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

[thierry henry]

He didn't adopt it. Moles is making him do it.

Agreed.

And its about building partnerships, not McCullum scoring hundreds.

Isn't building partnerships about scoring runs?

That's got to be the worst ODI theory ever- let's have one guy stay around and score really slow so our average partnership can be higher and our average score lower

 

[Athlai]

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.

It was against a weak England though, the quality of opposition we've faced this year has dramatically improved. Would be curious to how the current playing models would've worked respectively for each year.

He is certainly a batsman that would score more runs trying his luck though.

 

[Uppercut]

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.

Indeed.

And @ Athlai- I don't mean you were patronising me, I meant I thought you were patronising the middle order in saying that they won't have the awareness take the time to play themselves in when the score is 27/2 after six. They're inexperienced, and in many cases not especially good yet, but they're not stupid.

 

[thierry henry]

My head is seriously about to explode trying to conjure up some theory whereby an individual scoring the same amount of runs more slowly would HELP a team in limited overs cricket.

Athlai, care to actually outline your theory on this?

 

[Howsie]

It was against a weak England though, the quality of opposition we've faced this year has dramatically improved. Would be curious to how the current playing models would've worked respectively for each year.

He is certainly a batsman that would score more runs trying his luck though.

Thus he should be playing with freedom. Having one guy go for it at the top of the order isn't going to cause you're team to collaspe.

 

[Athlai]

Isn't building partnerships about scoring runs?

That's got to be the worst ODI theory ever- let's have one guy stay around and score really low so our average partnership can be higher and our average score lower

Not in that sense. Moles said his strategy was get to 170 or something in 35-40 overs and launch from there in a T20 style. So building partnerships to secure foundations to go all out in the final overs.

Its quite baffling really. I miss when McCullum and Ryder went nuts for broke and then How would bail us out if they ****ed up. Now we have Guptill who is so ****ing good but not as baily outy and more nuts for brokey.
Also worth nothing that the partnership of Ryder and Baz has 519 @ 47.2 in 09 with a RR of 6.12 an over.
... Which seems to be our fastest scoring pair that have played together over 4 times. (Mills and Taylor have 116 runs @ 6.38 an over)
3 100s and 1 50 in 11 innings.

 

[Athlai]

Thus he should be playing with freedom. Having one guy go for it at the top of the order isn't going to cause you're team to collaspe.

But right now its Ryder and at times Guptill who go for it?

 

[thierry henry]

Not in that sense. Moles said his strategy was get to 170 or something in 35-40 overs and launch from there in a T20 style. So building partnerships to secure foundations to go all out in the final overs.

That's still incoherent though, unless there's some proof that slow-scoring= more runs per wicket.

Let's say under the Moles strategy, we reach 180-3 after 40, then launch. Let's say then we're 210-4 after 44, for example.

Assuming the premise that McCullum et al aren't actually scoring more when they score slower, it could be assumed that we might have reached 210-4 after, say, 40 overs rather than 44. There's no conceivable way that 210-4 after 44 overs is better than 210-4 after 40 overs.

Its quite baffling really. I miss when McCullum and Ryder went nuts for broke and then How would bail us out if they ****ed up. Now we have Guptill who is so ****ing good but not as baily outy and more nuts for brokey.

How is Guptill not as "baily outy?". He generally scores more runs than How did, therefore is generally more likely to get us out of trouble.

 

[trapol]

Sorry but what is the justification for dropping Ryder down the order???

The guy is a boundary hitter who hardly lasts past the 15th over as it is. Couple this with the fact that he's arguably the unfittest cricketer in the world

So hows he going to go with running 1s and 2s all the time?

 

[thierry henry]

Sorry but what is the justification for dropping Ryder down the order???

The guy is a boundary hitter who hardly lasts past the 15th over as it is. Couple this with the fact that he's arguably the unfittest cricketer in the world

So hows he going to go with running 1s and 2s all the time?

I've never noticed Ryder experiencing fitness problems on the field tbh, or running between the wickets problems.

 

[Howsie]

Sorry but what is the justification for dropping Ryder down the order???

The guy is a boundary hitter who hardly lasts past the 15th over as it is. Couple this with the fact that he's arguably the unfittest cricketer in the world

So hows he going to go with running 1s and 2s all the time?

Liked that post until I read past the first sentence

 

[Athlai]

That's still incoherent though, unless there's some proof that slow-scoring= more runs per wicket.

Let's say under the Moles strategy, we reach 180-3 after 40, then launch. Let's say then we're 210-4 after 44, for example.

Assuming the premise that McCullum et al aren't actually scoring more when they score slower, it could be assumed that we might have reached 210-4 after, say, 40 overs rather than 44. There's no conceivable way that 210-4 after 44 overs is better than 210-4 after 40 overs.

I don't fully agree with it TBH, want our batsman to play their natural game. There is some merit in McCullum being the foil to players like Ryder, Guptill and Taylor playing their strokes. Partnerships build and then those players come in, in non pressure situations with runs on the board. It doesn't always come off.

I just see the reason behind it and I reckon we should have a little more patience with it. Everyone is condemning it but so far in this CT I think it has worked quite well.

How is Guptill not as "baily outy?". He generally scores more runs than How did, therefore is generally more likely to get us out of trouble.

Guptill's current inability to go on, How just seemed like he had the ability to be there at the end. Guptill will certainly be a far far superior player soon enough though, but hes only just started his career and has barely and experience under his belt. Pretty rough that we look to him to save us (and to Taylor for that matter) when they should really only be in the development stage of their career.

 

[Athlai]

Sorry but what is the justification for dropping Ryder down the order???

The guy is a boundary hitter who hardly lasts past the 15th over as it is. Couple this with the fact that he's arguably the unfittest cricketer in the world

So hows he going to go with running 1s and 2s all the time?

He has trouble with the new ball (a problem when you are opening) yet seems to be adept in all other conditions. He isn't the worst with the new ball either.

The rest of your post is silly, he is close to being the best in the team at scoring 1s and 2s and he has great match fitness. Never seen him drop is head in an ODI and drag his heels.

 

[trapol]

Athlai - now youre sounding like Polo. Is your last post just opinion or fact

How do you know he has great match fitness? He is a reknowned great starter of a tour and as it goes on his performances go downhill. This is fitness. He does bugger all running in ODIs currently which would change big time with a demotion down to 6. (unless of course he was used in the powerplay)

Anyway i was merely pointing out that he doesnt bat past 15 overs very often and when he does its littered with boundaries (hardly taxing). That wont be the case when the field is spread.

If he batting 3 he might as well open even though your point about him being a poor starter is obviously valid. (most people though are not great starters) especially when you consider how aggressive he is.

You have informed us of your opinion and thats great but all ive done is try and offer mine

 

[Howsie]

Athlai - now youre sounding like Polo. Is your last post just opinion or fact

How do you know he has great match fitness? He is a reknowned great starter of a tour and as it goes on his performances go downhill. This is fitness. He does bugger all running in ODIs currently which would change big time with a demotion down to 6. (unless of course he was used in the powerplay)

Anyway i was merely pointing out that he doesnt bat past 15 overs very often and when he does its littered with boundaries (hardly taxing). That wont be the case when the field is spread.

If he batting 3 he might as well open even though your point about him being a poor starter is obviously valid. (most people though are not great starters) especially when you consider how aggressive he is.

You have informed us of your opinion and thats great but all ive done is try and offer mine

He's averaging 49 in test cricket btw. He's probably just hitting fours all day though right....

 

[Athlai]

Athlai - now youre sounding like Polo. Is your last post just opinion or fact

How do you know he has great match fitness? He is a reknowned great starter of a tour and as it goes on his performances go downhill. This is fitness. He does bugger all running in ODIs currently which would change big time with a demotion down to 6. (unless of course he was used in the powerplay)

Anyway i was merely pointing out that he doesnt bat past 15 overs very often and when he does its littered with boundaries (hardly taxing). That wont be the case when the field is spread.

If he batting 3 he might as well open even though your point about him being a poor starter is obviously valid. (most people though are not great starters) especially when you consider how aggressive he is.

You have informed us of your opinion and thats great but all ive done is try and offer mine

He does bugger all in ODIs because he isn't an opener and the field is in.

 

[Days of Grace]

heck the only decent partnerships I can remember when McCullum has been involved is when he's looking to attack.

He played an excellent supporting role to McMillan in the 2007 Chappell-Hadlee game at Hamilton. But, I guess you're talking about when he has been opening.

 

[Days of Grace]

I just see the reason behind it and I reckon we should have a little more patience with it. Everyone is condemning it but so far in this CT I think it has worked quite well.

No, it has not.

We employed it against South Africa, batting too slowly and as a consequence it was all panic in the last 10 overs as we took the powerplay and tried to hit everything out of the park to make up for the snail-like batting in overs 1-40.

Against Sri Lanka, we were actually blessed that Ryder got injured, because his blazing innings meant that even though we had a middle order collapse, we were still 150/5 with 20 overs to go (not 12) which meant that there was no need to panic. The momentum was still there despite the wickets going down and we motored on to score 300+ I can only think that if Ryder hadn't of got injured, we might have been 160/4 from 40 overs again.

If ever there was an argument that Moles' strategy is a dodgy one, just look at those two games.

 

[GGG]

I believe one of Ryder or McCullum should drop down to 6 or 7, without Oram in form we don't have any big boundry hitters once you get past Taylor.

 

[Athlai]

No, it has not.

We employed it against South Africa, batting too slowly and as a consequence it was all panic in the last 10 overs as we took the powerplay and tried to hit everything out of the park to make up for the snail-like batting in overs 1-40.

Against Sri Lanka, we were actually blessed that Ryder got injured, because his blazing innings meant that even though we had a middle order collapse, we were still 150/5 with 20 overs to go (not 12) which meant that there was no need to panic. The momentum was still there despite the wickets going down and we motored on to score 300+ I can only think that if Ryder hadn't of got injured, we might have been 160/4 from 40 overs again.

If ever there was an argument that Moles' strategy is a dodgy one, just look at those two games.

Worked fine in the second game besides the middle collapse. The first game everyone just failed really, the spinners totally got on top of us and were 40-50 runs shy of a good score.

The bottom 6 being skittled out for 19 runs didn't help any either. One of McCullum or Taylor should have probably started striking a bit faster. I'll admit they were behind the eight ball in terms of the tactic but the launch
4/163 with 11 overs to go with a powerplay in hand was pitiful. Should have scored at least 20 more runs.

(Still under a match winning total.)

The partnerships were built but when we launched, Broom, Hopkins, Mills and Vettori fell like a house of cards.

Considering the weaker lower order caused by Oram's injury, the top order should have changed up for that first match.