*Official* Zimbabwe in Australia Thread

[Neil Pickup]

The bowling figures...

 

[Neil Pickup]

And the partnerships...

 

[gibbsnsmith]

why did Taibu bowl ?

 

[PY]

Do a proper degree Neil :saint:, you have far too much time on your hands for your own good!!

GEEEKKK

 

[gibbsnsmith]

Well Said!

 

[Neil Pickup]

Do a proper degree Neil :saint:, you have far too much time on your hands for your own good!!

GEEEKKK

:saint:

 

[Top_Cat]

Well, fair enough, basically you're saying that picking the team you reckon is likeliest to win the next match is more important than being fair to a player.
Even though the fact that Australia will beat Zimbabwe is almost a given.

How fair would it have been to Martyn to not pick him even though he'd done nothing wrong but get injured and, in fact, had ensured a longer recovery time before he was fit to play again by playing in the WC final?

Form is usually the primary consideration for picking players but there are (and should be) exceptions to every rule. Martin Love would have been well aware of the situation. No disrespect but Martyn got there first and made the spot his own having paid his dues in interstate cricket for years, just like everyone else. He should, therefore, not have that evaporate just because he got injured.

 

[marc71178]

In that Hayden was awful - sack him I say!

 

[Craig]

yeah well, though hes like super fit, its pretty tiring bwoling at that speed for too long, which is why its great to have bowlers liekl Bichel, McGrath and Noffke, who can hande longer spells better, so lee can be sed more effectivley, as a wicket taker

You are almost justifying his poor spells and any poor performances.

Ok, is it me or does Lee seem only to perform on fast hard bouncy wickets whereas on slower wickets (like in Sharjah when Australia played there, he struggled) he is not as good.

 

[Top_Cat]

Ok, is it me or does Lee seem only to perform on fast hard bouncy wickets whereas on slower wickets (like in Sharjah when Australia played there, he struggled) he is not as good.

Well to say he ONLY performs on fast bouncy decks is wrong but in general, considering he's picked in the side due to his pace, you'd sort-of expect that to be the case.

 

[age_master]

Fair enough - it's all about attitude and value. Personally, I place equal importance on strike-rate and economy-rate (average can be calculated from those two) in the First-Class game, and more importance on economy-rate in the one-day game.
However, the placement of more weight on averages than strike-rates is not opinionative on my part, just an observation. The first thing most people I know (personally and via the TV or Internet) talk about averages before they talk about strike-rates and economy-rates (RPO as it's sometimes called).
I'm not saying you're in a minority but you're certainly in the minority of those I have corresponded with.

mate if you dont take enough wickets you wont win test matches at all, simple, the quicker you bowl them out, the less runs the score overall. also works for the OD game, if you take wickets, they find it much harder to score runs.

 

[Richard]

So you say I'm wrong, then back my point up - good arguing skills those!

What I said was "no, they weren't exactly Tests - they were Tests in name only".
I was not intending to contradict you.

 

[Richard]

How fair would it have been to Martyn to not pick him even though he'd done nothing wrong but get injured and, in fact, had ensured a longer recovery time before he was fit to play again by playing in the WC final?

Form is usually the primary consideration for picking players but there are (and should be) exceptions to every rule. Martin Love would have been well aware of the situation. No disrespect but Martyn got there first and made the spot his own having paid his dues in interstate cricket for years, just like everyone else. He should, therefore, not have that evaporate just because he got injured.

No - not fair at all to Martyn. But surely to select Katich ahead of Love is more unfair to Love than fair to Katich?

 

[Richard]

Well to say he ONLY performs on fast bouncy decks is wrong but in general, considering he's picked in the side due to his pace, you'd sort-of expect that to be the case.

Isn't it more interesting that he has not exactly performed (if you ask me, at any rate) since his elbow injury?
Especially given that no-one seemed to notice anything he was doing differently, simply that batsmen did not have as much trouble with him.

 

[Richard]

mate if you dont take enough wickets you wont win test matches at all, simple, the quicker you bowl them out, the less runs the score overall. also works for the OD game, if you take wickets, they find it much harder to score runs.

OK - 300 in 50 overs, for 10 wickets, is no different overall to 300 in 100 overs for 10 wickets - strike-rate doubled, economy-rate halved.
It is different only in attitude to play - with the first, you could take the view that "now we've got more time to bat"; on the other hand, you could take the view that "now they've got more time to bowl us out". The batting side, meanwhile, could take the view "now we've got more time to bowl them out" or the view "now we've wasted all that time we could be batting in".
If victory is the only consideration then it is clearly easier to argue that 300ao in 50 overs is best. However, the view of "look to win at all costs" is not one shared by all, and for some (myself included) not losing comes before winning.
Given your residence, in the land of NSW, it is safe to assume you an Australian? And, at present especially, the attitude to cricket has been "win" before "don't lose".
In England it's the other way around. Some would argue that's why England don't do as well but it's impossible to prove, it can only ever be opinion.
And if you ask me it's rather more likely that the attitude problem is one of not taking the game seriously enough at the domestic and recreational level.

 

[iamdavid]

OK -
Given your residence, in the land of NSW, it is safe to assume you an Australian? And, at present especially, the attitude to cricket has been "win" before "don't lose".
In England it's the other way around. Some would argue that's why England don't do as well but it's impossible to prove, it can only ever be opinion.
And if you ask me it's rather more likely that the attitude problem is one of not taking the game seriously enough at the domestic and recreational level.

Well if one team is thinking right from the first ball of the match 'DONT LOSE' & the other team is thinking 'WIN', then it is obvious who has the upper hand , the 'WIN' team is thinking only in positives & this should show as they will be the ones who go out & seize the initiative , whereas the 'DONT LOSE' team are more focused on avoiding the consequences of a negative outcome & will play in a more conservative fashion , often allowing the opposition to dominate procedings right from the start.:rolleyes:

 

[Top_Cat]

Isn't it more interesting that he has not exactly performed (if you ask me, at any rate) since his elbow injury?

Looking at the bare stats of it, is Test stats haven't been great since the 3rd Test of the 2001 Ashes series in England (right after he came back after surgery):

http://statserver.cricket.org/perl/...=0&stumpedlow=&stumpedhigh=&csearch=&submit=1

Still, an average of 35 isn't ridiculous. It's high for sure but not bad considering he's been a 'project player' for a while now. When he's leading the attack, if those stats remain where they are, there'd be more questions I'd say. The bulk of the wicket-taking is left to Glenn McGrath, Warne, Gillespie etc. and Brett Lee is left as the 'shock' bowler which means that although he'll often take a crucial wicket or two, his average will be relatively high.

Now in ODI cricket, a different picture emerges:

http://statserver.cricket.org/perl/...=0&stumpedlow=&stumpedhigh=&csearch=&submit=1

Since the 2001 Ashes series, his bowling averages has been 20.78. Anyone who saw him bowl last year in the CUB series, the year before, the WC in South Africa etc. would know he's been bowling superbly in ODI's, taking wickets and lowering his economy rate by a greater than significant margin. He's been called upon as the bowler to rip a batsman out and also has ben called upon to bowl tightly. He's done that very well if his stats are anything to go by and just in my own viewing, his improvement as a bowler has been marked, yet not borne out in his Test stats yet. They will be eventually.

 

[Top_Cat]

Well if one team is thinking right from the first ball of the match 'DONT LOSE' & the other team is thinking 'WIN', then it is obvious who has the upper hand , the 'WIN' team is thinking only in positives & this should show as they will be the ones who go out & seize the initiative , whereas the 'DONT LOSE' team are more focused on avoiding the consequences of a negative outcome & will play in a more conservative fashion , often allowing the opposition to dominate procedings right from the start.

South Africa of the 90's comes readily to mind...........

 

[marc71178]

No - not fair at all to Martyn. But surely to select Katich ahead of Love is more unfair to Love than fair to Katich?

Well seeing as the selectors have announced the sort of player they wanted as cover for Lehmann, it would've been unfair on Katich (as the next best batsman who can bowl spin) to pick Love!

 

[Neil Pickup]

And, at present especially, the attitude to cricket has been "win" before "don't lose".
In England it's the other way around. Some would argue that's why England don't do as well but it's impossible to prove, it can only ever be opinion.
And if you ask me it's rather more likely that the attitude problem is one of not taking the game seriously enough at the domestic and recreational level.

And herein lies the issue.

I think back to the Second Test between England and Pakistan in 2001 for fairly solid proof of the risks of "not losing". It is so easy for the wheels to fall off and the sides of the hole to become near-vertical.

The way cricket - and any sport - should be played IMO is to treat it with the maximum possible aggression and focus and pure bloody-minded desire to win at all times. I mean, it works for Australia...