Scott Styris

[Richard]

which is precisely what i've argued with you about in the past. sometimes bowlers can be too good or extremely unlucky and go though a test without too many wickets despite bowling well. if you ask me, giles' confidence this summer wouldnt have come back if it werent for jones at the other end, of course both of those giles wickets in the 2nd inning had to do with jones bowling at the other end rather than giles own skill.

Yes, I know, I've never said that Jones didn't bowl better in that match than his figures suggested.
Nonetheless, unless he got the wickets of the New Zealand batsmen it doesn't really matter how well he bowled.
As far as making things difficult for New Zealand was concerned, wickets are what count.

 

[nzidol]

Well, we'll see, whenever Papps gets back in the side.

I'm certainly looking forward to that.

Sinclair just makes me so nerovus when he's opening.

 

[marc71178]

Done a lot so far, hasn't he?

Since when has a batsman's runs stopped you dismissing him as not good enough

 

[marc71178]

Nonetheless, unless he got the wickets of the New Zealand batsmen it doesn't really matter how well he bowled.
As far as making things difficult for New Zealand was concerned, wickets are what count.

No, because despite what you keep trying to say, Cricket is not a ball by ball game, and pressure etc does build.

 

[Richard]

Since when has a batsman's runs stopped you dismissing him as not good enough

Any chanceless runs most certainly will ensure I rate a batsman as good enough.

 

[Richard]

No, because despite what you keep trying to say, Cricket is not a ball by ball game, and pressure etc does build.

New Zealand had batting easier at Lord's than at Trent Bridge - there was the same amount of accuracy, the scoring-rates were similar, and so if any batsman felt pressure in one match he'd most likely have felt it in the other.

 

[marc71178]

Erm, where was there the same bowling?

Jones' spell with the old ball at Lords was absolutely superb - but he didn't play at TB.

 

[Richard]

No, but the bowlers that did bowled with similar accuracy to him in that game.

 

[marc71178]

Oh really?

I very much doubt they could have bowled such a spell with the old ball as he did.

But of course that would mean you have to accept Jones isn't that bad a bowler and we see from your Harmison experience that that is unlikely to happen.

 

[Richard]

No, I never said Jones did not bowl well in that spell - but that one spell does not make him a good bowler.
Thus far, he's still been very poor for most of his Test-career.

 

[tooextracool]

No, but the bowlers that did bowled with similar accuracy to him in that game.

the first innings of that test was not exactly in turning conditions.....

 

[tooextracool]

No, I never said Jones did not bowl well in that spell - but that one spell does not make him a good bowler.
Thus far, he's still been very poor for most of his Test-career.

and injury hasnt helped....

 

[Richard]

No, it hasn't helped - and the West Indies series can be taken in context of coming back from about the most serious injury sufferable. So can the New Zealand Test with the side-strain - but he actually bowled OK in that match.
Sore toes, though, are just something you've got to put-up with. It's far more common for a bowler to play with a minor discomfort than play while 100%. It's a minor discomfort and it won't do you any long-term damage to play through. Bowling is all about doing well despite minor discomforts like that.

 

[Richard]

the first innings of that test was not exactly in turning conditions.....

No, it wasn't, but still any pressure would have been the same, because the bowling had about the same assets. The reverse-swing, while well bowled, did not actually result in many wickets.

 

[tooextracool]

No, it hasn't helped - and the West Indies series can be taken in context of coming back from about the most serious injury sufferable. So can the New Zealand Test with the side-strain - but he actually bowled OK in that match.
Sore toes, though, are just something you've got to put-up with. It's far more common for a bowler to play with a minor discomfort than play while 100%. It's a minor discomfort and it won't do you any long-term damage to play through. Bowling is all about doing well despite minor discomforts like that.

of course to say that someone who has barely any experience at the international level is not good enough based on those performances is just ridiculous.

 

[tooextracool]

No, it wasn't, but still any pressure would have been the same, because the bowling had about the same assets. The reverse-swing, while well bowled, did not actually result in many wickets.

and who else other than jones is capable of reverse swinging it in the english side?
the pitch at trent bridge on day 1 was extremely flat IMO, Nz should have got at least 500.

 

[Richard]

of course to say that someone who has barely any experience at the international level is not good enough based on those performances is just ridiculous.

Not ridiculous - you've said it about people - but no, it wouldn't be fair and I don't think anyone doubts that Jones will get more chances.

 

[Richard]

and who else other than jones is capable of reverse swinging it in the english side?
the pitch at trent bridge on day 1 was extremely flat IMO, Nz should have got at least 500.

Should have in the first-innings at Lord's, too.
Hoggard can bowl reverse-swing - not as well as Jones (yet) - no, but swing is no use without accuracy, and from what we've seen so far, Jones doesn't possess that to Test standard.

 

[Craig]

Done a lot so far, hasn't he?

Four Tests he has played. He deserves his chance one way or the other.

 

[Macka]

lets not forget that bar that 1 inning at trent bridge( flattest track) he was miserable for the rest of the series in england.

You still have to make the runs, flat track or not. Unlike McMillan and Astle at least he made some runs while he was out of form. I really don't understand how people can want Styris dropped. He has done very well batting at 4 for NZ, he's got a decent average (probably just under 40 now?) and has scored centuries consistantly even though he only started concentrating on his batting a few years ago. To me, at least, it's blatently obvious that Astle has been out of form for a long time and hasn't done anything (apart from blast the USA bowlers around) in both forms of the game. If anyone is to go from the test side it would be Astle.

McCullum has a lot of talent. He might of averaged around 30 against decent opposition but that is more than a lot of other keepers, and he is still young. He looks to be very positive and take on whoever is bowling, who else does that in the NZ side? His keeping still needs a little work but he has made a huge improvement already in that. His batting has come a long way from his ODI debut and he still needs to work on not playing round his front pad. He has a lot of potential and I hope we see him up the order against the Aussies. I would have him take McMillan's place in the order. McMillan can go practise making sandwiches as his day job, he should be back in Canterbury doing that in no time.