***Official*** New Zealand in South Africa

[Athlai]

Interesting to note Permster as I saw you bashing Vettori a bit earlier, Vettori since 2005 Bat: 39.47
Ball: 39.72

(Against Test class sides)

 

[Matt52]

how about Mills to open with vincent.

Mills
Vincent
How
Sinclair
Taylor
Styris
McCullum
Vettori
Gillespie
Patel
Martin

Mills opening?. Probably couldnt do any worse than the other guys but its a bit of a negative move imo. Its conceding we dont have anyone for the job, then again he might turn out to be good, a shane watson or Astle type ( wishful thinking) I think we just have to keep perservering with our opener until someone comes good,,


How
Vincent
Taylor
Styris
Sinclair
Do we have any other batsmen?
McCullum
Vettori
Mills
Gillespie
Martin

 

[Athlai]

Do we have any other batsmen?

Hopkins is there isn't he?

 

[Matt52]

Hopkins is there isn't he?

Do we have any other batsmen?

 

[Athlai]

Papps?

 

[Perm]

It is commonly known that in OD cricket that the best way to slow down the run-rate is to take wickets....and I think you know that but are feeling in a bit of a Richard mood

Only if you take a wicket through tight and accurate bowling. You can spray the ball all over the show, the batsmen gets caught on the point boundary and then the next batsmen is still likely to make quick runs, because the bowling isn't accurate enough.

 

[Perm]

If you are going to wish that on players in international games when they are playing for your country then that's your prerogative, I guess. I would prefer you saved that for 1st-class games. I want whoever is selected to do well. At times (and particularly now that Bracewell is in charge) I wont agree with the selection but I don't want guys to perform poorly just to prove a point.

I don't have much choice in the matter, if we pick substandard players then I don't want to see them perform well in a game, because it means they will continue to be selected despite not being good enough.

 

[Perm]

I wasnt trying to bag Patel, I think hes a good bowler. I was trying to agree with the point that nz is not a great place for spinners, so a good bowler can average quite a lot here.

For Vettoris one I just looked at the wrong one. Youre right its 32, but cmon, Patels is 39.7 something which is basically 40, not 39.

If it's 39.7 it's still 39

New Zealand isn't a great place for spin bowling, but Vettori averages about 33 in Tests here, which is about 3 or 4 points lower than when he plays away. Not to mention he averages 40 in the subcontinent (excluding Bangladesh), where spinners are supposed to benefit.

 

[Athlai]

Only if you take a wicket through tight and accurate bowling. You can spray the ball all over the show, the batsmen gets caught on the point boundary and then the next batsmen is still likely to make quick runs, because the bowling isn't accurate enough.

Too general a statement IMO, every batsman is different and some let a few go even if they are ready to go to the boundary. But I don't think anyone here is condoning serving up half volleys or just pies in general but a little inaccuracy should be excused for wicket taking potential. High accuracy bowling does not necessarily mean wickets, often the best way to get out a batsman with accuracy is to give him nothing and then to serve up a ball that he thinks he might just be able to hit.

Pie throwers will never do well though.

 

[Athlai]

If it's 39.7 it's still 39

New Zealand isn't a great place for spin bowling, but Vettori averages about 33 in Tests here, which is about 3 or 4 points lower than when he plays away. Not to mention he averages 40 in the subcontinent (excluding Bangladesh), where spinners are supposed to benefit.

Vettori's not exactly a genuine 'spinner' though is he?

 

[Perm]

It just depends on the make up of the attack as a whole. The Aussies are blessed with guys with low averages and are economical, but our teams with mere mortals have to have a balance between both those types of bowlers. You have to have a few wicket takers that you can open up with and bring on at opportune times, and then you need a few economical bowlers if the batsmen start getting away. I think the best balance would be three wicket taking bowlers and two economical ones. ( unless we get some world class guys that can do both)

wicket taker- Bond
WT- Franklin
WT-?
economical- Mills
E- Vettori

There is a reason that Kyle Mills was our best ODI bowler before he got injured. He was accurate and economical and would pick up wickets because of this. That is the ideal combination, rather than somebody who might pick up wickets and be expensive (Franklin). Failing that, economical bowlers like Vettori are good too, and more useful than an expensive wicket-taking bowler.

 

[Athlai]

There is a reason that Kyle Mills was our best ODI bowler before he got injured. He was accurate and economical and would pick up wickets because of this. That is the ideal combination, rather than somebody who might pick up wickets and be expensive (Franklin). Failing that, economical bowlers like Vettori are good too, and more useful than an expensive wicket-taking bowler.

2nd best I believe.

 

[Perm]

Tait springs too mind, though I suppose we aren't talking about the same calibre of bowler in this case.

Shaun Tait is a good example, but his wicket-taking ability almost trumps the fact he is expensive at times. A bowler who can run quite hot and cold, but I'm confident his E/R will come down with time.

 

[Perm]

2nd best I believe.

Given Shane Bond wasn't a regular in the side, I think calling Mills the best was justified.

 

[Perm]

Interesting to note Permster as I saw you bashing Vettori a bit earlier, Vettori since 2005 Bat: 39.47
Ball: 39.72

(Against Test class sides)

Disgraceful bowling, almost as bad as Ashley Giles' career. I doubt there is too much substance to his batting average though, probably a fair few NOs. Still a very handy contributor down the order.

 

[Athlai]

Given Shane Bond wasn't a regular in the side, I think calling Mills the best was justified.

Best because someone else is around doesn't really determine the best for me. Our most useful bowler maybe but not 'best'.

 

[Fiery]

If it's 39.7 it's still 39

No it's not. It's 40. Anything over 39.5 you would round up to 40 if you're rounding it to two significant figures

 

[Perm]

Too general a statement IMO, every batsman is different and some let a few go even if they are ready to go to the boundary. But I don't think anyone here is condoning serving up half volleys or just pies in general but a little inaccuracy should be excused for wicket taking potential. High accuracy bowling does not necessarily mean wickets, often the best way to get out a batsman with accuracy is to give him nothing and then to serve up a ball that he thinks he might just be able to hit.

Pie throwers will never do well though.

Accuracy generally leads to wickets though, and if it doesn't then atleast the batsmen won't be scoring lots of runs, and that is the key. In ODI cricket the aim of every bowler should be to restrict the batsmen from scoring runs, rather than going for runs and taking the odd wicket. A spell of 0/30 is always better than 2/55.

EDIT: In context.

 

[Athlai]

Disgraceful bowling, almost as bad as Ashley Giles' career. I doubt there is too much substance to his batting average though, probably a fair few NOs. Still a very handy contributor down the order.

He's actually averaged 50 since some point of his career (including Bangers and Zim though) which is fantastic, without as many N/O's as you may think, well earns his title as one of the best lower order test batsman in the world. Doesn't he have the best record at 8 or 9?

His bowling I feel suffers due to how he is heavily relied on to just bowl unassisted for so many overs. He's certainly useful but has lost of his wicket taking potency (though I'm sure if he wanted to leak a few more runs he could get it back, though NZ may suffer a little for it). I honestly believe Patel could do better, yet I feel both could in tandem, a very useful bowling partnership that could bowl for very long spells IMO.

 

[Perm]

Best because someone else is around doesn't really determine the best for me. Our most useful bowler maybe but not 'best'.

If he's the best bowler that's playing, then he is our best bowler. I do know what you're saying though, he's the best by default.