***Official*** Pakistan in New Zealand 2017/18

[Athlai]

Every single person named so far either typically batted higher than 7 or was at least supposed to be a proper bowler

"proper bowler" - lies and slander

And team balance would dictate where those players batted or how much they bowled, just like it does with CDG. 10 overs between CDG/Munro/Williamson is perfectly fine, better than a heck of a lot of countries as a 5th option. We also have a wicket keeper that has either opened or batted in the middle order, where those blokes if made to bat at 6 was usually because some spud of a keeper was batting 7.

CDG is pretty much precisely at the level of that lot in what he offers to the team. Some weak overs with the ball and some icing with the bat. Marmadoola is a bit of an exception due to #7 in Bangers basically being the equivalent of batting at 5 for most teams.

 

[thierry henry]

If your ODI keeper is ideally suited to bat higher than 7 as ours is, I don't see any problem in fielding a fast-scoring batting allrounder at.

Neither do I, but CDG is not really a batting all-rounder.

The point I'm making is you can't pick a specialist batsman WHO ISN'T EVEN PRETENDING TO BE A SPECIALIST BATSMAN AND NEVER HAS at 7 as a regular thing. This is like, basic cricketing logic right? From number 7 down you're supposed to be able to do something else?

Whether or not CDG should be in the team as a batting all-rounder is a different question, where arguably the answer is "no because he's a terrible bowler".

 

[thierry henry]

"proper bowler" - lies and slander

And team balance would dictate where those players batted or how much they bowled, just like it does with CDG. 10 overs between CDG/Munro/Williamson is perfectly fine, better than a heck of a lot of countries as a 5th option. We also have a wicket keeper that has either opened or batted in the middle order, where those blokes if made to bat at 6 was usually because some spud of a keeper was batting 7.

CDG is pretty much precisely at the level of that lot in what he offers to the team. Some weak overs with the ball and some icing with the bat. Marmadoola is a bit of an exception due to #7 in Bangers basically being the equivalent of batting at 5 for most teams.

Why is everyone talking about Mahmudullah as if (a) he is a specialist #7 batsman and (b) he isn't a "proper" batsman?

AFAIK he has gone up and down the order but has generally been seen as a "proper" batsman?

 

[Zinzan]

CDG is a better ODI bowler than either Anderson or Neesham. That said, he'd be good enough to bat 6 if we did decide to play 2 spinners and played Astle instead of Nicholls.

 

[thierry henry]

In case this isn't clear: I'm saying CDG isn't or shouldn't be selected as a "genuine bowling option" because over the course of 114 List A matches he has taken 0.5 wickets per game at an average of 44 and e/r of 5.3.

He is very, very bad and I'm opposed to picking players to do something they are very, very bad at.

As I said, discussing whether he should be in the team as an all-rounder is a different discussion, one where the answer is no, based on merit, rather than no, based on there's no such role in a cricket team.

 

[straw man]

Neither do I, but CDG is not really a batting all-rounder.

The point I'm making is you can't pick a specialist batsman WHO ISN'T EVEN PRETENDING TO BE A SPECIALIST BATSMAN AND NEVER HAS at 7 as a regular thing. This is like, basic cricketing logic right? From number 7 down you're supposed to be able to do something else?

Whether or not CDG should be in the team as a batting all-rounder is a different question, where arguably the answer is "no because he's a terrible bowler".

He's a specialist, or rather top-order batsman for Auckland though - I don't get it, why doesn't he qualify as a batting allrounder in your eyes? The bowling or the batting?

ODI bowling isn't great I agree, accuracy often leaves something to be desired considering the pace he bowls at, but it's adequate for 4 or 5 overs.

The other point is to consider how bad our other innings-finishers have been - Ronchi, Anderson, Neesham, Santner and we might as well throw Tastle in there too. He's a better number 7 ODI biffer than all of those and it's been a large weakness in the side - that almost gets him into the side even without bowling (and ignoring that a few more domestic options are making themselves known).

 

[Athlai]

Why is everyone talking about Mahmudullah as if (a) he is a specialist #7 batsman and (b) he isn't a "proper" batsman?

AFAIK he has gone up and down the order but has generally been seen as a "proper" batsman?

Marmadoola has played far and away his most cricket at 7, 68 innings there. The next most is 27 innings at 6.

He has bowled a full 10 overs 12 times when batting at 7, and didn't bowl at all 32 times. Averaging 4.1 overs a game.
CDG has currently bowled a full 10 overs twice and has bowled in every game he has played. Averaging 5.5 overs a game.

 

[Chewie]

Mahmudullah's batted more than half his innings at 7

 

[thierry henry]

He's a specialist, or rather top-order batsman for Auckland though - I don't get it, why doesn't he qualify as a batting allrounder in your eyes? The bowling or the batting?

ODI bowling isn't great I agree, accuracy often leaves something to be desired considering the pace he bowls at, but it's adequate for 4 or 5 overs.

He doesn't qualify because his List A bowling record is horrendous, why on earth would he be picked for the Black Caps with that as part of the package?

I know he wouldn't be the first player to be picked for the Black Caps to do something he isn't even qualified to do at domestic level but it's still bad selecting.

The other point is to consider how bad our other innings-finishers have been - Ronchi, Anderson, Neesham, Santner and we might as well throw Tastle in there too. He's a better number 7 ODI biffer than all of those and it's been a large weakness in the side - that almost gets him into the side even without bowling (and ignoring that a few more domestic options are making themselves known).

Yes, and that's the point I was initially arguing (responding to Athlai suggesting that "specialist icing" was a thing)- "specialist number 7 batsman who doesn't bowl and isn't really a proper batsman" simply isn't a thing, as nice as the icing may be. Every other example raised in this thread was either a specialist batsman in waiting or supposed to be an all-rounder of sorts.

 

[thierry henry]

Marmadoola has played far and away his most cricket at 7, 68 innings there. The next most is 27 innings at 6.

He has bowled a full 10 overs 12 times when batting at 7, and didn't bowl at all 32 times. Averaging 4.1 overs a game.
CDG has currently bowled a full 10 overs twice and has bowled in every game he has played. Averaging 5.5 overs a game.

Thanks for crunching the numbers, that's something I had noticed a number of times with Bangladesh but tbh hadn't picked up on the fact that it was consistently Mahmudullah in that role. Possibly still a hangover from recalling him batting higher at the last World Cup.

That's definitely the best example of what I was talking about although he's a different style of player batting at 7 for a different reason, right? I still think it's generally bad selection to have a specialist batsman at 7, but in Mahmudullah's case they are actually hoping that he performs to the expected level of a batsman and he is actually seen as one of the best available pure batsmen, I would assume.

 

[Athlai]

He is there as an icing allrounder. The batting is the good bit, and the dirty little bonus is a few ugly overs in the middle period of the innings. It's not a big deal, really unsure why you're so concerned about it. It's far more appealing than Tastle.

 

[Athlai]

Thanks for crunching the numbers, that's something I had noticed a number of times with Bangladesh but tbh hadn't picked up on the fact that it was consistently Mahmudullah in that role. Possibly still a hangover from recalling him batting higher at the last World Cup.

That's definitely the best example of what I was talking about although he's a different style of player batting at 7 for a different reason, right? I still think it's generally bad selection to have a specialist batsman at 7, but in Mahmudullah's case they are actually hoping that he performs to the expected level of a batsman and he is actually seen as one of the best available pure batsmen, I would assume.

I think its more that they hate him but know they can't totally justify always keeping him out.

Though to be slightly more serious, he probably is their best option at 7. The team is littered with solid bowling options up and down the order. May as well throw in a specialist closer/recovery guy.

 

[thierry henry]

It's not a big deal, really unsure why you're so concerned about it.

What does this even mean? Like yeah I have bigger things going on in my life but I'm talking about cricket on a cricket forum at the moment.

CDG is potentially capable of doing some stuff but is overall a bad 50-over cricketer. His record in the format is really bad. I'm not saying it's impossible he'll do ok but it's right there in black and white that he tends to be quite bad. I get people disagreeing but why act so confused?

 

[Athlai]

What does this even mean? Like yeah I have bigger things going on in my life but I'm talking about cricket on a cricket forum at the moment.

CDG is potentially capable of doing some stuff but is overall a bad 50-over cricketer. His record in the format is really bad. I'm not saying it's impossible he'll do ok but it's right there in black and white that he tends to be quite bad. I get people disagreeing but why act so confused?

CDG just had a MOTM performance, no idea at all why you'd question his position in the side right now. We also have two other bowling options in the top 7. It's a non-issue if he can bowl 10 ODI quality overs. He just needs to bowl a couple which hes already shown hes perfectly capable of doing.

 

[thierry henry]

I mean they could get me to bat number 7 and it might not matter much but I'm still entitled to discuss the selection of a player in our national team, right? On paper he has almost nothing going for him. He is decent at other formats but not 50-over stuff. Sorry if I over-complicated it with my usual array of hypotheticals and analogies.

 

[thierry henry]

CDG just had a MOTM performance, no idea at all why you'd question his position in the side right now. We also have two other bowling options in the top 7. It's a non-issue if he can bowl 10 ODI quality overs. He just needs to bowl a couple which hes already shown hes perfectly capable of doing.

We both know it's perfectly possible for someone to not justify a spot in the side but still turn in one (or more) big performances. To say that an all-rounder only needs to bowl a few overs so it doesn't really matter how he bowls is overly reductive. It's reasonable to assess someone's ability to do what they have been selected for. If CDG has been partly selected to bowl in 50-over cricket that is very questionable based on his history in the format.

 

[straw man]

I couldn't see any reason why he was selected for the ODI side initially - there was even less reason than his selection for the test side, but hey it's working out quite well at the moment.

 

[thierry henry]

I couldn't see any reason why he was selected for the ODI side initially - there was even less reason than his selection for the test side, but hey it's working out quite well at the moment.

EXACTLY

Like I get it, it's going ok at the moment and he's doing a job, and his performances across different formats also give us reassurance that he seems to be in good form generally. I'm not even asking for him to be dropped right now.

However, does the "normal" 50-over CDG warrant a place in an ODI side? Not in a million years, imo, because he has always been poor at the format. Is he the right guy to be investing in medium-term with a CWC approaching? Probably not imo, unless we could somehow be sure that he had turned a corner and was a different ODI player to what he has been for the last decade. These are at the least very valid questions if we actually want to know what our best XI is.

 

[Zinzan]

CDG just had a MOTM performance, no idea at all why you'd question his position in the side right now. .

This. Why is this an issue when he's just played his best Test and ODI innings (in the last few weeks) and actually really seems like he belongs at International level, after looking decidedly hesitant in his first couple of years?

 

[Athlai]

Reckon theres a severe overestimation of the need of high quality 5th bowling options here.

Since 2016 in ODI cricket, NZ have used 21 bowling options in ODIs, of the "5th" options we get the below

Neesham 14W @ 43.28 econ 6.65 - 4.1 overs a game
Anderson 10W @ 26.10 econ 5.11 - 3.6 overs a game
Williamson 9W @25.77 econ 4.93 - 1.3 overs a game
CDG 8W @ 39.25 econ 5.54 - 5.9 overs a game
Tastle 7W @ 21.42 econ 5.35 - 4.6 overs a game
Elliott 3W @ 50 econ 5.17 - 5.8 overs a game
Munro 3W @ 63.33 econ 4.87 - 1.7 overs a game

In this time period we've won 25 games and lost 15. #NBD