honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
What pace does this Amel bowl at?
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
***Official India in New Zealand***
- Thread starter James
- Start date
straw man
Hall of Fame Member
I believe it's a fairly standard 135-138 km/h type range. Apparently he used to be very quick, but then had stress fractures in back etc.
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
oh... so he is like a straight swap for Butler then?
But if the guy is taller than your normal bowlers, he is worth a shot, I believe.
O'Brien
Mills
Ames
Franklin
Vettori
That sounds like a good attack.
straw man
Hall of Fame Member
Eerily similar now that you point it out! Both right arm, similar height and bowling action (if I remember right... I've only seen Arnel bowl once), hit-the-deck type bowlers, used to be fast and inaccurate, got injured, came back and are now slower and probably much better bowlers.
However Chris Martin should play before Arnel.
Days of Grace
International Captain
Martin to get dropped second test due to his batting 
Bahnz
Hall of Fame Member
Hey! He just saved NZA in the second test. I got a feeling that a 5 is just around the corner for the tomarto.Martin to get dropped second test due to his batting
biased indian
International Coach
Link to PageCricinfo about the last test series said:
Flem274*
123/5
I'd drop him for his now harmless bowling. He isn't what he was a few years back.Martin to get dropped second test due to his batting
Flem274*
123/5
Did I say pick Thompson for the test series?
Tbh, all bowlers have been atrocious. Ya buddy O'Brien was atrocious when he started, now I'm not saying he's as good as O'Brien by any stretch (because he's not), but hopefuly he won't be condemned by one ODI against that batting on that kind of pitch, otherwise logic says bye bye to Tim Southee forever as well.
But yeah those figures are shocking.
Last edited:
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
Haha, loving the logic of this post. "Atrocious isn't that bad."Did I say pick Thompson for the test series?
Tbh, all bowlers have been atrocious. Ya buddy O'Brien was atrocious when he started, now I'm not saying he's as good as O'Brien by any stretch (because he's not), but hopefuly he won't be condemned by one ODI against that batting on that kind of pitch, otherwise logic says bye bye to Tim Southee forever as well.
But yeah those figures are shocking.
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
is it sure that they ll be rested?
Athlai
Not Terrible
More importantly he looked shocking. And slow.Did I say pick Thompson for the test series?
Tbh, all bowlers have been atrocious. Ya buddy O'Brien was atrocious when he started, now I'm not saying he's as good as O'Brien by any stretch (because he's not), but hopefuly he won't be condemned by one ODI against that batting on that kind of pitch, otherwise logic says bye bye to Tim Southee forever as well.
But yeah those figures are shocking.
SJS
Hall of Fame Member
Of course atrocious isnt "that" bad. I mean look at this Kiwi attack. Southee, Ryder, O'Brien, Elliott, Thompson, Butler, Oram and Mills have been atrocious but then Mills has just been atrocious while most of the others have been atrociously atrociousHaha, loving the logic of this post. "Atrocious isn't that bad."
Days of Grace
International Captain
What irked me about Thompson was that he was just so damn slow and hittable. Unless it is seaming all over the place in swinging conditions, he will be cannon-fodder.
This could be said for all our bowlers, but at least they attempt to put some pace on the ball.
This could be said for all our bowlers, but at least they attempt to put some pace on the ball.
I think we should just stop judging our bowlers on how they bowled in the ODI's. This indian side's arguably one of the best ODI batting line ups seen in cricket, and on flat pitches.... we were always up against it.
I think we should just go with the most talented and dangerous bowlers, like martin, Vettori, Mills, Patel and Obrian. I don't beleive that the Indians beat us because of the bowling, it was because Sehwag and Tendulkars batting
Hope that the tests will be a different story
I think we should just go with the most talented and dangerous bowlers, like martin, Vettori, Mills, Patel and Obrian. I don't beleive that the Indians beat us because of the bowling, it was because Sehwag and Tendulkars batting
Hope that the tests will be a different story
SJS
Hall of Fame Member
My personal opinion is that New Zealand cricket has suffered due to policies that were geared towards the 'bits and pieces' players as England had also tried and suffered.
Kiwis have handed over a lot of their bowling responsibilities to what I would call non-specialist bowlers though some may want to call them specialists for the limited overs game. Its completely wrong to expect that bulk of your bowling will be done by bowlers you wouldn't bowl in Test matches even if they were playing and not expect that to affect your resource planning over the long run.
I did a study of Kiwi bowling over the fifteen year period - 1990 to 2005 (calendar years). I then checked who were the major ODI bowlers for New Zealand in this time by number of overs bowled in aggregate. Guess who bowled the most - Chris Harris. Of the top six, three are non specialist bowlers, Harris, Styris and Astle. Of the other three at least one, though a specialist bowler, wasn't considered of much use for Test matches. This bowlers, Gavin Larsen, played 121 ODI's and just 8 Test matches. Harris played 250 and 23,
Only Vettori and, the since retired, Chris Cairns were genuine Test match bowlers. I suggest that New Zealand has a mindset of playing these so called 'limited overs bowlers' who could bat pretty well in that game and have spawned a pool of players who are similar in outlook. The bowler friendly New Zealand wickets also helped to hide the non-penetrative nature of this attack. I mean look at their strike rates in Test matches - Harris 73, Scott 105 and Astell 115 ! Larsen who couldn't even bat very well in ODI's is not much better at 82.
Before anyone thinks the aggregate overs depends on the number of matches played and hence Harris has more overs compared to those who had shorter careers, let me give state that Harris bowled 7.1 overs per ODI which is just marginally less than Vettori's 7.3 and more than Cairn's 6.5 (Cairns bowled a bit less towards the end of his career.
I know Harris did a very good job in the ODI'd he played and I am not running down his skills. But I am using these examples to show how the overall attacks have been assembled. A focus on Test matches makes teams look for more penetrative bowlers while a focus on ODI's makes for bowlers who can just get the job done, keep the runs down to an 'acceptable' level, get runs and be great fielders.
I think this is wrong. Most of the really successful teams have their main three bowlers, at least, from their best bowlers in the Test side. Then you may have one bowler (like Bracken in Australia) who is a specialist one day bowler (different from a bits and pieces player) and a couple of non regulars from amongst the batsmen who fill in if you do not have a genuine all rounder.
The bowlers who bowled the most overs in Test matches are all specialists.
With no one like Cairns in sight and with the unfortunate injury to Bond, New Zealand are stuck with a very mediocre attack which is further exposed on the batsman friendly wickets against an a batting side which treats them like schoolboys.
I feel that the core of the fifty over side (even more so the bowling attack) must still have the best players of the country (meaning the best Test players) and specialists should be very few and certainly not the ones you depend upon the most.
Kiwis have handed over a lot of their bowling responsibilities to what I would call non-specialist bowlers though some may want to call them specialists for the limited overs game. Its completely wrong to expect that bulk of your bowling will be done by bowlers you wouldn't bowl in Test matches even if they were playing and not expect that to affect your resource planning over the long run.
I did a study of Kiwi bowling over the fifteen year period - 1990 to 2005 (calendar years). I then checked who were the major ODI bowlers for New Zealand in this time by number of overs bowled in aggregate. Guess who bowled the most - Chris Harris. Of the top six, three are non specialist bowlers, Harris, Styris and Astle. Of the other three at least one, though a specialist bowler, wasn't considered of much use for Test matches. This bowlers, Gavin Larsen, played 121 ODI's and just 8 Test matches. Harris played 250 and 23,
Only Vettori and, the since retired, Chris Cairns were genuine Test match bowlers. I suggest that New Zealand has a mindset of playing these so called 'limited overs bowlers' who could bat pretty well in that game and have spawned a pool of players who are similar in outlook. The bowler friendly New Zealand wickets also helped to hide the non-penetrative nature of this attack. I mean look at their strike rates in Test matches - Harris 73, Scott 105 and Astell 115 ! Larsen who couldn't even bat very well in ODI's is not much better at 82.
Before anyone thinks the aggregate overs depends on the number of matches played and hence Harris has more overs compared to those who had shorter careers, let me give state that Harris bowled 7.1 overs per ODI which is just marginally less than Vettori's 7.3 and more than Cairn's 6.5 (Cairns bowled a bit less towards the end of his career.
I know Harris did a very good job in the ODI'd he played and I am not running down his skills. But I am using these examples to show how the overall attacks have been assembled. A focus on Test matches makes teams look for more penetrative bowlers while a focus on ODI's makes for bowlers who can just get the job done, keep the runs down to an 'acceptable' level, get runs and be great fielders.
I think this is wrong. Most of the really successful teams have their main three bowlers, at least, from their best bowlers in the Test side. Then you may have one bowler (like Bracken in Australia) who is a specialist one day bowler (different from a bits and pieces player) and a couple of non regulars from amongst the batsmen who fill in if you do not have a genuine all rounder.
The bowlers who bowled the most overs in Test matches are all specialists.
- D L Vettori
- C L Cairns
- D K Morrison
- D J Nash
- D N Patel
- S B Doull
- P J Wiseman
With no one like Cairns in sight and with the unfortunate injury to Bond, New Zealand are stuck with a very mediocre attack which is further exposed on the batsman friendly wickets against an a batting side which treats them like schoolboys.
I feel that the core of the fifty over side (even more so the bowling attack) must still have the best players of the country (meaning the best Test players) and specialists should be very few and certainly not the ones you depend upon the most.
Couldn't agree more with SJS. Without Bond, the attack is toothless. Mills and Vettori are excellent bowlers, but if either have an off day, the rest of the attack really suffers.
Hopefully the likes of Southee, Boult and possibly Wagner in a few years come through as NZ spearheads in the future.
Hopefully the likes of Southee, Boult and possibly Wagner in a few years come through as NZ spearheads in the future.
Yeah I know, Mills and Vettori really drive this NZ attack, but hopefully we'll see Martin come back to form this series, at least so him and Mills can hold up the pace attack until the likes of Southee etc come through. the young bowlers like Boult/southee are looking really promising, but i reckon they need to step it up a level because they're not consistently cutting the cake internationally. Bonds probably gone (?is he????), Vettori won't be here forever and we'll need another danger man like the above mentioned to give our attack some real presence.... I reckon Southees the man to do it....... maybe...... hopefully
Last edited: