***Official*** New Zealand in Bangladesh

[Prince EWS]

Thats all I wanted to say.

Twisty approves.

 

[Polo23]

So Oram should be judged on his past 12-18 months (in which he has still scored brilliant hundreds, better than any of our other middle order, bar maybe Taylor), rather than his whole career?

How does that work?

 

[Athlai]

Your humor is dire.

**** ******** **** **** **** ****.

****

 

[GGG]

Haha, so after one bad test he should be dropped?

In 2 years (from his recall until now) he's taken 37 wickets @ 24.48.

Ok Ok, i miss-read your post I was replying to, I thought you ment no one performed badly with the ball exept Oram in this test match.

Yeah a pretty good average there, hmmm wonder what Orams is over the last 2 years?

 

[NZTailender]

Yeah a pretty good average there, hmmm wonder what Orams is over the last 2 years?

It's about 20 at home, 50 overseas.

Edit: actual figures are a God-like 16 at home and a sub-par 57 away, despite bowling nearly twice as much. Averages just 26 with the bat in this period as well.

 

[NZTailender]

So Oram should be judged on his past 12-18 months (in which he has still scored brilliant hundreds, better than any of our other middle order, bar maybe Taylor), rather than his whole career?

How does that work?

Well, yeah. If someone has a bad couple of years recently which is detrimental to the team then what they've done two years ago should be irrelevant if in the following two years they haven't done much, otherwise we should continue picking Skippy Sinclair in the side for all those double tonnes a while back.

I'm not saying he should be dropped yet, I'm saying he should be given greater batting responsibility and bat at 5, so we can get the most out of him. IMO he'd probably score more in that position and would at least solve part of our top order collapse problems.

I mean, he's not only statistically better than the current two batsmen above him (Flynn and Macca) but he's also better than them technically/skillfully.

Basically swap Oram for McCullum in the order. At 7 I don't think he gets too many chances to bat for a long time to make really big scores, thus his apparent inconsistency.

 

[Polo23]

So you don't want him dropped (which would be ridiculous), you just want to slag him off for not performing? Even though despite having a rough trot he has scored more hundreds than pretty much our whole team in the same time.

I'm pretty sure under a new coach the crazy "bat McCullum up the order" thing will go. McCullum will go back to his rightful position of 7, and Flynn will likely move to 5 (guessing he is still around) with Oram at 6.

 

[NZTailender]

So you don't want him dropped (which would be ridiculous), you just want to slag him off for not performing? Even though despite having a rough trot he has scored more hundreds than pretty much our whole team in the same time.

Haha, what? I just want to slag him off? I said I'm not that confident in him at the moment because he isn't getting much of a chance with the bat to make a big impact in the game.
His bowling away from home, however, is grossly ineffective and I feel he'd be best served in a bat first, bowl second type of priority i.e. a batting all-rounder, in the role of someone like Kallis.

Oram has the ability to score hundreds but I feel he bats too low to do it as often as he and the team would like, hence the suggestion to move him up to 5.

From his debut until the end of the Australia series (2004) he was, along with Fleming, the best batsman in the side scoring 1002 runs @ 43.56 with 2 centuries and 4 fifties in 29 innings. That's pretty damn good.

Then there was a gap for over a year before he came back into the test side to play South Africa where he started brilliantly with 133.
Starting with that century and up until now he's scored 665 runs @ 30.22 with 3 centuries and the solitary fifty from 26 innings. That's 4 innings out of 26 where he's passed 50, plus an additional 5 innings where he's passed 20, meaning 17 <20 scores in that time - 13 of which were <10.

His scores are as follows, which show the inconsistency: 133, 2, 13, 8*, 18, 27, 1, 12*, 1, 4, 1, 40, 117, 1, 10, 0, 8, 30, 28, 101, 38, 7, 7, 50*, 0, 8*.

Basically, he's been somewhat inconsistent in the last two years, which I feel is to do with where he bats as opposed to simply being a poor batsman, which he isn't.

What I'm saying is that his bowling, while excellent at home, is pretty ordinary overseas and that if he played more as a specialist batsmen and focused on that area in Tests with bowling a secondary priority, we'd get more out of him which would benefit the team. Batting at 5 would be ideal IMO.
Looking at his scores, his innings of over 50 come at quick time (all bar 1 of his centuries were at a strike rate of 70 or higher) whereas when he fails his strike rate is uncharacteristically slow.
In the 45 innings where he hasn't passed 40 (no scores between 40 and 50) his strike rate is 38, whereas in the ten innings of over fifty it's at the brisk pace of 67.

 

[slugger]

it seems a bit rough diggging into Oram... hes slected as an al rounder not a batsmen.. or not an out and out bowler.. his role is to contribute.. with both..i would expect a batting avg.. like that from someone coming in 6 or lower.. 3 centurys in 26 is fine thats one every 8-9 inn.. hell thats better than some of the batsmen..


anyhow... does any one know who will replace disgraceful..opps i mean bracewell..
i was thinking we should give the job to Shane Warne.. since the aussie took robbie deans..

i think warne would be great he made champions out of his bits and pieces ipl team.. that hardly had any superstars etc...... he has a great crickting brain..

 

[NZTailender]

He contributes with bat and ball but not as much as he could, which isn't exactly his fault. If he batted at 5 I think he'd be more prolific, resulting in higher team totals and better chance at winning. Simple theory, really.

 

[S.P. Fleming]

changing the subject, I really dont think McCullum should have the right to bat at five yet. We all know how he can play some dashing innings' but that isnt enough to to warrant a number 5 spot. He needs to prove that he can play a controlled test match innings, with a bit of his natural aggression if he likes before he is as high as five. I would rather see him as a genuine wicket-keeper batsman at 7, establishing himself there and proving he can spend time in the middle, before he is promoted.

your opinions?

 

[Athlai]

He's been around long enough for us to know he has the potential to bat at 5. Whether or not he's the best person from NZ for the spot is debateable however.

 

[Polo23]

He has done absolutely nothing to warrant batting at number 5 and his game is perfect for a test match number 7. Batting him at number 5 makes absolutely no sense at all, Bracewell has got it grossly wrong (not that that is surprising in any way).

 

[S.P. Fleming]

im not saying he doesnt have the potential but he hasnt shown the temperament to bat 5 at this level.

 

[~DanVettoriFan~]

Geeeeeeeeeeeez I LOVE Daniel Vettori!

He is the only reason we won that test match. I just wish he could have gone on to get 100, or atleast stay in til the end lol.

 

[Nutter]

McCullum needs to bat at 7 for sure. Stick Flynn at 5 and Oram at 6. Flynn seems to hang around a lot. He doesn't ever seem to do much, but he doesn't get out either, which is exactly what our normally rash-shot-happy middle order need.

 

[Polo23]

McCullum needs to bat at 7 for sure. Stick Flynn at 5 and Oram at 6. Flynn seems to hang around a lot. He doesn't ever seem to do much, but he doesn't get out either, which is exactly what our normally rash-shot-happy middle order need.

Yep, i'm of the same opinion. Flynn 5, Oram 6 and McCullum 7. Would add far more stability to our middle order.

The batsmen need to develop a game that allows them to score runs against these spinners. If they arent going to sweep or use their feet I don't see how they are going to score runs, freely, anyway. We can't go along at 2 an over again in the next test match, we have to take the initiative.

 

[Goughy]

Bangladesh lost

Last time I checked they were in control.

That has to be a kick in the teeth as these opportunites have been rare for them and they have failed to take advantage.

 

[Craig]

Bangladesh lost

Last time I checked they were in control.

That has to be a kick in the teeth as these opportunites have been rare for them and they have failed to take advantage.

Yeah it would probably hurt more then Australia in 2006, since nobody expected anything from them, except cop a massive hiding.

 

[Woodster]

Bangladesh lost

Last time I checked they were in control.

That has to be a kick in the teeth as these opportunites have been rare for them and they have failed to take advantage.

According to reports, Bangladesh's shoulders dropped any time a potentially substantial partnership appeared to be developing and taking the game away from them. So rather than grabbing the openings with both hands, they seemingly expected the inevitable. What can happen to a side that has taken so many poundings over the years.