nz man4man better than australia

[marc71178]

If the current ODI rankings are anything to go by where Gillespie is 5 and Oram is 7 there's not much in it really.

Yes, but Gillespie's been up there consistently for years...

 

[Fiery]

Come on, man. Who's been in the top 10 for more of hs career? Gillespie is going to be considered one of Australia's best bowlers of the late 90's and 00's whereas Oram is having a great season with the ball. On pure bowling alone, they are just not comparable. Same goes with the batting but in the opposite direction.

I'm from Adelaide; don't knwo Peter Sterling all that well so I'll have to take your word for it.

I've already admitted he is the better bowler but I would prefer Oram when you take his batting into account. Gillespie's record is not as way superior as you think and he has actually only played 15 more one-dayers than Oram and taken 49 more wickets. If I was to pick a one-day side like we used to at primary school I would select Oram before Gillespie.

 

[Fiery]

Yes, but Gillespie's been up there consistently for years...

So, we're not selecting a team on their durability. How they performed in the recent past is more important than what they did 5 years earlier

 

[nibbs]

dam, australians seem really one eyed. if i had to pick a side from the two elevens it'd be

astle
fleming
sinclair
marshall
mcmillan
cairns
mccullum
hogg
vettori
mills
tuffey

really clear cut if you ask me

 

[Jono]

Perish the thought that watching the players is relevant to analytical ability.

Haha so true.

 

[Smudge]

Perish the thought a New Zealander would know more about a New Zealand player than you do

But have we studied as many scorecards and evaluated match reports from journalists whose writing style we have developed a feel for?

 

[Richard]

He has a record that's mainly due to his time in the game. He has done a good job in the middle overs for the past 10 or 12 years and has a good economy rate. As far as his batting goes, he has saved us from total embarrassment many times with the bat (usually in losing causes) has been prone to playing too conservatively sometimes, hence the large number of not outs which inflates his batting average like Michael Bevan

This is something I despise profusely - how the hell does a batsman not deserve credit for not getting out?

and to wasting far too many balls at the start of his innings when he invariably scratches around thrusting his pad at the ball or playing across the line and getting hit on the pad.

So it'd be better for him to just chuck his wicket away?

There are plenty of better players in NZ who can do the middle overs job like Vettori, Styris, Astle, etc so Harry has become a bit obsolete really.

I'd prefer Styris open to Tuffey or Mills, anyday.
Then you can have Harris bowling in the middle.
Seriously - you'd prefer have Tuffey and Mills bowling the rubbish they tend to bowl (Mills especially)?

 

[Richard]

How about the rest of his career?

This rest of his career, you mean?
Because when you get rid of it he averages, in 89 matches, 34.55.
The only good spell he's had has been very, very short indeed.

 

[Richard]

Harris has only averaged 19 in his past 25 matches with the ball, and 60 with the ball. Those figures are absolutely rubbish.

No, they're not, given that his economy-rate has been an outstanding 4.05-an-over.

 

[Richard]

But have we studied as many scorecards and evaluated match reports from journalists whose writing style we have developed a feel for?

Possibly, possibly not - but it doesn't matter nearly as much if you've watched the footage yourself.

 

[Richard]

Perish the thought that watching the players is relevant to analytical ability.

And what the hell has nationality got to do with the amount someone has watched someone - or how well they remember.

 

[Richard]

If the current ODI rankings are anything to go by

Which is a HUGE if.
How on Earth Oram has got such a high ranking is beyond me - for starters, get rid of his games against the totally useless sides (USA, Canada) his average goes up to 30.86; get rid of Bangladesh too and it's 32.17. Funnily enough, just about exactly the same as his average in domestic-one-day games.
With a sub-30 average his economy-rate is just about acceptible; when you look at it against the decent teams it's not so impressive.
Whereas Gillespie, who's been outstanding for the last 5 years, can hardly be compared.

 

[tooextracool]

Sri Lanka aren't far behind them, .

SL are far behind them

A good OD side? Absolutely. A great, star-studded lineup breathing down Australia's neck? Not even close.

even though thats not what you need to be a successful ODI side?
ask the indian side they'll tell you, or even the NZ side from wc 92.

 

[tooextracool]

Sadly, the Aussie one-day team is almost man for man a better side. Vettori over Hogg? Maybe, it would be close though - Hogg has improved a lot recently. The Aussies don't really have a 'class' all-rounder. Symonds' bowling isn't great compared to Cairns' (career wise), but his batting is more consistant - especially over the last few years.

how the hell is it a close battle between hogg and vettori?
vettori beats hogg in both departments.

 

[marc71178]

Gillespie's record is not as way superior as you think and he has actually only played 15 more one-dayers than Oram and taken 49 more wickets.

So only 49 in 15 games then!

Can see why people rate Oram better.

 

[marc71178]

No, they're not, given that his economy-rate has been an outstanding 4.05-an-over.

Taking wickets at 60 a throw is not good.

 

[marc71178]

And what the hell has nationality got to do with the amount someone has watched someone - or how well they remember.

OK, so how much NZ domestic Cricket have you watched in the last 12 months then?

 

[Richard]

Taking wickets at 60 a throw is not good.

It doesn't matter in the slightest if you're bowling at 4.05-an-over.

 

[Richard]

OK, so how much NZ domestic Cricket have you watched in the last 12 months then?

None - where did I claim I had?
How much has Harris played, incidentally?

 

[marc71178]

It doesn't matter in the slightest if you're bowling at 4.05-an-over.

It does.

A wicket ever 15 overs means that sides enter the last 10 with 2 or 3 down - that brings carnage.