2nd ODI: New Zealand v Australia at Wellington on Feb 6, 2016

[lockyno1]

Darsh(s), Stoinis, Pastings, Boland....what can possibly go wrong lol

 

[lockyno1]

Well that is very harsh. He could have got some more runs, but he did a good job for Australia with the ball.

It is as though you expect these all rounder guys to bat like Bradman and bowl like Lillee.

No I expect him to do SOMETHING. Honestly Christian is so bad it isn't funny. Sloggibg a six in the BBL doesn't change the fact he's lucky to be in the Victorian side!

 

[WaznTheGreat]

Stoinis deserves another go,the rest are also rans

 

[ANTiLAG]

No I expect him to do SOMETHING. Honestly Christian is so bad it isn't funny. Sloggibg a six in the BBL doesn't change the fact he's lucky to be in the Victorian side!

Dan Christian is seriously not that bad when compared to Mitchell Marsh. His record is only slightly inferior with the bat, and I would back Christian to overcome a top order collapse better than Mitchell Marsh would.

He has got that "this is my turn" approach to his game. Whereas Marsh just tends to go missing (plays negatively then nicks off) when the game is going badly for Australia. Marsh would actually be better off hitting out than continue doing what he has been doing.

 

[Rod]

Who would have thought a couple of years ago that in 2016 the Aussie public and media would be losing the plot over the selection of Usman Khawaja.

 

[Iafeta]

How does Usman go on pitches, not roads?

 

[The Charlatan]

Why don't we pick James Hopes while we're at it?

 

[ANTiLAG]

How does Usman go on pitches, not roads?

Well to be fair, his ODI record on roads leads him to a current ODI average of 7.

His test record on pitches that are not roads is horrible in England and Sri Lanka. But a glimmer of hope can be found with a crucial 60 odd on a real wicket in South Africa. Helped Australia to a 2 wicket victory. So it is possible, but I can understand the selector's caution. His track record outside of roads in not the best.

 

[chigurh]

Lets go to the video...

[/QUOTE]

lol

Scoring lots of runs (Usman) or taking lots of wickets (Bird) just isn't enough to crack this side anymore. You gotta do more than that - like hitting the deck hard, or having big levers, or putting in all day. Or being named Marsh.

 

[chigurh]

Stoinis is another terrible selection. Averages under 30 with the bat and 45 with the ball. And he is so smug he makes Watto look meek.

 

[Bazal]

That doesn't mean my point is not well made at all. It is a non sequitur.

I didn't see much of Stoinis bowl in the BBL, and none of him in the Matador Cup, but his selection does appear a bit "chancey". He has very good economy rates for the overs he has bowled. And he did get wickets in the BBL.

Well given he performs exactly the same role Watson does, only worse, it's definitely a poorly made point. You can't say "Watson isn't in the frame because he's a top order batsman who bowls so it's a different role" when that's exactly what they've replaced Faulkner with anyway.

 

[Bazal]

Well to be fair, his ODI record on roads leads him to a current ODI average of 7.

His test record on pitches that are not roads is horrible in England and Sri Lanka. But a glimmer of hope can be found with a crucial 60 odd on a real wicket in South Africa. Helped Australia to a 2 wicket victory. So it is possible, but I can understand the selector's caution. His track record outside of roads in not the best.

Yes, because his form, temperament, technique and level of experience are exactly comparable between 2013 and now....you are using statistics from a totally different player. Is that not obviously redundant?

 

[ANTiLAG]

Well given he performs exactly the same role Watson does, only worse, it's definitely a poorly made point. You can't say "Watson isn't in the frame because he's a top order batsman who bowls so it's a different role" when that's exactly what they've replaced Faulkner with anyway.

Yeah, but Watson shares his 10 overs with Maxwell, Faulkner typically bowls his ten.

Stoinis bowling ten, well chancing their arm are the Australian selectors. I'm not sure that Stoinis will play, I could see 4 of Hastings, Richardson, Boland and Hazelwood (or whoever else is on tour).

 

[ANTiLAG]

Yes, because his form, temperament, technique and level of experience are exactly comparable between 2013 and now....you are using statistics from a totally different player. Is that not obviously redundant?

It would be redundant if I was in fact using the statistics from a totally different player. But I'm not, I'm using the stats for the same player, not playing on roads. Because the 2015 version has been starring on roads.

Khawaja is definitely in better form in 2015 than 2013, but the question was, how good is he on pitches that are not roads. He might improve on his prior non road performances, but that does not mean he will continue his Bradman like run from this years Australian road pitches.

He may do in one of the tests, the Basin Reserve is often a road.

 

[ANTiLAG]

lol

Scoring lots of runs (Usman) or taking lots of wickets (Bird) just isn't enough to crack this side anymore. You gotta do more than that - like hitting the deck hard, or having big levers, or putting in all day. Or being named Marsh.

Bird is a victim of the Australian velocity policy.

But how about poor Dougy Bollinger?

And yet Siddle remains in the frame.

Strange.

 

[Bazal]

It would be redundant if I was in fact using the statistics from a totally different player. But I'm not, I'm using the stats for the same player, not playing on roads. Because the 2015 version has been starring on roads.

Khawaja is definitely in better form in 2015 than 2013, but the question was, how good is he on pitches that are not roads. He might improve on his prior non road performances, but that does not mean he will continue his Bradman like run from this years Australian road pitches.

He may do in one of the tests, the Basin Reserve is often a road.

It's completely redundant. You seem very keen to defend a point, both in regards to this and Watson, that makes no logical sense. Do you know PouPou Escobar?

Khawaja has never been in this sort of form, with his tweaked technique and the experience he now has on the pitches you claim he's struggled on. It's like using Steve Smiths batting statistics from when he was picked as a spinner to try and prove he's not a very good player. Tye simple fact is Khawaja deserves to be there on form, and using statistics from the player he was three years ago to try and even slightly detract from that is probably something even our rubbish selectors realise is ridiculous

 

[ANTiLAG]

It's completely redundant. You seem very keen to defend a point, both in regards to this and Watson, that makes no logical sense. Do you know PouPou Escobar?

Khawaja has never been in this sort of form, with his tweaked technique and the experience he now has on the pitches you claim he's struggled on. It's like using Steve Smiths batting statistics from when he was picked as a spinner to try and prove he's not a very good player. Tye simple fact is Khawaja deserves to be there on form, and using statistics from the player he was three years ago to try and even slightly detract from that is probably something even our rubbish selectors realise is ridiculous

It is not completely redundant.

It is not completely irrelevant either.

Khawaja does not have a proven track record on anything other than roads. Not this season, not previous seasons.

He is in career best form, yes, but that form is on roads.

He has not instilled confidence in the selectors that he is capable of such form on pitches that are not roads.

He may go out and get a ton. He may get a duck.

But tonning up on Australian roads, is a bit different than England and NZ conditions where the ball will move around a bit. Does he deserve a shot? You say yes, of course. The selectors may have been saying, well let us be a just little cautious because he is improiving at test level and his form in the past has been smashed by pitches that offer something for bowlers.

The Australian selectors are expecting NZ to serve up some juiced up green wickets. They'll be expecting India to serve up some bundsen burners. If Eden Park is anything to go by, all that is needed is something for the ball to nip onto and your premier batsmen look a lil out of sorts. I'd love to see what happens if Boult starts swinging it on a greenie.

 

[vvvrulz]

Well that is very harsh. He could have got some more runs, but he did a good job for Australia with the ball.

It is as though you expect these all rounder guys to bat like Bradman and bowl like Lillee.

He got one go batting at 6 and scored 39 off 36. here are some other useful batting performances:

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/518958.html

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/518962.html

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/518965.html

His bowling was good in those games to boot.

You really love your stats, willing to put in the research too which is good.
But you cannot look at those as the complete basis of your arguments.

According to statistics, Gilchrist (avg 36) and Jayasuriya (avg 32) were nothing special and Agarkar (avg 27) was a super star ODI bowler.

There is so much more going on than just numbers.

 

[ANTiLAG]

You really love your stats, willing to put in the research too which is good.
But you cannot look at those as the complete basis of your arguments.

According to statistics, Gilchrist (avg 36) and Jayasuriya (avg 32) were nothing special and Agarkar (avg 27) was a super star ODI bowler.

There is so much more going on than just numbers.

Not really - I do like stats. But I dig deep into the stats which gives a more complete picture. I do not rate Bevan say, but I do rate Jayasuriya and Gilchrist. Those performacnes where the scorecard does not reveal a player's good or bad performance, I find thoseaverage out to a certain extent. With other players like Ishant Sharma, at some point they are no longer unlucky, and just not good. (Luck only matters for players on the cusp of team selection, either in or out of the side). Besides, a lucky cricketer is often a winning cricketer, and we all want our teams to win. Boult right now is getting what arguably are called lucky wickets, when he gets fit and gets his groove back, he will have days go against him where he should have got more wickets but for drops and umpiring decisions. Plus, he isn't bowling bad at the moment, just slow and no swing. Someone, be it Anderson, Boult or McClenaghan is going to get the slogging overs wickets. So how much of it is luck? Seems pretty statistical to me.

Gilchrist had a high SR and by opening scored real runs. His real run output was comparative to Bevan at a higher SR. I care less about an ODI batting average than I do the real run output average and SR.

Jayasuriya's average of 32 is also at a high SR of 91. Again he opened, so those are real runs. But his bowling is where most people miss his real value - an ER of 4.78 at 36. In an ODI team, he provided outstanding balance to it. Gilchrist also kept wicket, thereby doing the same for Australia.

Agarkar averaged 14 with the bat. His 27 and 5.0 economy with the ball average is good and as such he was a key component for India ODI cricket for quite some time. But he was no Jayasuirya at ODI cricket. And as a test player, he was mud. But he has a very good ODI record for a reason. 191 matches is no fluke. And India rarely produce good seamers. But he is not in the Jayaruiya or Gilchrist All time excellence class, even if you prefer Dhoni, Flower or Sangakarra to keep wicket in an ATG XI.

 

[vvvrulz]

Not really - I do like stats. But I dig deep into the stats. I do not rate Bevan say, but I do rate Jayasuriya and Gilchrist.

Gilchrist had a high SR and by opening scored real runs. His real run output was comparative to Bevan at a higher SR. I care less about an ODI batting average than I do the real run output average and SR.

Jayasuriya's average of 32 is also at a high SR of 91. Again he opened, so those are real runs. But his bowling is where most people miss his real value - an ER of 4.78 at 36. In an ODI team, he provided outstanding balance to it. Gilchrist also kept wicket, thereby doing the same for Australia.

Agarkar averaged 14 with the bat. His 27 and 5.0 economy with the ball average is good and as such he was a key component for India ODI cricket for quite some time. But he was no Jayasuirya at ODI cricket. And as a test player, he was mud. But he has a very good ODI record for a reason. 191 matches is no fluke. But he is not in the Jayaruiya or Gilchrist excellence class.

Hang on... you don't rely purely on stats, but in your anti-Bevan debate you dig deep into his strike rate as a basis for him being rubbish (which I absolutely cannot agree with). Then you argue that Anderson and Agarkar have such amazing numbers that they must be doing something right? Gilly and Jayasuriya walk into their respective teams on batting alone, yet they have fairly crappy numbers. It goes the other way too, the context of an innings or a wicket haul is worth much more.

The reason Bevan's strike rate was low was because he played in a different era and usually made his best scores with the team in trouble. He has saved countless games for Australia, too many to even list. One of the all time ODI greats. Strike rates actually don't mean anything anymore because the game has changed so much.

Agarkar is a useless bowler, stats or not. His ODI 6 wicket haul in Australia is a prime example of dishing up rubbish and taking wickets.