Let's not forget, Oram is a regular bowler for the Kiwis. He'd often make the team sheet on his bowling alone. In comparison, Sehwag and Yuvraj bowl for India because there's nobody else to call on, and it shows. Like the man said, all those matches were played in India, in pitches that heavily favour spin bowling. Things are completely different in New Zealand, and there, they will depend on regular bowlers. Why, even though Sehwag showed his 'ability with the ball' in that Test match, he could have replaced an injured Kumble, but Kumble carried on, injured and struggling, so it gives you a hint. Why, if Sehwag was that good a spinner, we would see three Indian seamers in India.Over the past 15 matches, Yuvraj has taken 12 wickets @ 29.33 in 71 overs, conceding 4.98 rpo. Sehwag has shown his bowling ability in test cricket and Yusuf Pathan has done the same in Twenty20 cricket. India's part-timers are clearly the weak point in the attack but the weakness is exaggerated far too often.
Indeed, lets just hope he doesn't break a fingernail in the build up
Toenail imo
Period pain, imo.
Nah, he'd break a toenail and give up IMO.
If Oram saw this, he would beat all 3 of you up at the same time!
I disagree with this. It's fine to go in with the theory that he will be a wicket taking bowler, but that doesnt mean he is good enough to take wickets at test match level. Especially against India's formidable lineup. While Oram, Mills, O'Brien, Southee and Martin all might be similar in terms of pace, they are simply better bowlers therefore more likely to take wickets. Going on the theory that pace and bounce is going to unsettle the Indians despite how many poor balls are bowled, why not pick Mitchell McClenaghan who is quicker than Gillespie, and a left armer.My inclusion of Gillespie is to give the attack a bit of pace. It's all a little samey with the likes of Oram, Mills, O'Brien, I would not worry too much about Gillespie leaking a few boundaries, he would be used solely as a wicket-taking option, and to rough up some of the Indian line-up that are uncomfortable against a bit of bounce, used in short bursts he will be told to bowl quickly.
That's fine, but if you're going to degrade Sehwag, Yuvraj and Yusuf for bowling on spin-friendly pitches, you have to give the Indian pace attack even more credit for their performances on these pitches. Based on statistics, Zaheer > Mills, Praveen > O'Brien and Ishant/Munaf vs. Southee is debatable.. despite the apparently spin-friendly pitches for the Indians. Look, I realize that our fifth option is a weakness but India's advantage when it comes to primary bowlers just about makes up for it. Both sides have strong bowling attacks and NZ's may be just ahead, but it's quite close IMO. That's all I'm saying.Let's not forget, Oram is a regular bowler for the Kiwis. He'd often make the team sheet on his bowling alone. In comparison, Sehwag and Yuvraj bowl for India because there's nobody else to call on, and it shows. Like the man said, all those matches were played in India, in pitches that heavily favour spin bowling. Things are completely different in New Zealand, and there, they will depend on regular bowlers. Why, even though Sehwag showed his 'ability with the ball' in that Test match, he could have replaced an injured Kumble, but Kumble carried on, injured and struggling, so it gives you a hint. Why, if Sehwag was that good a spinner, we would see three Indian seamers in India.
Frankly, Sehwag and Yuvraj should not bowl in New Zealand. The Indian team needs them to score centuries here, rather than score bits and pieces and then bowl utter rubbish with the hope of getting away with it. Let that task of finishing ten overs be given to Yusuf; he hardly has to bat.
Praveen is apparently better than O'Brien, yet is not considered good enough to tour. Interesting. Ishant is comfortably better than Southee though.That's fine, but if you're going to degrade Sehwag, Yuvraj and Yusuf for bowling on spin-friendly pitches, you have to give the Indian pace attack even more credit for their performances on these pitches. Based on statistics, Zaheer > Mills, Praveen > O'Brien and Ishant/Munaf vs. Southee is debatable.. despite the apparently spin-friendly pitches for the Indians. Look, I realize that our fifth option is a weakness but India's advantage when it comes to primary bowlers just about makes up for it. Both sides have strong bowling attacks and NZ's may be just ahead, but it's quite close IMO. That's all I'm saying.
I think adharcric was talking abt ODIs there...Praveen is apparently better than O'Brien, yet is not considered good enough to tour. Interesting. Ishant is comfortably better than Southee though.
@ Polo: Gillespie>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>McClennaghan. Least he can swing the damn ball. Gillespie has bowled well at times, but after his great ODI and test start has fallen away.
WhoopsI think adharcric was talking abt ODIs there...
It is from an Indian newspaper and the scan is provided so it appears legit. This is good news for India and generous by the New Zealand board who surely either allowed this or have the potential to veto it.There is no practice match for India players on their tour of New Zealand. But six players-- Rahul Dravid, VVS Laxman, L Balaji, Murali Vijay, Amit Mishra and Dhawal Kulkarni --will play for each of the six New Zealand state sides in their domestic first-class competition to get ptactice before the Tests.
Of course, and it is only a theory that he'll take wickets. His record is nothing special, and whether the other options you mentioned are that much better, I would suggest is questionable. I quite like Gillespie, that is why I would include him, as a quick bowling option. Variety in your attack is pretty important, and when the options are of similar quality I don't think you lose anything by selecting him.I disagree with this. It's fine to go in with the theory that he will be a wicket taking bowler, but that doesnt mean he is good enough to take wickets at test match level. Especially against India's formidable lineup. While Oram, Mills, O'Brien, Southee and Martin all might be similar in terms of pace, they are simply better bowlers therefore more likely to take wickets. Going on the theory that pace and bounce is going to unsettle the Indians despite how many poor balls are bowled, why not pick Mitchell McClenaghan who is quicker than Gillespie, and a left armer.
This is very generous of NZC and the teams involved. Can't wait to see our guys represent NZ FC sidesThis is off another forum:
It is from an Indian newspaper and the scan is provided so it appears legit. This is good news for India and generous by the New Zealand board who surely either allowed this or have the potential to veto it.
I do rate the Indian pace attack and Harbhajan rather highly for their performances, but more often than not, when they don't have such a good day, they cop all the blame, while part-timers who cobble together ten overs get away with utter rubbish. The frontline bowlers have to bowl in rather tough conditions, and only when it's easy for a struggling or novice bowler to get settled, do you see the part-timers coming on. This allows batting sides to consolidate and build a platform to attack in the final overs, which often happens, and the main bowlers are always blamed for it. Likewise, when the batting side is smashing the main bowlers around, you don't see the part-timers at both ends until two new batsmen are in. We all have to stand by the Indian pacers, but the part-time weaknesses only makes things a lot tougher. The main bowlers have to make up for ten overs of chaos each time. In comparison, the NZ bowling attack will keep pegging at the batting side, offering nothing to get away. Man for man, the top four bowlers in this Indian team may be better than their Kiwi counterparts, but match for match, the Kiwi combination is better.That's fine, but if you're going to degrade Sehwag, Yuvraj and Yusuf for bowling on spin-friendly pitches, you have to give the Indian pace attack even more credit for their performances on these pitches. Based on statistics, Zaheer > Mills, Praveen > O'Brien and Ishant/Munaf vs. Southee is debatable.. despite the apparently spin-friendly pitches for the Indians. Look, I realize that our fifth option is a weakness but India's advantage when it comes to primary bowlers just about makes up for it. Both sides have strong bowling attacks and NZ's may be just ahead, but it's quite close IMO. That's all I'm saying.
Good news indeed. I wonder, why can't they take in these players when there's no tour? We see Mohammed Wasim or some other player (a Lankan, I forget who) playing for a NZ domestic side. This may be explored as an overseas playing option for Indian players, after England.This is off another forum:
It is from an Indian newspaper and the scan is provided so it appears legit. This is good news for India and generous by the New Zealand board who surely either allowed this or have the potential to veto it.
Not much to see tbh, bowls like Harmison and has the James Anderson head drop.In terms of Mitchell McClenaghan, I have not seen enough of this young man to offer anything to suggest whether or not he should be included.