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

[Meth]

I repeat, I never denied discussing Corey Anderson in that context.

That's even worse. It would have been better if you claimed you were posting while you were drunk

 

[ANTiLAG]

That's even worse. It would have been better if you claimed you were posting while you were drunk

Why?

Here I am stone cold sober, and I would still have Maxwell, Anderson, and Faulkner together over Bevan.

Even Typical fan is erring on a Faulkner over Hussey or Bevan.

I much prefer higher SR players batting 5-8 to the likes of Bevan.

Does not matter if I am drunk or sober.

 

[Meth]

Why?

Here I am sober, and I would still have Maxwell, Anderson, and Faulkner together over Bevan.

Even Typical fan is erring on a Faulkner over Hussey or Bevan.

I much prefer higher SR players 5-8.

Does not matter if I am drunk or sober.

You're snapped being a f**king moron

 

[ANTiLAG]

You're snapped being a f**king moron

No sweetheart. You're just upset that you thought you had "snapped"me denying an earlier Corey Anderson post and it turns out that you were wrong.

I freely admitted that I discussed Corey Anderson in that context, and I merely corrected you that I had not posted an All Time XI like you claimed that I had.

 

[Meth]

No sweetheart. You're just upset that you thought you had "snapped"me denying an earlier Corey Anderson post and it turns out that you were wrong.

I freely admitted that I discussed Corey Anderson in that context, and I merely corrected you that I had not posted an All Time XI like you claimed that I had.

I don't want to get tangled up in your nonsensical ramblings.

You're seriously geniused.

Just so you know, it's not just the Aussies that think so.

 

[Meth]

Talking to you is like nailing custard to a wall

 

[ANTiLAG]

I don't want to get tangled up in your nonsensical ramblings.

You're seriously geniused.

Just so you know, it's not just the Aussies that think so.

That is sweet. Why don't you have a lie down? I think you're a little bit tired. Its been a big day for you.

 

[JJ]

Astle
Fleming (c)
Williamson
Crowe
Styris
Harris
McCullum
Hadlee
Vettori
Mills
Bond

Had to choose Fleming over Turner

Had to choose Williamson and Crowe over Taylor

Had to choose Harris over Cairns...a poor mans Michael Bevan, but the closest we've had and handy with the ball as well.

Styris had a great world cup, but Taylor has to be there imo, and IMO Cairns ahead of Harris...

Generally I think Turner isn't given the respect he deserves, Crowe was very good, but Turner imo undoubtedly the best NZ batsman of the modern era, unfortunately a bit like some of these West Indian all-rounders in that he had to make a living... his twin century performance in our first test win against Australia emphasised his greatness

 

[typicalfan]

Just for the record I do not prefer Faulkner to Bevan or Hussey rather highlighting the fact he is the new finisher in the side. But that is obvious as it is his nickname. Also I highlighted that Bevan and Hussey are very similar.

 

[Meth]

Styris had a great world cup, but Taylor has to be there imo, and IMO Cairns ahead of Harris...

Generally I think Turner isn't given the respect he deserves, Crowe was very good, but Turner imo undoubtedly the best NZ batsman of the modern era, unfortunately a bit like some of these West Indian all-rounders in that he had to make a living... his twin century performance in our first test win against Australia emphasised his greatness

I didn't actually see Turner play, so hard to comment.

On Taylor > Styris- if it came down to Taylor or Styris, sure, Taylor...I guess I only have thought about Taylor as a 3 or a 4, so ran him against Crowe or Williamson.

Cairns and Harris is too close to call. Harris was an ODI specialist and also has the advantage of not being a corrupt crook, allegedly

 

[ANTiLAG]

An Aussie team would be difficult due to having to pick between similar players like Bevan and Hussey. Also you would have Gilchrist opening which means you could have both Faulkner and one of Bevan or Hussey. Probably couldn't have both. Wouldn't consider Watto or Maxwell.

Of course, that's the point I guess... Steve Waugh could also come into consideration for the 6-7 spot as early on his bowling was tremendous

I'd be thinking (again, off the top of my head)
Gilchrist
Not sure - Mark Waugh perhaps, and to bowl a few overs
Ponting
Jones
Chappell
Hussey
Bevan
Lee
Warne
Lillee
McGrath

Junior would be the other opener. Apart from his batting he also has the best pair of hands. Some would argue that Faulkner hasn't proven himself over a long period of time but I would pick him over either Bevan or Hussey for better balance.

Another guy I'd consider is Andrew Symonds especially post 2003. Very aggressive, can bowl and a gun field which is especially important in limited overs cricket. He would at least be in the squad.

Just for the record I do not prefer Faulkner to Bevan or Hussey rather highlighting the fact he is the new finisher in the side. But that is obvious as it is his nickname. Also I highlighted that Bevan and Hussey are very similar.

You don't prefer Faulkner as a batsman, but as an allrounder Faulkner plays and either Hussey or Bevan misses out?

Or you have changed your mind altogether 'on the record', and would not have Faulkner in the side, but go with JJ's selection of both Bevan and Hussey?

I don't think your Symonds shout out is 'bad' at all. He could strike a ball and gets runs at a very good clip. Offers allround ability as well. I just like Maxwell's absolute aggression approach.

I think the team could be well stronger with 2 of Lee, Lillee and McGrath with Warne being numbers 9-11. Symonds at 7 and Faulkner at 8. Hussey at 6. Gilchrist opening, and pick 5 stellar batsmen as JJ did above.

 

[JJ]

I didn't actually see Turner play, so hard to comment.

On Taylor > Styris- if it came down to Taylor or Styris, sure, Taylor...I guess I only have thought about Taylor as a 3 or a 4, so ran him against Crowe or Williamson.

Cairns and Harris is too close to call. Harris was an ODI specialist and also has the advantage of not being a corrupt crook, allegedly

There is that... although, like David Bain, not guilty!

 

[typicalfan]

You don't prefer Faulkner as a batsman, but as an allrounder Faulkner plays and either Hussey or Bevan misses out?

Or you have changed your mind altogether 'on the record', and would not have Faulkner in the side, but go with JJ's selection of both Bevan and Hussey?

I don't think your Symonds shout out is 'bad' at all. He could strike a ball and gets runs at a very good clip. Offers allround ability as well. I just like Maxwell's absolute aggression approach.

I think the team could be well stronger with 2 of Lee, Lillee and McGrath with Warne being numbers 9-11. Symonds at 7 and Faulkner at 8. Hussey at 6. Gilchrist opening, and pick 5 stellar batsmen as JJ did above.

For me picking a side has more to do with what balance I want. Me wanting Faulkner due to his bowling doesn't mean I think he is a better player than Bevan or Hussey. Individually I would say both are better but for the sake of variety I didn't want both.

 

[Twizzle]

I agree the West Indies probably have the better side on paper.

The key would be Shane Warne imo. The great West Indian batsmen of the 70s and 80s would never have faced someone like Warne. If they could handle him I'd say West Indies. If not Australia.

As good as they were they did not handle spin very well, even at their best they flogged us about 4-1 I think it was but we beat them at the SCG. They struggled against the might of Murray Bennet and Dutchy Holland so Warnie would have bamboozled them.

 

[JJ]

As good as they were they did not handle spin very well, even at their best they flogged us about 4-1 I think it was but we beat them at the SCG. They struggled against the might of Murray Bennet and Dutchy Holland so Warnie would have bamboozled them.

On rank turners, which you don't get in ODIs... they still went to the continent and did well - tragedy to see how poor they are atm

I'd love to have seen Viv take on Warne - I now who I'd back

 

[ANTiLAG]

As good as they were they did not handle spin very well, even at their best they flogged us about 4-1 I think it was but we beat them at the SCG. They struggled against the might of Murray Bennet and Dutchy Holland so Warnie would have bamboozled them.

Warne averages 29.95 against the ordinary West Indian teams where Lara was often a sole batting light as Chanderpaul did not get very good consistently till late in his long career.

I appreciate Shane Warne is an all time cricketing legend and widely regarded by many (who often did not see Clarrie Grimett) as the best leg spinner ever, but some Australians talk like he invented leg spin bowling.

Qadir did not do spectacularly well against the West Indies.

Hirwani did do this on debut:

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63469.html

In his next 3 West Indian tests he took 6 wickets for 344 runs averaging 57. Hirwani never recovered from that bashing. He was 4 tests, 36 wickets averaging 14 going into it with 3 five for's and a 10 wicket bag.

Ahmed fizzled in 1990 at home against Vivless WI.

Border once got 11 wicket bag with a 7 for against them. Maybe they fail against all spinners? No.

 

[JJ]

As good as they were they did not handle spin very well, even at their best they flogged us about 4-1 I think it was but we beat them at the SCG. They struggled against the might of Murray Bennet and Dutchy Holland so Warnie would have bamboozled them.

They did, and their fast bowlers were good anywhere - remember for an extended period the only place they lost a test series was NZ

 

[Iafeta]

I don't rate Bowden whatsoever, and I dare say as the home umpire it was his decision to come off after 9 overs. There was a little bit of drizzle from all reports, nothing too serious. What a wanky, soft decision. Cricket needs to grow a set every now and then and have some concern for the crowd who have paid to watch cricket.

 

[Twizzle]

They did, and their fast bowlers were good anywhere - remember for an extended period the only place they lost a test series was NZ

then how come a pair of nuffies like Holland and Bennett went trough them like a dodgy vindaloo and yet they were just about invincible against pace

they did not play spin well and we beat them in all their glory at the height of their success with a pair of nuffies who hardly ever played again after that test match

 

[Twizzle]

Warne averages 29.95 against the ordinary West Indian teams where Lara was often a sole batting light as Chanderpaul did not get very good consistently till late in his long career.

I appreciate Shane Warne is an all time cricketing legend and widely regarded by many (who often did not see Clarrie Grimett) as the best leg spinner ever, but some Australians talk like he invented leg spin bowling.

Qadir did not do spectacularly well against the West Indies.

Hirwani did do this on debut:

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63469.html

In his next 3 West Indian tests he took 6 wickets for 344 runs averaging 57. Hirwani never recovered from that bashing. He was 4 tests, 36 wickets averaging 14 going into it with 3 five for's and a 10 wicket bag.

Ahmed fizzled in 1990 at home against Vivless WI.

Border once got 11 wicket bag with a 7 for against them. Maybe they fail against all spinners? No.

wrong era, I was talking 80s

batting lineup was Greenwich, Haynes, Vivvy, Lloyd, Gomes and Richardson et al