-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Fleming's ridiculous comments
- Thread starter Salamuddin
- Start date
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
On the Fleming issue - most people make one-eyed comments when their team has been disadvantaged, and when their team has had the advantages it's "they shouldn't be complaining, if they can't adapt it's their problem".
I would expect that from anyone - Fleming has a perfectly reasonable point that day cricket in some parts of India simply isn't possible unless teams buck-up their over-rates. You either get the darkness or the damp.
Day\night games (and even these can have their disadvantages, though for me they're a better option than opening the game in damp) or faster over-rates are the only solution.
Otherwise cricket in the northern subcontinent isn't a viable option on grounds without floodlights.
You always expect home series and tournaments to give as much advantage as possible to the home team - New Zealand are damn lucky they got away without square-turning pitches in the recent Test series, and their side is not exactly great ATM (though rarely do all the players McCullum [he is pathetic, how he has been gifted two not-outs in consecutive innings is completely beyond me], Tuffey, Oram, Styris, Nevin and Vettori get the full treatment throughout a series or even match) so they can't really blame outside-our-control influences IMO for their failures.
As was pointed-out, how many batsmen actually fell victim to the conditions - Williams and Harvey aren't exactly the best exploiters of seamer-friendly conditions, are they?
In the present situation, with poor over-rates, the toss is inevitably going to have a big influence on some occasions. There's nothing we can do about it except very severe slow-over-rate penalties.
I would expect that from anyone - Fleming has a perfectly reasonable point that day cricket in some parts of India simply isn't possible unless teams buck-up their over-rates. You either get the darkness or the damp.
Day\night games (and even these can have their disadvantages, though for me they're a better option than opening the game in damp) or faster over-rates are the only solution.
Otherwise cricket in the northern subcontinent isn't a viable option on grounds without floodlights.
You always expect home series and tournaments to give as much advantage as possible to the home team - New Zealand are damn lucky they got away without square-turning pitches in the recent Test series, and their side is not exactly great ATM (though rarely do all the players McCullum [he is pathetic, how he has been gifted two not-outs in consecutive innings is completely beyond me], Tuffey, Oram, Styris, Nevin and Vettori get the full treatment throughout a series or even match) so they can't really blame outside-our-control influences IMO for their failures.
As was pointed-out, how many batsmen actually fell victim to the conditions - Williams and Harvey aren't exactly the best exploiters of seamer-friendly conditions, are they?
In the present situation, with poor over-rates, the toss is inevitably going to have a big influence on some occasions. There's nothing we can do about it except very severe slow-over-rate penalties.
gibbsnsmith
State Vice-Captain
its on tele over in england???
wtf????
or is he relying on the ever-so-reliable cricinfo commentary...
hmmmm......thats seems a bit off..
wtf????
or is he relying on the ever-so-reliable cricinfo commentary...
hmmmm......thats seems a bit off..
Neil Pickup
Cricket Web Moderator
Neil Pickup
Cricket Web Moderator
I don't have it either. I don't even have Sky Sports...
gibbsnsmith
State Vice-Captain
no, thats what I got....Richard said:
which then became 48 an over etc...
anyhow, i have Sky...not that they show much...
Neil Pickup
Cricket Web Moderator
Look how many value judgments I make - very few.Richard said:
Nope.......you have more faith in them than I do.....Craig said:
The selectors have a preoccupation with having an 'explosive' opener to force the pace in the first 15 overs. They have been trying for this since they used Greatbatch in this role 10 years ago. They persist in taking a hard hitting lower order batsman (usually a 'keeper although they even tried Vettori in the WC), and try to convert them into a specialist batting position & role. They will not select 2 specialist batsmen to open, let alone have a specialist opener there.
Fleming's comments regarding the playing conditions are valid, but the timing and circumstance regarding their release detract from their validity. Regardless of whether the itinery was known or not the comments need to be made to ensure the point is made & heard & acton taken to avoid the same problems in the future.
The early starts mean there is overnight moisture still in the deck, but more importantly there is regular movement in the air as well. These conditions only last for the first 15 - 25 overs but by then the contest is effectively over & the match decided at the toss.
The fact that the NZ team is batting poorly & has lost 2 of the matches batting first are immaterial to the validity of the comments. Similarly the seam movement experienced in NZ pitches is another 'red herring', as that movement was off the deck alone and was consistant throughout both innings, not just the first quater of the game.
Adaptation is only applicable when the conditions are valid for all teams - anything else is a lottery.
The early starts mean there is overnight moisture still in the deck, but more importantly there is regular movement in the air as well. These conditions only last for the first 15 - 25 overs but by then the contest is effectively over & the match decided at the toss.
The fact that the NZ team is batting poorly & has lost 2 of the matches batting first are immaterial to the validity of the comments. Similarly the seam movement experienced in NZ pitches is another 'red herring', as that movement was off the deck alone and was consistant throughout both innings, not just the first quater of the game.
Adaptation is only applicable when the conditions are valid for all teams - anything else is a lottery.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
The New Zealand selectors have recently made some of the most inexplicable decisions I've ever seen outside Zimbabwe (Matsikenyeri and Ewing picked as bowlers), Pakistan and Sri Lanka (17, 18-year-olds picked with regularity).anzac said:Nope.......you have more faith in them than I do.....
The selectors have a preoccupation with having an 'explosive' opener to force the pace in the first 15 overs. They have been trying for this since they used Greatbatch in this role 10 years ago. They persist in taking a hard hitting lower order batsman (usually a 'keeper although they even tried Vettori in the WC), and try to convert them into a specialist batting position & role. They will not select 2 specialist batsmen to open, let alone have a specialist opener there.
Aside from the selection of McCullum, the opening situation has been an issue for as long as I can remember. First it was Spearman, then Sinclair, then they tried Parore, Fleming, Nevin, Richardson and Vincent, several times over. All that time Astle was one safe, consistent pick. Then Fleming went back to open and a reasonable NZ series and a 134* (dropped on 48) in WC2003 has ensured he's done so ever since.
Then Astle lost form and McMillan was made to open with him in McMillan's position at three. Since then it's just been one big mess. When Astle gets back surely he must take the opener's role again, and I'd still like to see Matty Horne restored as his partner. Then get McMillan in at three, Fleming four, Vincent five, Cairns six and, Harris seven and Hart eight (Nevin's 'keeping does not merit his place as a specialist 'keeper, Hart is IMO the only proper wicketkeeper in NZ). If you insist on picking Oram and Styris you can, then obviously Bond. But that leaves no place for Tuffey or the great overrated, flattered-by-stats Hitchcock and Mills.
New Zealand had a fantastic side in WC99 (Horne, Astle, McMillan, Fleming, Twose [he was good - real good], Cairns, Parore, Harris, Nash, Larsen, Allott) and since then it's just been so disrupted by injuries to bowlers and loss of wicketkeeper and best batsman, plus bungled batting positions. It's a real shame. Almost as much as Zimbabwe's loss of Johnson, Campbell, Goodwin, Flower, the Whittalls, the Strangs, the Rennies and many other decent back-up players.
yeah but they won't do that because of this stat they've unearthed regarding Astle's contribution if he survives the first 5 overs.........
From memory Spearman was the last specialist opener at the top of the order since...........????????
I think the current rot set in following the retirement of Twose - the middle order underwent a shuffle upwards in order & hasn't really stopped being shuffled since as none of the players have been able to settle into any kind of consistant form.....
IMO the real 'crime' is that 20 years ago under Howarth's Captaincy NZ were one of the more consistant ODI teams....now the selectors have ****ed it up and are butchering careers for players invovled in both forms of the game......
Until they put some serious effort into their squad selection and roles etc NZ will be little more than the 3rd worst ODI side, only ahead of the likes of Zimbabwe & Bangladesh so far as percentages go - unthinkable for a Test team that is around the top third of the table (or pushing for 2nd spot depending on what table you look at).
My concern now is that the Test players will be that shell shocked by the time they get Home for Pakistan & RSA that they will struggle in those series, rather than having confidence from the job well done in the Indian series, and the team's rankings will start to slide.......
From memory Spearman was the last specialist opener at the top of the order since...........????????
I think the current rot set in following the retirement of Twose - the middle order underwent a shuffle upwards in order & hasn't really stopped being shuffled since as none of the players have been able to settle into any kind of consistant form.....
IMO the real 'crime' is that 20 years ago under Howarth's Captaincy NZ were one of the more consistant ODI teams....now the selectors have ****ed it up and are butchering careers for players invovled in both forms of the game......
Until they put some serious effort into their squad selection and roles etc NZ will be little more than the 3rd worst ODI side, only ahead of the likes of Zimbabwe & Bangladesh so far as percentages go - unthinkable for a Test team that is around the top third of the table (or pushing for 2nd spot depending on what table you look at).
My concern now is that the Test players will be that shell shocked by the time they get Home for Pakistan & RSA that they will struggle in those series, rather than having confidence from the job well done in the Indian series, and the team's rankings will start to slide.......
Craig
World Traveller
They have even experimented opening with Cairns as well as well as Vettori. Actually correct me if I am wrong, but I believe he is one of Gloucestershire's best one-day batsmen.Richard said:
Tuffey ain't that bad and is bowling as well as he ever has and is accurate (not in the last game).Richard said: