***Official*** New Zealand in Zimbabwe and South Africa 2015

[Zinzan]

Anyway, that's me on this particular debate now. Our logic clearly couldn't be further apart on this issue.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

What word am I keeping?

No what. Who's word? Yours.

If you can't get why trying to reverse Tahir in his last over was a low-percentage option, whether the reverse-sweep is a strength of Munro's or not, then I've nothing further to say.

I hope you can at least keep your word on this, a bowler getting a wicket to a batsman's high percentage scoring shot, to then criticise the batsmen for playing said shot

You're the one maintaining that attempting to reverse sweep the most dangerous bowler in the opposition, who had bamboozled all the other batsmen with his variations, when he had just a couple of balls remaining in his spell was high percentage. That's your word, not mine, and I think you'd struggle to find another person in this universe, including Colin himself, who'd suggest that was in hindsight a high-percentage option against Tahir at that particular time.

Zinzan's integrity = fail.

 

[Zinzan]

Zinzan=fail.

Classy note to finish on.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

Classy note to finish on.

You're actually one of my favourite posters on CW bar your infactuation with Kapil Dev.

But on your Latham ( and separetly vs Munro) issues I decided to be stubborn.

I find your posts during matches quite fair and accurate as a general rule, and typicallty enjoy reading your posts (and threads).

 

[wellAlbidarned]

If Latham was scoring at a SR of 75 in games like those on the England tour, then it'd be a legitimate point. But this series was pretty low scoring by the standards of recent ODIs. The pitches were tricky-ish and the opening bowlers were good so there's nothing wrong with how Latham scored. It's not like anyone was blazing away at 120 at the other end.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

If Latham was scoring at a SR of 75 in games like those on the England tour, then it'd be a legitimate point. But this series was pretty low scoring by the standards of recent ODIs. The pitches were tricky-ish and the opening bowlers were good so there's nothing wrong with how Latham scored. It's not like anyone was blazing away at 120 at the other end.

African American please. Latham was chasing two scores of 280+ (304 and 285) while striking at 3/4 75+ or 225.
He is not a Philander or Steyn bunny. Great for test cricket. #NoMore45, but score swift runs with the white ball Tom - there is no draw.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

African American please. Latham was chasing two scores of 280+ (304 and 285) while striking at 3/4 75+ or 225.
He is not a Philander or Steyn bunny. Great for test cricket. #NoMore45, but score runs with the white ball Tom.

How many cricket games have you watched where a team scores at the same rate for the whole innings? There's this thing called altering your strategy depending on the match situation and your team composition. Latham isn't there to have a swing, get out for 40 (30) and expose Worker and Munro to the new ball.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

How many cricket games have you watched where a team scores at the same rate for the whole innings? There's this thing called altering your strategy depending on the match situation and your team composition. Latham isn't there to have a swing, get out for 40 (30) and expose Worker and Munro to the new ball.

You say it like exposing the more swift strikers in Worker and Munro earlier is a bad thing as opposed to giving them the final 25 overs.

#SR.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

You say it like exposing the more swift strikers in Worker and Munro earlier is a bad thing as opposed to giving them the final 25 overs.

#SR.

They're batsmen with relatively poor defensive techniques who are good at attacking. If you send them in early they're going to try to bat out the overs instead of doing what they're good at (slogging).

 

[NZTailender]

African American please. Latham was chasing two scores of 280+ (304 and 285) while striking at 3/4 75+ or 225..

Striking at 75 when he got out in the 50-60 range - would it be impossible for him to accelerate on his way to a hundred?

Thing is, Latham isn't a Baz and when you've got him alongside another similar player like Guptill, his scoring rate is similar. How are they similar? They're the kind of ODI batsmen who should look to bat the whole innings, or most of it at least, whereas someone like Baz is going to be out before over 20 after a devastating display. Trying to get Latham to play that innings will not work, because to make him like Baz would IMO ruin his batting. So sure, we may not have room for him right now but I don't think he's bad for our ODI side long term - it's just more who he's batting alongside. So I agree with you in that he doesn't bat quick enough, if he's suppose to be a blaster. He's not. 75 may be on the low-side but he's also still in a feet finding period in ODI cricket, as he's not a first choice regular, and I think he can strike at 80-85 easily over his career.

When Baz retires, if Latham is the replacement, Guptill will need to play more devastating innings while Latham anchors. Unless you want someone like Munro, Devcich or Ronchi opening. We tried that aggressive shoehorned-opener with Neesham and it didn't pan out that great.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

Striking at 75 when he got out in the 50-60 range - would it be impossible for him to accelerate on his way to a hundred?

What are the odds of any batsman scoring a hundred in an ODI? If you're the TAB, it seems like you're going to go broke.

But we agree on one thing - Latham has proved more test potential against fine SA bowling in this series, even if that was not the goal of the JAMODI.

 

[NZTailender]

What are the odds of any batsman scoring a hundred in an ODI? If you're the TAB, it seems like you're going to go broke.

The point being Latham is of that ilk, much like Ross Taylor, in that they look ugly at the 50 (70) or so stage but it's worth it if/when they end up 110 (110-120). But I do admit you can't have too many of those batsmen in one side. I would keep Latham in the side but drop him if he doesn't bring his career SR to above 80 after a reasonable amount of time.

 

[hendrix]

There was nothing ugly about any of those Latham innings.

As I said, there's a 50 (70) where you're not rotating the strike and looking ugly as ****, and then there's a 50(70) where you're rotating the strike and pulling Dale Steyn for 6 over square leg. CG needs to watch cricket rather than looking at scorecards.

 

[hendrix]

Flem, Athlai et al are all well within their rights to call the double standard, as low strike rate at the start of the innings is something for which I've been highly critical of Martin Guptill in the past. But I actually watched most of the start of our innings and the scoring rate from the top order was not the problem.

Actually, Latham tended to reach 50 off between 55-60 balls, and then slowed down as he got more into the middle overs and as we lost wickets. He was probably more aggressive than Guptill early on. But I don't have a problem with Guptill's scoring rate in any of these matches. It was generally good bowling and we needed to keep wickets in hand.

 

[Athlai]

Hypocriteeeee

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

CG needs to watch cricket rather than looking at scorecards.

The scorecard never lies son.
Latham scores slow. Whites. Ok. Pjyamas. Bad.
So many balls not scored off.

 

[Zinzan]

There's no doubt opening with Guptill/Latham is philosophically completely different to Guptill/McCullum in terms of the innings strategy, it really depends which way you want to go.

I'm kind of split on this one. I do see some value in the more solid & consistent albeit less devastating and flamboyant starts Guptill and Latham could give us.

Guptill & McCullum will get you to 130/1 from 20 on a good day and 70/3 on a bad one, whereas Guptill/Latham will more often than not get you to around 90/1, with the added bonus of McCullum still to bat down the order.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

I'm kind of split on this one. I do see some value in the more solid & consistent albeit less devastating and flamboyant starts Guptill and Latham could give us.
.

A SR of 75 equals 225. Its powerplay, JAMODI openers need to sweep the leg.

 

[hendrix]

A SR or 75 equals 225.

you don't really get cricket, do you?

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

you don't really get cricket, do you?

Hendrix, I think you are still waiting for the Packer revolution. You celebrate a SR of 75 in limited overs cricket in 2015?