*Official* New Zealand in Bangladesh 2010

[Zinzan]

I fully accept that Bang have improved out of sight & are no longer easy-beats at home, but that 4-0 series loss makes it easily the most embarrassing time for me as a NZ cricket fan, no matter which way I look at it. And to think NZ were vying for 2nd spot of the ODI ladder just a couple of months ago, makes it all the worse

 

[Flem274*]

True, but I'd have Zimbabwe to beat NZ at present.

I know you're being tongue in cheek, but nah.

 

[Bahnz]

I know you're being tongue in cheek, but nah.

Willing to put an avatar bet on Zim losing every game like we did?

 

[smash84]

A few points:

2) If I had to choose someone from Mills or Afridi to bat for my life in an ODI, I'd choose Mills. Afridi comes off once in a blue moon, but Mills gets consistent quick 20s and 30s.

Afridi has an average of almost 24 and a SR of 114 over his career. Kyle Mills has an average of 17 and a SR of 77. I don't quite see why you would want to choose Kyle Mills over Afridi to bat for your life??????

Where is it being held?

Zimbabe won't get close if it's played in Bangladesh.

From what it seems Zimbabwe have a decent batting order which is doing well against a decent South African bowling attack. Batting seemed to be the real problem that New Zealand faced. So I won't write Zimbabwe off completely. In fact Zimbabwe should still start favorites against Bangladesh. At the very least I won't expect them to give Bangladesh a clean sweep of the series. Something that New Zealand managed to do.

 

[irottev]

^ Mills has improved a lot over the last few years which isn't reflected in his stats. Afridi on the other hand seems to have been in decline.

There is no evidence to suggest that we're better than Zimbabwe really. We just lost 4-0 to Bangladesh and were thoroughly outplayed. Zimbabwe on the other hand are doing pretty decent vs South Africa in South Africa. SA are a much tougher side and yet the Zimbabwe batting has managed to post some pretty sizable totals. In spin friendly conditions their bowling will be a handfull. I honestly 100% believe Zimbabwe will perform better than we did. They will win at least 1 game. Bangladesh did play really well, but really we lost because of our own inept batting. We should be streets ahead of them.

NZ had better turn things around fast. They're a bit of a laughing stock at the moment.

 

[shehwar]

... In fact Zimbabwe should still start favorites against Bangladesh. At the very least I won't expect them to give Bangladesh a clean sweep of the series. Something that New Zealand managed to do.

Intrigued to know that you feel Zimbabwe should start as favourites against Bangladesh! Here is the series record of the last 5 years between these two nations starting from the most recent:

Zimbabwe in Bangladesh ODI Series, 2009/10: Bangladesh 4 - Zimbabwe 1

Bangladesh in Zimbabwe ODI Series, 2009: Bangladesh 4 - Zimbabwe 1

Zimbabwe in Bangladesh ODI Series, 2008/09: Bangladesh 2 - Zimbabwe 1

Bangladesh in Zimbabwe ODI Series, 2006/07: Bangladesh 3 - Zimbabwe 1

Zimbabwe in Bangladesh ODI Series, 2006/07: Bangladesh 5 - Zimbabwe 0

Bangladesh in Zimbabwe ODI Series, 2006: Bangladesh 2 - Zimbabwe 3

Zimbabwe in Bangladesh ODI Series, 2004/05: Bangladesh 3 - Zimbabwe 2

... so looks as if you know something a lot of us dont!

 

[Athlai]

^ Mills has improved a lot over the last few years which isn't reflected in his stats. Afridi on the other hand seems to have been in decline.

There is no evidence to suggest that we're better than Zimbabwe really. We just lost 4-0 to Bangladesh and were thoroughly outplayed. Zimbabwe on the other hand are doing pretty decent vs South Africa in South Africa. SA are a much tougher side and yet the Zimbabwe batting has managed to post some pretty sizable totals. In spin friendly conditions their bowling will be a handfull. I honestly 100% believe Zimbabwe will perform better than we did. They will win at least 1 game. Bangladesh did play really well, but really we lost because of our own inept batting. We should be streets ahead of them.

NZ had better turn things around fast. They're a bit of a laughing stock at the moment.

If you didn't knee-jerk so hard then maybe would be able to see how Bangladesh at home are better than Zimbabwe and how we're better than both of them. And how the teams record over the last 2 years would certainly indicate this. And how the current Zimbabwe-South Africa tour is being played on roads that have par scores over 300, which certainly does help a team to reach a sizable total.

Yes Zimbabwe should probably win a game or two and might even win the whole thing but FFS NZ lost 3 matches by less than 10 runs, we were hardly thrashed throughout the whole series more just completely outplayed in a single match and then marginally beaten on the other days. It could have easily went either way even with our batting collapsing in a heap.

Yes this is probably the lowest moment in NZ's cricketing history but FFS we haven't suddenly plunged off the ****ing map. Some seriously dire posting over this last day or so making this tour thread pretty much unreadable.

 

[Flem274*]

Afridi has an average of almost 24 and a SR of 114 over his career. Kyle Mills has an average of 17 and a SR of 77. I don't quite see why you would want to choose Kyle Mills over Afridi to bat for your life??????

Mills has improved a metric ****load and become a consistent lower order hitter. Besides, Mills can bat with his brain, something Afridi can't. Hence Mills would bat for my life every time.

From what it seems Zimbabwe have a decent batting order which is doing well against a decent South African bowling attack. Batting seemed to be the real problem that New Zealand faced. So I won't write Zimbabwe off completely. In fact Zimbabwe should still start favorites against Bangladesh. At the very least I won't expect them to give Bangladesh a clean sweep of the series. Something that New Zealand managed to do.

Different conditions mate. Those SA ODIs are on roads. Zimbabwe will be up against in Bangladesh and there is no way in a green hell they should start as favourites.

There is no evidence to suggest that we're better than Zimbabwe really. We just lost 4-0 to Bangladesh and were thoroughly outplayed. Zimbabwe on the other hand are doing pretty decent vs South Africa in South Africa. SA are a much tougher side and yet the Zimbabwe batting has managed to post some pretty sizable totals. In spin friendly conditions their bowling will be a handfull. I honestly 100% believe Zimbabwe will perform better than we did. They will win at least 1 game. Bangladesh did play really well, but really we lost because of our own inept batting. We should be streets ahead of them.

I heard we were number 2 a few months ago.

If you didn't knee-jerk so hard then maybe would be able to see how Bangladesh at home are better than Zimbabwe and how we're better than both of them. And how the teams record over the last 2 years would certainly indicate this. And how the current Zimbabwe-South Africa tour is being played on roads that have par scores over 300, which certainly does help a team to reach a sizable total.

Yes Zimbabwe should probably win a game or two and might even win the whole thing but FFS NZ lost 3 matches by less than 10 runs, we were hardly thrashed throughout the whole series more just completely outplayed in a single match and then marginally beaten on the other days. It could have easily went either way even with our batting collapsing in a heap.

Yes this is probably the lowest moment in NZ's cricketing history but FFS we haven't suddenly plunged off the ****ing map. Some seriously dire posting over this last day or so making this tour thread pretty much unreadable.

Agree With The Athlai.

 

[smash84]

I'll start the Topic, whats an appropiate title?

Bottom Tier of ODI Cricket or What?

To the NZ supporters I'll say this much, I've seen alot of Zim Cricket since we play them 10 times every year. They got a Handy Lineup and Utseya and Price could do major damage depending on where the Group Match is played.

I honestly don't think much seperates Zimbabwe to Pakistan, Ireland is a handful at home but there gonna get demolished at the WC, I don't want to put them in the Convo yet

If you didn't knee-jerk so hard then maybe would be able to see how Bangladesh at home are better than Zimbabwe and how we're better than both of them. And how the teams record over the last 2 years would certainly indicate this. And how the current Zimbabwe-South Africa tour is being played on roads that have par scores over 300, which certainly does help a team to reach a sizable total.

Yes Zimbabwe should probably win a game or two and might even win the whole thing but FFS NZ lost 3 matches by less than 10 runs, we were hardly thrashed throughout the whole series more just completely outplayed in a single match and then marginally beaten on the other days. It could have easily went either way even with our batting collapsing in a heap.

Yes this is probably the lowest moment in NZ's cricketing history but FFS we haven't suddenly plunged off the ****ing map. Some seriously dire posting over this last day or so making this tour thread pretty much unreadable.

Agreed. I will conceded this. Probably a bit of a knee jerk but can be forgiven with the kind of **** comments that I have quoted above.

Mills has improved a metric ****load and become a consistent lower order hitter. Besides, Mills can bat with his brain, something Afridi can't. Hence Mills would bat for my life every time.

Be prepared to lose your life every time buddy ......... A brainless Afridi is still much better Kyle Mills.

Afridi is still capable of making quick fire 50s. Can you back Kyle Mills to make any 50s???? In any crunch situation where there are lots of runs required off few deliveries I would always back Afridi to get the runs and not Kyle Mills.

And I think most people would tend to agree that as bad (and brainless) as Shahid Afridi is with the bat he is still better than Kyle Mills.

 

[Flem274*]

If there's 60 needed off 30, I'd back Kyle Mills to crack 20 or 30 of them over Afridi if Mills had another batsman with him.

Since the 1st of January this year Mills has averaged 26.83 down at number 8-9, striking at 92. More than good enough to win a match with a few heaves if he has support (and even with the tail he's all right). Compare this to Afridi, who in 49 matches out of 50 is only good for a boundary or two and I'd rather Mills coming in with very few wickets left and 40 runs to get.

And brains are pretty important on the cricket field. It's why Pakistan are where they are now.

 

[_Ed_]

Since the 1st of January this year Mills has averaged 26.83 down at number 8-9, striking at 92.

Not to mention his bowling average of 18.43 this year. **** he's awesome. Never gets the credit he deserves as an ODI player, IMO.

 

[smash84]

If there's 60 needed off 30, I'd back Kyle Mills to crack 20 or 30 of them over Afridi if Mills had another batsman with him.

Since the 1st of January this year Mills has averaged 26.83 down at number 8-9, striking at 92. More than good enough to win a match with a few heaves if he has support (and even with the tail he's all right). Compare this to Afridi, who in 49 matches out of 50 is only good for a boundary or two and I'd rather Mills coming in with very few wickets left and 40 runs to get.

And brains are pretty important on the cricket field. It's why Pakistan are where they are now.

And of course you probably did not bother to see that Afridi in 2010 has an average of 37.76.

I guess Kyle Mills average of 26.83 might look good in the context of New Zealand's top order batting but it is still far far below Afridi's.

And of course you'd rather have Mills coming in with very few wickets and 40 runs to get. Which is why you will still lose 4-0 to Bangladesh. Possibly even Zimbabwe I should say.

Yeah you can have all the brains in the world but they won't stop you from getting thrashed 4-0 by the minnows unless you have any real talent.

 

[_Ed_]

And of course you'd rather have Mills coming in with very few wickets and 40 runs to get. Which is why you will still lose 4-0 to Bangladesh. Possibly even Zimbabwe I should say.

Yeah you can have all the brains in the world but they won't stop you from getting thrashed 4-0 by the minnows unless you have any real talent.

Wow, that's harsh.

 

[smash84]

Wow, that's harsh.

And the post below isn't????

If there's 60 needed off 30, I'd back Kyle Mills to crack 20 or 30 of them over Afridi if Mills had another batsman with him.

Since the 1st of January this year Mills has averaged 26.83 down at number 8-9, striking at 92. More than good enough to win a match with a few heaves if he has support (and even with the tail he's all right). Compare this to Afridi, who in 49 matches out of 50 is only good for a boundary or two and I'd rather Mills coming in with very few wickets left and 40 runs to get.

And brains are pretty important on the cricket field. It's why Pakistan are where they are now.

 

[Howsie]

Since the 1st of January this year Mills has averaged 26.83 down at number 8-9, striking at 92. More than good enough to win a match with a few heaves if he has support (and even with the tail he's all right). Compare this to Afridi, who in 49 matches out of 50 is only good for a boundary or two and I'd rather Mills coming in with very few wickets left and 40 runs to get.

Eeeek. You're selling Afridi short tbh, he may be an incredibly average batsmen but he's still better the Kyle Mills. How many times has Mills actually hit New Zealand to victory? I'd hazard a guess that a lot of his "scores" have come with New Zealand no chance of winning.

 

[TT Boy]

Good call

Make that 5.

 

[smash84]

Eeeek. You're selling Afridi short tbh, he may be an incredibly average batsmen but he's still better the Kyle Mills. How many times has Mills actually hit New Zealand to victory? I'd hazard a guess that a lot of his "scores" have come with New Zealand no chance of winning.

Thank You Howsie. At least you point this out.

 

[Somerset]

Eeeek. You're selling Afridi short tbh, he may be an incredibly average batsmen but he's still better the Kyle Mills. How many times has Mills actually hit New Zealand to victory? I'd hazard a guess that a lot of his "scores" have come with New Zealand no chance of winning.

I agree with that comment. If you want Afridi to bat for your life you'd probably have a heart attack whilst hes doing it such is his approach, but as far as backing a batsman to belt a quickfire 30 or 40 I'd tend to go with Afridi over Mills. Thats not to say Mills is a poor lower order hitter - hes certainly provided crucial innings in NZ victories (3rd ODI: England v New Zealand at Bristol, Jun 21, 2008 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com and 1st ODI: Australia v New Zealand at Perth, Feb 1, 2009 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com for instance), its just I'd rate Afridi higher. Also worth keeping in mind that Mills has only ever passed 30 five times in more than 100 ODIs.

 

[irottev]

Flem's a bit one-eyed when it comes to NZ. I used to blindly support them but after what they've just done I just have no argument. Afridi IMHO is a better batsman than Mills. Not saying he's good, but he has proven more.

As for "no brains" - it's obvious that the majority of our side has no brains - look at the shots we played. We don't play to the situation and showed no respect to the bowling. We needed 3 RPO yet the way we started we batted like we needed 8 an over. I'm all for positive play, but you can be patient and wait for bad balls rather than try hit good balls for six. It's too premeditated for my liking.

 

[TT Boy]

Fleming doesn't want the job. I'll find the relevant article in a sec.

Greatbatch didn't have the greatest coaching stint with Central Districts iirc, but I think he got a job with a County? He got called in by NZC to do some other stuff and worked his way up to coach.

Got them (Warwickshire) relegated and ditched young English cricketers and experienced pros in favour of Kolpaks. Did a terrible job tbh.