**Official** New Zealand in England

[FBU]

Now I have heard it all

Afzaal is an extremely average fc cricketer that was incredibly lucky to get a game at the highest level.

Fortunately, he did everyone a favour by carrying on like such a pork chop when he scored 50 on a road that he was marked never to play again

Good riddance - ffs there must be someone better on the cc scene than that joker

Lots.
I remember watching a one day match Notts v Sussex and Notts were 96/5. Afzaal and Cairns were at the crease and in 5 overs Afzaal scored 8 runs pinching the strike and keeping Cairns at the other end for the whole time. He finally got out without getting any more runs and Read came in and between Read and Cairns they went at 12 an over to get the 270 odd runs needed.

 

[Athlai]

Yes, Fulton gets 50.

Marshall should get the series though. No one is an amazing player after two tests. Drop the useless **** after he adds the final nail to his coffin in the third test with a pair of ducks.

We can still draw the series so I reckon if Fulton has showed any signs of form or even the ability to tie his own shoes, drop Marshall for him. Go FTW NZ FFS.

 

[Matt52]

We can still draw the series so I reckon if Fulton has showed any signs of form or even the ability to tie his own shoes, drop Marshall for him. Go FTW NZ FFS.

I agree. There are arguments for keeping a player to let him settle and so forth but the fact is that Fulton is simply a better player than Marshall. Fulton's just gone through a rough patch of from lately, but he should be given the chance to establish himself at no3 as he is the best option, rather than a lesser player being given time to establish himself.

I think Fulton at 3 makes the batting line up look far more solid, whatever type of form he may be in.

 

[_Ed_]

Absolutely. Just look at their FC averages - Marshall's is 30.08, Fulton's is 45.30 (the best of anyone in the NZ squad).

I know FC averages don't decide the quality of someone's Test career (if they did Sinclair would have had a brilliant career) but they strongly suggest that Fulton is the superior player.

 

[Richard]

Rare is the batsman who will perform better at Test level having performed worse at domestic level.

 

[Flem274*]

I'm not saying Marshall is better than Fulton. My point is if a man is deemed to be good enough for a national spot then he must be given a fair go, not a mere two test matches.

But, when he fails next test, by all means throw James Marshall into the bottomless pit of non-selection. I'll push.

 

[Richard]

In his 10 innings he has only bowled his full quota 4 times. For an economical bowler I would expect the captain to use him far more than that.

Yes, true to an extent. Certainly it's odd that he didn't bowl 2 more overs in his 3rd game. But look at other ones - you can really only expect someone to bowl a full quota if the innings lasts its full course or close to. In his 1st and 10th game this did not happen, so that's really 4 out of 8. In the remaining 3, his figures were 4-31-0, 7-55-0 and 2-14-0. The latter two were on absurdly small, mis-shapen grounds which make bowling economically extremely difficult, so I'm hardly surprised there. The first of these, his 2nd game, was against India at Bristol, and in this match he (and the rest of the attack, even Flintoff) were flogged - the best economy-rate that day was 5.6-an-over, and just 2 bowlers completed 10 overs.

So it's not quite all it would seem, IMO.

Mascarenhas has said when Flintoff comes back he expects to drop out.

I'm sure, and that's a little disappointing. Still, if he can perform better than Anderson and Broad, he'll stay in.

 

[Flem274*]

Rare is the batsman who will perform better at Test level having performed worse at domestic level.

I think you'll find that Jamie How is far superior to all recent NZ openers who all have greater averages.

There's a few examples of this around. Not rae as such, just uncommon. One of the quirks that helps to make cricket interesting.

 

[Richard]

C'mon then - who's How obviously better than at the current time?

I might remind you that Michael Papps too scored runs against England - though admittedly he was dropped on 14 or something.

I'd love to see how performances would've gone had How been picked to face-up to Steyn, Nel and Ntini and Papps to out-of-touch Hoggard, Anderson, Broad et al.

 

[Swervy]

Rare is the batsman who will perform better at Test level having performed worse at domestic level.

Dwane Bravo
Sarwan
Andrew Symonds just in the current test match.

I don't think rare is the right word, simply that it is a large majority of players perform better at the lower level, but some players do 'raise their game'. And that is what the job of the selector is, to identify the players who have the test match mentality (as well as the talent), and that is not based on domestic level averages

 

[Leslie1]

Relativity counts for little, I always think you're only as good as your last innings.

Sure, J How's suitability in the side is somehow fabricated by the fact that he has only faced English's bowling attack that only have Sidebottom and Panesar looking dangerous, but it doesn't mean other NZ openers deserve their places ahead of him, when they are the ones who have shown deficiencies, even if it's against an arguably stronger bowling attack. Until How shows that he has these issues, I think we can afford him the courtesy and support for being the stable opener he has been this summer.

You're only as good as you look at the crease whoever you're facing at the time, and at this current time, How does seem superior to all the other openers in New Zealand.

 

[Richard]

Dwane Bravo
Sarwan
Andrew Symonds just in the current test match.

Who are you referring to in comparing these?

I don't think rare is the right word, simply that it is a large majority of players perform better at the lower level, but some players do 'raise their game'. And that is what the job of the selector is, to identify the players who have the test match mentality (as well as the talent), and that is not based on domestic level averages

Test match mentality is no use without the talent, and if someone is talented enough to play Test cricket they will exceptionally rarely fail to perform at the domestic level.

 

[Richard]

Relativity counts for little, I always think you're only as good as your last innings.

Sure, J How's suitability in the side is somehow fabricated by the fact that he has only faced English's bowling attack that only have Sidebottom and Panesar looking dangerous, but it doesn't mean other NZ openers deserve their places ahead of him, when they are the ones who have shown deficiencies, even if it's against an arguably stronger bowling attack. Until How shows that he has these issues, I think we can afford him the courtesy and support for being the stable opener he has been this summer.

You're only as good as you look at the crease whoever you're facing at the time, and at this current time, How does seem superior to all the other openers in New Zealand.

I'm not saying How should not currently be a fixture in the side, his recent play has been relatively impressive. I'm saying no-one should judge him superior Michael Papps currently, because he's recently been facing attacks notably inferior to those which have cut Papps down at Test level.

 

[Swervy]

Who are you referring to in comparing these?

Test match mentality is no use without the talent, and if someone is talented enough to play Test cricket they will exceptionally rarely fail to perform at the domestic level.

I have just given you 3 players currently playing in the West Indies v Australia test match who have better records in tests than in domestic cricket. I am not saying they have failed domestically though.

If there are 3 players out of say 10 or 12 batsmen in one test match, then it is highly likely there are/have been plenty of players who have better test records than domestic records

 

[Flem274*]

I'm not saying How should not currently be a fixture in the side, his recent play has been relatively impressive. I'm saying no-one should judge him superior Michael Papps currently, because he's recently been facing attacks notably inferior to those which have cut Papps down at Test level.

If you were to pick a player more likely to succeed at test level though then you would be mad to pick Papps, Bell or Cumming, despite their higher averages, over Jamie How. Papps has no clue against anything short, Cumming's pad gets hit on more than a georgeous blonde in a pub and I'm not sure if Bell could spell "technique."
How has a pull shot that actualy works, he can negate the LBW against the swinging ball and he does have a decent technique.

Unfortunately your "domestic averages, domesic averages, I'm never wrong on a player" will limit you from seeing the truth in this view for some considerable time.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Unfortunately your "domestic averages, domesic averages, I'm never wrong on a player" will limit you from seeing the truth in this view for some considerable time.

What Richard doesn't know is that Jamie How's First Chance Average in First Class cricket is superior to any other batsman IN THE WORLD!!!!!

 

[Richard]

I have just given you 3 players currently playing in the West Indies v Australia test match who have better records in tests than in domestic cricket. I am not saying they have failed domestically though.

If there are 3 players out of say 10 or 12 batsmen in one test match, then it is highly likely there are/have been plenty of players who have better test records than domestic records

What I'm saying is, find me players with better domestic records who've done worse at Test level.

In any case, Symonds hasn't done remotely well at Test level - pretty much every big innings he's played has required let-offs, sometimes multiple. Symonds remains a very poor Test batsman to date.

 

[Richard]

What Richard doesn't know is that Jamie How's First Chance Average in First Class cricket is superior to any other batsman IN THE WORLD!!!!!

I find that hard to believe, ITBT. Only very rarely over any remotely lengthy period of time have I seen the batsman whose first-chance record is superior to his scorebook one.

 

[Flem274*]

What Richard doesn't know is that Jamie How's First Chance Average in First Class cricket is superior to any other batsman IN THE WORLD!!!!!

Absolutely correct.

Next up: Dickinson understands the might an power of the great Iain O'Brien..

Oh, wait....












Disclaimer: with all due respect, no offence.

 

[Richard]

If you were to pick a player more likely to succeed at test level though then you would be mad to pick Papps, Bell or Cumming, despite their higher averages, over Jamie How. Papps has no clue against anything short, Cumming's pad gets hit on more than a georgeous blonde in a pub and I'm not sure if Bell could spell "technique."
How has a pull shot that actualy works, he can negate the LBW against the swinging ball and he does have a decent technique.

Unfortunately your "domestic averages, domesic averages, I'm never wrong on a player" will limit you from seeing the truth in this view for some considerable time.

What remains to be seen is whether any are remotely likely to succeed at Test level.

I've also been told it's clueless to say Papps has no clue against anything short before now (16toS) with some feeling too (I wasn't the one that said it, it was Fuller). So I remain to be convinced on that score.