*Official* Compaq Cup 2009 in Sri Lanka

[Pratters]

They are an incosistent line up. They have players like Ryder, Ross and Guptill who on their day can amass a solild score. However, the consistency of the line up as a whole is lacking as the Kiwi batting line up fails a lot of times. I don't think that it is a co-incidence that New Zealand have had two consecutive poor batting performances.

 

[_Ed_]

I think the fact that in both cases there was good bowling on a difficult pitch to bat on has to be recognised.

 

[Pratters]

Good bowling should mean that you are able to make say 180-210, not be skittled out for some thing like 100-150. I do think the NZ batting lacks in consistency which is because of the solidity factor - some one to play the sheet anchor role higher up the order while the stroke players are partying on the other side.

 

[Uppercut]

Inconsistency just means players score sometimes and don't score other times. Even Tendulkar only scores a 50 once every three or so innings.

Solidarity in an ODI batting lineup is IMO an illusion created by defensive batting. Vettori's no less likely to get out to good bowling than Ryder just because he bats less aggressively.

 

[Days of Grace]

And that last dismissal is fitting for one of the most pathetic batting displays I have ever seen.

 

[Athlai]

Well a half decent bowling effort here would salvage a bit from this Sri Lankan tour.

 

[Pratters]

Inconsistency just means players score sometimes and don't score other times. Even Tendulkar only scores a 50 once every three or so innings.

Solidarity in an ODI batting lineup is IMO an illusion created by defensive batting. Vettori's no less likely to get out to good bowling than Ryder just because he bats less aggressively.

A defensive-attacking combination can work for a partnership which can lead to runs.

 

[Uppercut]

I think the anchoring role has been redefined in ODIs. You don't want every player to be trying to hit sixes, but you don't want defensive batting either.

I think India hit an awesome blend recently when Dravid dropped out of the team just after the 4-2 series defeat to Australia. You had the hitters like Sehwag and Yuvraj to take the attack the opposition, but you also had players like Dhoni and Tendulkar who run well between the wickets and hum along at a strike rate of 90+. They won seven out of eight series with a side like that, the only loss being the Asia Cup final to Mendis. For me, that's the blueprint for a successful ODI side.

 

[Pratters]

I do think you need an anchor like Dravid except if you have a side with some of the most talented stroke makers in the game. It will all fall apart other wise a lot of times.

 

[Uppercut]

Just to expand on that, this is the Indian side that beat England 5-0 in November. ODI strike rates are listed next to each batsman:

Tendulkar- 85.66
Gambhir- 83.92
Sehwag- 101.85
Yuvraj- 89.31
MS Dhoni- 90.88
Y Pathan- 102.99
S Raina- 86.02

They're not all hitters, but there's no "anchor", no Rahul Dravid (SR 71.22). That's by far the most successful ODI team India have ever had.

 

[Uppercut]

I do think you need an anchor like Dravid except if you have a side with some of the most talented stroke makers in the game. It will all fall apart other wise a lot of times.

I don't think that's the case. You just need a "runner". It's no use filling it with a good test batsman and hoping they can adjust. It's a specialist role. MS Dhoni is the best at it in the game, so you're not looking for someone quite as good as him, but the same mould.

Callum Ferguson isn't what you'd call one of the most talented stroke makers in the game. He currently strikes at 88.36 for Australia (average 58). He's not a big hitter, he just regularly finds the gaps and runs hard for quick singles and twos. That's the type of player you're looking for to surround the McCullums, Ryders and Orams with in the New Zealand side.

 

[Pratters]

They are all terrific stroke players and India is an exception more than a rule. I agree India would do well without Dravid (though they might not do badly with Dravid).

For the other teams though, this is not T20 cricket, this is 50 over cricket where you have to last 300 balls. If you don't have a sheet anchor, you will find yourself creating a very inconsistent batting line up for yourself which might get you 300 on their day but which might also crash for some thing like 150. A defensive player at the other end gives the inning stability and helps partnerships to develop which are the key to consistently high totals.

 

[Pratters]

I don't think that's the case. You just need a "runner". It's no use filling it with a good test batsman and hoping they can adjust. It's a specialist role. MS Dhoni is the best at it in the game, so you're not looking for someone quite as good as him, but the same mould.

Callum Ferguson isn't what you'd call one of the most talented stroke makers in the game. He currently strikes at 88.36 for Australia (average 58). He's not a big hitter, he just regularly finds the gaps and runs hard for quick singles and twos. That's the type of player you're looking for to surround the McCullums, Ryders and Orams with in the New Zealand side.

I agree. A player MUST be able to take the ones and twos coming in the middle. I thought that was a given. That's the player I mean when I refer to a sheet anchor. Obviously if some one is going to give maiden overs to the opposition, it isn't serving much purpose. Can Vettori play that role? I don't know but there is a fair chance he might fill into to that role if NZ cannot find any one else for it.

 

[Uppercut]

I don't think it helps partnerships build, because the player at the other end invariably feels they have to do something to deal with a flagging run rate and often ends up getting out.

Thing is, someone like Dravid isn't a consistent ODI batsman. He only averages 39. Jesse Ryder averages 37. The difference between the two in terms of consistency is miniscule. I think it's nothing but an illusion created by defensive batting.

 

[Uppercut]

I agree. A player MUST be able to take the ones and twos coming in the middle. I thought that was a given. That's the player I mean when I refer to a sheet anchor. Obviously if some one is going to give maiden overs to the opposition, it isn't serving much purpose. Can Vettori play that role? I don't know but there is a fair chance he might fill into to that role if NZ cannot find any one else for it.

Ahaha, yeah, that's what I was thinking myself tbh. But he's tried before and it didn't work, as PEWS pointed out, so perhaps not.

 

[Athlai]

Hmm... we're in a difficult position in one day batting depth because we have a few talented openers (Guptill, Watling, Cumming) and not too much emerging lower order talent (Williamson).

I wasn't initially a fan of Ryder opening, and I think if he continues playing badly there in the CT we should drop him down the order and bring in Watling.

 

[Athlai]

I don't think that's the case. You just need a "runner". It's no use filling it with a good test batsman and hoping they can adjust. It's a specialist role. MS Dhoni is the best at it in the game, so you're not looking for someone quite as good as him, but the same mould.

Callum Ferguson isn't what you'd call one of the most talented stroke makers in the game. He currently strikes at 88.36 for Australia (average 58). He's not a big hitter, he just regularly finds the gaps and runs hard for quick singles and twos. That's the type of player you're looking for to surround the McCullums, Ryders and Orams with in the New Zealand side.

Ryder isn't really a big hitter, Taylor is far and away a bigger hitter than him. Ryder tends to hit more ones and twos than you'd think possible for a man his size. Of course this player has failed miserably in this series so no opportunity for this role to emerge has come about.

 

[Pratters]

While Dravid averages 39, his SR is 70. So he is bound to take up a lot more balls to make those 39 runs than a Ryder. Those balls gives the player at the other end to make the runs while at one end the player can take the ones and the twos. Dravid consistently takes up more balls to make 39 (and 39 is a good average) and I don't think that a player like that in your line up is harmful for a team like NZ. A sheet anchor can do a lot of good for NZ.

 

[Uppercut]

While Dravid averages 39, his SR is 70. So he is bound to take up a lot more balls to make those 39 runs than a Ryder. Those balls gives the player at the other end to make the runs while at one end the player can take the ones and the twos. Dravid consistently takes up more balls to make 39 (and 39 is a good average) and I don't think that a player like that in your line up is harmful for a team like NZ. A sheet anchor can do a lot of good for NZ.

Straight up don't agree I guess, scoring runs more quickly is always always always preferable to scoring them slowly in ODIs. The only exception is for tail-enders batting 9, 10 or 11 trying to stay with the established bat.

Ryder isn't really a big hitter, Taylor is far and away a bigger hitter than him. Ryder tends to hit more ones and twos than you'd think possible for a man his size. Of course this player has failed miserably in this series so no opportunity for this role to emerge has come about.

Fun fact for the geeks- Jesse Ryder hits about 12.9% of the balls he faces in ODIs for a boundary. Ross Taylor hits about 9.6% of the balls he faces for a boundary.

 

[Athlai]

Fun fact for the geeks- Jesse Ryder hits about 12.9% of the balls he faces in ODIs for a boundary. Ross Taylor hits about 9.6% of the balls he faces for a boundary.

Fun fact: Jesse Ryder has played 19 ODIs and Taylor 65. Ryder has also scored most of his runs to date in his 3 big innings. The guy is nowhere near as boundary reliant as Taylor in his game.