**Official** New Zealand in Australia

[KiWiNiNjA]

So Cumming, Diamanti, Hopkins and Boult were the right players to be called upon as squad fillers and cover for injury?

*Cumming (a batsman) replaced Ryder (a batsman), it would be silly to replace Ryder with a batsman who also bowls 5 overs or so when Ryders main role in the side is that of a batsman.

*Hopkins (a keeper) came into the squad as cover for McCullum (a keeper).

*Boult is there for experience.

The only question over squad selection is regarding Diamanti, who has been selected as an allrounder. If they don't want to use him when going with only 4 specialist bowlers, then that's a silly selection.

 

[Julian87]

*Cumming (a batsman) replaced Ryder (a batsman), it would be silly to replace Ryder with a batsman who also bowls 5 overs or so when Ryders main role in the side is that of a batsman.

*Hopkins (a keeper) came into the squad as cover for McCullum (a keeper).

*Boult is there for experience.

The only question over squad selection is regarding Diamanti, who has been selected as an allrounder. If they don't want to use him when going with only 4 specialist bowlers, then that's a silly selection.

So Cumming is the next best one day batsman in NZ and Hopkins is a better option than other keepers?

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

So Cumming is the next best one day batsman in NZ and Hopkins is a better option than other keepers?

Cumming is in form, they aren't going to pick Sinclair again.
Hopkins is deemed to be the 2nd best keeper in the country.

So yes and yes, I suppose.

 

[Julian87]

I know Hopkins is deemed to be th second best keeper in the country, but I haven't heard that from one avid supporter as yet.

 

[stephen]

Yes, Warne took wickets, but why 40 wickets? Because none of the other bowlers save perhaps McGrath was upto the task.

Flintoff competed with Harmison, Simon Jones etc at their peaks, and yet got the breakthroughs his team always wanted.

Not to mentions runs scored at the most crucial of times.

But isn't that that point of the player of the series - to pick the most outstanding player to have played the series. The player with the single largest impact over the course of the series. Warne certainly was that man. He took vital wickets when they needed to be taken and was the only reason Australia were not thrashed. With both bat and ball he was exceptional.

Don't get me wrong, Flintoff was brilliant, but Warne was at his absolute best. I've never seen a bowler bowl better.

The best bowlers of all time take around 4-5 wickets per match. Warne took 8 wpm in that series. The only thing which counts against him for that series was dropping Pieterson. Flintoff was good but had a better attack to back him up.

 

[stephen]

I just hate that attitude. Open with someone because they are **** in the middle order, even though they are barely mediocre when opening. James Hopes simply does not have the natural talent with the bat to even open the batting in ODIs, let alone win a match for Australia with the willow, batting first.

It's all about maximising the amount of output that you get from each player. Elevating Hopes to opener might mean that our opener averages 25 or 30 instead of 35 or 40, but the extra ten runs are saved when we can either play an extra bowler and thus keep the pressure on for all fifty overs or play an extra batsman giving us more firepower down the order.

Hopes is a quality batsman, definately better than what most people give him credit for, but he's a top order player, not a lower order one. Batting him at 8 is a waste of his abilities.

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

I know Hopkins is deemed to be th second best keeper in the country, but I haven't heard that from one avid supporter as yet.

Well, that shows the lack of depth NZ has in the keeping position. Unfortunately there is no other keeper that stands out.

It basically McCullum, then a couple of light years, then Hopkins and the like.

 

[Flem274*]

Well, that shows the lack of depth NZ has in the keeping position. Unfortunately there is no other keeper that stands out.

It basically McCullum, then a couple of light years, then Hopkins and the like.

Van Wyk.

Also Watling, Williamson, Sinclair>Cumming.

 

[Precambrian]

But isn't that that point of the player of the series - to pick the most outstanding player to have played the series. The player with the single largest impact over the course of the series. Warne certainly was that man. He took vital wickets when they needed to be taken and was the only reason Australia were not thrashed. With both bat and ball he was exceptional.

Don't get me wrong, Flintoff was brilliant, but Warne was at his absolute best. I've never seen a bowler bowl better.

The best bowlers of all time take around 4-5 wickets per match. Warne took 8 wpm in that series. The only thing which counts against him for that series was dropping Pieterson. Flintoff was good but had a better attack to back him up.

Sorry I disagree.

To say Warne had more impact than Flintoff in the series is not right considering in the end it was England won the series and not Australia.

To repeat myself, Warne got 40 wickets simply because the other bowlers (barring McG) was **** and hence Warne had more chances to have a go at the bowlers.

Flintoff had much superior batsmen to bowl to and took wickets when needed, and despite stif competition managed to pluck 24 wickets @ a reasonable cost of 27.

Apart from that is the sheer value of runs he scored for England. Which was 402 runs @ 40 (no notouts at all).

 

[Julian87]

Hopes is a quality batsman, definately better than what most people give him credit for, but he's a top order player, not a lower order one. Batting him at 8 is a waste of his abilities.

How is someone who averages under 30 (even at state level) a quality top order batsman though?

 

[Burgey]

Sorry I disagree.

To say Warne had more impact than Flintoff in the series is not right considering in the end it was England won the series and not Australia.

To repeat myself, Warne got 40 wickets simply because the other bowlers (barring McG) was **** and hence Warne had more chances to have a go at the bowlers.

Flintoff had much superior batsmen to bowl to and took wickets when needed, and despite stif competition managed to pluck 24 wickets @ a reasonable cost of 27.

Apart from that is the sheer value of runs he scored for England. Which was 402 runs @ 40 (no notouts at all).

Then how come Flintoff didn't take 40 wickets in the 06-07 Ashes?

FTR, I think Fred deserved the award in 05 anyway, given his team won and he was the best mint chewer in the side.

 

[Julian87]

I'd have opened with Hopes from the squad originally chosen. Personally, with the injuries I'd have opened with Klinger and Marsh originally and probably pushed up Clarke when Marsh went down, because I think Hopes is ****.

The fact that Klinger has been ignored all summer for the likes of White and Warner has really annoyed and stumped me, so I agree on that one.

Agree to disagree on Hopes though, I just don't reckon he is up to it.

 

[aussie]

Then how come Flintoff didn't take 40 wickets in the 06-07 Ashes?

FTR, I think Fred deserved the award in 05 anyway, given his team won and he was the best mint chewer in the side.

Haa, was just about to say that. Lack of extreme-reverse swing & Simon Jones to partner him being the reasons.

Even if Dizzy & Kasper had held the form of 2004, i still reckon Warne would have taken more than 30 wickets in the 05. He really was on some superman sh*t back then..

 

[stephen]

Sorry I disagree.

To say Warne had more impact than Flintoff in the series is not right considering in the end it was England won the series and not Australia.

To repeat myself, Warne got 40 wickets simply because the other bowlers (barring McG) was **** and hence Warne had more chances to have a go at the bowlers.

Flintoff had much superior batsmen to bowl to and took wickets when needed, and despite stif competition managed to pluck 24 wickets @ a reasonable cost of 27.

Apart from that is the sheer value of runs he scored for England. Which was 402 runs @ 40 (no notouts at all).

Flintoff took 24 wickets at 27 with a strike rate of 49.
Warne took 40 wickets at 20 with a strike rate of 37.

Flintoff made 402 runs at 40 over 10 innings (0 n/o).
Warne made 249 runs at 28 over 9 innings (0 n/o).

Flintoff's best batting was in the two games England won and Warne's best batting was in one of the two draws. Both played important innings for their country with the bat. Neither had average padding not outs.

You say that Flintoff shared the wickets, but a large part of the reason that England won was because all of their bowlers worked as a team to create pressure at both ends. Warne took his wickets largely through sheer bloody brilliant bowling on his part as the other bowlers bowled terribly. He also took two ten wicket hauls in a five match series!

In the history of the game there have been only seven other bowlers to take 40 wickets or more in a series, and four of these were six match series'.

Warne was clearly the best bowler on the Australian side, while for the English, even though they took less wickets total, Jones and Hoggard both had better strike rates and Jones a better average than Flintoff (Jones only played the first four games and the game he did not play England only managed to take wickets due to Aussie desperation in poor light conditions).

There are so many reasons why Warne should have won player of the series and the only argument for Flintoff was that his team won the series, which was more to do with the operation of the team as a unit than his individual brilliance.

If you think that the extra 150 runs that Flintoff scored were far more valuable than the extra 16 wickets that Warne took then you are welcome to your opinion, but I don't think that most neutral observers could sincerely agree with you.

 

[stephen]

How is someone who averages under 30 (even at state level) a quality top order batsman though?

His average for QLD has been improving as opener and is better than 30 in that position.

 

[Zinzan]

Says the guy who constantly rubbishes another one of NZ's best ODI players of the last decade.

Haha, my thoughts exactly - pot/kettle/black

 

[Zinzan]

His batting & bowling reminds me of Chris Cairns. Cairns has had great matches in australia, just like these played by Elliot

Your kidding right, Elliott has just about the opposite attributes to Cairns as a batsman Amazing what some people say in the spare of the moment

 

[slugger]

i think elliott is more like m bevan.. when it comes to his batting cairns was far more aggressive than both..

 

[Smudge]

Van Wyk.

Also Watling, Williamson, Sinclair>Cumming.

Let's just wait until he finishes his second season before you drop to your knees, Flem. His shot to get out in the one-day final says to me he still needs a lot more time.

 

[thierry henry]

You are Roneel Hira and I claim my 5 Auckland Francs.

Nah....Ronnie has been sh*t this season but at least he hasn't strung 10 seasons of it together (yet)