*Official* Bangladesh in New Zealand

[Days of Grace]

Why? Are you afraid that our tail will be exposed and won't add many runs?

If McCullum scores a century at no.8 and our last four wickets add 150 runs, we can still lose if we don't get 20 wickets.

 

[bryce]

Yeah I suppose i'm wrong there on my earlier suggestion, after giving it a bit more thought.
We have no reason really not to rely on senior players Vettori & McCullum to make consistent contributions with the bat from positions six and seven. As you suggest this would also be the only team structure that would allow us to have a genuine chance at winning a test match vs Australia. Having a number 9 batting at 8 isn't a huge deal either really...

 

[Days of Grace]

Tuffey should be batting in the nets as we speak, tbh.

 

[bryce]

Haven't you heard, he's an allrounder, lol

 

[Hurricane]

Ultimately an all rounder would be handy who can bat at eight. There must be someone in the country if Franklin is unavailable. Any suggestions - Nathan McCullum? Yovich?

Initially I wanted to play an extra batsman - but Elliot let us down in the Pakistan series. I am not sure that Broom will do any better.

My recommendation would be
1) Play an allrounder
2) Failing that play Broom as an extra batsman

I would like us to have strong batting against Aussie and play for a draw. I don't believe we will take 20 wickets with 5 bowlers or 4 bowlers. They are a run making machine.

So first preference an all rounder. I don't care who it is there must be somebody. If the cupboard truly is bare then Broom.

BTW Mckay out Arnel in

Brent Arnel replaces injured Andy McKay for Hamilton Test | Cricket News | New Zealand v Bangladesh 2009-10 | Cricinfo.com

 

[Days of Grace]

I would like us to have strong batting against Aussie and play for a draw.

Australia don't draw matches. They bat too quickly. You either win or lose, unless there's rain, so preferably I would like 5 bowlers and back the batsmen to front up.

And FFS about McKay. Great, another bowler with real pace comes along and gets injured straight-away. There's an injury curse man, I swear.

 

[_Ed_]

McKay injured already? Unbelievable.

 

[thierry henry]

McKay doesn't have "real pace" imo

 

[Zinzan]

McKay doesn't have "real pace" imo

Agree with that, certainly no quicker than O'Brien was & possibly slower if you consider Tuffey was getting it close to 140 kms according to the speed gun the day McKay was hitting early 140s. In the next couple of games he was mainly around the 136-142 range which is a tad slower than O'Brien & certainly not "genuinely quick".

 

[Polo23]

Agree with that, certainly no quicker than O'Brien was & possibly slower if you consider Tuffey was getting it close to 140 kms according to the speed gun the day McKay was hitting early 140s. In the next couple of games he was mainly around the 136-142 range which is a tad slower than O'Brien & certainly not "genuinely quick".

Pretty sure he hit 146 in that last one dayer, though I agree he isn't genuinely quick...brisk enough to be handy though and a shame he got injured.

@ Hurricane - not entirely sure why you want us to play for a draw when a draw is probably the least likely of all 3 results. Would much rather see us TRY to win than play for a draw and lose (which is what would happen if that was the mindset). Australias batting isn't THAT good anymore, not invincible by any means, Ponting doesn't look unbeatable these days, Hussey seems to have lost his magic and no one else is really that scary.

In saying that I don't really see playing an extra batsmen as being negative, it is normally the batting where we struggle. We should be able to knock over Australia with 4 bowlers, if we can't then we are going to be in the park for a long long time and the extra bowler would only lighten work loads. I'm not too worried if they go in with 3 or 4 quicks, but I hope like hell they have the mindset to win the series.

 

[Hurricane]

Pretty sure he hit 146 in that last one dayer, though I agree he isn't genuinely quick...brisk enough to be handy though and a shame he got injured.

@ Hurricane - not entirely sure why you want us to play for a draw when a draw is probably the least likely of all 3 results. Would much rather see us TRY to win than play for a draw and lose (which is what would happen if that was the mindset). Australias batting isn't THAT good anymore, not invincible by any means, Ponting doesn't look unbeatable these days, Hussey seems to have lost his magic and no one else is really that scary.

In saying that I don't really see playing an extra batsmen as being negative, it is normally the batting where we struggle. We should be able to knock over Australia with 4 bowlers, if we can't then we are going to be in the park for a long long time and the extra bowler would only lighten work loads. I'm not too worried if they go in with 3 or 4 quicks, but I hope like hell they have the mindset to win the series.

Well I guess we have agreed on one thing that 5 bowlers are no more likely to take 20 wickets than 4 bowlers. Not sure that Days of Grace agrees with this though.
I suggested an all rounder to lighten the workloads. Failing an allrounder I think Broom would be ok but I am not holding my breath for a century from him. But a thirty something score would be nice.

You are right that a draw is unlikely. I think I would just like to see us post scores of 300 instead of the 220 or 210 that I am expecting.

Our last scores against Australia in our series against them

156 (on a seaming track)
177 (on a seaming track)
270
203

Yes our team has changed since then. But with the absence of Ryder has it improved any.

 

[Days of Grace]

Ryder's loss in the middle-order is huge. It puts a lot of pressure on Taylor.

The question regarding whether 5 bowlers are more likely to take 20 wickets than 4 bowlers is a good one.

I just feel that if it's a flat deck (which, these days, is a high possibility), then dividing the workload of 100+ overs between 4 bowlers (one of which is Vettori, who will be ineffective unless it's a spinner's paradise) will be very tough.

Also, don't forget that this is New Zealand. One of those 4 bowlers has every chance of pulling a hamstring in their 2nd over.

 

[Polo23]

I just feel that if it's a flat deck (which, these days, is a high possibility), then dividing the workload of 100+ overs between 4 bowlers (one of which is Vettori, who will be ineffective unless it's a spinner's paradise) will be very tough.

Also, don't forget that this is New Zealand. One of those 4 bowlers has every chance of pulling a hamstring in their 2nd over.

I think if it is a flat deck, and we don't get a miraculous performance out of one of our front line bowlers (Vettori, Martin, Tuffey or whoever the 3rd seamer is) we are screwed, regardless of how many bowlers we have. So as I said before, that 5th bowler would only be there to lighten workloads (of which may be handy if that situation arises, but it isn't going to help us win).

I don't think we can select a team based around the notion that one of the bowlers may get injured! Though it is most likely to be the case.

 

[thierry henry]

Pretty sure he hit 146 in that last one dayer, though I agree he isn't genuinely quick...brisk enough to be handy though and a shame he got injured.

146kph is Daren Powell/Sami pace. As those 2 have showed, it's nothing pace at this level.

 

[Bahnz]

While its bad luck for McKay, I think there's an element of justice in Arnel getting a go. Easily the best domestic bowler over the last 3 seasons. Whether he'll be able to step up in test cricket is another thing, but he's certainly earned an opportunity.

 

[Howsie]

McKay doesn't have "real pace" imo

On average he's only been three or four K's quicker then Southee, if that.

 

[Hurricane]

Mckay says he is planning to fix his delivery stride and gain an extra 3-4 kms.

 

[thierry henry]

It
doesn't
matter

 

[cricman]

Speaking of pacers, I'd like to know your thoughts on Rubel and Shafiul on this tour?

 

[thierry henry]

Speaking of pacers, I'd like to know your thoughts on Rubel and Shafiul on this tour?

Well, they can both bowl low 140s, which I suppose is a new thing for Bangladesh seamers.

Personally (as you can tell) I think that's pretty meaningless..I can't see either of them having a great deal of success....Shafiul seems to be maybe the more intelligent and accurate bowler, but I really don't think he has the natural tools to succeed too much at the top level...unfortunately, when you're as tiny as those two are, you have to be pretty special to really succeed imo.