Flem274*
123/5
I like how Southee is seen as an option to make our attack penetrative on flat tracks, he's one of the worst greentop culprits.
Franklin (often) and Martin (spradically), two of our best test bowlers in the last few years, should be kept away from ODIs because they are simply awful in them, despite Franklins good test record and Martins sporadic test success.
O'Brien, who was a test revalation last year, is an ODI possible, but he's no where near as good in them as he is in tests.
Southee needs conditions in his favour, as does Boult. They will probably learn how to bowl on flat test decks in future, but they aren't that good at it now.
Mills should probably remain an ODI specialist, because he's only good with the new ball in tests and he's far too valuable a bowler in ODIs to risk needless injury in test matches (becauseh e's not that good at them).
There's another danger that SJS, as right as his post was in many ways, didn't mention: England, after the B%P player splurge, tried to pick "wicket takers" for ODIs like Plunkett and Mahmood. There's several versions of those two in NZ domestic cricket, some have hope, but I can see them being pushed up too early/too high for their talent/skill level.
The problem isn't bits and pieces players, its the fact that our best test seamers aren't very good at ODIs, our only world class ODI seamer was pushed back in too soon after injury, Oram had the same problem as Mills, and that the Indian batting has capatilised on their own huge amounts of ability plus small grounds/boundaries and our issues.
Franklin (often) and Martin (spradically), two of our best test bowlers in the last few years, should be kept away from ODIs because they are simply awful in them, despite Franklins good test record and Martins sporadic test success.
O'Brien, who was a test revalation last year, is an ODI possible, but he's no where near as good in them as he is in tests.
Southee needs conditions in his favour, as does Boult. They will probably learn how to bowl on flat test decks in future, but they aren't that good at it now.
Mills should probably remain an ODI specialist, because he's only good with the new ball in tests and he's far too valuable a bowler in ODIs to risk needless injury in test matches (becauseh e's not that good at them).
There's another danger that SJS, as right as his post was in many ways, didn't mention: England, after the B%P player splurge, tried to pick "wicket takers" for ODIs like Plunkett and Mahmood. There's several versions of those two in NZ domestic cricket, some have hope, but I can see them being pushed up too early/too high for their talent/skill level.
The problem isn't bits and pieces players, its the fact that our best test seamers aren't very good at ODIs, our only world class ODI seamer was pushed back in too soon after injury, Oram had the same problem as Mills, and that the Indian batting has capatilised on their own huge amounts of ability plus small grounds/boundaries and our issues.
People like Ajit Agarkar come in this category. These bowlers will tend to pick up wickets but be profligate with the runs. Very expensive most of the time. They are invariably characterised by a lack of consistency. They bowl a lot of lose balls. Agarkar would keep bowling "what we used to sarcastically call "an average delivery of perfect good length - meaning equal number of half volleys and long hops. While that is an exaggeration but it makes the point. The batsmen tend to go after these bowlers and tyhey willl pick up wickets either by the odd good delivery or because the batsman in his eagerness lost his attention. One has seen Agarkar take many wickets off very short deliveries that the batsman tried to smash off the face of the earth. Of course when they bowl a good ball (and Agarkar did manage those with his natural in-swing with the new ball and deceptive pace) they will get their man because he is in such an aggressive frame of mind.
