*Official* Group B Discussion - South Africa, Sri Lanka, New Zealand, England

[trapol]

Aaahhh there you are Polo

Re: Broom

I hope you are right (about proving people wrong...me included) but you SHOULD be wrong when you say he must keep playing

 

[Uppercut]

Dunno until we have secured our middle order we may end up with 150 ao all too often.

Why? It's not like it's a choice between maximising runs from the players at the top and maximising strike rate. They don't score any more runs when they bat defensively, they're just as likely to get out for nothing and see the team bowled out. Which is what happened in the Compaq Cup against India.

 

[Athlai]

When you play aggresively you lose your wicket faster and last less balls. And the abandon ship policy is hit as the panic bells come. If you have a solid middle order than this isn't an issue because they don't panic on the occassions you are 24/2

 

[Uppercut]

Panic stations are much more likely to arrive when you come to the crease at 24/2 off 12 overs than when you're 24/2 off six (which is, I reiterate, the choice here. It's not a choice between more runs and less runs.) Then you have a massive run-rate issue to worry about too. At least at 24/2 off six you can play yourself in.

 

[Howsie]

When you play aggresively you lose your wicket faster and last less balls. And the abandon ship policy is hit as the panic bells come. If you have a solid middle order than this isn't an issue because they don't panic on the occassions you are 24/2

Not entirely true. Using Brendon McCullum as an example here but he'd probably last longer playing aggresively then trying to defend all day. If you don't allow a bowler to tie you down by playing aggresively he's more likely not going to bowl a ball that has a your number on it.

 

[Athlai]

24/2 is an exaggeration and you know it.
The scenario would be more likely 37/2 after 12
And 27/2 after 6

Reckon we'd panic more after the 6 over one. And my point is IF WE HAVE AN ESTABLISHED MIDDLE ORDER they won't panic and they WILL play themselves in. We don't however so it becomes more of a factor of survival than counterattack.

We are close to having that middle order though, 7-11 is secure and so is 4-5. How 6 and 3 (Guptill is great but surely he'll be opening for good soon) end up are the big questions.

If we move Ryder down to 3 or 6 then we might be on to something.

 

[Uppercut]

24/2 is an exaggeration and you know it.
The scenario would be more likely 37/2 after 12
And 27/2 after 6

Reckon we'd panic more after the 6 over one. And my point is IF WE HAVE AN ESTABLISHED MIDDLE ORDER they won't panic and they WILL play themselves in. We don't however so it becomes more of a factor of survival than counterattack.

I think that's just a little patronising. They're young, but you should still expect them to play the situation. If you have to sit and tell them to play themselves in then so be it.

The problem with 37/2 is that the match situation doesn't give them time to play themselves in. The run-rate needs serious upping, and there's no powerplay overs left. Absolute nightmare scenario for a number 4 batsman, I'd say. Especially if it's a boundary hitter like Ross Taylor.

 

[Howsie]

Tbh I don't see the reasoning of moving Ryder down the order, I understand people don't want him facing the new ball when it's swinging but batting at three probably wont help that, not everytime anyhow.

I still think New Zealand's best bet is to play Ryder and Guptill at 1-2 and play someone like Flynn (Who was harshly treated in the ODI team) at three. I still believe Flynn is a better one day batsmen then test batsmen tbh.

1.Ryder
2.Guptill
3.Flynn
4.Taylor
5.Elliott
6.McCullum
7.Franklin
8.Vettori

Thoughts? Flynn would do well at number three in our one day team I reckon.

 

[Athlai]

Not entirely true. Using Brendon McCullum as an example here but he'd probably last longer playing aggresively then trying to defend all day. If you don't allow a bowler to tie you down by playing aggresively he's more likely not going to bowl a ball that has a your number on it.

I disagree. I wouldn't say he plays defensively, he just doesn't try to smack the good balls out of the park.
In 08 he lasted 50+ balls only 3 times in 16 innings.
(Once being his big innings vs. Ireland, the other two being v. England 65 and 51 balls)
In 09 he lasted 50+ balls 8 times in 18 innings.
(v. WI, Aus, Aus, Ind, Ind, SL, SA, SL)

He certainly lasts longer playing this way.

In 08 scores 50+ 5 times in 16 innings. (v. Eng, Eng, Eng, Eng, Ire)
In 09 scores 50+ 2 times in 18 innings (v. Ind, Ind)
He has gotten out in the 40s 5 friggin times. Usually when attempted to accelerate his innings. Reckon if he went on a bit more then only Will would be having an issue with the Moles strategy.

 

[Athlai]

Tbh I don't see the reasoning of moving Ryder down the order, I understand people don't want him facing the new ball when it's swinging but batting at three probably wont help that, not everytime anyhow.

I still think New Zealand's best bet is to play Ryder and Guptill at 1-2 and play someone like Flynn (Who was harshly treated in the ODI team) at three. I still believe Flynn is a better one day batsmen then test batsmen tbh.

1.Ryder
2.Guptill
3.Flynn
4.Taylor
5.Elliott
6.McCullum
7.Franklin
8.Vettori

Thoughts? Flynn would do well at number three in our one day team I reckon.

Flynn might admittedly but Ryder would be a superior at 3 than him, and McCullum/Watling are better options than Flynn too.

 

[Athlai]

I think that's just a little patronising. They're young, but you should still expect them to play the situation. If you have to sit and tell them to play themselves in then so be it.

The problem with 37/2 is that the match situation doesn't give them time to play themselves in. The run-rate needs serious upping, and there's no powerplay overs left. Absolute nightmare scenario for a number 4 batsman, I'd say. Especially if it's a boundary hitter like Ross Taylor.

Sorry if I came off as a bit patronizing there.
But NZ is the master of the middle order class and it seems to only get worse when McCullum and Ryder are out playing daft strokes in the second over.

 

[Howsie]

I disagree. I wouldn't say he plays defensively, he just doesn't try to smack the good balls out of the park.
In 08 he lasted 50+ balls only 3 times in 16 innings.
(Once being his big innings vs. Ireland, the other two being v. England 65 and 51 balls)
In 09 he lasted 50+ balls 8 times in 18 innings.
(v. WI, Aus, Aus, Ind, Ind, SL, SA, SL)

He certainly lasts longer playing this way.

In 08 scores 50+ 5 times in 16 innings. (v. Eng, Eng, Eng, Eng, Ire)
In 09 scores 50+ 2 times in 18 innings (v. Ind, Ind)
He has gotten out in the 40s 5 friggin times. Usually when attempted to accelerate his innings. Reckon if he went on a bit more then only Will would be having an issue with the Moles strategy.

The problem with McCullum is that if he lasts till the end of the powerplays he often stuggles to turn over the strike. It's frustrating watching him bat when he's on 40/50/60 odd and he can't get someone like Clakre/Yuvraj away. Tbh I don't think he'll make too many ODI 100''s during his career, maybe two more if he's lucky (Of course he could improve) but McCullum's best bet when opening is to go full out in the first 10/15 overs. He isn't going to help New Zealand out to much being on 20-30 odd when the powerplays finish.

 

[thierry henry]

Athlai, I know you're reading it, but I really don't think you're processing it

McCullum scores as many runs (at least) when he attacks as he does when he scores more slowly

Therefore there is no benefit gained from him scoring more slowly. Scoring more slowly is only beneficial if it results in more runs being scored by the individual.

The only way to rebut the point being made by the likes of Uppercut is to prove that McCullum has scored more runs on average since he adopted his "strike rate of 70" policy.

 

[Athlai]

He didn't adopt it. Moles is making him do it. And its about building partnerships, not McCullum scoring hundreds.

 

[Howsie]

Flynn might admittedly but Ryder would be a superior at 3 than him, and McCullum/Watling are better options than Flynn too.

Would of thrown Watling's name out their but since he's opening and I still want to keep Ryder up the order it seemed a little pointless.

If Moles and Vetori did decide to move Ryder down the order I wouldn't be to fussed, but I think he gives New Zealand his best service (and chance to score runs) opening.

 

[thierry henry]

TBF it looked like he threw it before Harper called over.

That's completely beside the point. You just don't do crap like that. When was the last time you saw a player dismissed in that fashion? Only McCullum does things like that, in the whole of international cricket. Same with the infamous Mpofu and Muralitharan "congratulating a partner on a century/half-century" run-outs. Same with the "massive completely random appeal for a non-existent edge" I complained about in the CH series last year.

 

[Athlai]

Would of thrown Watling's name out their but since he's opening and I still want to keep Ryder up the order it seemed a little pointless.

If Moles and Vetori did decide to move Ryder down the order I wouldn't be to fussed, but I think he gives New Zealand his best service (and chance to score runs) opening.

Reckon he'd score more runs at 3-5 personally. Get him away from the new ball and he'd be pretty fricken hard to dislodge. Despite this he is still one of our best one day opening options so we put him in a position ala Fleming that he isn't most comfortable in. Just better equipped than anyone else.

 

[thierry henry]

Broom will rightfully continue to play, and will eventually prove you wrong. Mark my words.

What's your justification for saying that?

In his games so far Broom, apart from scoring no runs, has looked about as good as I imagine I would look against proper cricketers. I've hardly seen him hit the ball where he intended once, and I've never seen a "batsman" play and miss or look so incompetent against even part-time bowlers.

 

[Howsie]

He didn't adopt it. Moles is making him do it. And its about building partnerships, not McCullum scoring hundreds.

If it's about building partnerships then I really don't get it. Ryder and McCullum had a very good partnership in 2008 when McCullum went hell for leather, heck the only decent partnerships I can remember when McCullum has been involved is when he's looking to attack.

 

[Howsie]

What's your justification for saying that?

In his games so far Broom, apart from scoring no runs, has looked about as good as I imagine I would look against proper cricketers. I've hardly seen him hit the ball where he intended once, and I've never seen a "batsman" play and miss or look so incompetent against even part-time bowlers.

Yea Broom needs to go. I was all for giving him a decent run but he hasn't really proven anything since his debut match.