**Official** New Zealand in England

[Woodster]

Injuries are a fact of life in this sport but when it takes away a player like Oram, the side is severely deflated.

None more so than if the finest all-rounder in ODI cricket is missing, in Freddie.

 

[Richard]

What if he were to take a catch? Would you not say it's immoral for England to be using someone who isn't even qualified to play for them in a role, however small, that could possibly influence the outcome of the match?

As I say, I'd consider any Irishman qualified to play for this team. But apparently you can use twelfth-men from anywhere as long as you're confident they'll do their best for you.

I'd not be surprised if there was a bar between major teams (ie, Eng, Aus, SA, WI, NZ, Ind, Pak, SL) "sharing" fielders, but apparently they can.

 

[Richard]

If you field a bowling attack full of Mascarenhas type bowlers, then, imo, they are likely to get smashed probably during the powerplays and again at the end of the innings as it's likely they will have plenty of wickets in the shed, by working the ball round in the middle overs after a flying start.

By the same theory, if an attack consisted purely of wicket-taking bowlers, then more boundaries than you may expect will be leaked in the middle section of the game, as well as the usual flurry early and in the last 10, dependent on how many wickets have been lost or if you have bowled the side out.

My point is you need to select a combination of such bowlers in order to get the best out of them. You can be a good ODI bowler if you fit into either of these two categories.

I honestly think Mascarenhas would do as well in the Powerplays against good batting as Broad or Tremlett or Anderson would.

Wayward bowlers will likely get smashed full-stop, Powerplays or no Powerplays. But it doesn't have to be a case of wicket-taking vs economical. The best bowlers do both.

 

[Somerset]

Isn't it ironic that New Zealand can't select a player that would be good for cricket in general like Shane Bond, or to lesser extents Lou Vincent and Hamish Marshall, but England can employ Ireland players to field for them?

Embarrassing situation at the moment, we'll be lucky if we get 150+.

 

[Richard]

What if he were to take a catch? Would you not say it's immoral for England to be using someone who isn't even qualified to play for them in a role, however small, that could possibly influence the outcome of the match?

Well, there you go, Porterfield takes a catch.

 

[Nate]

LOL. And who is under the ball...?

 

[Somerset]

Oh and now he takes a catch?? LOL talk about rubbing salt into the wounds.

 

[_Ed_]

What kind of shot was that?

 

[Richard]

Isn't it ironic that New Zealand can't select a player that would be good for cricket in general like Shane Bond, or to lesser extents Lou Vincent and Hamish Marshall, but England can employ Ireland players to field for them?

Apparently England could employ Jonty Rhodes if he consented and they thought he'd do his best for them.

 

[steds]

As I say, I'd consider any Irishman qualified to play for this team.

You aren't the law.

 

[Richard]

I'm aware of that. I don't consider it immoral though, and that's what you asked me.

 

[_Ed_]

Elliott's impressed me in both of his ODIs now. I won't be criticising his inclusion in any NZ ODI squad in the near future.

 

[Somerset]

Apparently England could employ Jonty Rhodes if he consented and they thought he'd do his best for them.

Pretty ridiculous law then TBH, fielding is just as much a part of the game as batting and bowling are...so to allow a non-Englishman, by the regulations apparently, to play a part in assisting the team on the field, is crazy IMO.

 

[Richard]

Does seem a little odd yes. As I say though, the fact that Irishmen are used for England without an eyelid batted just says to me how absurd it is that I$C$C have tried to split them up.

If either Porterfield or Morgan get really good, which certainly doesn't look OOTQ, it'll be England they'll end-up aiming to play for in all likelihood.

 

[NZTailender]

Not really. If the bowling continues to be wayward, it'll continue to get smashed. That hasn't been the case today, it's been in the same areas throughout, the scoring-rate has been restricted throughout, and the wickets have come.

Of course. And to bowl economically too, naturally.

They're hardly remotely analogous TBH. As I say, I accept that some people, Australians especially, don't like it, but that's the way I'd do things. If you value each ODI, then you'd pick the best team to try and win it. But I don't. The only ODI results I care about are those in World Cups, and I want to use every ODI outside them to try and build a team for the ODI where results matter to me.

However, a bowler is a bowler. If a good one-day bowler has to be a wicket-taker to you, that's an attitude I find baffling. It makes no sense to me. Because a one-day game lasts 50 overs only, and if you bowl economically you'll restrict the total. And if you keep bowling economically, wickets will fall to boot (not that it matters whether they do or don't). Equally, you can restrict the total by bowling a side out in 30 overs, and that's fair enough too if you can do it.

The batsman coming in after a wicket falls will be reluctant to go after a bad ball incase they screw it up and get out.


So, given you'd rather England build for a ODI than try and win matches up until that point, what changes would you make? And we'll pretend we're in a world of make believe where injuries don't come in to it or form.


A bowler is a bowler and is there to do a number of things.

1. Take wickets
2. Keep the run rate down
3. Adapt to the match situation.

Let's take for instance New Zealand's bowling attack:
Mills - his job is to take wickets, keep it tight
Southee - as above
Mason - as above
Vettori - keep it tight, and take wickets
Elliott (Oram) - see above.

If a wicket taking bowler is being tonked on an unfriendly pitch he should then try and adapt his game to slowing down the run rate.

I don't think Mascarenhas is a front-line bowler.

 

[steds]

Does seem a little odd yes. As I say though, the fact that Irishmen are used for England without an eyelid batted just says to me how absurd it is that I$C$C have tried to split them up.

What? They shouldn't need splitting up. They aren't the same country.

 

[Woodster]

I honestly think Mascarenhas would do as well in the Powerplays against good batting as Broad or Tremlett or Anderson would.

Wayward bowlers will likely get smashed full-stop, Powerplays or no Powerplays. But it doesn't have to be a case of wicket-taking vs economical. The best bowlers do both.

I'm not sure Mascarenhas would be as effective with the new ball in powerplay situations as Broad, Tremlett and at times Anderson against good batsmen. I agree that wayward bowlers will get smashed, that is no revelation, but surely you can be a wicket-taking bowler without being wayward ?? The very best bowlers do do both.

 

[_Ed_]

Thanks KP, that helps.

 

[Richard]

The batsman coming in after a wicket falls will be reluctant to go after a bad ball incase they screw it up and get out.

Really? That might've been true 25 years ago, but I'd say most evidence suggests it isn't any more. Bad balls generally get smashed even if 2 wickets have fallen the previous over.

Yes, wickets falling does indeed give good bowling a better chance of bowling economically than otherwise. But given that good economical bowling = wickets, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

So, given you'd rather England build for a ODI than try and win matches up until that point, what changes would you make? And we'll pretend we're in a world of make believe where injuries don't come in to it or form.

None, based on that premise. Because there's no-one currently in the frame who's not got an excellent chance of being around in 2011. There's plenty I'd make because of other things, but as I say - by-and-large the England selectors have at least tended to go along the same lines as me on this matter.

A bowler is a bowler and is there to do a number of things.

1. Take wickets
2. Keep the run rate down
3. Adapt to the match situation.

Let's take for instance New Zealand's bowling attack:
Mills - his job is to take wickets, keep it tight
Southee - as above
Mason - as above
Vettori - keep it tight, and take wickets
Elliott (Oram) - see above.

If a wicket taking bowler is being tonked on an unfriendly pitch he should then try and adapt his game to slowing down the run rate.

I don't think Mascarenhas is a front-line bowler.

For me, unless a bowler can take bagfuls of top-order wickets (none of this getting wickets at the death stuff), he must bowl with a decent economy-rate to be all that good and worth a place. Any bowler who doesn't have an incredibly low strike-rate cannot be a front-line ODI bowler IMO.

If I'm looking to pick bowlers for England they cannot be going for more than 4.4-4.5-an-over or so, else we'll be conceding lots of big totals. At the current time, there aren't all that many bowlers who can do that, but that hasn't been helped by the fact that most of those who can have been ignored in favour of rubbish bowlers who neither take wickets nor bowl economically. Because by-and-large, if you can't bowl economically you can't take all that many wickets either. Only truly remarkable cases (Brett Lee for instance) defy this rule.

 

[Richard]

What? They shouldn't need splitting up. They aren't the same country.

Nor are Jamaica and Barbados. Doesn't mean they can't play cricket together. I've no truck with England and Ireland (and Scotland and Wales) playing cricket as one entity, as I've said many times, and as I've no desire to get into again.