Any updates on NZ's tour of Oz later this year?

[CaptainGrumpy]

He's played heaps of limited overs cricket though, to be fair. Numerous seasons of bowling for Otago A on the flat decks at Lincoln, and a fair bit of wheeling away for Albion in club cricket over the years. I don't think he'll get that much more from playing List A really.

I think it was at National Club Champs a couple of years ago that he took a bit of tap, and came out and said he wasn't that keen to bowl darts when it would affect his longer form bowling. He then went to the Windies and won us the first Test.

Who said he has to bowl darts? Its about learning variations to be economical on days 1-3 when throwing it up with a rip is not doing anything off the pitch. Although I do think that him learning to bowl darts would be a useful tool to have with his other tools in the tool kit.

I am really concerned and I hope you're wrong about the whole "I failed at Otago A and National Clubs Champs" so I'll quit that game and I'm just going to do my own thing in test cricket and not bowl economically and continue to leaks runs on days 1-3 of a test attitude that comes through in your post. I do hope that Mark Craig would be nothing like that at all.

 

[NZTailender]

The guy has an economy problem in test cricket and you want him to play domestic List A and Zimbabwe ODI cricket once he dominates test?

Putting the cart before the horse. The idea is to up skill him so as to perform very well in test cricket.

I think you're seriously missing the point that he has played more test matches than List A matches. Talk Murali, Warne, Saqlain all you like. Having played more tests than List A matches would be rare. Any front line test spinner to have bowled in only 8 List A innings would be very uncommon, bar possibly rushed "prodigies" (Asia style). The aforementioned all played more List A than tests... They also got their economy rates down in test over time and started playing ODI's (and subsequently repeated the same in meaningful ODI). Now Nathan Lyon has played more tests than List A, but he has played 30 List A games (of which 8 were for Australia). Mark Craig may only need 20 more List A games to helkp get his test economy down on days 1-3.

And as for the gist of your post. You're in a dream world if you think Mark Craig could replicate Warne or Murali. The guy is a regular finger spinner. He aint going to get turn on any pitch on day one. Saqlain was a doosra bowler, would his doosra be legal today? Compare apples with apples. Not a good bowler with world all time great leg spinner and funny arm Murali bowler. You want Craig turning it square on day 1 of a test in Australia? Yeah - not gonna happen. Get real. Want him to turn it square in the second let alone the first innings of a List A match on a fresh pitch? Not likely.

I like 'from the gist of your post' you interpreted that he thought Craig could take 700-800 by being a threatening bowler turning it from day 1, whereas I was taking him to mean these successful bowlers who will be remembered primarily for their Test efforts, didn't get to where they got to by honing their craft in List A cricket.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

I like 'from the gist of your post' you interpreted that he thought Craig could take 700-800 by being a threatening bowler turning it from day 1, whereas I was taking him to mean these successful bowlers who will be remembered primarily for their Test efforts, didn't get to where they got to by honing their craft in List A cricket.

You sure about that? Give me some numbers. How many list A matches had they played after one year of being a test regular? How many before test selection too?

Warne, Murali, Saqlain. You want to throw some truisms out there, back them up with some facts. I reckon it will be more than a mere 8 innings for Warne and Murali.

And please don't attempt to interpret and re-communicate the gist of any of my posts. You need to understand else you will straw man. A relevant difference between Craig is that he is not a ripping leg spinner like Warne, or a freakishly built abnormality bowler like Murali who could get incredible turn as a result (and doosras), (nor is he a doosra bowler in an age where few bowlers could bowl that delivery legally, like Saqlain,) so "dominating" test matches like Warne and Murali did is not likely to happen after one year or ten years of test cricket. Craig is a day 5 match winner. Not a day 1 skittler like Warne and Murali could regularly be. This means he cannot play in ODI cricket the way he currently plays a test match where he is as close to "dominant" that he can be, unless the pitch is a fair few days old, like 4 or 5. Have I made this simple enough for you? Or do I need to break it down further for you to comprehend it?

If you cannot get that point into your head - I cannot help you any further. Well I can, I am just not so sure that I will be inclined to necessarily be bothered.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Warne had played three list A games before the 1992/93 season. I think he made his Test debut the year before?

EDIT: all for an Australia "A" side, in Zimbabwe. http://cricketarchive.com/Archive/Players/1/1999/a_Batting_by_Season.html

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

Warne had played three list A games before the 1992/93 season. I think he made his Test debut the year before?

EDIT: all for an Australia "A" side, in Zimbabwe. The Home of CricketArchive

And was expensive and dreadful at the start of his test career? Then gets test wickets and starts playing ODI cricket? After playing ODI cricket his test economy starts dropping right?

Murali I believe will be a better example, and they are still incomparable players to a normal finger spinner like Craig given their ability to turn a ball square much much earlier in a test match than a normal finger spinner can.

EDIT: "Australia A" in Zimbabwe - that is a perfect comparison for what I am advocating.

 

[vic_orthdox]

And was expensive and dreadful at the start of his test career? Then gets test wickets and starts playing ODI cricket? After playing ODI cricket his test economy starts dropping right?

Murali I believe will be a better example, and they are still incomparable players to a normal finger spinner like Craig given their ability to turn a ball square much much earlier in a test match than a normal finger spinner can.

EDIT: "Australia A" in Zimbabwe - that is a perfect comparison for what I am advocating.

Not particularly, had only played six matches by the end of the 1993 Ashes where he took 40-odd wickets.

And Warne was played to bowl how he did in Test matches, not to change how he bowled in Tests.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

Not particularly, had only played six matches by the end of the 1993 Ashes where he took 40-odd wickets.

And Warne was played to bowl how he did in Test matches, not to change how he bowled in Tests.

Again, Warne being a slow ripping legging could turn a ball sufficiently to be a threat on day 1 of a test and in an ODI on any pitch, globally.

Mark Craig and Shane Warne are incomparable (until at best day 5 of a test, but by then Warne could create balls turning almost square from footmarks).

 

[NZTailender]

You sure about that? Give me some numbers. How many list A matches had they played after one year of being a test regular? How many before test selection too?

Warne, Murali, Saqlain. You want to throw some truisms out there, back them up with some facts. I reckon it will be more than a mere 8 innings for Warne and Murali.

And please don't attempt to interpret and re-communicate the gist of any of my posts. You need to understand else you will straw man. A relevant difference between Craig is that he is not a ripping leg spinner like Warne, or a freakishly built abnormality bowler like Murali who could get incredible turn as a result (and doosras), (nor is he a doosra bowler in an age where few bowlers could bowl that delivery legally, like Saqlain,) so "dominating" test matches like Warne and Murali did is not likely to happen after one year or ten years of test cricket. Craig is a day 5 match winner. Not a day 1 skittler like Warne and Murali could regularly be. This means he cannot play in ODI cricket the way he currently plays a test match where he is as close to "dominant" that he can be, unless the pitch is a fair few days old, like 4 or 5. Have I made this simple enough for you? Or do I need to break it down further for you to comprehend it?

If you cannot get that point into your head - I cannot help you any further. Well I can, I am just not so sure that I will be inclined to necessarily be bothered.

lol, no, I'm not going to provide meaningless stats because that's not even what the argument is really about. I mean, it kinda is; bowling more in more games will help Craig - it will help him if he stays true to his bowling action, and his tactics. He flights the ball; he tries for turn. Trying to become a successful List-A/ODI bowling by changing his game to be economically sound in those formats which he can pull out days 1-3 and then magically flip to how he bowls now on 4-5 will not work. He will become better by learning control. Even on day-5 where he is a 'match winner', as you say, he still bowls a lot of loose deliveries.

 

[Flem274*]

time will be the best improver of craig.

 

[BackFootPunch]

holy ****. Watched a movie then came back in here to see if CG had responded to any of my points. Well, he's quoted my posts in his replies but I'm struggling to comprehend how he took what he did from what I said, so I'm just gonna leave him to it. Amazing stuff.

 

[Prince EWS]

I just don't buy into the idea that bowling in 50 overs games will make Craig a better bowler in the longer form. It's true that his biggest weakness is his ability to be a holding bowler when conditions aren't in his favour, but performing a holding role with a Test field against Test batsmen is so, so different to bowling in a limited overs game.

The best path to improvement when it comes to performing a holding role in Test cricket is to have him bowl in situations when it's required more.. and lots of First Class cricket in New Zealand seems pretty much ideal for that. The blokes who actually do manage to perform a holding role in the first innings of Tests don't bowl their limited overs lines and trajectories when they do that; it's a unique skill within itself.

 

[BackFootPunch]

PEWS: Eloquently elucidating the points we wish we could make since aaaaages ago.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

PEWS: Eloquently elucidating the points we wish we could make since aaaaages ago.

You seriously have difficulty expressing that white ball cricket is different to red ball cricket?

I'm not sure if you're a sycophant or being serious.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

I just don't buy into the idea that bowling in 50 overs games will make Craig a better bowler in the longer form. It's true that his biggest weakness is his ability to be a holding bowler when conditions aren't in his favour, but performing a holding role with a Test field against Test batsmen is so, so different to bowling in a limited overs game.

The best path to improvement when it comes to performing a holding role in Test cricket is to have him bowl in situations when it's required more.. and lots of First Class cricket in New Zealand seems pretty much ideal for that. The blokes who actually do manage to perform a holding role in the first innings of Tests don't bowl their limited overs lines and trajectories when they do that; it's a unique skill within itself.

More cricket the better. There will be times in test matches where he has to bowl, and the likes of Warner on a 100 and Clarke on a 50 are taking him easily for 4-5 runs an over. Where you can forget about short leg and silly point and a slip surrounding the bat on day 2. Where that scenario is far more similar with a spread field to bowling overs 11-35 of a List A game, where he must contain, and where the pitch is not responsive to turn.

Sure, he can flight the odd delivery up, but against test star red hot batsman looking to take him on, learning to contain List A aggressors will be incredibly useful for him. The class of batsmen will be less, but their intent will be the same, and the pitch may be just as unresponsive. Sure, in the test mid on and mid off are hopefully not on the boundary, but bowling to Warner, a captain may just put them long. He is not selected to get wickets in the first innings, that is Boult and Southee primarily (and whoever their support act is - Wagner, Henry, Bracewell). He does need to crop rotate overs though because Boult and Southee cannot bowl unchanged.

When the pitch is unresponsive on days 1-3 (outside Asian say Asian conditions), I wish he could bowl 2 runs per over darts like Nathan McCullum did at FC level if he so wanted or was directed to by the captain, and then go for runs and wickets on days 4 and 5. I'd prefer that he had a variety of deliveries like Vettori, sure, that prohibit the batsmen scoring cheap runs quickly on days 1 and 3 and still get the odd wicket. Who wouldn't? He can also learn to implement those in List A cricket when batsmen are trying to score off him. It would be a very useful learning curve. it can only help to develop his game. I don't believe that the 50 over game is so dissimilar in all aspects between overs 10-35 to the red ball game for it not to be of service to him in test cricket. That is the key difference is our thoughts. I would change next to nothing about his day 4 and day 5 approach because he is figuring that out for himself just fine and dandy and delivering quite nicely.

 

[Hurricane]

My whole life since reading about Roderigo in Othello I have had the ambition of becoming sycophant.

I am hoping I can fulfill that goal on CW in some capacity.

 

[BackFootPunch]

You seriously have difficulty expressing that white ball cricket is different to red ball cricket?

I'm not sure if you're a sycophant or being serious.

I actually made the same point as PEWS in a post last night, though you seemed to ignore it completely. Must have been something about the 'gist' of it that didn't quite resonate with you.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

PEWS: Eloquently elucidating the points we wish we could make since aaaaages ago.

You seriously have difficulty expressing that white ball cricket is different to red ball cricket?

I'm not sure if you're a sycophant or being serious.

I actually made the same point as PEWS in a post last night, though you seemed to ignore it completely. Must have been something about the 'gist' of it that didn't quite resonate with you.

I just realised I used "or" incorrectly so as to leave a binary alternative. One could be both serious and nevertheless remain a sycophant. I should have written "or both" after the first "or". I did not mean any implication that the two propositions were mutually exclusive when they are not. I apologise to any logicians that I may have upset with my previous post. He could of course not be serious and be posting in jest - but I doubt that. Be very rare for someone to say "I wish I could make that point" regardless of doing so eloquently nor how much light they shed on it and "I made the same point previously" in jest.

 

[hendrix]

We've seen Craig bowl absolute garbage in the UAE. We've also seen him bowl very well in the same conditions. His mean average is kinda irrelevant at this point, but he's certainly winning us more tests than he's losing.

 

[BackFootPunch]

Battling to keep up with all your post edits here CG. How many times did you revise that one after you posted it? Two or three times?

And yes I fully expect you take my use of 'battling' as some kind of evidence that I'm less intelligent than you; that's how you roll after all.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

Battling to keep up with all your post edits here CG. How many times did you revise that one after you posted it? Two or three times?

And yes I fully expect you take my use of 'battling' as some kind of evidence that I'm less intelligent than you; that's how you roll after all.

Yes, two or three times, maybe more. Minor grammatical changes and improvements, though. The gist remained the same in the post throughout.

I'm quite comfortable with my own level of intelligence and do not seek relative comparisons with CW users such as yourself thanks all the same.