Your New Zealand World Cup Squad if selected today...

[Zinzan]

I feel like you're being obtuse here. Mills has not bowled at the death because it's a known quantity that he's not good at. Everyone in NZ - including the coaches and the captain - have known that for years. That was the point in investing in Anderson at the death. You can only take 4 bowlers and an allrounder. Anderson's role is to aim for 7 an over.

You're missing the point of the argument. It's not that Mills should be in the team or that Anderson shouldn't, nobody said that. GGG asked a fair question about the data that shows how *** Mills is at the death, which nobody has been able to provide.

FTR I don't think Mills is that good at the death either, but i feel it's exacerbated by the fact his first spell of 6-7 overs is usually so good and hence it's exaggerated. He's not as bad as people make out.

Corey Anderson is obviously a talented cricketer & I understand why we look to him at the death given the way Bmac uses so much of Boult & Southee's overs in the start & middle, but let's not pretend Anderson is good at it. If we're honest he has picked up some Jammy wickets of late, which helps.

There is a reason we don't want Anderson bowling his full quota of 10 overs & it's because he's still our main liability with the ball regardless of what spin you want to put on it.

 

[Mike5181]

It's a myth. Anderson is allowed to be one our of most expensive bowlers ever of all time, yet apparently Mills gets smashed all over the shop after his opening spell, just because his last 3 overs aren't as good as his usual opening spell of 7 overs 1-25. Go figure.

39 off three overs. No wickets. 8th Match: Australia v New Zealand at Perth, Jan 28, 2007 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

Comes back at the 45th over - Rory Kleinveldt smacks 19 off the over. No wicket. 1st ODI: South Africa v New Zealand at Paarl, Jan 19, 2013 | Cricket Commentary | ESPN Cricinfo

Pathan smacks 21 in one over in this game. 33 runs in three overs, no wickets. - 4th ODI: India v New Zealand at Bangalore, Dec 7, 2010 | Cricket Commentary | ESPN Cricinfo

40 in three overs. No wickets - 3rd ODI: New Zealand v Australia at Christchurch, Dec 10, 2005 | Cricket Commentary | ESPN Cricinfo

33 in two overs - 3rd ODI: New Zealand v Pakistan at Christchurch, Jan 29, 2011 | Cricket Commentary | ESPN Cricinfo

Symonds smashes him. 36 runs off two overs at the death (no wickets). 3rd ODI: New Zealand v Pakistan at Christchurch, Jan 29, 2011 | Cricket Commentary | ESPN Cricinfo

39 off 3 - Edwards/Bravo combo get to him. 5th ODI: New Zealand v West Indies at Hamilton, Jan 8, 2014 | Cricket Commentary | ESPN Cricinfo

Comes on at the 46th. Concedes 31 off 2. Again - no wickets. Owais Shah the guy. 1st ODI: England v New Zealand at Chester-le-Street, Jun 15, 2008 | Cricket Commentary | ESPN Cricinfo

30 off 2. No wickets. 3rd ODI: New Zealand v Australia at Auckland, Feb 26, 2005 | Cricket Commentary | ESPN Cricinfo

Nearly loses the game for us. 33 off 2 - Pollock smacks three sixes in one over. 3rd ODI: New Zealand v South Africa at Wellington, Feb 20, 2004 | Cricket Commentary | ESPN Cricinfo

England 223/5 struggling to post a decent score. Mills comes on 47th and Butler smashes 22 runs off his over. 3rd ODI: England v New Zealand at Nottingham, Jun 5, 2013 | Cricket Commentary | ESPN Cricinfo

South Africa 179/8 - Mills comes on and Nel takes him for 16 in the over 2nd ODI: South Africa v New Zealand at Port Elizabeth, Nov 30, 2007 | Cricket Commentary | ESPN Cricinfo

Mills comes on in the 34th, Pakistan are just slogging. Razzaq/Gul take him for 27 in 2 overs. 24th Match, Group A: New Zealand v Pakistan at Pallekele, Mar 8, 2011 | Cricket Commentary | ESPN Cricinfo

It's definitely not a myth. Most people who have followed his career would put death bowling down as one of his weaknesses.

There'd be quite a few more, but to be fair to him - there's also a reasonable amount of passable performances.

 

[Zinzan]

The myth was that Mills is 'awful' at the death & gets taking to the 'cleaners' as opposed to just being below average. A point often exaggerated on CW. In contrast, Anderson has been genuinely poor at the death (or whenever he bowls) for a while now, yet is rarely brought up.

As I said, I wouldn't play Mills either, although in fairness, 13 instances out of 170 games or 7% is actually a surprisingly low number for someone who's never been that good at the death, so I'm sure there must be more quite a few more instances, because even better death bowlers playing 10 years would have at least that number.

What would now be interesting to see how often Anderson's received tap at the death even though he's only bowled 13% of the numbers of overs Mills has in his career to date. Might have a gander.

 

[hendrix]

What would now be interesting to see how often Anderson's received tap at the death even though he's only bowled 13% of the numbers of overs Mills has in his career to date. Might have a gander.

That would be completely ignoring that:
a) Anderson has bowled a much higher proportion of death overs*
b) He's done it while developing as a bowler, and has really only got it right in the last few months.

*Partly because he's been instructed to learn death bowling, and partly because Mills has been shielded from death bowling because, as we know, he's bloody awful at it.

 

[Zinzan]

That would be completely ignoring that:
a) Anderson has bowled a much higher proportion of death overs*
b) He's done it while developing as a bowler, and has really only got it right in the last few months.

*Partly because he's been instructed to learn death bowling, and partly because Mills has been shielded from death bowling because, as we know, he's bloody awful at it.

a) It won't be ignoring it all if we take in all into context.
b) That's utterly irrelevant unless there's clear evidence he's improved a lot recently. And let's be honest, while he hasn't bowled badly at the WC to date (with some jammy wickets along the way ), he's hardly been tested at the death against half-decent sides since Southee, Boult & co have been bowling them out. The jury is still out as far as I'm concerned, and I'll be happy if he proves me wrong.

You mentioned earlier about 7 an over at the death, I'll be absolutely over the moon if he goes for just 7s against any of the top 9 teams on a good batting day. I just can't see that happening very often at all & I fear him getting punished more than Mills ever has on a bad day.

 

[hendrix]

He's improved out of sight in the last few months. He's not Malinga but he's been worth the investment.

It's late, I'll pick out some games tomorrow but this is mainly just memory from watching him bowl.

 

[Zinzan]

Let's just see how he goes when he's really tested at the death, facing the modern day equivalence of the Shaun Pollock/Jacques Kallis assault on Mills all those years ago, which is likely to happen in the next couple of weeks.

I really hope you're right and I'm wrong.....Remembering I'm already 1-0 up after warning you your boy Latham wasn't ready for white-ball internationals just yet.

Edit: I don't actually have a solution since Jesse being Jesse really *** the balance of the bowling attack. Only made worse by the fact Williamson's proved less effective with the new action & Elliott has been mixed to say the least. ATM I just accept Anderson is our weak link at the death, even if he has been getting marginally better.

 

[Flem274*]

so cricinfo apparently have "world cup" as a profile category now. i clicked on oram and the man has 36 world cup wickets @ 21 from 23 games. wag

 

[kiwiviktor81]

I don't think Corey Anderson is at all bad at the death. He might go for runs but he has a strike rate of 24, which suggests to me that he just gets targeted (and usually not very well).

 

[thierry henry]

FTR I don't think Mills is that good at the death either, but i feel it's exacerbated by the fact his first spell of 6-7 overs is usually so good and hence it's exaggerated. He's not as bad as people make out.

100x this

For the record, I have for years been one of the biggest "don't bowl Mills at the death" proponents. Partly it was because he was bad at it, but partly it was because he was so comparatively good upfront.

My impression was that Mills would consistently churn out outstanding opening spells of say 7-19-2 and then end up with 10-49-2. It wasn't so much that he was worse than our other options. It was that he was McGrath-esque up front but then distinctly not world-class at the death and therefore it was a waste to not just bowl him 10 up front.

It was more about maximising Mills' talents and now it's become "we can't ever bowl Mills at the death and therefore if we have better new-ball bowlers he can't play" which I seriously question. It's as if Mills being so bad at the death in comparison to with the new ball has led to a belief that he is far worse at the death than he is. I suspect this may stem from an underrating of his new-ball bowling, so people think "he's decent with the new ball and crap at the death" rather than "he's world-class with the new ball and a bit dodgy at the death". It's just damn hard for people to see an "unfashionable" cricketer like Mills as genuinely world class at anything.

I also (and I'm sure this will be regarded as sacrilege) have to seriously question when Southee became a more effective ODI new-ball bowler than Mills? When did Southee ever consistently deliver the kind of results Mills has for years?

I get that the combination of Southee being our test spearhead + much-heralded long-term leader of the attack + consistently improving bowler in all formats + 7-for against England has pretty much made the question moot, but strictly wrt the ODI new-ball role I'm not sure that Southee's performances ever genuinely usurped Mills'? Mightn't Mills have made more sense as a new ball bowler with Southee still effective from about over 12 or 14 onwards (see: England game) and at the death?

I'm fighting a pointless and unwinnable battle I know, but I feel there is a lot of dodgy after-the-event rationalising going on here.

 

[Howsie]

Southee's ODI record 18-24 months before the World Cup was pretty bad tbh, iirc he would've averaged close to 40 with the ball during that period. Not that it mattered because ODI's for the most part are pointless and when where off on tours and a player is playing a game here and a game there how much are we suppose to read into it? Southee in two World Cups now has been outstanding, as they say the cream raises to the top and that was likely to happen again. Hence why I was so deadset keen on Boult playing, quality will always shine through during tournaments like this. Mills might go okay against a third string Aussie team but how's he going to go against the top team in a game that actually matters. You'd have to think he'd get found out.

 

[thierry henry]

Southee's ODI record 18-24 months before the World Cup was pretty bad tbh, iirc he would've averaged close to 40 with the ball during that period. Not that it mattered because ODI's for the most part are pointless and when where off on tours and a player is playing a game here and a game there how much are we suppose to read into it? Southee in two World Cups now has been outstanding, as they say the cream raises to the top and that was likely to happen again. Hence why I was so deadset keen on Boult playing, quality will always shine through during tournaments like this. Mills might go okay against a third string Aussie team but how's he going to go against the top team in a game that actually matters. You'd have to think he'd get found out.

Is that seriously your argument? That ODIs (the most commonly played form of cricket where we have the biggest sample size to make our assessments from) are all so meaningless that when we assess who should play in an ODI world cup we discard ODI performances?

Each to their own but that's crazy to me and a bit of a discussion killer really. Perhaps an appropriate point to firmly agree to disagree. To say that Mills "would probably get found out" after 14 years of not getting "found out"- really?

 

[Howsie]

No, that's not my point. My argument before this World Cup with regards to Southee v Mills would've been forget the last 18 months where Southee had been terrible and Mills statiscally good, you're not convincing me for a second that Southee isn't the better bowler and won't put in a better chance if a game changing performance.

 

[thierry henry]

No, that's not my point. My argument before this World Cup with regards to Southee v Mills would've been forget the last 18 months where Southee had been terrible and Mills statiscally good, you're not convincing me for a second that Southee isn't the better bowler and won't put in a better chance if a game changing performance.

Yes, so your argument essentially is forget ODI performances when trying to make an argument that Mills>Southee as an ODI new-ball bowler. Because if there was ever a concerted period of time were Southee outdid Mills in that role, I must've missed it.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

100x this

For the record, I have for years been one of the biggest "don't bowl Mills at the death" proponents. Partly it was because he was bad at it, but partly it was because he was so comparatively good upfront.

My impression was that Mills would consistently churn out outstanding opening spells of say 7-19-2 and then end up with 10-49-2. It wasn't so much that he was worse than our other options. It was that he was McGrath-esque up front but then distinctly not world-class at the death and therefore it was a waste to not just bowl him 10 up front.

It was more about maximising Mills' talents and now it's become "we can't ever bowl Mills at the death and therefore if we have better new-ball bowlers he can't play" which I seriously question. It's as if Mills being so bad at the death in comparison to with the new ball has led to a belief that he is far worse at the death than he is. I suspect this may stem from an underrating of his new-ball bowling, so people think "he's decent with the new ball and crap at the death" rather than "he's world-class with the new ball and a bit dodgy at the death". It's just damn hard for people to see an "unfashionable" cricketer like Mills as genuinely world class at anything.

I also (and I'm sure this will be regarded as sacrilege) have to seriously question when Southee became a more effective ODI new-ball bowler than Mills? When did Southee ever consistently deliver the kind of results Mills has for years?

I get that the combination of Southee being our test spearhead + much-heralded long-term leader of the attack + consistently improving bowler in all formats + 7-for against England has pretty much made the question moot, but strictly wrt the ODI new-ball role I'm not sure that Southee's performances ever genuinely usurped Mills'? Mightn't Mills have made more sense as a new ball bowler with Southee still effective from about over 12 or 14 onwards (see: England game) and at the death?

I'm fighting a pointless and unwinnable battle I know, but I feel there is a lot of dodgy after-the-event rationalising going on here.

Mills is a fantastic opening bowler, he's just in the unlucky position of directly competing for Southee and Boult's new ball overs if he's picked ahead of Milne. In a situation where Southee and Boult are getting tonked and Mills comes in for some early overs then it's likely the conditions aren't favourable to Mills either, making his selection as a 3rd seamer pointless. We really can't afford to have three bowlers all so dependent on swing in one side, however world class they all are. There's going to be a time in this world cup where we're very, very glad to have Milne in the side.

 

[thierry henry]

Mills is a fantastic opening bowler, he's just in the unlucky position of directly competing for Southee and Boult's new ball overs if he's picked ahead of Milne. In a situation where Southee and Boult are getting tonked and Mills comes in for some early overs then it's likely the conditions aren't favourable to Mills either, making his selection as a 3rd seamer pointless. We really can't afford to have three bowlers all so dependent on swing in one side, however world class they all are. There's going to be a time in this world cup where we're very, very glad to have Milne in the side.

Is Mills really dependent on swing? Mills has just been flat out excellent with the new ball in all conditions in ODIs pretty much forever. He swings it just a little bit, hits perfect areas and bounces it a bit.

Also, with 2 new balls I'm not convinced it's such an issue. Mills opens up, Southee plays the Milne role (while the ball is probably still swinging circa overs 12-20)- what's the big drama? You just have 3 accomplished bowlers doing jobs they're good at.

If we are looking for our best new ball bowlers in ODIs than I don't believe anyone ever actually overtook Mills. In terms of performances in this format it just didn't happen. Boult and Southee may well continue to have a great World Cup and all power to them, we all know they are very capable bowlers. But (and forgive me for doing a Richard) this doesn't mean that Mills wasn't our best ODI opening bowler coming into the tournament. I'm not sure what the justification is for saying he wasn't, but I'd be interested to hear it.

 

[Howsie]

So you would take the new ball from the best swing bowler in the World and give it to Kyle Mills?

 

[wellAlbidarned]

Is Mills really dependent on swing? Mills has just been flat out excellent with the new ball in all conditions in ODIs pretty much forever. He swings it just a little bit, hits perfect areas and bounces it a bit.

Also, with 2 new balls I'm not convinced it's such an issue. Mills opens up, Southee plays the Milne role (while the ball is probably still swinging circa overs 12-20)- what's the big drama? You just have 3 accomplished bowlers doing jobs they're good at.

If we are looking for our best new ball bowlers in ODIs than I don't believe anyone ever actually overtook Mills. In terms of performances in this format it just didn't happen. Boult and Southee may well continue to have a great World Cup and all power to them, we all know they are very capable bowlers. But (and forgive me for doing a Richard) this doesn't mean that Mills wasn't our best ODI opening bowler coming into the tournament. I'm not sure what the justification is for saying he wasn't, but I'd be interested to hear it.

The whole point of playing Southee and Boult together is to have them as an opening pair. If you break them up with some plan like the one you described then you might as well drop them and bring in Henry and McLenenen.

 

[thierry henry]

The whole point of playing Southee and Boult together is to have them as an opening pair. If you break them up with some plan like the one you described then you might as well drop them and bring in Henry and McLenenen.

I don't understand this argument. You don't think Boult would bowl well with Mills bowling at the other end?

 

[thierry henry]

So you would take the new ball from the best swing bowler in the World and give it to Kyle Mills?

Before the tournament started I would have given the new ball to Kyle Mills over anyone because he was the best new ball bowler we have in the format.

As of February 2015 Kyle Mills was more effective at bowling with the new ball in ODIs than Trent Boult and Tim Southee. Yes, I do believe this apparently outrageous thing. I am keen to see the evidence against it. I'm not sure you understand my point?

As of right now I wouldn't tinker with the winning format, although I wouldn't exactly be horrified if Mills was picked ahead of Milne. Congratulations to Southee and Boult for bowling to their ability in this tournament.