3rd ODI: New Zealand v Sri Lanka at Nelson on Dec 31, 2015

[JJ]

hmmmm... I like Anderson's talent, and his power - but he has to do more to be considered "without peer" - at present he's been crap in tests, ok in odis - his bowling is often pretty dire...

But whatever floats your boat

 

[ANTiLAG]

I don't understand the hard on that you have for Corey Anderson Antilag.

In another thread, he named him in an all time ODI X!...not a NZ one, a world one.

Wow. This post is a lil disjointed Meth. The first sentence you're talking to me that you do not understand why I rate Corey Anderson.

Then in the next line you're addressing "the audience" telling them how much I rate Corey Anderson.

The answer to you not understanding why I rate Corey Anderson is because he bowls death overs, bats in the top 6, averages 35 and strikes at over 120. That makes him a fantastic player. I think Sabermetrics has a big place in limited overs cricket. I have informed you of this previously. Corey Anderson averages 34 or 35 at 123 with the bat. He can then bowl death and powerplay overs at 6.3 overall and take wickets at 24. He is well ahead of the game.

Further, I did not name any all time ODI XI - but I think he would be very close if not starting in my ATG NZ ODI team - so that is fine. He's definitely in the shortlist squad. I think what you're referring to is that I may have said that I would have Glen Maxwell and Corey Anderson and James Faulkner in any ATG middle order all well ahead of Michael Bevan.

 

[ANTiLAG]

hmmmm... I like Anderson's talent, and his power - but he has to do more to be considered "without peer" - at present he's been crap in tests, ok in odis - his bowling is often pretty dire...

But whatever floats your boat

He is crap in tests. Would not select him tests at all. His bowling is not upto it - and he needs to work on his batting discipline against the red ball.

But ODIs: His bowling - he bowls a lot of power play and death overs at 6.30. That is often well ahead of the game. But his batting at 6 - and the fact his bowling means another batsman can play - brilliant.

 

[Meth]

Wow. This post is a lil disjointed Meth. The first sentence you're talking to me that you do not understand why I rate Corey Anderson.

Then in the next line you're addressing "the audience" telling them how much I rate Corey Anderson.

You seemed to figure it out ok

 

[Meth]

I remember you including him in the makeup of a world XI and then saying "sorry Sir Richard".

It will be in the Troll Dump thread now

 

[Meth]

http://forums.leagueunlimited.com/showthread.php?t=395853&page=63

#943

 

[JJ]

All time NZ ODI side would be interesting though - these things are hard given the changes in how ODIs are played - obviously Gavin Larsen for example couldn't keep anything like that RPO now, but still he was excellent in that era so imo warrants consideration, and Harris (like Bevan) was decent at a role then - but the game has evolved...

For me there are certainties, and lots of debate - but without too much thought, something like:
1. Astle
2. Turner
3. Williamson
4. Crowe
5. Taylor
6. xxx
7. McCullum (k)
8. Hadlee
9. Vetorri
10.Mills
11. Bond

at 6 there are many options - Fleming although he should be higher, Harris although I never liked him, Styris, Coney -leaning towards the Pig... but could have mental blocks, sorry no place yet for Corey :lol: imo

 

[typicalfan]

I think someone broke Anti.

 

[ANTiLAG]

You seemed to figure it out ok

I did. But if you talk to me, and I can reply to you.

If you direct "the readers" I can address them in reply.

Further, I did not name any all time ODI XI - but I think he would be very close if not starting in my ATG NZ ODI team - so that is fine. He's definitely in the shortlist squad. I think what you're referring to is that I may have said that I would have Glen Maxwell and Corey Anderson and James Faulkner in any ATG middle order all well ahead of Michael Bevan.

I remember you including him in the makeup of a world XI and then saying "sorry Sir Richard".

http://forums.leagueunlimited.com/showthread.php?t=395853&page=63

#943

Viv is great.

AB De Villiers is the man to bat 5... Or better yet, put him at 3, Viv at 4. Or Vice Versa.

And put Maxwell and Anderson at 5 and 6.

Heck squeeze Kohli into the top with AB keeping, and Maxwell and Anderson play 6 and 7. Faulkner at 8. And drop Watto.

No apologies to Sir Richard here. No ATG World XI named. There is a middle of Maxwell, Anderson and Faulkner chosen by me ahead of Bevan as I said - even De Villiers and Viv batting 3 is discussed as batsmen far greater than Bevan. No openers and no bowlers. No ATG World XI is named. So why you are posting this link after what I said above seems unnecessary. Maybe you can make six = eleven.

I think someone broke Anti.

You sure you're good at that?

 

[typicalfan]

Faulkner is kind of the new Hussey and Bevan albeit a very different style. Bevan got the job done time after time. He batted as fast or slow as he needed especially chasing runs
Maxwell, Anderson? Not in the same class.

 

[JJ]

Faulkner has done well, genuinely don't know the answer but has he performed similarly outside Australia?

 

[typicalfan]

Faulkner has done well, genuinely don't know the answer but has he performed similarly outside Australia?

I remember him performing in India when Australia toured there.

 

[ANTiLAG]

All time NZ ODI side would be interesting though - these things are hard given the changes in how ODIs are played - obviously Gavin Larsen for example couldn't keep anything like that RPO now, but still he was excellent in that era so imo warrants consideration, and Harris (like Bevan) was decent at a role then - but the game has evolved...

For me there are certainties, and lots of debate - but without too much thought, something like:
1. Astle
2. Turner
3. Williamson
4. Crowe
5. Taylor
6. xxx
7. McCullum (k)
8. Hadlee
9. Vetorri
10.Mills
11. Bond

at 6 there are many options - Fleming although he should be higher, Harris although I never liked him, Styris, Coney -leaning towards the Pig... but could have mental blocks, sorry no place yet for Corey :lol: imo

Happy new year JJ; I added some batting averages and SR's for your convenience.

1 Astle 34 and 72?
2 Turner 47 at SR 68?
3 Williamson 48 at 84? Yups
4 Crowe 38.5 at 72?
5 Taylor 43.6 at 82? Yups (but he bats 4)
6 Stris 32 at 79; Coney 30 at 64.95; Batters at 6 who could be death bowlers like Corey? lets try; Harris 29 at 66; Oram 24 at 86; Cairns 29.4 at 84; COREY 35 at SR 123;
7 McCullum 30 at 95;
8 Hadlee 21.6 at 75;
9 Vettori 17.3 at 82;
10 Mills 15.6 at 81;
11 Bond 18 at 12.9;

 

[TheParraboy]

Corey Anderson needs to play better sides and more overseas. He aint anything special for now.


2 ODI vs Australia in the world cup 26 runs from 44 balls S/R 59

played 35 ODI, 26 of them at home eg S/R 169.42 in 5 ODI's (2 not outs) v the mighty West indies LOL

 

[ANTiLAG]

Faulkner is kind of the new... Bevan albeit a very different style.

Except he is a frontline death bowling option who is a very efficient batsman who looks to maximise run scoring. He is an efficient batsmen. He scores a lot of runs off a lot balls.

Maxwell, Anderson? Not in the same class.

Anderson - scored a crucial 50 in the South Africa semi final of the world cup, scored what was then world's fastest ODI 100; Do I rate him as highly as I do Faulkner as an allrounder? No. I have sung Faulkner's praises long and far for quite some time. Faulkner is a fantastic bowler, even if he cannot strike quite like Anderson, let alone Maxwell. He's close.

Basically anyone who has a problem with the idea of Maxwell's selection in ODI teams is going to take exception to what I post. There are those who believe in efficiency of run maximisation, losing team wickets and less focus on a really high individual batting average to advance to a bigger total through higher SR; and those that believe in 220/4 as the good ol days because the "bowlers were better" with their line and length, less slower ball variations, less doosras, carrom balls and probably fewer leg spinners (though some smart arse will take exception this and ignore's its "revival" starting with Warne and talk of Mushtaq or Qadir like they were a global thing), and bats were smaller (but they could have asked for a bigger bat - Lance Cairns did).

 

[ANTiLAG]

Corey Anderson needs to play better sides and more overseas. He aint anything special for now.


2 ODI vs Australia in the world cup 26 runs from 44 balls S/R 59

played 35 ODI, 26 of them at home eg S/R 169.42 in 5 ODI's (2 not outs) v the mighty West indies LOL

When the heck was NZ cricket every anything special? And why do Australians so often only gauge crickets against Australia or how they went IN Asutralia? You're not the entire cricketing landscape.

He helped get us to a WC final - something we had never done before. Not to mention assisting in the destruction of India at home the year before.

You're missing the point - its players batting the way that Maxwell, Anderson, and Faulkner do.

 

[typicalfan]

Maxwell does not have the ability to finish an innings like Bevan, Hussey or Faulkner. Someone like Faulkner does it when the game is on the line which can be the difference between winning and losing which is all that really matters.

Anderson needs to do it more consistently against better quality opposition.

 

[JJ]

Happy new year JJ; I added some batting averages and SR's for your convenience.

1 Astle 34 and 72?
2 Turner 47 at SR 68?
3 Williamson 48 at 84? Yups
4 Crowe 38.5 at 72?
5 Taylor 43.6 at 82? Yups (but he bats 4)
6 Stris 32 at 79; Coney 30 at 64.95; Batters at 6 who could be death bowlers like Corey? lets try; Harris 29 at 66; Oram 24 at 86; Cairns 29.4 at 84; COREY 35 at SR 123;
7 McCullum 30 at 95;
8 Hadlee 21.6 at 75;
9 Vettori 17.3 at 82;
10 Mills 15.6 at 81;
11 Bond 18 at 12.9;

You're comparing strike rates like they've always been the same - Turner was a one day genius, that was a different game in a different era - he, Astle and Crowe are certainties imo - forgot Chris Cairns, he's probably the one - and obviously a hugely superior bowler - anyway, like I said not too much thought - but I don't really give a toss what Turner's SR was, he was revolutionary in an era that was somewhat different - please don't tell me you'd pick someone like Guptill ahead of Glenn Turner? Or even Astle

 

[hineyrulz]

Who?

Exactly.

 

[ANTiLAG]

Maxwell does not have the ability to finish an innings like Bevan, Hussey or Faulkner. Someone like Faulkner does it when the game is on the line which can be the difference between winning and losing which is all that really matters.

This is dumb. And you're still in this anachronistic mind set.

Maxwell bats at 5.

Faulkner bats at 7, and previously 8.

It is an incredibly strong statistical probability that you will have more not outs, or alternatively bat deeper in the innings and chases, the lower you bat.

So Maxwell by batting at 5 and scoring swiftly either sets up a bigger score and leaves more balls for Faulkner to also hit in setting up the first innings score. Alternatively, he reduces run rate pressure on the chasing batsmen behind him. Not many 27 off 65 balls in the chase from Maxwell forcing Faulkner to have to score at 10 runs an over for overs 45-50 - he may well have to - buts its not because Maxwell has fallen behind the Required Run Rate that off.

If you wanted a slow scoring batsman 'guardian' like Bevan to be at the end, why not bat him at 8? He could be a longstop for when the high strike rate batsmen failed. It would be more efficient. But you're not ready for that yet. You need a few years of Faulkner, Watson (Henriques, Marsh ) and Maxwell batting ahead of Mathew Wade.