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

[wellAlbidarned]

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

Boult and Southee feed off each other. As a pair they're greater than the sum of their parts, they have the kind of chemistry that you just don't want to **** with as we've seen in tests.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

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.

You're absolutely right. Mills is a better ODI bowler than either Boult or Southee in isolation. The stats back you up. However, Southee and Boult is our best ever test match opening pair. That's what the selectors were banking on, and it's absolutely paid off.

 

[Flem274*]

2015 Mills isn't in the class of 2015 Southee but Howsie pretending one of our greatest ever ODI bowlers is a secret hack isn't anything new. He hates medium paced over 30s players if they're not from ND and it will never change.

 

[Howsie]

You're absolutely right. Mills is a better ODI bowler than either Boult or Southee in isolation. The stats back you up. However, Southee and Boult is our best ever test match opening pair. That's what the selectors were banking on, and it's absolutely paid off.

Right. So they both turn into hacks if the other isn't playing.....

 

[Howsie]

2015 Mills isn't in the class of 2015 Southee but Howsie pretending one of our greatest ever ODI bowlers is a secret hack isn't anything new. He hates medium paced over 30s players if they're not from ND and it will never change.

He was good, I've never said he wasn't. You guys overrate him big time as ODI bowler in the grand scheme of things but I'm not going to get into that. He just isn't has good as the likes of Boult, Southee, Henry, Milne etc. NZ have better options now, simple as that.

 

[hendrix]

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.

You do have a point here. I just think the coaches believe that Southee>Mills' new ball overs and Milne is the best middle overs bowler.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

Right. So they both turn into hacks if the other isn't playing.....

No, but Mills is a proven performer no matter who is bowling at the other end. Southee has been mediocre in pre-boult ODIs and Boult is new to the format. As a pair they're unstoppable.

 

[thierry henry]

Boult and Southee feed off each other. As a pair they're greater than the sum of their parts, they have the kind of chemistry that you just don't want to **** with as we've seen in tests.

I guess it's an impossible point to prove or disprove, but I just really don't think this is an actual thing.

 

[thierry henry]

He just isn't has good as the likes of Boult, Southee, Henry, Milne etc.

At what?

Up to the start of the World Cup most of the evidence was that he was BETTER at ODI new-ball bowling and ODI bowling generally. Are you one of those guys who doesn't believe in there being a big difference between formats?

 

[thierry henry]

I just think the coaches believe that Southee>Mills' new ball overs

Yes, as did almost everyone on planet Earth- despite there being almost no evidence whatsoever to back up this assertion.

I'm glad it's worked out but at the very least it's a fascinating study in how perception can shift en masse for no real reason.

 

[Bahnz]

I guess it's an impossible point to prove or disprove, but I just really don't think this is an actual thing.

The argument comes from the fact that Southee and Boult's statistical records look markedly worse when they're not playing together. However this is of course highly misleading. The only test matches that Southee has played without Boult were from before Boult's debut when Southee was just not a very good bowler. The only matches were Boult has played without Southee were early in Boult's career (during the 2012 tours of WI, India and SA), and before he'd really established himself at the international level. The one convincing exception is the 2013 tour of Bangladesh - were Boult looked pretty wayward and average without Southee keeping things tight at the other end - but it's a small sample size to be sure.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

I guess it's an impossible point to prove or disprove, but I just really don't think this is an actual thing.

I hate to play the eyez>statz guy but they've been bowling in tandem at some level since they were 18 ffs. Just watch them in tests and you can see that they love bowling together.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

The argument comes from the fact that Southee and Boult's statistical records look markedly worse when they're not playing together. However this is of course highly misleading. The only test matches that Southee has played without Boult were from before Boult's debut when Southee was just not a very good bowler. The only matches were Boult has played without Southee were early in Boult's career (during the 2012 tours of WI, India and SA), and before he'd really established himself at the international level. The one convincing exception is the 2013 tour of Bangladesh - were Boult looked pretty wayward and average without Southee keeping things tight at the other end - but it's a small sample size to be sure.

I'm not basing this on those stats since I'm aware they're misleading. I'm basing it on watching them actually bowling together.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

Yes, as did almost everyone on planet Earth- despite there being almost no evidence whatsoever to back up this assertion.

I'm glad it's worked out but at the very least it's a fascinating study in how perception can shift en masse for no real reason.

Enough of the straw man already. Southee wasn't selected because anyone believes he's a proven better ODI bowler than Mills. He (and boult) were selected because it's obvious how ****ing good they are as a pair.

 

[thierry henry]

Enough of the straw man already. Southee wasn't selected because anyone believes he's a proven better ODI bowler than Mills. He (and boult) were selected because it's obvious how ****ing good they are as a pair.

It's not a straw man. Many people have said they think Southee is a better ODI bowler than Mills, indeed up until I rather sheepishly raised the possibility that Mills>Southee yesterday I had taken it as a CW-wide (if not world-wide) assumption.

And no it's not "obvious how ****ing good they are as a pair" beyond the fact that they are good as a pair because they are both good bowlers. If Mills was bowling as well as Southee is bowling then I don't think Boult would be negatively affected. In fact I think that whole concept fundamentally diverges from how the game of cricket works. Southee or Boult would have to have something severely emotionally wrong with them if the bloke who had just bowled the previous over was having an impact on what they were running up and bowling unrelated to the actual quality of the previous over. That's just bizarre imo. Southee and Boult are a good pair because Southee and Boult are good.

 

[hendrix]

I think Southee is a better ODI bowler than Mills.

I also think he's also more likely to run through sides.

So I agree that TH has a point. I just think Southee became a better bowler than Mills a fair while back.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

It's not a straw man. Many people have said they think Southee is a better ODI bowler than Mills, indeed up until I rather sheepishly raised the possibility that Mills>Southee yesterday I had taken it as a CW-wide (if not world-wide) assumption.

And no it's not "obvious how ****ing good they are as a pair" beyond the fact that they are good as a pair because they are both good bowlers. If Mills was bowling as well as Southee is bowling then I don't think Boult would be negatively affected. In fact I think that whole concept fundamentally diverges from how the game of cricket works. Southee or Boult would have to have something severely emotionally wrong with them if the bloke who had just bowled the previous over was having an impact on what they were running up and bowling unrelated to the actual quality of the previous over. That's just bizarre imo. Southee and Boult are a good pair because Southee and Boult are good.

Cricket, although more individualist than most team sports, is not played in isolation. Southee and Boult are not robots. They're humans who have emotions. You're severely underrating what playing together at a high level for 7+ years does. Southee and Boult are good individually already I agree, but them together takes it to a whole new level which is why we've seen the selectors placing such an unusual emphasis on having Boult and Southee together for the WC.

 

[hendrix]

Cricket, although more individualist than most team sports, is not played in isolation. Southee and Boult are not robots. They're humans who have emotions. You're severely underrating what playing together at a high level for 7+ years does.

Tempted to link you to some ****yeahtimsouthee "Soult" ****** fiction.

 

[thierry henry]

Cricket, although more individualist than most team sports, is not played in isolation. Southee and Boult are not robots. They're humans who have emotions. You're severely underrating what playing together at a high level for 7+ years does. Southee and Boult are good individually already I agree, but them together takes it to a whole new level which is why we've seen the selectors placing such an unusual emphasis on having Boult and Southee together for the WC.

I've played cricket my whole life and I think that you thinking that Boult or Southee are emotionally affected by not having their mate at the other end is completely nutty. Agree to disagree.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

Tempted to link you to some ****yeahtimsouthee "Soult" ****** fiction.

I'm on nofap please don't tempt me