NZ's bowling without Bond

[Andre]

I don't know what level you play Richard or how serious you are about your cricket etc. I know that the higher you get the more critisim you will get. And usually it is harsher.

The reason I am so against making fun of people like AA and Harmision and tuffey is because I know the work that they have put in, I know how much **** they are getting. In the end we play the best we can and if that isn't good enough then is it really worth putting your name out there for a joke.

Last season I had exactly that. It got to the stage I would basicly cry myself to sleep at night because I was young, inexperienced and didn't know how to handle the position I had been thrown into. I lost the love of the game I had, and I feared walking out to bat because I felt everyone was wanting me to fail. I was almost correct. Kiwis love to drag people down. Only my team mates wanted to see success from me.

I didn't talk about it too anyone, and when I finally did, 2 months later my cricket had suffered badly. My friends though I was a snobby person who had mental issues. I failed all my exams and almost stuffed the chance of going to uni. And worst of all my health suffered so badly I lost 11 kgs in the month of Feburary alone. And for someone who wieghts only 61 kgs it is a bit of a worry.

All that started because of a few people going on about how crap I was and how I didn't deserve the chances of playing in higher grades. You may be saying well AA or Harmision are never going to read this. But are you so sure. I know of a few Black caps who have visited this site so maybe we should respect the work people put into get to where they want.

Frankly Tamara, I really think your taking everything far too seriously. Generally, people are mucking around. Being an international cricketer, people are going to cop praise and critcism - it comes with the territory.

It's up to the player considering how the deal with it.

 

[masterblaster]

I agree with you completely Tamara, these guys put their heart and soul and all their effort into getting to the point where they are. I can understand where your coming from, and how the players must feel when all they read is harsh critics slamming them after they have toiled and toiled away.

The ONLY reason I am in the AAAS, is I have always been a big fan of Ajit Agarkar. Ive met him in person, ive been privelaged enough to have chat with him as well. If anyone thinks my signature signifies bagging Agarkar its completely false, and I'll remove it if anyone asks me to.

Im not sure about others on this forum, but I dont take Agarkar's cricket as a joke. Ive been a big supporter of his, and if i manage to get an interview, i'll make this bloody clear to everyone.

The thing i like about Agarkar is his hard work ethic and true determination. He's not living under a rock, he knows the criticism he gets from ex players and the 'cricketing critic'. But the 'cricketing critic' knows absolutely nothing about the game.

They have never played the game at the same level Ajit has, they have never experienced the pain, the passion, the blood, the sweat and the tears Ajit has put into his game over the years.
Its not easy, and for some idiots, (who know absolutely nothing about the pressure of International Cricket) to put him down is wrong.

Ajit is a fine example of how a cricketer should be, and how youngsters should bowl like. He is an honest and hardworking cricketer. With both bat and ball. He is good enough, this is why he is playing for his country. The same applies to one Steve Harmison and any other player who the 'cricketing critic' sees as mediocre.

We are all human, we have bad days and good days. We experience success and failure, we as fans and lovers of the game need to appreciate that. We aren't robots who succeed all the time. Success and failure are part and parcel of this game. Those who aren't performing need encouragement by the media, fans so players like Harmison and Ajit can lift and reach their true potential.

And why does Agarkar get such unwarranted criticism? Over 150 ODI WICKETS at a very good average of 28 with a strike rate in the late 30's low 40's. Two half centuries with a batting average nearing 20.

Why this unwarranted criticism? Why associate a fine young, 25 year old talent like Agarkar with mediocrity? He is 25 years old for god sakes and has played more ODI's than any other 25 year old International player I know of, and with a better bowling record, then any of them.

For one, I hope Ajit does well today against New Zealand.

'Only the wearer knows where the shoe pinches'

 

[thierry henry]

Personally I don't understand the Agarkar bagging as he has a very impressive ODI record.

But apart from that, any critic has every right to state an opinion on an international player. If we don't think he's up to it we are allowed to say so. I'm pretty sure that everyone here knows and agrees that no international cricketers are actually mediocre or crap- I think we all know that they are great cricketers and we could never compete with them. But they are on the international stage, and therefore we judge them by international standards. Therefore, if a player is crappy by international standards, we can call him crappy without constantly having to reiterate that "he's not really crap, just crap by international standards". I think everyone already knows that that's what we mean.

 

[Andre]

Seriously guys, where is your sense of humour? I'm a member of the AAAS, but I am a big fan of AA as a player. As does Marc, for the record. Just ask masterblaster.

I believe any criticism is not malicious, and I know if it from me, it's questions of selections etc rather than personal attacks on players.

 

[anzac]

Tuffey and Oram aren't ineffective on pitches like the typical Indian one because of lack of pace, they're ineffective because they only have one way of moving the ball - seam. In New Zealand, most pitches offer some seam and hence both are good Test bowlers in New Zealand. In India, seam-movement is rarely seen and you need to be able to use skills most bowlers find more subtle - cut, swing, reverse-swing.
And, of course, you need consistent accuracy. Tuffey and Oram are more accurate than some but not, in my view, Test standard in that dept.

good point and I'd agree to a degree, although I also think their lack of pace does make them easier to play on these type of pitches than if they averaged in the mid 130 kph range, rather than the mid 120 kph range.

If they had that extra yard or so of pace they could keep the ball 'up' to the batsmen where their 'bounce' would come more into play, bearing in mind that sub - continent batsmen tend to keep 'lower' in their defensive strokes & any extra bounce increases the chances of taking and edge or glove, let alone unsettling the batsman.

so far as the accuracy goes I'm curious how you would compare the efforts of the England seam attack. From what I've seen from the ENG v RSA series I'd place both Oram & Tuffey ahead of some of the England bowlers so far as accuracy goes. Both have averages below 30 in BOTH forms of the game & both have a 5 wicket bag. The same can not be said for most of the English seam bowlers regards their averages & bear in mind that English cricket has far more resources to draw upon.

I don't want to slag off the English bowlers but I'm quite happy to have both Tuffey & Oram in my side. Both are young and still inexperienced at Test level with Tuffey being the senior bowler at 15 Tests ahead of Bond at 10, and Oram & Styris around the half dozen mark - even Anderson has played more Tests than these latter 2.

Bottom line neither Tuffey nor Oram are 'strike' seam bowlers, and are being asked to perform in a situation & conditions that they are not really suited for. The reality is that Bond is NZ's first genuine 'strike' bowler since the likes of Hadlee & perhaps Morrison.

 

[masterblaster]

Yeah, your right there Andre.
Personal attacks show how low a persons personality can be, there has been a lot of personal attacks on Ajit though.

I wonder if he reads this site?

If he does, i just want to say, the majority of Cricketweb is right behind him!

 

[Andre]

Exactly.

Rather than the negatives, I'd prefer to think of AA as a 'cult hero' of the site.

 

[marc71178]

For one, I hope Ajit does well today against New Zealand.

They paid the price for not picking him there!

 

[marc71178]

Exactly.

Rather than the negatives, I'd prefer to think of AA as a 'cult hero' of the site.

Amen to that!

 

[marc71178]

Both have averages below 30 in BOTH forms of the game & both have a 5 wicket bag. The same can not be said for most of the English seam bowlers regards their averages & bear in mind that English cricket has far more resources to draw upon.

I think Oram's average is a bit false to be fair owing to last winter's series!

 

[Craig]

Look I think everybody appreciates and knows that you have to work hard to get there, but I believe nobody should take critism to heart. Unless it is constructive critism, then that is fine I believe. I have said for quite a while now that if Flintoff pitched the ball up a lot more, he could be a better bowler, he could get more swing and seam and get better chance of wickets.

Cricketers should know the risks in visiting a cricketing forum. Basically it is for cricketing tragics like us who love our cricket and for us to us to discuss it, and that applies to everybody here, whether or not you agree with their opinions (:P ) and some of it isnt going to be good.

Look Tamera, everybody likes to drag people down - it happens in every country. And generally it happens because of jealousy.

I havent seen you bat, but you must believe that you are good enough to play rep cricket for your age level or whatever your level, then you are doing something right. And one of the worst things you can do is not talk about it.

Oh and by the way, I admit that I bat like Courtney Walsh or Glenn McGrath and bowl like Brendon Juilen.

 

[Richard]

good point and I'd agree to a degree, although I also think their lack of pace does make them easier to play on these type of pitches than if they averaged in the mid 130 kph range, rather than the mid 120 kph range.

If they had that extra yard or so of pace they could keep the ball 'up' to the batsmen where their 'bounce' would come more into play, bearing in mind that sub - continent batsmen tend to keep 'lower' in their defensive strokes & any extra bounce increases the chances of taking and edge or glove, let alone unsettling the batsman.

so far as the accuracy goes I'm curious how you would compare the efforts of the England seam attack. From what I've seen from the ENG v RSA series I'd place both Oram & Tuffey ahead of some of the England bowlers so far as accuracy goes. Both have averages below 30 in BOTH forms of the game & both have a 5 wicket bag. The same can not be said for most of the English seam bowlers regards their averages & bear in mind that English cricket has far more resources to draw upon.

I don't want to slag off the English bowlers but I'm quite happy to have both Tuffey & Oram in my side. Both are young and still inexperienced at Test level with Tuffey being the senior bowler at 15 Tests ahead of Bond at 10, and Oram & Styris around the half dozen mark - even Anderson has played more Tests than these latter 2.

Bottom line neither Tuffey nor Oram are 'strike' seam bowlers, and are being asked to perform in a situation & conditions that they are not really suited for. The reality is that Bond is NZ's first genuine 'strike' bowler since the likes of Hadlee & perhaps Morrison.

Most of England's bowlers are poor excuses for Test standard. Hoggard, Harmison, Anderson, Flintoff, Dawson and Jones Test class? Don't make me laugh.
England's only decent bowlers in recent years have been Caddick, Gough and on occasions Cork, White and Tudor.
The top 5 are all capable of producing the occasional good delivery, and all of them (bar perhaps Flintoff) have benefited from some very average batting, which has meant their averages have always been closer to 30 than 40. Cork and White have been a little better a little more often but neither have exactly been models of consistency, either. Caddick's average should be about 4 lower than it is, and Gough's retirement was premature.
Personally I rate Tuffey and Oram higher than any Englishmen except G, C, C and W; I just don't think Tuffey, Bond or Oram are as good as what came before them - Allott, Nash, Doull and Cairns, and Larsen and Harris in the one-dayers. Vettori seems to have lost the plot recently, too. As for Wiseman, what a joke of a bowler. 0 for, what, 300 on the tour, and then gets gifted 4 wickets in a slogfest.

 

[marc71178]

Hmm, Tudor decent yet Hoggard and Anderson aren't?

 

[anzac]

Personally I rate Tuffey and Oram higher than any Englishmen except G, C, C and W; I just don't think Tuffey, Bond or Oram are as good as what came before them - Allott, Nash, Doull and Cairns, and Larsen and Harris in the one-dayers. Vettori seems to have lost the plot recently, too. As for Wiseman, what a joke of a bowler. 0 for, what, 300 on the tour, and then gets gifted 4 wickets in a slogfest.

Allott only had success in the WC, but not Test cricket. Nash Doull & Cairns were never true 'strike' bowlers. Larsen & Harris were different types of bowlers to Tuffey & ORam & ODI specialists. Vettori's bowling in the 1st Test was the best I've seen from him in a while & Wiseman is an indication of NZ spin resources.

Another point is that IMO we have a different mind set to our bowling now that Bond has emerged on the scene. Anyway it's still too early to call in my book.

 

[Richard]

Allott only had success in the WC, but not Test cricket. Nash Doull & Cairns were never true 'strike' bowlers. Larsen & Harris were different types of bowlers to Tuffey & Oram & ODI specialists. Vettori's bowling in the 1st Test was the best I've seen from him in a while & Wiseman is an indication of NZ spin resources.

Another point is that IMO we have a different mind set to our bowling now that Bond has emerged on the scene. Anyway it's still too early to call in my book.

It's a shame Allott never achieved that much long-term success (in either form of the game) because he had all the neccesities to do so - he could bowl seam and both types of swing. Nash, Doull and Cairns weren't quite Allott standard but they were all, IMO, better than Tuffey and Oram, despite the fact that both have good home and domestic records.
Larsen and Harris were never Test-standard bowlers, but they were two fantastic ODI bowlers, better than either Tuffey or Oram. Harris is still pretty good, too.

 

[Richard]

Hmm, Tudor decent yet Hoggard and Anderson aren't?

Yes, I rate Tudor above Hoggard and Anderson. For the simple reason that Tudor gets more bounce and is, if you ask me, is capable of being more accurate. All three are good with seam and swing and none can do much else, but Tudor is taller and, in my view, more capable with accuracy.

 

[anzac]

It's a shame Allott never achieved that much long-term success (in either form of the game) because he had all the neccesities to do so - he could bowl seam and both types of swing. Nash, Doull and Cairns weren't quite Allott standard but they were all, IMO, better than Tuffey and Oram, despite the fact that both have good home and domestic records.
Larsen and Harris were never Test-standard bowlers, but they were two fantastic ODI bowlers, better than either Tuffey or Oram. Harris is still pretty good, too.

agreed re Allott - in his interview he said he didn't develop the late in-swing factor until later in his ODI career & basically he had been passed over for Tests by that stage. He did have the series win in England but then suffered injuries again.

From memory he made his debut in OZ along with O'Connor, but broke down & O'Connor got the break into the side. At that stage O'Connor was already able to swing the ball but lacked that extra yard of pace that Allott had.

Don't get me wrong I am a fan of just about anyone who has represented their country in the modern game, particularly my home nation. I just think that these guys are young and plenty of developing to go b4 comparisons can be made. I also acknowledge that they are different types of bowlers - probably closer to the Cairns model - less pace but more into the deck, rather than the traditional Kiwi seamer of 130 odd kmh but more skiddy across the top.

Lastly IMO NZ tactics have become more aggressive in the last 5 years. Previously they were always competitive & primarily went into strangulation mode to pressure the opposition into mistakes. They still do this but are trying to develop a seam attack as an offensive option, not just containment. I remember lots of talk in the late '90's about wanting more bowlers who bowl into the deck and not across it.

Tuffey has worked hard to improve & appears to have dropped his pace to improve his accuracy. Oram was originally a 3rd seam ODI option who is being looked at as a possible replacement for Cairns in the Test side. Unless he starts to produce results with his batting he may have to sit a few out & struggle to cement his place as players like Mason etc come on.

 

[anzac]

Hmm, Tudor decent yet Hoggard and Anderson aren't?

not posted by me Richard.......

 

[Richard]

Don't get me wrong I am a fan of just about anyone who has represented their country in the modern game, particularly my home nation. I just think that these guys are young and plenty of developing to go b4 comparisons can be made. I also acknowledge that they are different types of bowlers - probably closer to the Cairns model - less pace but more into the deck, rather than the traditional Kiwi seamer of 130 odd kmh but more skiddy across the top.

Lastly IMO NZ tactics have become more aggressive in the last 5 years. Previously they were always competitive & primarily went into strangulation mode to pressure the opposition into mistakes. They still do this but are trying to develop a seam attack as an offensive option, not just containment. I remember lots of talk in the late '90's about wanting more bowlers who bowl into the deck and not across it.

Tuffey has worked hard to improve & appears to have dropped his pace to improve his accuracy. Oram was originally a 3rd seam ODI option who is being looked at as a possible replacement for Cairns in the Test side. Unless he starts to produce results with his batting he may have to sit a few out & struggle to cement his place as players like Mason etc come on.

I still hope to see Cairns' international career reignited - so many NZ seamers have lost their careers to injury recently, I hope Cairns isn't another.
Tuffey, and Oram to a slightly lesser extent, are good bowlers in typical New Zealand conditions, as demonstrated by their domestic FC and home Test records. However, if they want to have success overseas, particularly in the subcontinent, they will both need to work on off-cutters, leg-cutters and reverse-swing. Seems to me both of them are just about accurate enough as they are now - if they want to try to be more aggressive they'll need to develop alternative methods of moving the ball. Bond likewise.
It's amazing how similar these three bowlers are. Bond's a rather better one-day bowler IMO than Tuffey or Oram, but all of them are bowlers who are going to be a huge threat in typical Kiwi conditions due to their seam, accuracy and bounce, but as yet none of them are going to present much of a danger overseas. That does not mean they couldn't, though, with a bit of practice on new techniques.

 

[Kiwi]

Saw Bondy bowling yesterday, and It looks like he is bowling off a full runup at full pace again. He was playing on the ground next to me for club cricket