*Official** New Zealand in England

[Richard]

Bond performed well over in India.

As anzac has already pointed-out:

??????

he didn't play.

 

[Mingster]

Oh yes not India. Sri Lanka I mean. My bad.

In which case it is likely that he will become a good Test bowler.
But on the evidence of 2 good series' and 2 bad ones, he can't yet be called such.

And which was the 2 bad series? :rolleyes: The Aussie was his debut series and he didn't do too well but showed a lot of promise.

I certainly agree that Butler's for New Zealand is a baffling selection.

Who else would you have with Bond injured? He is the best option we have at the moment. Butler has undoubted potential as he showed with his 6-wicket bag, but needs to be more consistent.

 

[Kent]

Mingster - Richard rates Australia and Sri Lanka as his bad series. The latter he was accused of bowling too short, just before he broke his back. Hmm...

Anyway, who cares! Richard's stocks (not bonds) took an Enron-like dive with his "I've yet to see him swing the red one" comment. :P

 

[anzac]

But remember: no wicket offers pace and bounce significant to enable bowlers to "bounce" batsmen out - batsmen are too good for that nowadays.

I still hope we see all wickets resembling those for the Lord's Zimbabwe Test again, as soon as possible. Seam-movement should be available, not too much of it, but for as long as possible. I also like to see cloud-cover in place as much as possible - it might seem strange, but I value swing assistance more than heat.

It is, however, anyone's guess what 2004 will hold.

well here's hoping then..........

like you I like to see genuine swing bowling at a reasonable pace as a stock type delivery - not just something that is pulled out as 'reverse' by the quicks.....or by doddling medium pace (although they do have a role in ODIs IMO)......

I'm not referring to Tuffey or Oram as getting bounce by bowling short - the both bowl just back of a good length & Oram in particular is able to extract extra bounce out of a pitch compared to others........a combination of his height & bowling into the deck rather than along it........

 

[anzac]

Anyway, who cares! Richard's stocks (not bonds) took an Enron-like dive with his "I've yet to see him swing the red one" comment. :P

 

[anzac]

Who else would you have with Bond injured? He is the best option we have at the moment. Butler has undoubted potential as he showed with his 6-wicket bag, but needs to be more consistent.

I agree for the time being........but if he ain't going to pitch the bloody thing a yard or so closer to the stumps he can forget England if not RSA IMO........

consistant short bowling looses it's impact, takes extra energy, gives the batsman plenty of time to read the pace off the wicket.....& is not a wicket taking delivery as a general rule unless it is 'unexpected' as opposed to the stock delivery.......

he needs to show he can shape the ball, look for the edges to the slips and bowl at a length that will be able to either take the stumps or generate LBWs........

if he doesn't then he cn sit any further selections out until he does so........the selectors can the look to develop young Sherlock or look at Schwass (as somebody said they are both quicker than Butler).....

or even look to have a different type of bowler - Mills (RFM / swing), Franklin (LMF seam?) or Scott (LFM / swing).......

:!(

 

[Mingster]

I agree for the time being........but if he ain't going to pitch the bloody thing a yard or so closer to the stumps he can forget England if not RSA IMO........

He will continue to get selected, because he offers something different to our Test attack even though I don't support it. He's not even threatening domestic cricketers.

if he doesn't then he cn sit any further selections out until he does so........the selectors can the look to develop young Sherlock or look at Schwass (as somebody said they are both quicker than Butler).....

Sherlock is faster than Butler, but he can't even command a place for CD at the moment with Mason, Hamilton and Hefford there.

Schwass? Who said that? He's medium fast at best.

or even look to have a different type of bowler - Mills (RFM / swing), Franklin (LMF seam?) or Scott (LFM / swing).......

Mills isn't RFM, MF. He does swing the ball, which would offer a new variety to Tuffey, Bond and Butler at first-change bowler.

Franklin has found his ability to swing the ball again, and with his batting coming of age lately, he might be considered but needs to take more wickets.

Scott, too early. He has shown promise, but needs to continue that.

Anzac, don't trust the Cricinfo bowling styles ranks, they seem to disgard the 'medium-fast' styles. They have Mills, Oram as fast-medium when clearly they are not.

 

[Kent]

Schwass? Who said that? He's medium fast at best.

Sorry, my sarcasm must've put Anzac crook!

He's been away from NZ long enough to not know who Goldie is, so we better cut him some slack.

 

[Mingster]

Yeah Kent! Be nice to Anzac would you!

Cricinfo also says Tama Canning is fast-medium when he bowls 120-125...hmmmmm....:O

 

[anzac]

Sorry, my sarcasm must've put Anzac crook!

He's been away from NZ long enough to not know who Goldie is, so we better cut him some slack.

yep so i guess the yolks on me......:duh:

10 years this August.........no wonder I'm out of touch:O

and all you mean buggers are just picking on me.......

 

[anzac]

Anzac, don't trust the Cricinfo bowling styles ranks, they seem to disgard the 'medium-fast' styles. They have Mills, Oram as fast-medium when clearly they are not.

thanx for the info..........

while I agree re the dodgy bowler rankings / descriptions, unfortunately I have little else to go on ........I guess I'll just have to keep posting 'blind' and hope that you guys will help me out.........in the nicest possible way of course.....so just bear with me and have a little patience if I seem way off the mark.........

 

[Richard]

Oh yes not India. Sri Lanka I mean. My bad.

And which was the 2 bad series? :rolleyes: The Aussie was his debut series and he didn't do too well but showed a lot of promise.

The Sri Lanka series was not good.
He averaged over 38. A remotely good series must have an average under 30.

Who else would you have with Bond injured? He is the best option we have at the moment. Butler has undoubted potential as he showed with his 6-wicket bag, but needs to be more consistent.

Butler is one of the worst bowlers I have ever seen selected this much for international cricket.
However much potential he may have (and he does have a good seam-position and can bowl at nearly 90 mph) it's laughable that he's continually picked despite such abysmal performances.
I have serious doubts over whether he can get much more accurate than he is already and certainly while he is as wayward as he is ATM he's not even close to Test-class.

 

[Richard]

Anyway, who cares! Richard's stocks (not bonds) took an Enron-like dive with his "I've yet to see him swing the red one" comment. :P

And I was right.
I have yet to see him swing the red ball.
I can't be blamed for not being able to see cricket.
:saint:

 

[Richard]

well here's hoping then..........

like you I like to see genuine swing bowling at a reasonable pace as a stock type delivery - not just something that is pulled out as 'reverse' by the quicks.....or by doddling medium pace (although they do have a role in ODIs IMO)......

I'm not referring to Tuffey or Oram as getting bounce by bowling short - the both bowl just back of a good length & Oram in particular is able to extract extra bounce out of a pitch compared to others........a combination of his height & bowling into the deck rather than along it........

I kinda guessed you weren't.
I just think Ganguly was so ludicrously right when noting something no-one else seems capable of noting - pace and bounce, ie short bowling, very rarely gets top-class batsmen out.
You simply have to move the ball sideways to do so. Tuffey and Oram undoubtedly do when there's seam and swing, but all evidence to date suggests they don't when there isn't any.
Of course they could correct that, and I have heard of them trying to learn reverse-swing. We have to see it in effect before we can say it's a success.
I too much prefer conventional, new-ball swing to reverse, but there is still some beauty in reverse. The faster the swing, obviously, the better. Medium-pace, and even more so medium-fast, is far better than fast or fast-medium in the one-day game because the 'keeper can stand-up and use of feet is basically taken from the game. However, without accuracy it doesn't matter with either. Wayward medium and wayward 90 mph is exactly the same - poor.
Seam and swing is what England and New Zealand are renowned for. I would hate to see this series be contested by anything but.

 

[Mingster]

thanx for the info..........

while I agree re the dodgy bowler rankings / descriptions, unfortunately I have little else to go on ........I guess I'll just have to keep posting 'blind' and hope that you guys will help me out.........in the nicest possible way of course.....so just bear with me and have a little patience if I seem way off the mark.........

Ah it's OK.

I'm, sure the likes of Southern Man will have patience on you!

It's really easy, because none of the pace bowlers in NZ are even fast-medium, most are just medium-fast.

Auckland
Kerry Walmsley RMF
Kyle Mills RMF
Andre Adams RFM
Tama Canning RM
Paul Hitchcock RMF
Brooke Walker RLB
Aaron Barnes RM

Northern Disrticts
Ian Butler RF
Daryl Tuffey RMF
Graeme Aldridge RMF
Joseph Yovich RMF
Scott Styris RMF
Daniel Vettori SLA
Matt Hart SLA
Bruce Martin SLA


Central Districts
Michael Mason RMF
Lance Hamilton LMF
Brent Hefford RMF
Andrew Schwass RMF
Jacob Oram RMF
Richard Sherlock RF
Campell Furlong ROB
Glen Suzlberger ROB


Canterbury
Shane Bond RF
Chris Martin RFM
Warren Wisneski RMF
Stephen Cunis RM
Chris Cairns RMF
Chris Harris RSM
Paul Wiseman ROB


Otago
Brad Scott LFM
Neil Rushton LMF
James McMillan RFM
Nathan McCullum ROB
Nathan Morland ROB

 

[Mingster]

The Sri Lanka series was not good.
He averaged over 38. A remotely good series must have an average under 30.

Bond had the best bowling strike-rate of both sides in that series.

Butler is one of the worst bowlers I have ever seen selected this much for international cricket.
However much potential he may have (and he does have a good seam-position and can bowl at nearly 90 mph) it's laughable that he's continually picked despite such abysmal performances.
I have serious doubts over whether he can get much more accurate than he is already and certainly while he is as wayward as he is ATM he's not even close to Test-class.

Oh yes, he did really bad in his last Test. I mean a 6-wicket bag means nothing.

And he's only 21/22, and of course according to your wealth of knowledge thinks he can't get accurate. He can. He's working with the likes of Hadlee down at the Academy and he will get more consistent. He is still mighty young.

Butler has a better bowling strike rate than all your frontline bowlers except that Gough.

 

[Richard]

Too much emphasis on strike-rates.
A poor average is a poor average. And the substandardness of others doesn't make-up for the substandardness of one.

 

[Vettori]

I would certainly go for Bruce Martin as a second spinner because how often do you see or read that Wiseman has taken wickets he seems to be played by Canterbury as a batsmen and part time bowler.

On the other hand Martin is bowling at difficult times where Northern are getting smashed and he slows the run rate right down and takes wickets.

Wiseman I think is 33 and Martin must be about 23.

Bruce Martin for me and maybe even ahead of Vettori if he doesnt get his drift and loop back because Martin sure has it.

 

[Mingster]

Too much emphasis on strike-rates.
A poor average is a poor average. And the substandardness of others doesn't make-up for the substandardness of one.

A poor average is a poor average. Agree. But those were dream batting decks over there. So you go more on strike-rates. You are just making lame excuses as ever.

So the likes of Younis, Marshall, Donald, Trueman, Headley, Hadlee, Holding, McGrath just have fluke bowling strike-rates? :rolleyes:

Um maybe because the others did not do well because of the conditions? Didn't take that into account did you?

Butler is a wicket-taking bowler, one that is expensive, and that's why you should read more into his strike rate. Number of balls before a wicket.

 

[BlackCap_Fan]

Too much emphasis on strike-rates.
A poor average is a poor average. And the substandardness of others doesn't make-up for the substandardness of one.

so you rate runs as much more important than wickets (from a bowling perspective)?