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

[TheJediBrah]

oh god not this again

 

[kiwiviktor81]

Turner averaged bugger all against the top sides in ODI's. I remember watching him giving the emerging Sri Lankan's hell in the 80's. He made it look easy, but he was a seasoned pro against players just starting out in international cricket. Sri Lanka were the new kids on the block back then, held in the same regard as the Banga's went they started out. And of course there was that big 170 against mighty East Africa.

Yeah Turner played so few games that if you take that single 170 out his average drops by 6 runs.

 

[Spark]

Would you rather have Bevan? Let's do a comparison

Average: Bevan 53, Taylor 44
Strike Rate: Bevan 74, Taylor 82
Fours per 1,000 balls: Bevan 48, Taylor 67
Sixes per 1,000 balls: Bevan 2, Taylor 17 (this is not a typo)

Why would I want a guy who hits one boundary every 20 balls coming in at 6? I want someone upping the strike rate, and Taylor hits literally eight times as many sixes as Bevan.

You are aware of the large difference between comparing a guy who played when 250 was often a good score vs a guy playing when 300 is scored extremely regularly?

 

[Dan]

Man given how many apparently ATG standard ODI players NZ have produced over Aus it's no wonder they've won so many major international trophies and were renowned as a great side for so long—

Oh wait.

How is this at all relevant to the quality of individual players?

I get that kiwiviktor is being ridiculous, as per usual, but a lack of tournament wins doesn't mean that NZ hasn't produced ATGs who could conceivably be better than their Australian counterparts (see also: South African ATGs).

 

[Spark]

Rubbish post.

Look at the standard of players are being left out though. Symonds, Clarke, Watson, Hayden, Bevan etc. These are all ATG ODI standard or close and with the greatest of respect, NZ have produced few players of that level.

How is this at all relevant to the quality of individual players?

I get that kiwiviktor is being ridiculous, as per usual, but a lack of tournament wins doesn't mean that NZ hasn't produced ATGs who could conceivably be better than their Australian counterparts (see also: South African ATGs).

Sure it is, when you pick them as half the side. If you produced that standard of players with that consistency, you should be in a position to win pretty much all the time. At a bare minimum it should be a serious talking point why you don't win regularly.

 

[Dan]

I mean, Bond, Crowe, Hadlee, Williamson, Vettori and Mr. X are right up there with any Aussie ATG.

Naturally the debate has ended as Ross Taylor > Michael Bevan though, which is patently absurd despite Ross being pretty underrated in ODIs.

 

[TheJediBrah]

How is this at all relevant to the quality of individual players?

I get that kiwiviktor is being ridiculous, as per usual, but a lack of tournament wins doesn't mean that NZ hasn't produced ATGs who could conceivably be better than their Australian counterparts (see also: South African ATGs).

Actually there would be a pretty strong correlation

You are aware of the large difference between comparing a guy who played when 250 was often a good score vs a guy playing when 300 is scored extremely regularly?

lets also compare the boundary-hitting capabilities of a guy that played on the MCG etc without boundary ropes brought in to one playing on matchboxes in NZ.

With bats 3x the size.

Against far inferior bowling.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I mean, Bond, Crowe, Hadlee, Williamson, Vettori and Mr. X are right up there with any Aussie ATG.

Naturally the debate has ended as Ross Taylor > Michael Bevan though, which is patently absurd despite Ross being pretty underrated in ODIs.

funny because if you were to actually pick a genuine "Oceania ATG ODI XI" Vettori would probably be the only NZ player in the side, and kiwiviktor didn't even pick him

 

[Spark]

funny because if you were to actually pick a genuine "Oceania ATG ODI XI" Vettori would probably be the only NZ player in the side, and kiwiviktor didn't even pick him

You can make a much stronger case with the bowling. Batting, though, nah. I'd honestly just pick the whole Aus top 7 from either the 03 or 07 WCs, with maaaybe Williamson/Taylor over Clarke. Maybe.

 

[Gob]

funny because if you were to actually pick a genuine "Oceania ATG ODI XI" Vettori would probably be the only NZ player in the side, and kiwiviktor didn't even pick him

Nah not over Warne. I wasn't even joking when i didn't pick any of them be course they weren't good enough.

Bond is the only bloke with a genuine chance

 

[Burgey]

Having said all this, I'm really sorry I missed Guptill's knock today. That's ridiculous going, I don't care against whom, or where.

 

[Athlai]

Look at the standard of players are being left out though. Symonds, Clarke, Watson, Hayden, Bevan etc. These are all ATG ODI standard or close and with the greatest of respect, NZ have produced few players of that level.


Sure it is, when you pick them as half the side. If you produced that standard of players with that consistency, you should be in a position to win pretty much all the time. At a bare minimum it should be a serious talking point why you don't win regularly.

Such weird logic. What has that got do with anything in an ATG XI? We aren't talking about AU vs. NZ, we're discussing players. Does NZ have significantly less depth and more spuds than Australia? Definitely.

Does this mean that Australia's best are better than New Zealand's?

Uh no. They might have more to choose from but there is nothing to say a smaller and less successful nation can't have produced players worthy of getting in ATG XIs.

 

[Burner]

You are aware of the large difference between comparing a guy who played when 250 was often a good score vs a guy playing when 300 is scored extremely regularly?

Extremely regularly is a bit of an exaggeration. What, you see a 300 score every 5 innings nowadays? That's not extremely regularly.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Nah not over Warne. I wasn't even joking when i didn't pick any of them be course they weren't good enough.

Bond is the only bloke with a genuine chance

I'd pick both Vettori and Warne. With Brad Hogg very unlucky to miss out.

Not sure how I'd fit both into the XI though. Maybe we can go with 2006 super-sub rules and Vettori can be the Super-sub.

 

[Burner]

Infact, that's not even good enough to compete in the 'regularly' section. I wish I got to go to work that regularly.

 

[Dan]

You can make a much stronger case with the bowling. Batting, though, nah. I'd honestly just pick the whole Aus top 7 from either the 03 or 07 WCs, with maaaybe Williamson/Taylor over Clarke. Maybe.

I'm sorry, but there is no chance I'm picking Darren Lehmann and Damien Martyn ahead of Kane Williamson and Martin Crowe without even thinking about it. 2007 I can understand a bit more, but I reckon Williamson is that damn good that he should be in there.

 

[kiwiviktor81]

You are aware of the large difference between comparing a guy who played when 250 was often a good score vs a guy playing when 300 is scored extremely regularly?

Yeah of course. What I'm saying is that it doesn't make up for a pitiful boundary rate of one every 20 balls. Assuming the guy at the other end faces as many balls, that means on average Bevan hits one boundary per 7 overs of batting. That's just not good enough for a player coming in at the death for an ATG team.

And 2 sixes per 1,000 balls! That would be acceptable for an opener, maybe. Even Kane Williamson hits sixes at three times the rate of Bevan, and he doesn't even try and hit sixes. The only batsman I could find who hit sixes as rarely as Bevan was Andrew Jones.

If Bevan faced 100 balls per innings for five consecutive matches, he'd hit one six. Just not good enough for an ATG team.

 

[Spark]

I'm sorry, but there is no chance I'm picking Darren Lehmann and Damien Martyn ahead of Kane Williamson and Martin Crowe without even thinking about it. 2007 I can understand a bit more, but I reckon Williamson is that damn good that he should be in there.

Oh I forgot about Lehmann. I think Martyn is incredibly underrated though.

I just don't think Williamson has done it for long enough to be really considered in these discussions. This is a judgement based on much what he think he will do as what he has done and it's a bit weird to be comparing him to blokes who have played full careers out, with all the dips and slumps that entails. Bloke's amazing, but hasn't even gotten to 100 ODIs yet.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Extremely regularly is a bit of an exaggeration. What, you see a 300 score every 5 innings nowadays? That's not extremely regularly.

yeah . . . about the same frequency as you'd see 250 back then

Such weird logic. What has that got do with anything in an ATG XI? We aren't talking about AU vs. NZ, we're discussing players. Does NZ have significantly less depth and more spuds than Australia? Definitely.

Does this mean that Australia's best are better than New Zealand's?

Uh no. They might have more to choose from but there is nothing to say a smaller and less successful nation can't have produced players worthy of getting in ATG XIs.

It's not weird logic at all. Of course it's not definitive evidence that "Australia's best are better than New Zealand's?", but you'd expect a very strong correlation and just statistically/mathematically speaking
it would be frighteningly unlikely for it not to be the case.

Come on, you're smarter than that

btw the original post was an exaggeration, pretty sure he wasn't saying that NZ never produced any players worthy of an ATG XI. They've produced some beauties, especially for such a small population.

 

[Migara]

We are not learning. Through history, in LO matches attacking spin was the reason behind SL being comptitive. It's good to pick Vandersay, but he is not an attacking spinner, same goes for Senanayake. Mendis is a joke. Right now, we have only three attacking spinners in the country, who look for wickets rather than containment. Herath, Dilruwan Perera and Suraj Randiv. Perera is particularly good with the bat. We have to play two of them in LO matches regardless of conditions. Herath is slow in the field, obvious choices are Perera and Randiv. For some reason these two are never given chances in ODIs.