To complain about spam then post something like that is one of the most hypocritical things I've ever read.You called me what? You racist!
To complain about spam then post something like that is one of the most hypocritical things I've ever read.You called me what? You racist!
Methinks the lady doth protest too much.You called me what? You racist!
To complain about spam then post something like that is one of the most hypocritical things I've ever read.
Methinks the lady doth protest too much.
I clearly was speaking in a local dialect of te reo whereby the four stars are representing "top chap" rather than any expletive.
Methinks the lady doth protest too much.
=:
Q (self) FT271 is decent, albeit a little perplexing.
I hope we haven't entered a new Andy Moles era whereby we party like it's 1979, block for 40 overs and look to go mental in the last 10 "cos we have teh wicketz in hand".
As I said, 271 is decent, but if we made a habit of getting "decent" scores in ODI with 5 wickets still in hand, I'd start to get a little annoyed.
McCullum
Guptil (Ryder)
Fulton
Taylor
Elliot
Broom
Vettori
Mills
Patel
Southee
O'Brien
Vettori and patel must play they are an attacking option and by the way Aussies have played Botha and Duminy its not unrreasonable to think patel and Dan will do well.
And sorry, nothing home to write about NZ's performance today, save the McCullum 100 and Jeetan wickets. So I digress.
I'm starting to think that *gasp* we should play 2 spinners. Australian batsmen in general just seem to be so much better at playing pace than spin.
McCullum not out 31 (56)
Struggling to comprehend.
On McCullum, would people really rather see a big innings from him? Because i don't want to see him change anything. Since June 2007 he averages 43.5 with a S/R of 104. Will he really score at a better average than that? I suspect his S/R would drop but he'd score the same amount of runs. He's a pinch-hitter, one of the best in world cricket.Probably looking to play a big innings, either that or he's still a bit injured.
Yeah, agree with this.On McCullum, would people really rather see a big innings from him? Because i don't want to see him change anything. Since June 2007 he averages 43.5 with a S/R of 104. Will he really score at a better average than that? I suspect his S/R would drop but he'd score the same amount of runs. He's a pinch-hitter, one of the best in world cricket.
That, and i think the value of double-time 50s and 60s in ODIs is underrated. In some circumstances those are much more match-winning knocks than hundreds. Look at McCullum's knock in the last match against the West Indies- the bowling went to pieces, the momentum shifted, the target was knocked down to something easily manageable and it let Ross Taylor license to take his time and see them home by D/L.
I think the saying "play your natural game" is more than applicable with McCullum - his instinct is to hit the ball, so continue to give him the license to. Its clearly worked since the World Cup when you consider the statistics you stated above (though both the average and strike rate would be a touch lower if you remove the Ireland ODI where he went crazy). If he doesn't play his natural game, I'd suspect that he'd be far less effective. Besides, when you have the likes of Vettori and Mills at eight and nine, theres plenty of depth in the side if a few wickets go down early playing in an aggressive manner.On McCullum, would people really rather see a big innings from him? Because i don't want to see him change anything. Since June 2007 he averages 43.5 with a S/R of 104. Will he really score at a better average than that? I suspect his S/R would drop but he'd score the same amount of runs. He's a pinch-hitter, one of the best in world cricket.
That, and i think the value of double-time 50s and 60s in ODIs is underrated. In some circumstances those are much more match-winning knocks than hundreds. Look at McCullum's knock in the last match against the West Indies- the bowling went to pieces, the momentum shifted, the target was knocked down to something easily manageable and it let Ross Taylor license to take his time and see them home by D/L.
If Oram, Elliott, Styris and Ryder all play in the same match, do we have too many options then? Would it be worth playing another batsman? Surely the four specialist bowlers should be expected to get through 35-40 overs, but 10-15 sounds a bit light for the other "all-round" players.Vettori at 7 just wont work. We must play Patel. Have any of you realised how gun the NZ full strength ODI team looks?
Ryder
McCullum
Guptill
Taylor
Styris
Oram
Broom/ Elliott
Vettori
Mills
Southee
Patel
I would rather see McCullum play his natural game, although I would rather see Guptill opening with him and playing the sort of innings McCullum played today. With Ryder batting at five.On McCullum, would people really rather see a big innings from him? Because i don't want to see him change anything. Since June 2007 he averages 43.5 with a S/R of 104. Will he really score at a better average than that? I suspect his S/R would drop but he'd score the same amount of runs. He's a pinch-hitter, one of the best in world cricket.
That, and i think the value of double-time 50s and 60s in ODIs is underrated. In some circumstances those are much more match-winning knocks than hundreds. Look at McCullum's knock in the last match against the West Indies- the bowling went to pieces, the momentum shifted, the target was knocked down to something easily manageable and it let Ross Taylor license to take his time and see them home by D/L.
Also Patel, Vettori, Styris, Ryder and Elliot won't bowl much in powerplays. And Oram might not bowl much at all.If Oram, Elliott, Styris and Ryder all play in the same match, do we have too many options then? Would it be worth playing another batsman? Surely the four specialist bowlers should be expected to get through 35-40 overs, but 10-15 sounds a bit light for the other "all-round" players.
Patel always bowls in powerplays.Also Patel, Vettori, Styris, Ryder and Elliot won't bowl much in powerplays. And Oram might not bowl much at all.