• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

***Official*** India in New Zealand 2013/14

Blocky

Banned
this is honestly the last time with you.

If you want to have a discussion you need to treat others with respect. Otherwise you're going to run out of people to talk to.
It baffles me how sensitive so many of you are here to something that anyone rational would see as a throw-away comment. The fact that I answered your points with my own should indicate respect for your position, rather than just leaving it at "you're a fool" - I'd hate to think how many tears would be spilt on a cricket pitch with sledging if you consider something like that a sign of complete disrespect.
 

Blocky

Banned
Southee=picked as an 18y/o after his first season of first class cricket, clearly wasn't the finished product

Wagner=27, been a professional cricketer for a number of years.

Wagner will never be as good as Southee is now.
This is why I make throw-away comments at you, because you took one of three players I mentioned to argue away your point - i.e "Wagner is 27, Southee was 18" - what about O'Brien and Martin who were both in the same age group as Wagner at the time their stats read the same as his? Oh, that doesn't suit the agenda and point you want to make so you focus on one of the three I mentioned to try and discredit the fact that Wagner really hasn't performed out of the norm for a player in his first few seasons of international cricket.
 

Bahnz

Hall of Fame Member
It baffles me how sensitive so many of you are here to something that anyone rational would see as a throw-away comment. The fact that I answered your points with my own should indicate respect for your position, rather than just leaving it at "you're a fool" - I'd hate to think how many tears would be spilt on a cricket pitch with sledging if you consider something like that a sign of complete disrespect.
If you want a forum where people are always calling each other names and trolling one another then I'm sure Pakpassion will be happy to have you.
 

Blocky

Banned
This is all completely fair - I'm just coming from the perspective that Sodhi has already been thrown in the deep end and our alternative in the squad is Bracewell. And also that, while I do like selection based on proven domestic performance the vast majority of the time, I do believe that on occasions it can work to choose someone with good bones and back them for a period of time.
It's horrible selection that both Bracewell and Sodhi are in the squad, neither of them have performed consistently well domestically and in the case of Bracewell, since being dropped from the test eleven, he's hardly set the world on fire in his attempts at making it back in the side, he's not even been the best bowler in CD.

Picking someone with "Good bones" - look, if you're a bowler in the NZ scene and can't get your domestic average near enough to thirty, you don't have the bones for test cricket. The domestic scene is littered with batsmen who average less than 30, you see that whenever someone like Southee gets to play domestic how easy he finds it to take their wickets. Personally Sodhi just has all the makings of an experiment, he doesn't even really deserve his place in the ND side, let alone the NZ one. If you're asking me, Wagner has more makings of "Good bones" than Sodhi.

While I'm not writing off Wagner completely, I have far less faith in him than you and I wouldn't put his overall poor career figures to date down to bad luck. There's some hope there still - while he doesn't have the natural physical attributes of Southee or Boult, that's actually not what's been holding him back - general lack of control, trying too hard and at times perhaps lack of sense being more pertinent. And that horrible seam position - ugh. I'm not holding my breath for a big improvement tbh.

Ideally for me, we'd be playing both tests on a Basin Reserve-like pitch identical to the one vs WI, where you could (just) justify four seamers, and we'd select Wagner as third and Henry/Milne/Bennett/Wheeler as fourth. Most likely Henry as I can most see him replacing Wagner as third seamer. Then reintroduce faith-in-Sodhi for the West Indies tour.
Go review his spells in the West Indies when he first got picked, he consistently beat the bat, troubled the batsman and in many peoples eyes, was our best pace bowler on tour without getting the rewards. Also review his performances against England where he rushed players like Bell, Trott and Pietersen and more often than not was the one to get their wicket. Like I said before, he's trying too hard to bowl quick which means he's scrambling his seam, losing control and trying to play a role that McCullum seems to want him to play. He's also not getting to bowl the long spells that he's used to bowling at domestic, he's a guy who likes to bowl as many as twelve in a spell, he's getting four to six.

His performances at domestic merit him being in the test squad and as I pointed out, statistically he's not performing any worse than most of the players we've tried in their first few seasons, he's also part of a bowling unit that has looked as effective (the three seamers) as anyone has since Bond last played, so I think ultimately, he deserves another couple series. You can see also by the faith shown in him by McCullum and Hesson that they like him in the side.
 

Blocky

Banned
If you want a forum where people are always calling each other names and trolling one another then I'm sure Pakpassion will be happy to have you.
"Fool" is hardly a name. I thought we were cricketers who spoke about cricket, not people who got offended at the slightest conjecture of our opinion. Take a look at the gravel I got thrown for my views on Guptill, did you see me whinge and complain about it?
 

hendrix

Hall of Fame Member
It baffles me how sensitive so many of you are here to something that anyone rational would see as a throw-away comment. The fact that I answered your points with my own should indicate respect for your position, rather than just leaving it at "you're a fool" - I'd hate to think how many tears would be spilt on a cricket pitch with sledging if you consider something like that a sign of complete disrespect.
The way you take one statement and project another meaning onto it is getting very frustrating. Just because I find it disrespectful doesn't mean it has an effect on me. I personally couldn't care less, it just makes me lose all respect for you.

You're taking away from the discussion.
 

hendrix

Hall of Fame Member
This is why I make throw-away comments at you, because you took one of three players I mentioned to argue away your point - i.e "Wagner is 27, Southee was 18" - what about O'Brien and Martin who were both in the same age group as Wagner at the time their stats read the same as his? Oh, that doesn't suit the agenda and point you want to make so you focus on one of the three I mentioned to try and discredit the fact that Wagner really hasn't performed out of the norm for a player in his first few seasons of international cricket.
O'Brien and Martin were never as good as Southee is now. So no, I'm not changing my agenda.
 

Blocky

Banned
The way you take one statement and project another meaning onto it is getting very frustrating. Just because I find it disrespectful doesn't mean it has an effect on me. I personally couldn't care less, it just makes me lose all respect for you.

You're taking away from the discussion.
Ultimately, you're taking it away from the discussion because you call it out as a major point, rather than the throw-away that it was, which then disrupts the conversation which was on cricket. Talking about respect? I mean that makes me laugh, on one hand you're telling me to treat you with respect, on the other, you're telling me you have none for me.

Make up your mind. I don't really particularly give a **** to have circular discussions on etiquette with you, if the word "fool" deeply offends you.
 

Blocky

Banned
O'Brien and Martin were never as good as Southee is now. So no, I'm not changing my agenda.
And Bond was never as good as Hadlee, and Hadlee was never as good as Marshall, and Marshall could never bat as well as Bradman.

Again, you're missing the point - Wagner on merit of performance has done no worse than any other bowler in our test squad after their first dozen tests with two obvious exceptions - Shane Bond and Trent Boult. Therefore if he is performing as any other player in the side has performed and has domestic history behind him, he's obviously doing a little better than you give him credit for, but that requires you to think beyond "I don't like him" which I understand isn't something you enjoy doing.
 

Blocky

Banned
I saw you respond by calling people naive and uneducated. So yes.
I call opinions the way I see them - if someone believes the Indian pace attack poses more problems to us than the Indian spin attack, that would seem to indicate they haven't paid any attention to the NZ side of the last 10 years.
 

Bahnz

Hall of Fame Member
O'Brien and Martin were never as good as Southee is now. So no, I'm not changing my agenda.
Yeah, but if Wagner could become as good as Martin or O'Brien he certainly wouldn't be unwelcome as a 3rd seamer. I'm not sure if I consider that to be particularly likely to happen, but I reckon he's earned at least a full home season in the side.
 

hendrix

Hall of Fame Member
on one hand you're telling me to treat you with respect, on the other, you're telling me you have none for me.
.
I will paraphrase myself, because apparently you're not capable of comprehension:

When you comment using insults and argue by attempting to insult my intelligence, it makes me lose all respect for you.
 

hendrix

Hall of Fame Member
And Bond was never as good as Hadlee, and Hadlee was never as good as Marshall, and Marshall could never bat as well as Bradman.

Again, you're missing the point - Wagner on merit of performance has done no worse than any other bowler in our test squad after their first dozen tests with two obvious exceptions - Shane Bond and Trent Boult. Therefore if he is performing as any other player in the side has performed and has domestic history behind him, he's obviously doing a little better than you give him credit for, but that requires you to think beyond "I don't like him" which I understand isn't something you enjoy doing.
1. Southee was dropped before he came back. Boult hasn't had 2 bad innings consecutively and has never averaged what Wagner averages.

2. Our bowling stocks from 2 years ago weren't even close to what they are now. There was a period in time when Chris Martin was legitimately our best test bowler. That is no longer the case.
 

Flem274*

123/5
blocky why do you turn up if we're all such sensitive and naive little fools who you've given up on educating?

we get it: you may once have sent down some mediums for ND. this might come as a surprise to you but you're far from the only person on this forum who plays, used to play or probably will play pro cricket in future. you're not special, and neither is your opinion. you don't rate guptill and you rate wagner. that's fine, but you can't argue. you might be able to bowl but you really can't argue, which is a shame because you do make a lot of good points in between the education spiels and the leaping to the most extreme side of a debate.

onto the ignore list you go.
 

Blocky

Banned
Yeah, but if Wagner could become as good as Martin or O'Brien he certainly wouldn't be unwelcome as a 3rd seamer. I'm not sure if I consider that to be particularly likely to happen, but I reckon he's earned at least a full home season in the side.
Correct, the entire point I was making. as a Third seamer, Wagner's stats combined with his penchant to take out the better batsmen in the side he plays makes him a competent foil to Southee and Boult. The only issue is that all of them rely on the swinging delivery and in Wagner's case, the reverse swing at about the fortieth over.
 

Blocky

Banned
I will paraphrase myself, because apparently you're not capable of comprehension:

When you comment using insults and argue by attempting to insult my intelligence, it makes me lose all respect for you.
And how is this different to me losing respect for your opinion and considering it foolish when you make a statement about cricket that is just wrong?
 

hendrix

Hall of Fame Member
I call opinions the way I see them - if someone believes the Indian pace attack poses more problems to us than the Indian spin attack, that would seem to indicate they haven't paid any attention to the NZ side of the last 10 years.
Here we go again.

I don't rate Jadeja and Ashwin. Personally I think Ashwin is a poor spinner who's had a bit of a Mendis like impact and won't last long unless he makes dramatic changes. I don't think that either of them are as good as Herath, Ajmal or even Swann. Jadeja's peak would be around the Panesar level.

NZ has faced far better spinners than this pair over the last couple of years.

India's best spinner is Ojha, who would be a major threat, but India haven't even picked him in the squad.
 

Blocky

Banned
1. Southee was dropped before he came back. Boult hasn't had 2 bad innings consecutively and has never averaged what Wagner averages.

2. Our bowling stocks from 2 years ago weren't even close to what they are now. There was a period in time when Chris Martin was legitimately our best test bowler. That is no longer the case.
Yet those bowling stocks that you think we have are completely unproven, everyone you're suggesting as a more viable option than Wagner has either been tried and failed, tried and invalided or not tried. And again, you consistently miss the point about the wickets Wagner does take, which invariably have been top seven batsmen.
 

Top