***Official**** Sri Lanka in New Zealand 2014/2015

[Prince EWS]

Mathews with a remarkable economy rate Bowling records | One-Day Internationals | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

Second only to Shakib as an ODI allrounder.

Edit: Before PEWS says Hafeez, na Hafeez is jammy as.

Nah I actually think Mathews is the best ODI cricketer in the world and should probably be given a bigger role in the side. I'm not gonna argue Hafeez. People were arguing Dilshan in this very thread a couple of days ago though.

 

[Athlai]

Nah I actually think Mathews is the best ODI cricketer in the world and should probably be given a bigger role in the side. I'm not gonna argue Hafeez. People were arguing Dilshan in this very thread a couple of days ago though.

Dilshan is probably top 5 material but I don't think he's as good as Mathews, Shakib, Hafeez or even Twatto. Arguably 3rd best bat of that lot but in my mind is easily the worst bowler (if you ignore Twatto when he was actually good).

 

[artvandalay]

Can anyone pm me a working stream for this game? Thanks.

 

[Prince EWS]

Dilshan is probably top 5 material but I don't think he's as good as Mathews, Shakib, Hafeez or even Twatto. Arguably 3rd best bat of that lot but in my mind is easily the worst bowler (if you ignore Twatto when he was actually good).

Yeah I agree basically. Watson's ODI bowling has gone to **** in the last two years since he changed his bowling style, to the point where I consider him a batsman who bowls rather than an allrounder. I'd probably put Dilshan in the same category but I legitimately do think Dilshan is a better OD bowler than Watson now.

 

[Athlai]

Yeah I agree basically. Watson's ODI bowling has gone to **** in the last two years since he changed his bowling style, to the point where I consider him a batsman who bowls rather than an allrounder. I'd probably put Dilshan in the same category but I legitimately do think Dilshan is a better OD bowler than Watson now.

Yeah it's fair enough too. Twatto should probably be regarded as the better allrounder when we look back at their careers, but entering this world cup Dilshan is better.

 

[Athlai]

If this is a No Result, Guptill will average 260 in NR games. Leaves his best for when it rains/doesn't matter.

 

[hendrix]

If Latham gets to 50 and Guptill scores a 100, I'm really looking forward to seeing Hendrix explain to us why this means Latham should open in the first XI.

Even if Guptill scores a trivial 200, Latham just hit the meaning of life.

Game.

Set.

Match.

 

[kiwiviktor81]

If nothing else, we can hope Guptill played himself back into form this match.

 

[jcas0167]

If nothing else, we can hope Guptill played himself back into form this match.

Yeah, even if this is abandoned New Zealand will be thrilled Guptill and latham found some form. The bowlers get a rest too.

 

[Flem274*]

Martin Guptill, God of Storms.

How's his rained off games average looking now?

Seriously if the clouds gather at the World Cup Final we are set. Guptill 150*, Southee 7/30.

 

[Jono]

You're not making the WC final with Vettori at 5. Sort that **** out ffs.

 

[Flem274*]

You're not making the WC final with Vettori at 5. Sort that **** out ffs.

We'll have Latham or Elliott at #5.

Which could be just as effective/ineffective.

 

[GGG]

He is not going to bat him at 5, well I hope not. I would say it is as much to give him time at the crease so he can get himself into some sort of form with the bat.

 

[Hurricane]

So first off I want to give a tip to all the kiwi posters with less than 1000 posts. The way to get your post count up is to shamelessly recycle your material every six months or so. No one has a good memory.
So with that in mind I am going to recycle my favourite point. In order to score consistently in ODIs you need 4 good batsman. I said 3 months ago that we need Guptil to fire and be the 4th of 4 good batsman we have in the team.
If we have Guptil, Brendon, Kane and Taylor all playing well that that is enough batting to win it so long as our role players chip in with timely 20s and 30s at good SRs.

I am worried about whether Martin can deliver as he very much seems to be a confidence player. Now I want to go on a tangent as is my wont and define what a confidence player is as it the term is often bandied about.
A confidence player typically does not have the greatest technique going around in fact there are probably some holes in their technique but if they can manage to get their eye in during an innings and string several good innings in a row together then they can deliver.
More classy players are more consistent as they are more defensively sound and more offensively sound as well.

Sorry if that got into how to suck eggs but I met a confidence player in my grade and he told us "I am a confidence player" so this is fresh in my mind. He was attrocious in the nets and relied on just getting on a roll to score runs. We dropped him after two games.

My other concern is Taylor for us to win it he basically needs to come close to being the batsman of the tournament. He is capable of doing it. That's how highly I think of him. But his new stance worries me.

God speed Martin Guptil well done on your knock.

 

[Flem274*]

Interesting. I've always viewed confidence players as being like James Franklin the proper test bowler. Their technique or ability or whatever is secondary to their frame of mind. A confidence player might have the best technique or bowling action or sharp swing or timing in the world but if he's feeling down after a couple of bad performances he gets stuck in a rut but after a few good balls/good shots he's king of the world.

 

[Jono]

We'll have Latham or Elliott at #5.

Which could be just as effective/ineffective.

He is not going to bat him at 5, well I hope not. I would say it is as much to give him time at the crease so he can get himself into some sort of form with the bat.

Good.

 

[Hurricane]

Interesting. I've always viewed confidence players as being like James Franklin the proper test bowler. Their technique or ability or whatever is secondary to their frame of mind. A confidence player might have the best technique or bowling action or sharp swing or timing in the world but if he's feeling down after a couple of bad performances he gets stuck in a rut but after a few good balls/good shots he's king of the world.

I agree with 80% of this And 100% agree with this "Their technique or ability or whatever is secondary to their frame of mind. "

The best players in the world are not confidence players as they are so darn good that when they have an off day they can still score a 40.

We disagree on this "A confidence player might have the best technique or bowling action" if they had the best bowling action they wouldn't need confidence to deliver. They would deliver because they are seriously freaking good.

I can't get into specifics of James Franklin as I only saw him in the second phase of his career. His bowling was rubbish at that stage and his batting had flaws.

 

[Flem274*]

IMO what you described is a feel player, and the archetype in my view would be Marlon Samuels. If I swapped "confidence" for "feel" in your post "A confidence player typically does not have the greatest technique going around in fact there are probably some holes in their technique but if they can manage to get their eye in during an innings and string several good innings in a row together then they can deliver", then it would be bang on for my definition of a feel player.

I consider "feel" players as guys who are overly reliant on getting on a roll because they don't have good mechanics to fall back on, and I think of confidence players as guys who are heavily reliant on being in a great frame of mind. I mean of course everyone is to an extent but some guys really take failure hard but then when they have a good game they become unstoppable for a bit.

But then I guess you could argue (and if I've read you right, you do) that feel and confidence are related since the feel player would get confident as well, and the confidence player gets their renewed vigor from feeling like they can hit/bowl anything.

My thoughts are you can have a great technique or action but still be a confidence player, which then means if you're down in the doldrums you'll get out or get hit around regardless of your mechanics because it's so hard to apply them. I can't speak for cricket because I suck at it but in other sports, even if you have awesome fundamentals, if you're second guessing yourself and feeling low then you're in the fast lane to making mistakes because mentally you go searching and over-think stuff rather than just relax and stay in a really quiet and simple peace of mind and let unconscious competence take over. Thinking is really hard in the ring, and if you're thinking more than short simple thoughts you're probably not doing.

I imagine cricket is much the same. Just my thoughts.

 

[scooter185]

IMO what you described is a feel player, and the archetype in my view would be Marlon Samuels. If I swapped "confidence" for "feel" in your post "A confidence player typically does not have the greatest technique going around in fact there are probably some holes in their technique but if they can manage to get their eye in during an innings and string several good innings in a row together then they can deliver", then it would be bang on for my definition of a feel player.

I consider "feel" players as guys who are overly reliant on getting on a roll because they don't have good mechanics to fall back on, and I think of confidence players as guys who are heavily reliant on being in a great frame of mind. I mean of course everyone is to an extent but some guys really take failure hard but then when they have a good game they become unstoppable for a bit.

But then I guess you could argue (and if I've read you right, you do) that feel and confidence are related since the feel player would get confident as well, and the confidence player gets their renewed vigor from feeling like they can hit/bowl anything.

My thoughts are you can have a great technique or action but still be a confidence player, which then means if you're down in the doldrums you'll get out or get hit around regardless of your mechanics because it's so hard to apply them. I can't speak for cricket because I suck at it but in other sports, even if you have awesome fundamentals, if you're second guessing yourself and feeling low then you're in the fast lane to making mistakes because mentally you go searching and over-think stuff rather than just relax and stay in a really quiet and simple peace of mind and let unconscious competence take over. Thinking is really hard in the ring, and if you're thinking more than short simple thoughts you're probably not doing.

I imagine cricket is much the same. Just my thoughts.

I'm a bowler (the kind where you knock down pins, not Wickets) and I agree with your last point. Anyone can fry out mentally, and when that happens your physical game goes down the tubes. On the other hand, when everything is going well and you're relaxed everything is muscle memory and making good shots couldn't be easier.

Overthinking can get in the way of great physical talent in pretty much any sport.

 

[Maximas]

Dilshan is probably top 5 material but I don't think he's as good as Mathews, Shakib, Hafeez or even Twatto. Arguably 3rd best bat of that lot but in my mind is easily the worst bowler (if you ignore Twatto when he was actually good).

Dilshan a better fielder than all of those guys it should be noted