nz man4man better than australia

[tooextracool]

Not at FC level. For some inexplicable reason, the decks for Pura Cup games are generally much tougher to bat on than the Test/ODI pitches.

Besides, in matches away from home:

Vettori

Mat Runs HS BatAv 100 50 W BB BowlAv 5w Ct St

unfiltered 149 833 83 13.43 0 1 139 5/30 34.21 1 33 0
filtered 41 236 33 11.80 0 0 47 4/14 30.63 0 10 0

Hogg

Mat Runs HS BatAv 100 50 W BB BowlAv 5w Ct St

unfiltered 60 475 71* 23.75 0 2 71 5/32 30.08 2 16 0
filtered 21 193 53 32.16 0 1 23 5/41 35.00 1 4 0

Hoggie still wins.

I'm no Hoggie fan-boy but geez, anyone who's seen the two of them bat would surely recognise the guy who's a genuine allrounder (remember Hoggie was picked in the WA side initially a batsman/medium-pace bowler) and guy who is a bowler but has improved his batting.

if hogg was as good a batsman as you make him out to be, hed be a consistent feature in the aussie ODI side, given that hes one of the best spin bowling options they have and a fairly good batsman. for me hogg is a decent batsman, daniel vettori has developed into a decent batter too, even if he wasnt one at the start of his career.
and i do find it rather odd that the decks for domestic games are not as flat as the ones for the intl ones, i really wonder what the reasoning behind that is, if it is true.

 

[Top_Cat]

if hogg was as good a batsman as you make him out to be, hed be a consistent feature in the aussie ODI side, given that hes one of the best spin bowling options they have and a fairly good batsman.

And he is, really. I can't remember the last time he was dropped for poor form. He's been rotated in and out with the rest of the bowlers, though.

And I have no doubt Vettori is a good batsman (his highest Test score before his Test hundred was about 97 which he got in his first couple of Tests, I believe) and I'm sure he's improved but I'd still say he's a tailender who can bat. He just bats better these days.

and i do find it rather odd that the decks for domestic games are not as flat as the ones for the intl ones, i really wonder what the reasoning behind that is, if it is true.

Well for one, not all Pura Cup games are played on the main ground in that state. You get matches in Victoria played at Junction Oval (in Richmond?) and St Kilda, in NSW you get matches played at Drummoyne and Nth Sydney whereas in Qld they play matches at Alan Border Field and somewhere else who's name escapes me. Those decks aren't nearly as well maintained as the main grounds like the 'Gabba, MCG, etc. So you'd imagine by their nature, they'd be tougher to play on. All of those grounds are district-level grounds.

But also, when the Pura Cup sides get a go on the main grounds, it seems as if the FC pitches aren't prepared as well or maybe the grounds person has less time to devote to them? No idea. Anyone else from Australia know what I'm talking about? Might be just my perception.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

and i do find it rather odd that the decks for domestic games are not as flat as the ones for the intl ones, i really wonder what the reasoning behind that is, if it is true.

Well, they have one less day to get a result.

 

[marc71178]

What facts? 1st class batting averages? As I said before, Hogg hasn't played test cricket and faced the best bowlers in the world. Test figures are included in 1st class remember. Vettori has and has scored a century and 8 50s and has improved consistently to a point now where his batting is good enough for him to be called an allrounder. If I had the 2 guys in my team I would put Vettori higher than Hogg in the batting order.

Vettori is a bowler who can bat reasonably, nothing more.

A bit like Giles, useful in the lower order.

Hogg's batting far outstrips Vettori.

 

[bryce]

Vettori is a bowler who can bat reasonably, nothing more.

A bit like Giles, useful in the lower order.

Hogg's batting far outstrips Vettori.

i'm in the same boat as TEC - who seems to have posted quite accurately in this thread IMO, i'd safely call vettori an allrounder now, however looking at stats you wouldn't make that sort of a decision but he has developed his batting with age - i went to the same school as vettori and he only scored one century for the 1st XI in four seasons which tells me he is really benifitting from the coaching he is getting, but don't be suprised if in a year or two you yourself will be calling him a genuine allrounder

 

[Fiery]

Vettori is a bowler who can bat reasonably, nothing more.

A bit like Giles, useful in the lower order.

Hogg's batting far outstrips Vettori.

How would you know on the other side of the world when you haven't seen either of them batting this season? Comparing him to Farmer Giles is a bit insulting to him.

 

[SteveG]

I've just finished browsing the posts in this topic and I've come to the conclusion that a lot of people don't watch cricket. In all honesty, how can any NZ player with good conscious claim a spot in the current Australian team? Look at the performance of the NZ team (on HOME turf) against the Aussies. Its almost disgraceful.

Yet, there are posters on here claiming up to 5 or 6 NZ players would make the Australian XI. Frankly, there are players playing domestic cricket in Australia who would make the team before some of these NZer's.

I've been playing and watching cricket for 30 years, and I am bewildered that some of these comments have been made. Brett Lee has destroyed the NZ team yet several kiwi bowlers are considered ahead of him...are you guys even watching the cricket? This Australian is so far ahead of all the other test playing nations that its almost becoming embarressing.

Instead of trying to find excuses for losing, you should be looking at why you arn't winning. It's simple, people...you need to bat better, bowl better and field better...otherwise stop whinging.

 

[vic_orthdox]

And he is, really. I can't remember the last time he was dropped for poor form. He's been rotated in and out with the rest of the bowlers, though.

And I have no doubt Vettori is a good batsman (his highest Test score before his Test hundred was about 97 which he got in his first couple of Tests, I believe) and I'm sure he's improved but I'd still say he's a tailender who can bat. He just bats better these days.



Well for one, not all Pura Cup games are played on the main ground in that state. You get matches in Victoria played at Junction Oval (in Richmond?) and St Kilda, in NSW you get matches played at Drummoyne and Nth Sydney whereas in Qld they play matches at Alan Border Field and somewhere else who's name escapes me. Those decks aren't nearly as well maintained as the main grounds like the 'Gabba, MCG, etc. So you'd imagine by their nature, they'd be tougher to play on. All of those grounds are district-level grounds.

But also, when the Pura Cup sides get a go on the main grounds, it seems as if the FC pitches aren't prepared as well or maybe the grounds person has less time to devote to them? No idea. Anyone else from Australia know what I'm talking about? Might be just my perception.

generally that's true. although the junction (which is in st. kilda - when you see a ground referred to as 'st. kilda', it means the junction oval) is as flat as anything going around. but we've seen a lot of complaints about pitches this year in pura cup.

 

[marc71178]

Comparing him to Farmer Giles is a bit insulting to him.

Suggest you look at the number of runs the 2 have made in recent times then:

2004 Tests:
Vettori - 233@ 21.18
Giles - 330 @ 25.38

And 2005 has started even better than that for Giles, 152 @ 38.00

So please tell me where the insult is.

 

[Richard]

So suddenly 6 is the limit as supposed to 4.5?

Wickets in hand allow risks to be taken, and the weight of evidence supplied by the game on the field (rather than in your mind) shows that wickets in hand mean more runs in the death overs.

Or rather the weight of evidence shows that it is not impossible to stop runs being scored with risks being taken. Just that there aren't (currently) many bowlers capable of doing it.
At the death, if you're conceding 6 off an over you're doing pretty OK. Not exceptionally, OK.

 

[marc71178]

Sorry you're saying the weight of evidence backs your theory even though it never happens?

How is that weight of evidence?

 

[Richard]

No, the evidence shows quite clearly that in the very unlikely event that bowlers get it right that scoring boundaries is impossible.

 

[marc71178]

It's very very rare, yet you claim it's the weight of evidence

 

[Richard]

It's very rare, yes.
All evidence shows quite clearly that if the bowling's poor - lots of wickets in hand or not - runs generally come at the end of the innings.
A perfect example of that was Streak and Ewing - virtually nothing to come, yet because the bowling was poor runs still came at the end. Wickets in hand play little part - the bowling is more important.
However, if the bowling's good, no amount of wickets in hand can change that.

 

[Eclipse]

wickets are usualy in hand because the bowling has been poor..

and when wickets are in hand batsman creat pressure on the bowler, one bad or slightly bad ball that goes for a 4 can lead to another over ajustment...etc etc..

with lesser batsman at the crease these almost balls the the good players can hit don't get punished and the bowlers don't lose there concerntration....it's all in the mind.

 

[Richard]

The point is if you keep a side to 4-an-over or less (ideally lots less) then almost invariably strokes that make wickets more likely than not are only a matter of time away. If you start the 40th over at 140 for 2 and the death-bowling's good you'll not end-up with much more than 200.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

The point is if you keep a side to 4-an-over or less (ideally lots less) then almost invariably strokes that make wickets more likely than not are only a matter of time away. If you start the 40th over at 140 for 2 and the death-bowling's good you'll not end-up with much more than 200.

Vastly more often it works the other way around. Taking Brett Lee for an example of a player who is not naturally inclined towards being particularly economical, when he has a cheap spell it is almost always after he takes early wickets. His first couple of overs might go for half a dozen each, then he picks up a couple of wickets and the batsmen are scared to play at him for the rest of his spell, and he gets 6 overs 2/20 or something from it. McGrath regularly does the same thing. The reason is that at the start of an ODI innings the opposition always recognises the need to keep wickets in hand after losing a few quick ones and will err on the side of caution and go out of their 15 at 2/40 rather than 5/80.

The death is pretty much a time when the batting side will always go for runs, but when exactly that death slogging phase begins is usually dependant on wickets in hand. If a team is 2 down they will start looking to score well in excess of 6 an over from maybe 35-40 overs in, whereas if they are 6 or 7 down they will have batting out the 50 overs as their first priority and will only go for it in the last few overs when it doesn't much matter if they get bowled out. It is no coincidence that almost every ODI score significantly over 300 comes when the team enters the last 10 overs with more than half their batting lineup still intact. There are very very few exceptions to this, and your theory that wickets in hand has no impact on scoring rates flies in the face of not only conventional cricketing wisdom but also the available evidence.

 

[Richard]

Vastly more often it works the other way around. Taking Brett Lee for an example of a player who is not naturally inclined towards being particularly economical, when he has a cheap spell it is almost always after he takes early wickets. His first couple of overs might go for half a dozen each, then he picks up a couple of wickets and the batsmen are scared to play at him for the rest of his spell, and he gets 6 overs 2/20 or something from it. McGrath regularly does the same thing. The reason is that at the start of an ODI innings the opposition always recognises the need to keep wickets in hand after losing a few quick ones and will err on the side of caution and go out of their 15 at 2/40 rather than 5/80.

Exactly - some bowlers (like Lee) rely on wickets to get economy.
McGrath, meanwhile, generally bowls economically whether he takes wickets or not (often takes wickets because of his accuracy, batsmen try to go after him and can't get away with it).
I'm not really talking about individuals, though, I'm talking about whole sides.

The death is pretty much a time when the batting side will always go for runs, but when exactly that death slogging phase begins is usually dependant on wickets in hand. If a team is 2 down they will start looking to score well in excess of 6 an over from maybe 35-40 overs in, whereas if they are 6 or 7 down they will have batting out the 50 overs as their first priority and will only go for it in the last few overs when it doesn't much matter if they get bowled out. It is no coincidence that almost every ODI score significantly over 300 comes when the team enters the last 10 overs with more than half their batting lineup still intact. There are very very few exceptions to this, and your theory that wickets in hand has no impact on scoring rates flies in the face of not only conventional cricketing wisdom but also the available evidence.

I've never said it has no impact.
But the quality of the bowling has far greater impact.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Exactly - some bowlers (like Lee) rely on wickets to get economy.
McGrath, meanwhile, generally bowls economically whether he takes wickets or not (often takes wickets because of his accuracy, batsmen try to go after him and can't get away with it).
I'm not really talking about individuals, though, I'm talking about whole sides.

When Lee (or McGrath) take early wickets it creates economy for the whole side, not just for them, because early wickets in OD games almost universally result in a significant reduction to the scoring rate for the reason I mentioned. I simply used Lee as an example because he is usually more expensive than your average opening ODI bowler (at least in good attacks), but when he takes wickets he is often far more economical.

 

[Richard]

McGrath and Gillespie don't need wickets to be economical.
And unless I'm very much mistaken Hogg, Lee and others' economy-rates are very poor. Which suggests that the wickets don't often slow the rate, they just cut the totals.