Final - New Zealand v Australia (29th March)

[Pratters]

The current Ryder? Yes, he's unreliable.

But a hypothetical Ryder that his life sorted out? Would deserve to be there.

The hypothetical Ryder isn't relevant here given it was unlikely to happen (him sorting his **** up) before the world cup. I am glad they didn't select him. It would have been too much of a distraction for the players and the team.

 

[straw man]

@strawman
I also observed to those around me that if we made it to 35 overs that if didn't mind if we lost a wicket.
Personally I wanted ronchi to play his shots as I felt 220 was not going to be enough. Dan's wicket frustrated me more as the delivery looked like a half volley.

I just hoped with a bit of luck Vettori could have hung around, but I didn't really expect it - inevitable one of the quick bowlers would dismiss him fairly quickly. Ronchi definitely could have played his shots.... from around the 40 over mark once he was in and Starc only had two overs left (probably). Ah well, bygones now.

 

[Mike5181]

Can we all agree, in retrospect at least, that having Jesse Ryder would not have improved our team, chances in the final or otherwise?

Ryder was suspended from the final round of the domestic first class season after a charge of serious dissent, so he hasn't changed at all. I don't miss him at all, and at this point I hope he never makes it back. There's far more deserving players running around NZ.

 

[Prince EWS]

But a hypothetical Ryder that his life sorted out? Would deserve to be there.

Is this really an any less of a pointless hypothetical than suggesting that a hypothetical Rob Nicol who was good at cricket would deserve to be there though?

 

[Contra]

Lmao just saw a vid where Maxwell runs out from an interview and quickly hugs Sachin xD

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bm6xL_J2YwA

 

[CricAddict]

obviously Neesham hasn't quite had the same immediate impact in ODIs, but the point is there wasn't a lot separating him and Anderson when they were selected. They were both young, immensely talented, raw, and with little domestic success.

Plus he is a former cricketwebber. We are supposed to love him.

 

[BigBrother]

Who is the better ODI player? Clarke, Jayawardene, Sangakkara or Vettori?

You'd probably think Vettori.

Well it's not Jayawardene with all due respect to the man. The guy has a pretty mediocre ODI record despite the quantity and years.

Now I'm sure in 448 games for his country he's played quite a few match winning/competitive roles for the team, somewhat like the Shahid Afridi has for Pakistan, but his ODI career is still more of a miss than a hit.

 

[viriya]

Who is the better ODI player? Clarke, Jayawardene, Sangakkara or Vettori?

You'd probably think Vettori..

Sangakkara >>> Vettori as an ODI player.

 

[Contra]

Sangakkara >>> Vettori as an ODI player.

Nah Sanga is only just better than Vettori, arguments can be made for both players. Sanga's ODI record has only recent become good as he was fairly average for the longest time. I'd go for Sanga out of longevity but otherwise there isn't much to choose between the two imo.

 

[Antihippy]

The fact that sanga has been keeping for so long and is still a gun batsmen should surely count in his favour.

 

[BigBrother]

Batting has only gotten easier and easier with time though, and Vettori bowls a lot in some of the least helpful conditions for spinners, spin bowling is all about the conditions for most parts.

You can certainly make a case for him for sure, though I'd prob go with Sangakkara as well.

 

[BigBrother]

In fact, I just had a closer look at Vettori's batting, so I change my mind. He has about the same years as Sangakkara. He has 295 games which is pretty good for a specialist bowler (even a spinner), one that is really handy with the bat as well.

Vettori edges out Sangakkara for me.

 

[viriya]

Nah Sanga is only just better than Vettori, arguments can be made for both players. Sanga's ODI record has only recent become good as he was fairly average for the longest time. I'd go for Sanga out of longevity but otherwise there isn't much to choose between the two imo.

In fact, I just had a closer look at Vettori's batting, so I change my mind. He has about the same years as Sangakkara. He has 295 games which is pretty good for a specialist bowler (even a spinner), one that is really handy with the bat as well.

Vettori edges out Sangakkara for me.

Vettori is barely an all-rounder in ODIs. He was nothing like the relatively dependable Test batsman he was.

Sangakkara is an undoubted ATG ODI batsmen - his record is comparable to Ponting's, and Ponting usually had the benefit of a platform set when he came to bat while Sanga would come in in the first 5 overs more often than not. Ponting also didn't have to face Australia's bowlers. Add the fact that he kept throughout his career and has most of the keeping career records.

Vettori was also never more than very good as an ODI bowler - his job was to be steady and potentially grab a couple of wickets.

In terms of impact there really is no comparison.

If you're comparing careers - Vettori vs Clarke may be more fair of a comparison.

 

[viriya]

Nah Sanga is only just better than Vettori, arguments can be made for both players. Sanga's ODI record has only recent become good as he was fairly average for the longest time. I'd go for Sanga out of longevity but otherwise there isn't much to choose between the two imo.

This is just not true. It's a misconception to say Sanga only recently got good. He has been great in ODIs since 2004:
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...4;spanval1=span;template=results;type=batting

He got 1000+ runs at 53 @ 77 in 2004. That's more than 10 years ago.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Disagree that Vettori was no more than a good bowler. Easily a great bowler imo. Very few spinners better at choking the runs.

 

[viriya]

Disagree that Vettori was no more than a good bowler. Easily a great bowler imo. Very few spinners better at choking the runs.

I said very good not just good. IMO the only truly great ODI spinners were Murali, Ajmal, Saqlain and Warne.

 

[OverratedSanity]

This is just not true. It's a misconception to say Sanga only recently got good. He has been great in ODIs since 2004:
Batting records | One-Day Internationals | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

He got 1000+ runs at 53 @ 77 in 2004. That's more than 10 years ago.

Ok that's one good season. Fact is Sanga was up and down plenty and didn't put together a string of extremely high output years until recently. He's hit top form in the last 4 years or so which has coincided with the new rules which have helped batsmen like Kohli, ab, Amla all having 50+ average. Doesn't make sense to make an apples to apples comparison with Ponting's record and say it's very similar. Whether being a late bloomer should actually count against him is another story though.

 

[viriya]

Ok that's one good season. Fact is Sanga was up and down plenty and didn't put together a string of extremely high output years until recently. He's hit top form in the last 4 years or so which has coincided with the new rules which have helped batsmen like Kohli, ab, Amla all having 50+ average. Doesn't make sense to make an apples to apples comparison with Ponting's record and say it's very similar. Whether being a late bloomer should actually count against him is another story though.

From 2004-2009 he averaged 40 @ 76. That's not "fairly average for the longest time".
Since 2010 he's gone at 53 @ 85 - he found a new level.

Late bloomer shouldn't count against him or for him. It really doesn't matter when evaluating a career. You could even argue that it's a positive. He just signed off after getting 4 tons in a row ffs.

 

[Xuhaib]

Vettori vs Sanga is not even close Sanga batting record is comparable to some of the great odi batsman and he also kept wickets most of the times.I would select Afridi over Vettori 7 times of 10 bowling wise both comparable with vettori slightly ahead and Afridi provides more impact with the bat.

 

[OverratedSanity]

From 2004-2009 he averaged 40 @ 76. That's not "fairly average for the longest time".
Since 2010 he's gone at 53 @ 85 - he found a new level.

Please don't deliberately miss the point. You chose 2004-2009 and say he averaged 40. Fine but again, that conveniently masks the fact that after that great 2004 where he averaged 53 he then had averages of 37,44,31,39 and 35. Which is why I said he was up and down. He wasn't a consistently great batsman until after 2010.

And I don't disagree about the late bloomer point. Maybe it should count against him, maybe it shouldn't. I don't have an opinion either way.