***Official*** Commonwealth Bank Tri-Series

[ohtani's jacket]

Oram isn't a genuine all-rounder on an international level, but he's a genuine all-rounder for NZ. There's no such thing as a consistent NZ batsman, so there's no point reading into averages -- NZ rely on someone in the middle order making a reasonable score, could be Oram, Styris, Taylor, McMillan, whoever... None of them have great averages, but they're all capable of holding together yet another shakey innings. New Zealand have been this way for ages -- a type of rotating system of chipping in. Sort of endearing. Maybe.

 

[Bahnz]

OK, would you select him as a specialist batsman Bahnz?

Firstly, if I was to select him as a specialist batsman, then it wouldn't be at 6. He's the type of player who needs time to get his eye in, so I'd bat him at 4 or 5. Given Scott Styris already fills one of those two spots, then that leaves only one place for a potential middle order batsman. Given the mediocre form of New Zealand's middle order incumbents, there might be a place for him. He has a top test record and he has done well at times for his province in one day cricket.

But... he seems to struggle against top class spinners. Murali made him look like a fool in the Champion's Trophy and the home test matches. Then again, he did manage to hit a century against a Shane Warne led Australian attack (although again that was in test cricket). So I'm kind of 50-50. Put it this way, his record for the blackcaps certainly doesn't warrant a spot as a specialist batsman, and potential can only get you so far, as Brendon McCullum has already shown.

 

[Fiery]

See I would have him at 6 in my top lineup even if he wasn't able to bowl. I guess that's why we have selectors because teams don't automatically pick themselves

 

[Slow Love™]

It's probably mostly been said before, but Andrew Miller's article at cricinfo after this match was a good read:

http://content-aus.cricinfo.com/cbs/content/current/story/277393.html

An excerpt:

Their attitude to one-day cricket is as fickle as the entourage of WAGs and infants that has been trailing around in the team's wake all winter, although - tellingly - there has been no-one in the set-up willing to have a good old-fashioned tantrum. A combination of Duncan Fletcher's impassivity and Andrew Flintoff's banality has seen to that. "The lads are trying their damnedest to win games," was Freddie's latest variation on the same soundbite, another infuriatingly deadpan response to a flatlining tour.

And when the cameras panned in on the dressing-room, Fletcher's hangdoggy-in-the-window expression was, to the average long-suffering England fan, every bit as slappable as Ricky Ponting had found it to be at Trent Bridge in 2005. Quite how the shunned Chris Read, sitting in fulminating silence beside him, resisted the temptation, no-one will ever know. ()

Last year, Fletcher infamously claimed that he knew "ten of the eleven players" whom he would like to have playing at St Lucia on March 16 for the opening match of the World Cup. For all we know, he still moans "Jonesy" and "Tresco" in his sleep to this day. But it's time to wake up and smell the coffee, Duncan. Those boys are gone, and they ain't coming back.

It's quite an irony, given the disparaging comments that Fletcher has long been making about one-day cricket, that three of the key figures as England claw their way to the start of another World Cup campaign, are Jon Lewis, Paul Nixon and Mal Loye - thirtysomethings one and all, and men who owe their very livelihoods to that maligned county treadmill. It's certainly not how England would have planned their winter. But seeing as they didn't actually bother to plan it in the first place, it seems about fair.

But enough pontificating about the same old spiel. It really is too depressing. Perhaps, in the spirit of this bloated, corporatised era of the game, it's time to automate our reports on these abominable contests. In fact, why wait for the technology to catch up? There is already in existence a handy 'bull**** generator' that, with a couple of quick tweaks, could easily churn out 700 words for next Friday's 252-run defeat against the Aussies.

 

[Matt52]

What does Oram have to do to make him a genuine all rounder in your books Matt52?

a genuine all rounder would be someone who could make the team in either discipline regardless of the other one. Its pretty tough I know, but Flintoff would make the England side as a bowler if he couldnt bat and ....if he couldnt bowl, he would still make the side as a batsman. Chris Cairns was probably one for NZ. He played a few times as just a batsman when he was injured I think, and if his batting was terrible he would still be in the side for his bowling. I suppose its alot to do with the strength of the other players in the squad, but thats what I thought it was. Imran Khan and Botham were a few others.

Its not my definition. Its just Ive heard them talking about it over the years about "genuine all rounders", and then it was explained that that was what it meant. I just thought it was a normal peice of cricket terminology...you have the all rounder, who can make the side on one discipline and chip in with the other and the genuine allrounder that can make the side on either discipline.

Perhaps I was wrong but thats what I thought the term referred to.

 

[JBH001]

Yes, that is the generally accepted definition Matt52.

It is also an immensely tough standard to meet, which is why it is prefaced by the term 'genuine' and then allrounder. To differentiate it from the also rans like Oram. It is, however, an immensely tough standard to meet, and few genuine allrounders actually manage to meet it through their whole career.

 

[meatspx]

In ODI's the predominant type of all-rounder is a batting all-rounder (a batsman who bowls in most games, say 4 games out of 5) and a bowling all-rounder (a bowler who bats around 7-8 and is frequently relied upon). Andy Symonds / Chris Gayle are perfect examples for batting all-rounders, whereas Oram would be considered a bowling all-rounder atm as his batting average is too low atm (though NZ are expecting him to be a geniune all-rounder like Flintoff).

There's also batters who "bowl a bit", like Michael Clarke and Craig McMillan...probably Nathan Astle now as he doesn't bowl frequently enough. A fit Scot Styris would be classed as a batting all-rounder.

I'm not too sure what Shane Watson is though :P
Probably a batting all-rounder as he opens, though Australia are expecting alot from him just as NZ are of Oram.

 

[Matt52]

The only reason why Orams average is so low is because of the situations of the innings where he comes in generally at the end where he is there to whack it he is therefore to get NZ over the line, his statistics have had to suffer for it. End of story IMO

I like Oram and I think he should be in the side, and probably batting at 6, because with Franklin, and Vettori and McCullum behind him, we have a strong tail anyway, but I dont buy your argument. I just think Jacob Oram has underperformed. I think he suffers a bit from the mindset of just smashing it in the last few overs whereas someone like Hussey seemed to pick his spot ,,, hit the ball hard, but in a more calculated way.

Anyway, the other no6's in this tournament are Flintoff , who averages about 34, and Hussey who averages like a zillion. If you bat at six, you have to hit it more but you can also get a lot of not outs to help your average. Oram needs to bat to the end of the innings.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I'm not too sure what Shane Watson is though :P
Probably a batting all-rounder as he opens, though Australia are expecting alot from him just as NZ are of Oram.

He'd be a genuine all-rounder IMO, at least in the last year or so, given he bats at the top of the order and bowls his full quota of 10 almost every game. That's the main criteria for an all-rounder in ODIs, I'd say. If you bowl your 6 or 7 overs a game on average you're certainly a bowler rather than a part-timer, and if you also bat in the top half of the order and score important runs you're also a batsman.

Obviously you'd call Gayle a batting all-rounder since he's a much better batsman than he is a bowler, but he meets the criteria for an all-rounder nonetheless. Oram is the same, but he's been a bowling all-rounder. Could be more than that, if he stays fit.

 

[Natman20]

So the NZ top order is that strong then is it (bearing in mind that most of his innings have been at 6)?

I think so yes. It has been better than it is now. He ussually comes in around over 36? or so on a reaonable day and by the 40-42 over mark after building small partnerships then has to try and make a decent total after a slow NZ start I will try to see if i can somehow work out the statistics ....

 

[vic_orthdox]

I think so yes. It has been better than it is now. He ussually comes in around over 36? or so on a reaonable day and by the 40-42 over mark after building small partnerships then has to try and make a decent total after a slow NZ start I will try to see if i can somehow work out the statistics ....

Or let PrinceEWS do it for you?

Oram's time at Number 6.

 

[Prince EWS]

I think so yes. It has been better than it is now. He ussually comes in around over 36? or so on a reaonable day and by the 40-42 over mark after building small partnerships then has to try and make a decent total after a slow NZ start I will try to see if i can somehow work out the statistics ....

I've already given his record when coming in with 20+ overs to go in this thread. It's not flash by any means. 38 innings for an average of under 21.

I manually went through all of his innings today and put his score and the over he came in into a spreadsheet so I can change the criteria if you'd like...

 

[Natman20]

Batting Positions

3 - 12.75
4 - 10.50
5 - 22.50
6 - 17.03
7 - 25.75
8 - 24.88
9 - 18.00

This doesnt prove anything
I think maybe he is better as a slogger rather than a middle order player but I think he has the ability to become more consistent in the order.

I dont trust the filter that I used though it comes up with some odd numbers (it wasnt any of cricketwebs stats by the way)

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

50 for Jaques tonight in a pretty shocking NSW batting effort. Didn't watch the game, so no idea if the pitch was doing anything or if anyone else was just hopeless.

Either way, a positive sign re: bringing him in for Hayden. Still doubt it will happen this series, but if he makes enough runs you never know.

 

[Prince EWS]

50 for Jaques tonight in a pretty shocking NSW batting effort. Didn't watch the game, so no idea if the pitch was doing anything or if anyone else was just hopeless.

Either way, a positive sign re: bringing him in for Hayden. Still doubt it will happen this series, but if he makes enough runs you never know.

The pitch was doing plenty. I'm not really a Jaques fan to be honest, but he it was a controlled innings on a pitch that was holding up a bit and offering something for Hilfenhaus, Wright and Drew. I was quite impressed.

 

[kwigibo]

Yeah, I don't know why they play these games at Telstra. But Jaques did good, the pitch was a bit rough looking, there was significant lateral movement at times for both the slow and quick men.

Katich on the other hand played a signature knock, 3(23).

 

[Johnners]

Looks a fair effort from Jaques, Paine & Bailey if the pitch was assisting the bowlers as much as the scorecard suggests.

Stuey Clark will want to play well at every chance he gets or i get the feeling he'll be given the shove and Hilfenhaus will grab his spot for the WC.

 

[pup11]

Jacques is not even in contention for now.

haydos and watto are the only choices at this point for selectors if haydos fails again then watto will take his place he will play for bulls tomorrow. So they will see how he goes or he gets injured again.

 

[aussie]

Yet again you push someone you've barely seen play.
Unless the selectors have never been to watch him (which lets face it is a huge long shot) - I suggest they've a better idea about him and hence haven't picked him.

i've seen enough off him on TV as well as Nixon to know he would have been a better pick than the 36 old bloke. Pothas would have given A LOT more with the bat since he can bat in the top order & well.

The selectors have frequently made some shocking ODI selection over the years rather than good one's look how long they took to pick Loye (not saying he's going to be big success) but he should have been around the set-up before now at least

 

[Prince EWS]

haydos and watto are the only choices at this point for selectors if haydos fails again then watto will take his place he will play for bulls tomorrow. So they will see how he goes or he gets injured again.

Watson isn't fit to bowl yet and won't be for a little while yet. They won't pick him on batting alone.