***Official India in New Zealand***

[Polo23]

Agree McGlashan probably wouldnt perform at international level. Playing dinky ramp shots over the keeper and reverse sweeps to domestic trundlers is a little different than doing it to experienced international quicks.

Elliott doesnt seem much of a T20 player either...you could tell from the game against Australia he doesnt have the game to smash the ball at will. I thought Shanan Stewart might not have been a bad option.

 

[Matt52]

Oh FFS! Have you seen his 20/20 performances this season? He's averaged 9.66 at a strike rate of under 100. If you're going to promote a player on the argument that "well, I've never seen him play real cricket and have no idea about his technique and abilities, but he's better than that other guy coz he's got teh potential!!!" (), at least make sure that he's actually performing at domestic level. Anderson would be an even more ludicrous selection than Trent Boult.

yeah i have seen his performances this season. His technique and ability is why he is playing first class cricket as a young guy. James Franklin mentioned him as the most talented guy that hadnt yet played for NZ. He has been talked about by people who know an awful lot more than me about the game that he has a lot of ability and a great technique, and will probably play for NZ in years to come.
I dont like the idea of Elliott in the 20/20 side. So I was thinking about a lower/middle order batsman to take his place. The purpose would be for Anderson to learn a bit and get exposed to the environment. Not choose him as a long term player.

Oh, and calm down mate, You do realize that Im not an NZ cricket selector dont you?!!. haha, Im just a guy on a forum posting his opinion, Who gives a *&$£ what I think. Its just an opinion.

Haha, classic Matt post. Slag off a guy who can't bowl 140 and advocate using an unproven young guy instead.

Im no slagging him off because he doesnt bowl at 140, I am slagging him off because he is poor. Thats just it. He is an average player. He shouldnt be anywhere near the national side. Nathan Bracken and Kyle Mills are both great limited overs bowlers, but are 125ish, and if I must say it again, I have decried the lack of a fast bowler in TEST MATCHES. Specifically the tests against the West indies recently. I have never said fast bowlers were needed in limited overs.

 

[Bahnz]

yeah i have seen his performances this season. His technique and ability is why he is playing first class cricket as a young guy. James Franklin mentioned him as the most talented guy that hadnt yet played for NZ. He has been talked about by people who know an awful lot more than me about the game that he has a lot of ability and a great technique, and will probably play for NZ in years to come.
I dont like the idea of Elliott in the 20/20 side. So I was thinking about a lower/middle order batsman to take his place. The purpose would be for Anderson to learn a bit and get exposed to the environment. Not choose him as a long term player.

Oh, and calm down mate, You do realize that Im not an NZ cricket selector dont you?!!. haha, Im just a guy on a forum posting his opinion, Who gives a *&$£ what I think. Its just an opinion.

For all that wonderful potential, he averages 13 in ODI's and 9 in 20/20's. His domestic limited overs career to date his been a disappointing failure. I don't have a problem with the selection of young players, as long as they've actually managed to achieve domestically. Hence the selection of people like Southee and Guptill. But if they're still somewhat out of their depth in domestic cricket, then internationals aren't gonna help them at all.

And the point of a forum is discussion. If I (correctly) think you're opinion is completely ridiculous, then what's wrong with my expressing that?

 

[Flem274*]

yeah i have seen his performances this season. His technique and ability is why he is playing first class cricket as a young guy. James Franklin mentioned him as the most talented guy that hadnt yet played for NZ. He has been talked about by people who know an awful lot more than me about the game that he has a lot of ability and a great technique, and will probably play for NZ in years to come.
I dont like the idea of Elliott in the 20/20 side. So I was thinking about a lower/middle order batsman to take his place. The purpose would be for Anderson to learn a bit and get exposed to the environment. Not choose him as a long term player.

Oh, and calm down mate, You do realize that Im not an NZ cricket selector dont you?!!. haha, Im just a guy on a forum posting his opinion, Who gives a *&$£ what I think. Its just an opinion.



Im no slagging him off because he doesnt bowl at 140, I am slagging him off because he is poor. Thats just it. He is an average player. He shouldnt be anywhere near the national side. Nathan Bracken and Kyle Mills are both great limited overs bowlers, but are 125ish, and if I must say it again, I have decried the lack of a fast bowler in TEST MATCHES. Specifically the tests against the West indies recently. I have never said fast bowlers were needed in limited overs.

If he's poor with his stats, I shudder to think of how Anderson would go at international level.

Tbh, before all the money came into 20/20, I would have used it as a sevens rugby typed thing, but now I think its important to play our best bunch for the good of NZ cricket and to keep the ICL away.

 

[Matt52]

For all that wonderful potential, he averages 13 in ODI's and 9 in 20/20's. His domestic limited overs career to date his been a disappointing failure. I don't have a problem with the selection of young players, as long as they've actually managed to achieve domestically. Hence the selection of people like Southee and Guptill. But if they're still somewhat out of their depth in domestic cricket, then internationals aren't gonna help them at all.

And the point of a forum is discussion. If I (correctly) think you're opinion is completely ridiculous, then what's wrong with my expressing that?

Yeah. Youre right, his stats are pretty terrible. I remembered him as having a good year in first class or od's and if I recall the selectors were thinking about him for the 20/20 a few months ago. He didnt seem out of his depth at all in the games Ive seen him play.

As for your examples, Southee was chosen pretty early with an average record if I recall. Just chosen on potential and talent.

Its not your pointing out thats the problem. The tone of your post was over the top. Getting worked up over some guys opinion is a bit over the top.

Anderson would be good in 20/20 IMO. Give him a go.

 

[Matt52]

If he's poor with his stats, I shudder to think of how Anderson would go at international level.

Tbh, before all the money came into 20/20, I would have used it as a sevens rugby typed thing, but now I think its important to play our best bunch for the good of NZ cricket and to keep the ICL away.

Dont really agree, Never really got into 20/20. Dont enjoy the game much and think its just a bash-a-thon to make money. NZ should use it to try out players and give them a bit of exposure to the top level in front of big crowds etc.

NZ rugby use the sevens as a bit of a development thing and NZ cricket should too. It wont happen as you say cause there is so much money in it. Guys are trying to get selected for IPL teams. But still. Putting in one or two youngsters couldnt hurt that much. Only a few NZ players would get picked for the IPL anyway

 

[Flem274*]

Yeah. Youre right, his stats are pretty terrible. I remembered him as having a good year in first class or od's and if I recall the selectors were thinking about him for the 20/20 a few months ago. He didnt seem out of his depth at all in the games Ive seen him play.

As for your examples, Southee was chosen pretty early with an average record if I recall. Just chosen on potential and talent.

Its not your pointing out thats the problem. The tone of your post was over the top. Getting worked up over some guys opinion is a bit over the top.

Anderson would be good in 20/20 IMO. Give him a go.

Southee has a pretty gun record iirc. Benefitted from the lack of flat tracks in domestic cricket.

On a sidenote, its good we have a few more flat tracks in domestic cricket this year, means the bowlers learn how to bowl on unhelpful decks, which is very important, just like its important for batsmen to learn how to deal with greentops.

 

[Matt52]

Southee has a pretty gun record iirc. Benefitted from the lack of flat tracks in domestic cricket.

On a sidenote, its good we have a few more flat tracks in domestic cricket this year, means the bowlers learn how to bowl on unhelpful decks, which is very important, just like its important for batsmen to learn how to deal with greentops.

I thought Southee only played 5 or 6 games before he was chosen. Maybe Im wrong. I think he did OK in domestic stuff and then got a 5fer and was put in the twenty twenty side.

 

[Bahnz]

Yeah. Youre right, his stats are pretty terrible. I remembered him as having a good year in first class or od's and if I recall the selectors were thinking about him for the 20/20 a few months ago. He didnt seem out of his depth at all in the games Ive seen him play.

As for your examples, Southee was chosen pretty early with an average record if I recall. Just chosen on potential and talent.

Its not your pointing out thats the problem. The tone of your post was over the top. Getting worked up over some guys opinion is a bit over the top.

Anderson would be good in 20/20 IMO. Give him a go.

Southee averaged about 28, and had been consistently taking 3 or 4 wickets a match over two seasons, so pretty good. And Anderson hasn't been good in 20/20 so far. In fact, out of the 3 forms of the game he's had the least success in the shortest. So why would he suddenly become good at it?

As for my tone, that was a reaction to the fact that you (although I confess you aren't alone on these boards) have a history of advocating some rather daft selection choices. I suppose you would term this as the breaking point.

 

[Matt52]

Southee averaged about 28, and had been consistently taking 3 or 4 wickets a match over two seasons, so pretty good. And Anderson hasn't been good in 20/20 so far. In fact, out of the 3 forms of the game he's had the least success in the shortest. So why would he suddenly become good at it?

As for my tone, that was a reaction to the fact that you (although I confess you aren't alone on these boards) have a history of advocating some rather daft selection choices. I suppose you would term this as the breaking point.

I think a lot of your points are absurd as well, ,but , so what?. I dont feel the need to post about it. You're posts have always been about making guys prove themselves and mine have always been about giving a young guy a go and see what he can do. id be surprised if we agreed on anything really.

Just had a look and Southee had 5 one day games before being picked. And 9 first class games. As he was picked for limited overs Im surprised you were not against this, maybe you were i dont know.

 

[Bahnz]

I think a lot of your points are absurd as well, ,but , so what?. I dont feel the need to post about it. You're posts have always been about making guys prove themselves and mine have always been about giving a young guy a go and see what he can do. id be surprised if we agreed on anything really.

Just had a look and Southee had 5 one day games before being picked. And 9 first class games. As he was picked for limited overs Im surprised you were not against this, maybe you were i dont know.

I was against Southee being picked for the 20/20 match, as I felt it was pointless and gimmicky. I was for him being picked in his test debut as he'd been one of the form bowlers in domestic cricket that season and he had a reputation for viciously swinging the ball, something our other bowlers couldn't really do.

As for both of us thinking that the other's opinion is absurd, the difference is that I'm right and you're wrong. Pretty simple, huh?

 

[Matt52]

I was against Southee being picked for the 20/20 match, as I felt it was pointless and gimmicky. I was for him being picked in his test debut as he'd been one of the form bowlers in domestic cricket that season and he had a reputation for viciously swinging the ball, something our other bowlers couldn't really do.

As for both of us thinking that the other's opinion is absurd, the difference is that I'm right and you're wrong. Pretty simple, huh?

tired, stop conversation.

 

[Prince EWS]

As for both of us thinking that the other's opinion is absurd, the difference is that I'm right and you're wrong.

Exactly.

 

[Evermind]

For god sake, thats pathetic, you've got me worked up now about this stupid forum. Ignore list.

Welcome to CW, where about 25% of the posters end up on your ignore list, as you no doubt end up on many of theirs'.

 

[Bahnz]

For god sake, thats pathetic, you've got me worked up now about this stupid forum. Ignore list.

Oh get a sense of humour Rocky Dennis.

 

[Arjun]

i would worry more about Akhtar and whether he would be fit for the next game if i were you tbh

A classic case of The Emperor's New Clothes. Maybe this 'Emperor' needs some clothes.

 

[Arjun]

Now how would you play Zaheer in a T20? He looked a little out of place in that last match in Sri Lanka, and is coming off a rather disappointing ODI series. He's got a decent T20I (albeit two matches old) and domestic T20 record, though.

Just when I thought I'd catch up on some cricket highlights featuring the Kiwis recently, I can't find any, except ancient stuff on Neo Cricket!

 

[Smudge]

Oh get a sense of humour Rocky Dennis.

I used that as my karaoke psuedonym at a pub in Melbourne 15 months ago...

 

[Bahnz]

I used that as my karaoke psuedonym at a pub in Melbourne 15 months ago...

My respect for you just grew 400%.

 

[Flem274*]

Matt and Bahnzy sharing the love.

Gonna agree with Bahnz on this one (getting quite scary, with how much I'm agreeing with him lately), whilst I'm all for guys with potential getting a go, they have to prove themselves in that format first, and generally I'm not a fan of guys in their teens getting pushed up too early either.

Especially now that previously thought journeymen/crap players like Elliott, O'Brien and dare I say it, Nathan McCullum (very early days, but hasn't looked out of his depth) are cruising at the international level with no issues (well, Elliott in tests but he was always a better List A player anyway) we don't need to hit the panic button and select people we think might be good, thats a good way to stay 7th in the world imo if we employ that approach.