***Official*** New Zealand in the West Indies 2014

[Bahnz]

It's not "rubbish"..whether you think he "bowled well" or not it's simply the facts that in four of his last five series away from home the lad hasn't really done much. And his most recent away tour was against the 8th ranked team where even Tino Best looks like Macko!!...but Trent flopped.

Would disagree with this pretty intensely:

BANG - struggled but also suffered from limited support
ENG - bowled very well with success
SAF - bowled poorly
SRL - bowled very well with success
IND - bowled moderately, but tbh still did better than Roach did in India.

 

[Howsie]

But it's difficult to compare the two when they haven't played a similar amount of games tbh..and also you have to question the opposition Watling has got his runs against..Zimbabwe and Bang? not sure how many big runs have come against decent opposition.

You could say the same thing about Darren Bravo. 450 runs @ 75 against Bangladesh, two 100's one 50. 1500 runs @ 36 if you don't want to include them. Got a feeling you don't feel that way however

 

[Howsie]

Would disagree with this pretty intensely:

BANG - struggled but also suffered from limited support
ENG - bowled very well with success
SAF - bowled poorly
SRL - bowled very well with success
IND - bowled moderately, but tbh still did better than Roach did in India.

Nah come on mate, Boult was ****house in England. Eight wickets @ 20 in a two test series. How did he even make the squad to Bangladesh.

 

[Dan]

It's not "rubbish"..whether you think he "bowled well" or not it's simply the facts that in four of his last five series away from home the lad hasn't really done much. And his most recent away tour was against the 8th ranked team where even Tino Best looks like Macko!!...but Trent flopped.

Roach's overseas record:
West Indies in England, 2012 -- 8 wickets at 34.25
West Indies in India, 2011/12 -- 2 wickets at 53.00
West Indies in Bangladesh, 2011/12 -- 1 wicket at 101.00
West Indies in Sri Lanka, 2010/11 -- 10 wickets at 24.50
West Indies in Australia, 2009/10 -- 7 wickets at 51.00

So one good (<30) performance in SL, one acceptable (<35) performance in England, he flopped (>50) in India and Australia and was utterly useless (>100) in a stunning twist of irony/coincidence, Bangladesh!


Boult's overseas record:
New Zealand in Bangladesh, 2013/14 -- 3 wickets at 58.66
New Zealand in England, 2013 -- 8 wickets at 20.37
New Zealand in South Africa, 2012/13 -- 4 wickets at 46.50
New Zealand in Sri Lanka, 2012/13 -- 9 wickets at 15.11
New Zealand in India, 2012 -- 5 wickets at 49.40
New Zealand in West Indies, 2012 -- 4 wickets at 26.00
New Zealand in Australia, 2011/12 -- 4 wickets at 20.00

So he was gun (<20) in SL, good (<30) in England, Australia and West Indies, mediocre (35<x<50) in South Africa and India, and flopped (>50) in Bangladesh.

 

[WindieWeathers]

So why hold a lack of performance there against Boult, but not Narine? If you want to excuse Narine's underperformance there as being due to the tracks, then exactly the same logic applies to Boult; there's literally no way you can argue that you're not applying a double standard here. Maturing has nothing to do with it whatsoever.

So far we've seen the following arguments:
- Bravo > Williamson because of their respective career averages.
- Ramdin > Watling because of Ramdin's performance over the last 2 years, despite Watling's superior career average.
- Roach > Southee because of Roach's career average, despite Southee's superior performance over the last 2 years.
- Roach > Boult because of Roach's one successful overseas series, despite Boult's overseas stats being significantly better.

It's impossibly inconsistent.

Well Dan it's easy why you can judge Boult...and that's because BD batsmen are much better against spin than they are against pacers..you're welcome to name me one opposing spinner who has got a bucketfull of wickets in BD over the last few years...because that's rare from what i can tell.. In the series Narine played in both Best and Fidel Edwards had fun..getting 5fers etc...it wasn't the spin that won us that series it was the pacers...so whats Boult's excuse?

- Bravo > Williamson because of their respective career averages.

Well actually it's not JUST about the average...Darren is just a better player..average or no average

- Ramdin > Watling because of Ramdin's performance over the last 2 years, despite Watling's superior career average.

Ramdin has played 50 odd tests compared to Watlings 21..so how else could i compare the two but speak about the last few years? and like i said there's question marks over who Watling got his big scores against.

- Roach > Southee because of Roach's career average, despite Southee's superior performance over the last 2 years.

"superior" due to the fact that Tim has been playing games and Kemar's been injured...that doesn't prove that Southee is the better player though

- Roach > Boult because of Roach's one successful overseas series, despite Boult's overseas stats being significantly better.

Where did this "away" record stuff come from btw? i'd appreciate a link to compare the two

 

[ohnoitsyou]

This is such a ***y, ***y spell of bowling in Subcontinental conditions. Seeing a video like this is why I don't bother with "oh Southee/Boult can't bowl overseas" arguments. They bloody well can. Southee the better of the two, by a fair distance, but Boult's no mug.

Never noticed the Southee back of the hand slower ball before. WAG

 

[Bahnz]

Another couple of examples of career averages dictating the better player that you may disagree with:

Boult (26) > Roach (27)
Mitchell Johnson (27) = Roach (27)

 

[Bahnz]

As a side note, it's interesting that Boult underperforming in Bangladesh is a massive mark against him, in spite of his absolutely gun career record, whereas Sunil Narine's underperformance in the same country is representative of nothing, despite his mediocre career record.

****ing thief.

 

[hendrix]

So far we've seen the following arguments:
- Bravo > Williamson because of their respective career averages.
- Ramdin > Watling because of Ramdin's performance over the last 2 years, despite Watling's superior career average.
- Roach > Southee because of Roach's career average, despite Southee's superior performance over the last 2 years.
- Roach > Boult because of Roach's one successful overseas series, despite Boult's overseas stats being significantly better.

It's impossibly inconsistent.

Yes, it's wildly inconsistent, but let's just look at Watling vs Ramdin over 2 years:

Ramdin:
14 matches
753 runs at 44.29, 3 centuries
39 dismissals as wicketkeeper

Watling:
14 matches
843 runs at 43.89, 3 centuries
54 dismissals as wicketkeeper

So even over the last 2 years, Ramdin hasn't been superior at all.

 

[Dan]

****ing thief.

You deleted the post and left me looking like an idiot with my shifting goalpost gif. You deserve it, ****

 

[Bahnz]

Well Dan it's easy why you can judge Boult...and that's because BD batsmen are much better against spin than they are against pacers..you're welcome to name me one opposing spinner who has got a bucketfull of wickets in BD over the last few years...because that's rare from what i can tell.. In the series Narine played in both Best and Fidel Edwards had fun..getting 5fers etc...it wasn't the spin that won us that series it was the pacers...so whats Boult's excuse?

I presume it's probably the same excuse that you'll offer up for why Roach averaged over 100 when he was last in Bangladesh.

 

[Dan]

Well actually it's not JUST about the average...Darren is just a better player..average or no average

k.

Southee's just a better bowler than Roach..average or no average.

 

[Bahnz]

Yes, it's wildly inconsistent, but let's just look at Watling vs Ramdin over 2 years:

Ramdin:
14 matches
753 runs at 44.29, 3 centuries
39 dismissals as wicketkeeper

Watling:
14 matches
843 runs at 43.89, 3 centuries
54 dismissals as wicketkeeper

So even over the last 2 years, Ramdin hasn't been superior at all.

Huh? I have Watling averaging about 35 in the last two years? Is there something I'm missing?

 

[hendrix]

Huh? I have Watling averaging about 35 in the last two years? Is there something I'm missing?

*qualification as wicketkeeper

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[Dan]

Removing Bangladesh/Zimbabwe and controlling to games starting from Jan 01 2012 and beyond, I had Ramdin averaging 34 and Watling 31, or thereabouts. So not much in it.

EDIT:

Ah, hendrix's thing makes sense; forgot about the Kruger van Wyk period. Will re-run the stats then.


BJ Watling
vs. all but BAN/ZIM, since 01 Jan 2012, batting between #5 and #8 as specialist wicketkeeper:
11 matches, 559 runs @ 32.88

Denesh Ramdin
vs. all but BAN/ZIM, since 01 Jan 2012, batting between #5 and #8 as specialist wicketkeeper:
10 matches, 443 runs @ 34.07

 

[hendrix]

if you put in the qualification as playing as wicketkeeper, their stats are virtually identical over the last 2 years. They've both played 14 matches.

The only significant difference is that Watling has taken way more catches because he's had a better bowling attack.

 

[Bahnz]

Yeah both players have profited from cheap runs v Zimbang to a large extent. I make it 34 for Ramdin and 31 for Watling (once you remove his one off match as an opener in 2012). I would also say that Watling is a more athletic keeper, but that Narine is a much safer pair of hands against the spinners - which is exactly what you'd expect given the respective strengths and weaknesses of the two bowling attacks.

 

[WindieWeathers]

Roach's overseas record:
West Indies in England, 2012 -- 8 wickets at 34.25
West Indies in India, 2011/12 -- 2 wickets at 53.00
West Indies in Bangladesh, 2011/12 -- 1 wicket at 101.00
West Indies in Sri Lanka, 2010/11 -- 10 wickets at 24.50
West Indies in Australia, 2009/10 -- 7 wickets at 51.00

So one good (<30) performance in SL, one acceptable (<35) performance in England, he flopped (>50) in India and Australia and was utterly useless (>100) in a stunning twist of irony/coincidence, Bangladesh!


Boult's overseas record:
New Zealand in Bangladesh, 2013/14 -- 3 wickets at 58.66
New Zealand in England, 2013 -- 8 wickets at 20.37
New Zealand in South Africa, 2012/13 -- 4 wickets at 46.50
New Zealand in Sri Lanka, 2012/13 -- 9 wickets at 15.11
New Zealand in India, 2012 -- 5 wickets at 49.40
New Zealand in West Indies, 2012 -- 4 wickets at 26.00
New Zealand in Australia, 2011/12 -- 4 wickets at 20.00

So he was gun (<20) in SL, good (<30) in England, Australia and West Indies, mediocre (35<x<50) in South Africa and India, and flopped (>50) in Bangladesh.

Good to see the stats...well for a start how can you deduce that Boult was "good" in WI when he's only played ONE test in our backyard of which his team lost easily? It's just like Roach's stats in India and BD..he's only played ONE GAME in both of those countries..both while carrying an injury which was in 2011...so imo to judge him off that is very harsh...i think you need at least two matches to really see how a player done in those conditions...i mean if Boult would have just played in the 2nd test in India his stats would be as bad as Kemar's....that's why i rarely talked about Boult's performances in WI because it's not fair to just judge off one match.

 

[Dan]

I'm a social science student

And how can you say that "if Boult would have played in the 2nd test in India his stats would be as bad as Kemar's"? He didn't play that Test; he may have dominated, or he may have sucked. We simply don't know.

FTR you're the one who decided to talk about it series-by-series. You brought in the potential for sample size issues, not me. The rest of us were looking at overall away records.

 

[hendrix]

Good to see the stats...well for a start how can you deduce that Boult was "good" in WI when he's only played ONE test in our backyard of which his team lost easily? It's just like Roach's stats in India and BD..he's only played ONE GAME in both of those countries..both while carrying an injury which was in 2011...so imo to judge him off that is very harsh...i think you need at least two matches to really see how a player done in those conditions...i mean if Boult would have just played in the 2nd test in India his stats would be as bad as Kemar's....that's why i rarely talked about Boult's performances in WI because it's not fair to just judge off one match.

So it's possible to deduce if a bowler was "good" but not when he was "bad".