26.00	119	43.69	0	1	1	6	1
JA Raval (NZ)	2	4	0	45	31	11.25	103	43.68	0	0	0	5	0
TD Astle (NZ)	1	2	1	42	25*	42.00	81	51.85	0	0	0	6	0
PJ Cummins (AUS)	3	4	0	41	20	10.25	134	30.59	0	0	1	5	0
MJ Santner (NZ)	2	4	0	32	27	8.00	105	30.47	0	0	1	5	0
N Wagner (NZ)	3	6	3	32	18*	10.66	35	91.42	0	0	2	3	2
TG Southee (NZ)	2	4	0	24	10	6.00	53	45.28	0	0	0	3	0
JL Pattinson (AUS)	2	2	1	16	14*	16.00	31	51.61	0	0	0	2	0
NM Lyon (AUS)	3	4	2	15	8	7.50	42	35.71	0	0	0	3	0
TA Boult (NZ)	1	1	0	8	8	8.00	13	61.53	0	0	0	0	1
WER Somerville (NZ)	1	2	0	7	7	3.50	15	46.66	0	0	1	1	0
MJ Henry (NZ)	1	1	0	3	3	3.00	15	20.00	0	0	0	0	0
LH Ferguson (NZ)	1	2	2	1	1*	-	9	11.11	0	0	0	0	0
JR Hazlewood (AUS)	1	1	1	0	0*	-	0	-	0	0	0	0	0

Most wickets

Player	Mat	Inns	Overs	Mdns	Runs	Wkts	BBI	BBM	Ave	Econ	SR	5	10
NM Lyon (AUS)	3	6	116.2	24	345	20	5/50	10/118	17.25	2.96	34.9	2	1
N Wagner (NZ)	3	6	157.3	33	387	17	4/83	7/133	22.76	2.45	55.5	0	0
MA Starc (AUS)	3	6	89.5	18	268	15	5/52	9/97	17.86	2.98	35.9	1	0
PJ Cummins (AUS)	3	6	101.4	27	225	12	5/28	5/75	18.75	2.21	50.8	1	0
TG Southee (NZ)	2	4	99.4	22	309	12	5/69	9/162	25.75	3.10	49.8	1	0
C de Grandhomme (NZ)	3	6	111.0	17	287	7	3/78	3/121	41.00	2.58	95.1	0	0
JL Pattinson (AUS)	2	4	49.0	11	135	6	3/34	6/69	22.50	2.75	49.0	0	0
TD Astle (NZ)	1	2	40.0	1	152	3	2/111	3/152	50.66	3.80	80.0	0	0
M Labuschagne (AUS)	3	5	22.0	2	61	2	1/9	1/11	30.50	2.77	66.0	0	0
MJ Henry (NZ)	1	2	44.0	5	148	2	1/54	2/148	74.00	3.36	132.0	0	0
JR Hazlewood (AUS)	1	1	1.2	1	0	1	1/0	1/0	0.00	0.00	8.0	0	0
JA Raval (NZ)	2	1	13.0	1	33	1	1/33	1/33	33.00	2.53	78.0	0	0
TA Boult (NZ)	1	2	40.0	3	121	1	1/91	1/121	121.00	3.02	240.0	0	0
WER Somerville (NZ)	1	2	39.0	2	135	1	1/99	1/135	135.00	3.46	234.0	0	0
MJ Santner (NZ)	2	4	69.0	6	250	1	1/22	1/104	250.00	3.62	414.0	0	0
TA Blundell (NZ)	2	1	3.0	0	13	0	-	-	-	4.33	-	0	0
MS Wade (AUS)	3	2	3.0	0	21	0	-	-	-	7.00	-	0	0
TM Head (AUS)	3	2	7.0	1	24	0	-	-	-	3.42	-	0	0
LH Ferguson (NZ)	1	1	11.0	1	47	0	-	-	-	4.27	-	0	0

Thanks a bunch, Flyslip! 

Based on these figures And watching the whole series I’d suggest a line up of : 

Warner
Blundell
Labu
Smith ( wrong about his average)
Head
Paine
De Grandhomme
Starc
Cummins 
Lyon 
Wagner

Southee took 12 wickets over 2 Tests at 25, whilst Cummins took 12 over 3 Tests at 18, plus the latter only conceded 2 runs per over. 

Both had SRs of 49 and 50 respectively,  so Southee is unlucky to miss out. 

I love all rounders, so I went for CDG as number 7. I was very impressed with his back up bowling when Fergie was injured. 

Surprisingly, Paine was 7th highest run scorer at 38, and had a higher average than Burns, who scored a few more runs, but faced many more balls than the Aussie skipper. 

We we all know Williamson has usually been ranked in the top four for years, with Kohli, Smith and Root, and with someone close behind like Pujara. 

KW didn’t perform in this series though. 

Steve Smith’s SR was only 34. Is this good enough? 

Under the circumstances, yes.

It was his ability to form first innings partnerships with Labushagne that were of importance more so than strike rate, and this is what set the matches up for us. Particularly in the first match, but in all of them he got through the tougher batting conditions and helped wear the kiwi bowlers out, while his partner was scoring. It could have been a different story had Wade/Head/Paine needed to come in early.

Scores of 43, 85, 63 are not bad at all, but more important were the amount of balls he saw off. With all of the matches finishing in 4 days, it doesn't indicate strike rate was a problem anyway.

He has been slow ever since the Ashes, in the shield he scored at around 24 in one match from memory. The kiwis think they have him worked out with long hops, but he was still instrumental in our first innings totals, and anyway he was far worse against Pakistan. He's a bit out of form, but he'll come good again. Even when he's out of form, he's still contributing.

Huh? You serious?

Root was #1 in 2015. The "Fab 4" was an article written by MD Crowe in 2014 - Aug iirc. It was never about the best at the time cos it excluded Clarke, Amla, ABdV and Sanga. Maybe read it if you havn't.

But Root has been nowhere near the top 4 rankings for the past few years since being captain of England. 

He was sliding. Not even close to top 3 in a 4th. even slipped out of the top 10 recently altogether. And all real cricket fans know this.

Delete and censor this post too. You're welcome.

Cricket is about opinions. Nobody is unequivocally right or wrong.

I knew there was a quartet of top ranked batters of Smith, Kohli, Williamson and Root, with Pujara about 5th at some stage of the world rankings. 

I thought you would be keen to expound on Williamson's recent form, or, your best combined eleven?

Fair points made, FS.

I think the average of 26 for Smith was for the  series against  Pakistan as well as the Kiwis, and, possibly all Tests played since he came back after the Archer short ball hit him, including  the latter Ashes Tests.

Huh? You serious? Root has been nowhere near the top 4 rankings for the past few years since being captain of England. 

NZ has never had a test match in Dunedin.. never.. never.

Paddles this is the sort of arrogant, divisive posting that warrants some of us not wanting you on this site.  DC has told you he enjoys watching cricket but lacks knowledge of the game. I have never professed to to be an expert on the game. I have watched much cricket over the years and have a decent knowledge.. tho not a great deal when it comes to international cricket. I also forget some things.. must be losing some of my marbles at my decrepit age. But seems you only come onto this site to big note yourself by denigrating the regular posters with your superior nature. 

Goose and gander, what goes around comes back around. If you put tone out there that is not warm, and arrogantly censor posts, you don't get warmth back. Maybe he gets the hint.

NZ had a terrible tour. Only Wagner is coming back with his head held high. CdG and Blundell had their moments, the rest, incl Southee despite Perth wickets, had an awful time too often.

Williamson's recent form is fine. He was player of the World Cup, struggled in SL, made some runs vs England, and didn't have a good tour of Aus. I am not concerned about his form. I am very concerned about the openers, though. 

NZ has William Young and Devon Conway from September to bring in. 

But the opening spots are a problem for NZ. We need to stop exposing KW to the new ball all the time.

I don't think they worked him out. Smith for the entirety of this summer came in when we needed quick runs.

The two innings this summer where he came in with any sort of pressure was the Melbourne test where he got an important 85 and then built that big partnership with Labuschagne in Sydney. 

As far as i am concerned we needed him in two innings this summer and he delivered in both of them.

I agree. I think all three of his first innings were important and had direct bearing on the results though. The rest of the time this summer were only either filling in time to give the bowlers a good break before declaring, or for quick runs.

I doubt anyone has him worked out either, especially with slow long hops. His form has been indifferent this summer compared to the superhuman version we're used to. Yet as you say, he hasn't had much pressure on him to perform either, when there has been any pressure at all he still delivered when necessary.

 Tend to agree with you, Baggers. I used to like what  Mike and Paddles posted  about cricket. Then you realise after a while in every thread topic they try and change the subject to talk about themselves, how much they know about world cricket,  stir you in particular  and lay crap on everyone else for knowing less than them. They also seem jealous that you are a respected poster on here. These knob jockeys both seem to crave an audience of fan boys.  I don't know why Paddles still posts here? He doesn't  respect what anyone else posts, other than Mike.  If he doesn't get the message and piss off or get banned I'm going  to stop reading his posts. I suggest everyone does the same. Some of his posts have been damn childish lately, with the intent of causing conflict.

Back to the topic - does a combined eleven of Aus/NZ need an all rounder? De Grandhomme didn't score many runs.

If you are not going to pull your head in, engage in cricket discussion without being arrogant, divisive and childish, stop wasting your time on here, do something useful and start coaching  for the NZ Cricket Association. I won't be reading your posts anymore, Paddles. 

Smith and Head both averaged 43 against the Kiwis. By Smith's own high standards it was poor, whilst  for Head it was a success.

I thought the Kiwi tactics to Smith were very good. They noticed that he plays the full ball on the stumps really well, so they just decided to take that out of the equation either by bowling short pitched stuff from the left armer with a stacked leg side field, or wide outside off. It worked. (Although to be fair Wagner executed the plan brilliantly). 

Labuschagne to me was the find of the summer. He is in ridiculous form, and the technical change he made last winter has turned him into a run machine. I was also really happy with Travis Head, who is coming along nicely ( a test av of 43 at age 25 is nothing to be sneezed at). 

Burns disappointed me but I still think he's a better option than Bancroft or Harris, both of whom have inferior techniques at present. He's also a very handy first slip fielder. I'd leave him there until further notice. 

To me the weak link is Wade, but if he can come good with the bat he might actually replace Tim Paine when he retires. Wade could be a keeper batsman at number 6, and then Australia could bring an all rounder in to bat at 7. 

Excuse me? Is your head pulled in with this post? Is this not arrogant, divisive or childish of you?  Think about this? Who pressed your buttons? Noone. And who are you to tell me where I should or should not waste my time? Are you my mother? My wife? Where do you get off?

You're just joining a wave on me because I gave Dec a curt reply and Baggers wants to white knight for his bff. Sorry, not sorry. Dec deserved every piece of it given all the threads he has locked and posts he has deleted. And this was a simple factual exercise for him to confirm and get right, instead of confusing the fab 4 debate with the actual ratings. But I am not surprised he did. But I'm not interested in face saving for him. In the least. As for Baggers, his lack of an apology over bilateral tours is still resonating strongly. At least he admitted why he would make a mistake. Even if his justification for the mistake made more sense to him than me. 

I really don't care what posts of mine KW you read or don't - but thanks for your personal update.  I don't find it arrogant of you in the least.

If the supercilious censors act their way as they have been, and give hypocritical orders, I will act the way I do, deliberately and intentionally. And I have no intention of pulling my head into someone as ignorant as Baggers who refuses to apologies despite being wrong about world tours. I thought so much less of him then, and he knows it. And I don't care for the weak, childish, immature, sycophantic-ally scared bonding to the masses of stupidity calling out the original insults. No offence. But you can have your sandpit back. 

The supercilious censors may run independent thinkers like Mike and myself off from the forum, and you can all enjoy  an agreement of cliche soundbites. We're not arrogant because we think for ourselves, we just think for ourselves. And have the confidence and ability to do it. Without shame. :) And we can support our arguments. With facts. With quotes. With stats. With videos. 

Dec, you can have me banned from Inside Sport - I don't mind. I don't suffer fools gladly, no offence. From Bagger's "billateral tours"  ICC folly to your ICC ranking arguments as opinion, I'm just finding it all rather humorous.  Sorry if that sounds arrogant, but your censorship smacks of ego and foolishness. And its so hard with you and Baggers to give a hint you get, vs just being so unsubtle and being blunt.

Baggers and Dec, please sit here in your fiefdom, and just repeat what former cricketers you watch on tv said. Enjoy yourselves. I hope you have a great time. But don't think I was arrogant to you. It wasn't even veiled contempt.  It was contempt and disbelief both at times. I lost respect for your opines lacking logic, factual accuracy or displaying a single modicum of research abilities a long way back. Sorry.

When Baggers forgot the WI bowled 20 years of bouncers, that was pretty much me done, here. Not being arrogant. Not even being contemptuous. I just don't belong in a place like this with people like that. He clearly knows sfa about cricket history. At all. And even less how tours are arranged. 

yeah I agree, the few times that we needed him Smith was his usual self. He's a pretty intense fellow, apparently he has trouble sleeping during tests. This summer is one of the few times in his entire career where he has been barely needed

if head can average there abouts for his career its good enough to be a supporting case to smith/labu/warner

Wade is enjoying his cricket more as a specialist batter. 

When Paine isn’t playing, Wade has not even been keeping for Tas in the Shield. Doran has. 

At his age, 33, Wade needs to improve at Test level quickly, or he will be replaced by a younger batter. 

Wade was working 2 days a week as an apprentice carpenter, preparing for life after cricket. 

What Hint? 

Keyboard I am sorry mate but my previous posts were solely to prove a point about what constitutes a troll and I gave plenty of forewarning that was my intention in my first "return"post. A Troll isn't necessarily someone who disagrees with what is said, if they can put up substantiated arguments. Not every one has to agree with a point and this site is equally as guilty as others sites of "ganging up" on those with varying ideas, however members on this site complained and referred to other sites as full of trolls just because they disagree. This I pointed out to DC in a previous post, which he has locked now, which got Paddles worked up, who even started a thread to complain and it was "moderated", talk about deliberate provocation, but hey I'm not the moderator. Maybe it's just me but It seems that anyone that disagrees with a couple of posters not just on this site but on multiple sites, are the trolls, there seems to be a massive number of trolls worldwide, Some even threaten removal of posters from the particular forum sites, not just here, who made them king of the castle? What is the attraction of these posters that they are constantly attacked by trolls on numerous sites? Not my place to answer those questions, but maybe those posters should look at themselves, "He who is without sin may cast the first stone" and everything that entails.

Guys you have to remember that this is a "public forum", not a chat room, you will meet all types of people with varying points of views, that is the idea of a public forum, because you never know there are people out there who read these forums to gauge public opinions of a current topic and report on that. Unfortunately opinions do bring out the emotive side it happens, but one thing is you'll never get under my skin because I just don't care, but I was interested in your opinions but can you substantiate. Paddles can, that is why I do respect his opinions, not necessarily agree but do respect.

This site had potential, you have Grazor an ex cricketer, DC a member of the TCC an ex teacher who probably coached at school, Baggers an ex-journalist, Paddles a keen follower of international cricket, and a passionate NZ cricket follower (an ex-lawyer? that's the impression I've gained) Flyslip who is very educated towards Australian cricket, Haven't got a read on City Sam I will admit. Keyboard who is a keen cricket follower but admits he is still learning and is very eager to read posts with an open mind, Bobbie a female perspective, quite a broad spectrum wouldn't you say? 

Let me ask you this where is your T20 Big Bash Thread? Don't care? It's on every other Australian cricket forum sites. A bit of an archaic view of cricket isn't it. So if I was to pose a question "How can we move test cricket forward to compete with the attraction of T20?" You really wouldn't know. Your ideas towards test cricket are also archaic and is part of the reason why test cricket is dying, technique, line and length bowling, very boring, very 1930's. What was the appeal of the West Indies, Lillee, Thompson, Hadlee as the villain, how does test cricket get that passion back? yet you complain about Wagner. Go figure!

So if you are all these die-hard cricket tragics (remember CT Baggers), like you suggest you are, put up some counter-arguments to Paddles, but you also don't have to be totally agreeable with the hierarchy on this site because of fear of being kicked out. It's a public forum, not a chat room. And with VPN and access to multiple e-mail addresses some of us are extremely difficult to remove, it is solely my decision whether to participate or not, I don't need a Hint. 

Guys do yourselves a favour and discuss current relevant topics with a broad and open mind, including you Paddles, and you may be surprised that you may gather other very knowledgeable participants, and there are many out there. You don't have to approach other posters on other sites because all you're doing is gathering, like-minded people, which makes the site contaminated and it becomes irrelevant to the general populous opinion. This is NOT your personal site however your personal opinions do matter as do others. Inside Sport do post threads on a regular basis, for feedback, but I would say all of you don't respond and that is the beauty of Inside Sport forums unfortunately it isn't being utilised properly. 

I see Head's average as heavily inflated with his 100 on an absolute belter. His biggest problem.. and this has been intimated by CA.. is his apparent ability to turn a start into a decent score. Check out his woeful conversion rate at First Class level. Nowhere sufficient to warrant a spot in a Test top 6. On top of his impetuousness that often leads to a poor get out shot his technique is shoddy. How the hell did he get thru underage and into senior cricket with such a flaw.. and he is far from the only one. 

What Hint?  You said this Mike.
that's OK I'm out of here, just like Paddles, I'm not a robotic conformist. Enjoy your back-slapping Stepford site.
PS Enjoy talking to yourself Baggers during the shield games.

Look mate we have been sparring partners and friends.. I hope.. for many years so I dont especially want you to leave here but I do want you to cease mentioning JH in almost every post you make and crapping all over every bloke wearing a Blue cap. It has become tiresome. Your long winded posts are also tiresome. Keep em short.
Paddles is the one that is arrogant, belittling and divisive. KW has added childish and conflicting. Most of the posters here agree with me and I believe.. want him to go. Only the owner can ban him. So far no one has reported him.. 
Mike are you really on WP?

Paddles if you can piss off a quiet and engaging member like KW then you had best stay away.

KW the chief offender is Paddles as we veteran IS members have pointed out. Mike is well Mike.. biased, a stirrer, but generally well within the limits of forum decorum. He does back up most of his opinions with facts.. not arrogance, not divisiveness or belittlement. He does tho, overwrite to make his point. That is your most annoying trait Mike. It feels like you are preaching to us peasants.

As for your question KW.. does any team need an all rounder. Blokes like CdG are handy with both bat and ball and if picked below #7 can be a good asset to any team. But please keep this standard of cricketer away from a Test top 6 spot. In my humble view only players with the ability to be chosen alone, either for your bowling or alternatively your batting.. are worthy to be termed an all rounder. Others like CdG are mere bits and pieces cricketers. Genuine all rounders are as scarce as a snow storm in Hell. CA has been trying to turn Mitch Marsh into one for years.