***Official*** New Zealand in Zimbabwe & Zimbabwe/New Zealand/India ODI Tri-Series

[Blaze]

It has to do with a member in here,But it dont hate the new zealand team They are very good team packed with all rounders,

Sorry shaka I hope you dont mind that

Why did you say you don't like the NZ team then if that's not the case? Think about what you are saying before you post.

 

[marc71178]

if fleming wasn't captain i doubt he'd be in the test side

That's a big call!

 

[shaka]

How can you drop Fleming from captaincy, he has done nothing wrong, except against Australia.

 

[Prince EWS]

You drop either Astle or Styris. That call is too hard for me to make. For anyone calling Styris' form in County Cricket - he averages 25.46 in Division One and has a bowling average of 23.80, while Astle bats in Divison Two averaging 32.83 with the bat and hasn't taken a wicket in his 35 overs. That to me is pretty even overall. It all depends on what you want more of, batter or all rounder. With Oram not bowling, I would go more to the all rounder arena, so my personal squad would be...

Ahh but! The reason you are dropping one of these two is simply because you want squeeze another bowler in.

If your dropping a batsman for a bowler (as you are here) the bowling of the two batsmen really shouldnt come into it much...

 

[Loony BoB]

I think Fleming opened so Astle could make the Test XI. Like Kippax, I refuse to believe Fleming is our best batsman. He has all the talent and experience in the world, but continues to disappoint. A Test average < 40 is a very poor return.

Since 1st January 2003, he averages 47.55, only beaten by Hamish Marshall. How you can say that he continues to disappoint is beyond me, when - aside from his scores as an opener facing McGrath - his ten latest scores are, in chronological order: 202, 0, 11, 83, 3, 65, 3, 16, 41, 88. That's an average of 51.2, and that's something any player would be proud of as far as I'm concerned.

Fleming has been inconsistent in his actions regarding opening the innings.

You're absolutely right. How many openers are there in the world at the moment that have played more than five tests and have still managed to dominate McGrath and friends when they open the bowling? The percentage must be very small. I still believe that Australia work to plans, and the only reason they didn't get James Marshall and Cumming out for cheap scores on a regular basis is because they didn't know them and therefore didn't have a plan for them. It's no surprise that the only significant score either of the two new players made against Aussie was Cumming's 74 on his debut innings. Beyond that, they didn't fare much better than Fleming at all.

And Styris at 3, well, I think Hamish should be at 3 because of recent success.

I think Fleming should be at #3, personally, but if Hamish is keeping #3 then I think Fleming should open rather than shuffle down low in the order. Looking at his past opening scores - take away Australia and he averages 56 from his six innings in the opening position. Surely just because McGrath is able to get you out easily doesn't mean the world will be able to. If that was the case, I'd imagine the world would go through openers as often as McGrath plays test matches.

Oram, McCullum, and Vettori at 6, 7, and 8 in the order does mean an extra bowler, which we will need in my view long-term.

I still think McCullum should go above Oram, purely for Oram's mental state (he consistently proves that he performs better as he moves down the order, unlike McCullum). But yes, those are the positions I feel they should play in, too.

I think there's a very simple answer to this: Hamish actually showed he was capable against the Aussies. Fleming continued to be mesmerised by McGrath and the new ball. Even when Fleming managed a few runs, they came from him batting at 4. I'm not entirely sure why anyone would want to move Hamish from 3, especially after two centuries there in as many Test series.

Fair enough, but I'm saying that Fleming is more consistent than Hamish in that position - but at the same time, I think Fleming should continue to open, so I won't argue that case too much. I'm just saying that people shouldn't say that Hamish owns the position when other players have proved that they are just as capable. Also, for those who say "But it was against Australia that Marshall got his 100!" Yes, and Fleming scored 83 over in Aussie in the same position. And, what do you know, Marshall's 146 came up in his second test since 2001. I firmly believe that Australia struggle with players that they don't know because they work to plans and they don't have a plan for a player they don't know.

if fleming wasn't captain i doubt he'd be in the test side

This is one of the most dumbfounding statements said in this thread. Please explain to me why our highest rated batsman in either form of the game, who averages 47.55 since the start of 2003, not to mention that when you take away his four innings against Australia as an opener he averages a solid 52.7... should be taken out of the test team!?

Also if mcmillan gets into a new zealand test team again i will start supporting aussie out of frustration with dumbness

This, however, I agree with.

Ahh but! The reason you are dropping one of these two is simply because you want squeeze another bowler in.

If your dropping a batsman for a bowler (as you are here) the bowling of the two batsmen really shouldnt come into it much...

I'm not really dropping a batsman for a bowler, I'm dropping a batsman for another batsman who is capable of bowling and is more likely to actually take wickets when doing so. Styris and Astle aren't too different in their batting stats as far as I'm concerned.

Having said that, I can't ever see Astle being dropped in favour or Styris. I'm just saying what I'd like to see.

 

[Prince EWS]

I'm not really dropping a batsman for a bowler, I'm dropping a batsman for another batsman who is capable of bowling and is more likely to actually take wickets when doing so. Styris and Astle aren't too different in their batting stats as far as I'm concerned.

No, I mean as opposed to the other team you named, where Oram was fit to bowl.

The second team you named was an ammedment of the first one, assuming Oram couldnt bowl. You decided to drop a batsman from your first side and play an extra bowler, but then you kept Styris for his bowling!

 

[Loony BoB]

No, I mean as opposed to the other team you named, where Oram was fit to bowl.

The second team you named was an ammedment of the first one, assuming Oram couldnt bowl. You decided to drop a batsman from your first side and play an extra bowler, but then you kept Styris for his bowling!

I'm a bit confused about what you're trying to say...

Assuming Oram can bowl...

Fleming
J Marshall
Styris
Vincent
Astle
H Marshall
Oram
Vettori
McCullum
Franklin
Bond

Bowlers: Oram, Franklin, Bond, Vettori, Styris.

But if he can't, drop Astle (batsman) for Martin (bowler). The reason I drop Astle and not Styris is because Styris is valuable as a bowler. If we were to drop Styris for Martin, we'd be dropping a bowler for another bowler. That, to me, isn't very helpful.

Fleming
J Marshall
Styris
Vincent
H Marshall
McCullum
Oram
Vettori
Franklin
Bond
Martin

Bowlers: Vettori, Franklin, Bond, Martin, Styris.

So... why should the bowling ability of the two batsmen not really matter? I'm dropping a batsman for a bowler, but dropping Styris would be dropping a bowler (as well as a batsman) for a bowler.

 

[Steulen]

Except that Astle has been bowling quite well lately.

 

[Kippax]

Since 1st January 2003, he averages 47.55, only beaten by Hamish Marshall. How you can say that he continues to disappoint is beyond me, when - aside from his scores as an opener facing McGrath - his ten latest scores are, in chronological order: 202, 0, 11, 83, 3, 65, 3, 16, 41, 88. That's an average of 51.2, and that's something any player would be proud of as far as I'm concerned.

While we're playing the 'remove the time he was...' game, shouldn't you take out his century as an opener against Harmison and co. at Trent Bridge?

If you limit it to a simple 24 month period (which is how the golf rankings work, tennis uses 12 months I think) he averages 38.8.

To me it's a bit like a tennis coach saying in the media "my guy has completely transformed his technique...he's now world class, in the form of his life, hitting the ball better than ever!', yet his world ranking is only up from about 56th to 53rd.

I'm not doubting that Fleming has done a lot of work on his game, but he now needs to score a truckload of runs to justify taking the cushy #4 role, pushing Cumming/James Marshall in and Styris out. Like him or loathe him, Styris has scored more tons against the top 8 nations since entering the BC test side than any other player.

 

[Macka]

How can you drop Fleming from captaincy, he has done nothing wrong, except against Australia.

I stated in the Black Caps Generic thread that I'm all for the captaincy going to someone else. Basically, if Fleming has not given all he has to give as a captain by now, then he never will.

Just before I get to replying to Loony Bob...

I'm not doubting that Fleming has done a lot of work on his game, but he now needs to score a truckload of runs to justify taking the cushy #4 role and pushing someone like Styris out. Like him or loathe him, Styris has scored more test tons since entering the BC test side than any other player.

This is an excellent point and one I have made a few times before. Styris has scored centuries since entering the Test side. How many centuries does Fleming have? Eight or something like that? Styris has 4 in a fraction of the games played, yet Fleming continues on his inept way averaging a lot less than he is capable of. Styris has only been concentrating on his batting for about the last 2-3 years. There is just no excuse for this from Fleming; he plays against the same teams, on the same pitches, and against the same bowlers as Styris.

 

[shaka]

What does Fleming still need to do as captain in your opinion?

 

[Macka]

What does Fleming still need to do as captain in your opinion?

Quit.

 

[shaka]

Why not try and expand on the success Fleming has achieved as captain. Allow more experience for the younger guys in the team to develop more,and helping them in the transition process of taking over the captaincy

 

[Loony BoB]

This is laughable at best. He averages higher than any other current New Zealand batsman in the past two years with the sole exception of Marshall, who has played only seven tests. Take out the opening against McGrath and he averages better than any of them. What the hell do you want from him? Don't talk about his career because the player he was five years ago is completely different to the player he is today. I haven't seen any justification. Test centuries? Okay, again, let's look at how many he's scored in the same timespan as Styris. I am a big Styris fan, mind you, so I'd rather have them both in the team.

Scott Styris
Tests: 19 total played.
Runs: 1233
Average: 39.77
HS: 170
100's: 4
50's: 5

Stephen Fleming
Test: Last 20, since that's what Cricinfo allows for.
Runs: 1274
Average: 37.47
HS: 202
100's: 3
50's: 4

Barely a difference. Now, take away the Australian opening crap, and I'm pretty sure that average will jump significantly. Let's see... 41.27 average over the last 20 games excluding his opening against McGrath, which no batsman in the world at the moment can say is a big disappointment as he's arguably in the form of his life.

Also, Fleming isn't looking for a cushy #4 position as far as I know. He's been up and down the order like a yoyo recently and has scored well in all positions outside opening, but he's still done better opening than any other player in the squad. What say you to that, eh?

Fleming is our highest rated batsman in world cricket, and I think your arguments are heavily flawed.

 

[Kippax]

This is laughable at best. He averages higher than any other batsman in the past two years. What the hell do you want from him?

38.8 is the highest in the last 2 years? Richardson? Marshall?

 

[Loony BoB]

Apologies, I edited my post. That's what I get for constantly moving my sentences around my posts before submitting them.

EDIT: For clarification, I mean the average over the past two years, not the career average for any player who has played in the past two years. Fleming's career average is very misleading, in my opinion, and he is a much better player than it suggests. That's why I tend to go for two-year averages when looking at players. Much more realistic. If we went by career averages, well, look at McMillan...

 

[Macka]

Since 1st January 2003, he averages 47.55, only beaten by Hamish Marshall. How you can say that he continues to disappoint is beyond me, when - aside from his scores as an opener facing McGrath - his ten latest scores are, in chronological order: 202, 0, 11, 83, 3, 65, 3, 16, 41, 88. That's an average of 51.2, and that's something any player would be proud of as far as I'm concerned.

Okay, that's fair enough. However, I'm not a huge fan of manipulating a person's average over a small time frame, or leaving out certain opponents. He did fail against McGrath and that's partly my point. Looking at the post you've just made, Fleming averages 37-odd over the last 20 Tests. Does this show his talent and ability? No. Don't get me wrong, he has had some decent first innings scores - not many second innings, though - but I just do not think for a minute he has been consistant enough for someone of his ability.

You're absolutely right. How many openers are there in the world at the moment that have played more than five tests and have still managed to dominate McGrath and friends when they open the bowling? The percentage must be very small. I still believe that Australia work to plans, and the only reason they didn't get James Marshall and Cumming out for cheap scores on a regular basis is because they didn't know them and therefore didn't have a plan for them. It's no surprise that the only significant score either of the two new players made against Aussie was Cumming's 74 on his debut innings. Beyond that, they didn't fare much better than Fleming at all.

Sehwag? That's about all I'm coming up with off the top of my head. You're absolutely correct; Australia are a very well-organised team. It seemed like the Fleming of old to me: caught and bowled trying to work the ball on the leg-side, and over-balancing at the crease. Both things he had fixed sometime ago.

I still think McCullum should go above Oram, purely for Oram's mental state (he consistently proves that he performs better as he moves down the order, unlike McCullum). But yes, those are the positions I feel they should play in, too.

Definitely. If McCullum is at six, though, someone should tell him to take a bit of time getting into his innings. I think McCullum might feel a little rushed batting at 7 or 8. Just a feeling, mind you. He does score quickly nonetheless.

Fair enough, but I'm saying that Fleming is more consistent than Hamish in that position - but at the same time, I think Fleming should continue to open, so I won't argue that case too much. I'm just saying that people shouldn't say that Hamish owns the position when other players have proved that they are just as capable. Also, for those who say "But it was against Australia that Marshall got his 100!" Yes, and Fleming scored 83 over in Aussie in the same position. And, what do you know, Marshall's 146 came up in his second test since 2001. I firmly believe that Australia struggle with players that they don't know because they work to plans and they don't have a plan for a player they don't know.

All I'm saying is Hamish has earned batting at 3 for a while at least. Australia have seen a bit of Marshall in ODIs, but it is a good point you make.

 

[Kippax]

Also, Fleming isn't looking for a cushy #4 position as far as I know. He's been up and down the order like a yoyo recently and has scored well in all positions outside opening, but he's still done better opening than any other player in the squad. What say you to that, eh?

Fleming is our highest rated batsman in world cricket, and I think your arguments are heavily flawed.

Yes, it was probably wrong to imply Fleming is looking for a cushy role.

For all we know it's Bracewell who is adamant he shouldn't open again. After the sacrifice Fleming made in in order to get good mates Astle and McMillan into the Lord's side though, there's no obvious reason why he shouldn't make the same offer to save Styris' short-term career.

 

[Loony BoB]

Okay, that's fair enough. However, I'm not a huge fan of manipulating a person's average over a small time frame, or leaving out certain opponents.

Fair enough. So, in that case... Craig McMillan averages 38.46 over his career - higher than Nathan Astle and a good few runs above Lou Vincent. Which player do you pick? Hell, he nearly passes Stephen Fleming, too!

However, if anyone was smart and checked Macca's average for the two years prior to his last game, his average would shift down to 33.13. Try one year and it's 11.77.

You might call it manipulating an average, I call it being sensible and looking at current form.

 

[Macka]

This is laughable at best. He averages higher than any other current New Zealand batsman in the past two years with the sole exception of Marshall, who has played only seven tests. Take out the opening against McGrath and he averages better than any of them. What the hell do you want from him? Don't talk about his career because the player he was five years ago is completely different to the player he is today. I haven't seen any justification. Test centuries? Okay, again, let's look at how many he's scored in the same timespan as Styris. I am a big Styris fan, mind you, so I'd rather have them both in the team.

'Higher than any other current New Zealand batsman.' Is this a reflection on Fleming's recent game, or New Zealand's poor batsmen? An average of 37-odd isn't what I would be calling excellent. It's average - just like Fleming's career statistics.

Barely a difference. Now, take away the Australian opening crap, and I'm pretty sure that average will jump significantly. Let's see... 41.27 average over the last 20 games excluding his opening against McGrath, which no batsman in the world at the moment can say is a big disappointment as he's arguably in the form of his life.

Again, you're picking and choosing your statistics. I don't believe you can just omit a couple of innings here and there because Fleming was facing McGrath. If he averaged 37, then he averaged 37.

Also, Fleming isn't looking for a cushy #4 position as far as I know. He's been up and down the order like a yoyo recently and has scored well in all positions outside opening, but he's still done better opening than any other player in the squad. What say you to that, eh?

Wonderful. I'm all for Fleming opening. I think he should put his hand up and do what's best for the side at the moment.

Fleming is our highest rated batsman in world cricket, and I think your arguments are heavily flawed.

Well, there's always a chance of that. Do you think he current rating - whatever it is - shows his ability? Do you believe he has more ability and natural talant than Scott, king of the drive in the V, Styris?