**Official** New Zealand in England

[PY]

Stuart Broad seems to be letting it rip, commentators are waxing lyrical about his pace.

Good so far?

 

[Athlai]

TBF we haven't played that awfully most of the time, just every now and then we fall to ****. The teams changed so much recently, 2 years ago 45/4 would be a position I had complete faith we could score from with the likes of McMillan, Oram and McCullum looking to score with Vettori and Franklin able to bat at the other end. Now we have Elliot, Flynn and Hopkins, a very different bowl of fruit.

I hope we get a couple wickets before England roll us over though, and that Jeeves gets a match. Somehow its always better when he's around.

 

[NZTailender]

Why not? As I said, Lewis' ODI career to date flatters him just a little. He's a decent one-day bowler but no more than that. He has been flogged more times than he should be in domestic cricket and Mascarenhas hasn't. That Lewis might take a few more wickets than Mascarenhas doesn't really matter to me.

Then you're accepting that Mascarenhas is picked for more than bowling alone.

Pretty sure most of the cricketing world pick specialists seamers to do their wicket taking. Restricting runs is usually done by spinners and all-rounders/part-timers/bits and pieces.

 

[Richard]

Napier - Economy rate (One Day) = 5.1, (20:20) = 7.08
Napier - Strike rate (One Day) = 29.0, (20:20) = 18.5
Mascarenhas - Economy rate (One Day) = 4.22, (20:20) = 7.49
Mascarenhas - Strike rate (One Day) = 35.5, (20:20) = 15.4

Its hardly a vast difference in economy you're talking here, is it? In fact, Napier is the more economical 20:20 bowler, which is HIGHLY relevant in this comparison when 20:20 is probably where Mascarenhas will get more game time. Now, I'd still select Mascarenhas over Napier as he's a better batsman, but just because you say Mascarenhas is a better bowler, doesn't make it true.

I don't care in the slightest about Twenty20, I'm talking about one-day cricket. You can pick whoever you want in T2Is, I'm not bothered. I could've give a flog about the comparison between them in that form.

And yes, the difference between 5.1-an-over and 4.2-an-over is collossal. It makes Mascarenhas infinitely better. I'm actually surprised that the strike-rate difference (6.5 balls) isn't larger actually. Thought it'd be more like 10-12.

 

[Richard]

Stuart Broad seems to be letting it rip, commentators are waxing lyrical about his pace.

Good so far?

He's been quick (late-80s), but mostly he's been bowling short crap. As I said, he bowls this way against the Smith, de Villiers, Kallis et al he'll likely get smashed into next week. New Zealand have batted very, very poorly.

 

[Richard]

Then you're accepting that Mascarenhas is picked for more than bowling alone.

Pretty sure most of the cricketing world pick specialists seamers to do their wicket taking. Restricting runs is usually done by spinners and all-rounders/part-timers/bits and pieces.

This is one-day cricket. Restricting runs is what bowlers are supposed to be doing. You don't need to bowl wicket-taking deliveries.

The best one-day bowlers restrict runs. Part-timers get smashed.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

I don't care in the slightest about Twenty20, I'm talking about one-day cricket. You can pick whoever you want in T2Is, I'm not bothered. I could've give a flog about the comparison between them in that form.

And yes, the difference between 5.1-an-over and 4.2-an-over is collossal. It makes Mascarenhas infinitely better. I'm actually surprised that the strike-rate difference (6.5 balls) isn't larger actually. Thought it'd be more like 10-12.

My good god! Why do you ALWAYS talk about grey areas as if there's a black and white. You are SOOOOOOOOOOOO frustrating to debate any point of cricket about - this is why I steer clear from the Cricket Chat area and mainly go off topic.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Stuart Broad seems to be letting it rip, commentators are waxing lyrical about his pace.

Good so far?

Nippy, but not anything out of his usual range. Generally around 82-85mph. Been a superb spell of bowling tho; accurate & has deployed the short ball judiciously.

 

[PY]

Nippy, but not anything out of his usual range. Generally around 82-85mph. Been a superb spell of bowling tho; accurate & has deployed the short ball judiciously.

Strange. They were raising their voices about a couple of deliveries hitting Ambrose's gloves hard.

 

[Richard]

My good god! Why do you ALWAYS talk about grey areas as if there's a black and white. You are SOOOOOOOOOOOO frustrating to debate any point of cricket about - this is why I steer clear from the Cricket Chat area and mainly go off topic.

I don't understand why you're trying to talk to me about Twenty20 when I've no interest in it nor wish to discuss it. Nor do I understand why you're trying to blur one-day cricket with Twenty20. It's not a case of shades of grey - it IS black-and-white. The two game-forms are massively different and it's annoying when I'm trying to discuss one-day cricket and people bring-up Twenty20 stuff.

 

[Richard]

Strange. They were raising their voices about a couple of deliveries hitting Ambrose's gloves hard.

You can hit the wicketkeeper's gloves hard without bowling extraordinarily quick, though. And he has been up at 90mph a couple of times, as I say.

 

[Athlai]

I don't understand why you're trying to talk to me about Twenty20 when I've no interest in it nor wish to discuss it. Nor do I understand why you're trying to blur one-day cricket with Twenty20. It's not a case of shades of grey - it IS black-and-white. The two game-forms are massively different.

Yet the bowlers only focus in T20 is to be econimcal. The link surely is not that hard to spot. While you may not like the game you still have to be aware of the whole base point of a bowlers job in the game.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

I don't understand why you're trying to talk to me about Twenty20 when I've no interest in it nor wish to discuss it. Nor do I understand why you're trying to blur one-day cricket with Twenty20. It's not a case of shades of grey - it IS black-and-white. The two game-forms are massively different and it's annoying when I'm trying to discuss one-day cricket and people bring-up Twenty20 stuff.

Well, if that's your argument - you've completely misunderstood the point. I can't be bothered banging my head against a brick wall. Good night.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Strange. They were raising their voices about a couple of deliveries hitting Ambrose's gloves hard.

He has been getting a lot of bounce & carry, so if the radio (?) guys don't have the speed gun he might well look quicker than he actually has been. He's been quick enough to give the batsman the hurry up tho.

2/14 off his 10 overs tells its own story, obv.

& Jimmy gets a wicket with a rank full toss as I type. Flynn skies it to Tremers.

 

[Richard]

Yet the bowlers only focus in T20 is to be econimcal. The link surely is not that hard to spot. While you may not like the game you still have to be aware of the whole base point of a bowlers job in the game.

The requirement to bowl "economically" (no bowler can really bowl economically in Twenty20, 6-an-over is a "good" economy-rate) is completely different to the requirement to bowl economically in one-day cricket though. The two game-forms are irrelevant to one-another.

 

[NZTailender]

This is one-day cricket. Restricting runs is what bowlers are supposed to be doing. You don't need to bowl wicket-taking deliveries.

The best one-day bowlers restrict runs. Part-timers get smashed.

The most effective way to restrict runs is to take wickets. Shane Bond had periods where he'd get absolutely tonked, ditto Brett Lee and most of the other bowlers who are considered ODI greats.
Wicket taking creates pressure and interrupts momentum in the run rate, as we've seen here today for instance with New Zealand losing wickets and the run rate turning into a run crawl.


Mascarenhas is not in the top 5 OD seamers in England, even with injuries to Flintoff and Sidebottom.

 

[Richard]

Well, if that's your argument - you've completely misunderstood the point. I can't be bothered banging my head against a brick wall. Good night.

Dear oh dear you are hard to keep satisfied.

This game would be best written-off. Woeful, woeful match.

 

[Athlai]

The requirement to bowl "economically" (no bowler can really bowl economically in Twenty20, 6-an-over is a "good" economy-rate) is completely different to the requirement to bowl economically in one-day cricket though. The two game-forms are irrelevant to one-another.

Vettori bowls the same and he has had great success TBH. A player like Gul also differs very little in his bowling from ODI to T20.

 

[Woodster]

He's been quick (late-80s), but mostly he's been bowling short crap. As I said, he bowls this way against the Smith, de Villiers, Kallis et al he'll likely get smashed into next week. New Zealand have batted very, very poorly.

Bowling short crap ??? Not too sure about that at all, he's bowled very good areas and if NZ are struggling to counter the length he's bowling, which 10 overs for 14 runs suggests, why on earth would he change ? If SA take him to task then he is an intelligent enough bowler to strive for a different length!

 

[Richard]

The most effective way to restrict runs is to take wickets. Shane Bond had periods where he'd get absolutely tonked, ditto Brett Lee and most of the other bowlers who are considered ODI greats.
Wicket taking creates pressure and interrupts momentum in the run rate, as we've seen here today for instance with New Zealand losing wickets and the run rate turning into a run crawl.

Wicket-taking does nothing of the sort. Only bowling accurately slows the run-rate. New Zealand have done poorly here today because they couldn't get runs, because they've batted poorly. The wickets resulted from that.

The most effective way to take wickets is to restrict runs. But you don't need to take wickets to bowl economically.

Mascarenhas is not in the top 5 OD seamers in England, even with injuries to Flintoff and Sidebottom.

If that's the way you think, nothing's going to change it. I cannot fathom the "you have to take wickets to be a front-line bowler" mentality though. Baffles logic IMO.