Recent NZ best bowling attack...

[piquet67]

Just Think...

Bond & Doull opening...

Nash, Tuffey & Cairns ( or Butler ) at 1st & 2nd drop.

Vettori & Walker ( **** off Wiseman ) as our preferred spinners.

Astle without a 'wonky' knee as our change bowler...

Not doing too bad without most of these fella's...

But what could have been...???

 

[Richard]

There was a short period when this all played together:
Allott, Nash, Cairns, Larsen, Harris;
Allott, Doull, Cairns, Nash, Vettori.
Then this lot played one Test:
Cairns, Nash, O'Connor, Vettori.
Tuffey and Bond have yet to prove themselves ODI and Test class bowlers respectively.

 

[Mingster]

Tuffey yet to prove himself in Tests or ODIs?

What does a Kiwi man have to do?

 

[Richard]

Tuffey yet to prove himself in ODIs (not a surprise to me given his poor domestic record). Not terrible, but nowhere near as good as the esteem some hold him in would merit IMO.
And Bond yet to prove himself in Tests. Mind, Tuffey's only had one really good overseas Test, really. Not saying he can't improve, but so far we've yet to see it.

 

[Richard]

What does a Kiwi man have to do?

And please stop this ridiculous notion of me having a vendetta against Kiwis. There are some irrational dismissals of my ideas I've heard, national biases amongst them (from plenty of countries - England included).
But no-one held-out such a silly idea for so long.

 

[Mingster]

Tuffey yet to prove himself in ODIs (not a surprise to me given his poor domestic record). Not terrible, but nowhere near as good as the esteem some hold him in would merit IMO.
And Bond yet to prove himself in Tests. Mind, Tuffey's only had one really good overseas Test, really. Not saying he can't improve, but so far we've yet to see it.

Tuffey is inside the Top 10 for both PwC ODI and Test rankings. Oh wait...you don't have any respect for them...

And Tuffey's domestic record is not poor.

 

[marc71178]

And Tuffey's domestic record is not poor.

But then again it's not exactly good is it really.

 

[Craig]

There was a short period when this all played together:
Allott, Nash, Cairns, Larsen, Harris;
Allott, Doull, Cairns, Nash, Vettori.
Then this lot played one Test:
Cairns, Nash, O'Connor, Vettori.

And that was a fine Test and ODI bowling line-up.

 

[Tim]

For every FC system around the world, there always seem to be a handful of players who have poor FC records yet perform well at international level...one example I can think of is Marcus Trescothick.

 

[Richard]

I'll just mention that I have my reasons why I don't consider Trescothick a Test-standard batsman, and say I'll not mention anything other than the fact it involves first-chance scores... :rolleyes:
There are occasional incidents, down the years, of players doing better in international cricket than domestic. They've always been very much in the minority and nothing's ever changed. And there is no way of knowing which ones they're going to be - plenty of players can "look good" if you happen upon them at the right time. For every example of a plucked-from-obscurity-and-paid-off there are about three or four of the contrary.

 

[Richard]

Originally posted by Mingster
Tuffey is inside the Top 10 for both PwC ODI and Test rankings. Oh wait...you don't have any respect for them...

And Tuffey's domestic record is not poor.

No, I don't.
It is poor, for somoene supposedly of ODI calibre - ER over 4.5, average over 30.
Brilliant. :rolleyes:

 

[Craig]

4.5 an over is not bad at all.

 

[Richard]

Craig, please - it is.
Especially if you're bowling on wickets that people tell me are typical to New Zealand domestic competitions.

 

[Mingster]

No, I don't.
It is poor, for somoene supposedly of ODI calibre - ER over 4.5, average over 30.
Brilliant. :rolleyes:

Are those stats for ODI or Domestic? Either way you are wrong.

Tuffey hasn't played domestically for ND for a while because of his commitments to the Black Caps. He only plays a game or two every season.

You get the domestic stats by subtracting the List A by the ODI ones.

Here are his domestic statistics:

65m, 71w, 30.95, 4.46.

Not that bad as you suggest.

And anyway, he is a proven bowler at ODIs.

And your hatred of the PwC system is ludicrous, it is a system based on form. Not on career records, because you can just look at their career averages for that.

 

[cbuts]

good point mate. the top players play so little domesti cricket these days. tuffey along with most players has improved a hell of alot since he started playing ints.

 

[Richard]

Are those stats for ODI or Domestic? Either way you are wrong.

Tuffey hasn't played domestically for ND for a while because of his commitments to the Black Caps. He only plays a game or two every season.

You get the domestic stats by subtracting the List A by the ODI ones.

Here are his domestic statistics:

65m, 71w, 30.95, 4.46.

Not that bad as you suggest.

And anyway, he is a proven bowler at ODIs.

And your hatred of the PwC system is ludicrous, it is a system based on form. Not on career records, because you can just look at their career averages for that.

No, it's not ludicrous, because whether ranking form or ability or whatever, it's a totally impossible task. Form is an unbelievably fickle thing, so there's no point trying to rank every player exactly. Not to mention that there are almost certainly inequities in the awarding.
Proven at ODIs? With a career economy-rate of 4.6?
Fair enough, his domestic stats aren't quite as bad as I thought (my calculator must have malfunctioned or I must have pressed a wrong button) but I wasn't that far off. I am, believe it or not, aware of how you work them out.
The number of games he plays isn't especially relevant. His record is still poor.

 

[Mingster]

OK you think that.

So Tuffey (NZ's leading bowler along with Bond) is unproven bowler at both forms of the game, thus making all other bowlers in NZ crap as well...hmmm OK.

 

[Richard]

Have I ever said that?
No.
I don't think Tuffey is an especially good one-day bowler, I don't think it'll be too long before that's proven conclusively, he's thus far proven (surely even you cannot dispute this) to be completely useless when there's no seam-movement. There has been a sign in one Test, his most recent overseas, that this may be changing.
The one thing we know for certain is that Tuffey (and likely Bond as well) is very good when there is seam-movement (just a shame we don't see much of it ATM). We also know for certain that Bond is a very, very good one-day bowler.

 

[Craig]

How do you come to that conlusion?

 

[Richard]

Which one? All of them?
Tuffey one-day stuff - domestic record, simple as. And how he's bowled when I've seen him. He's not the most accurate in The World.
Bond, good one-day bowler - he's been getting economical figures for God-knows how long now. He can unquestionably swing the white ball, both ways, and can get it to seam around. He bowled very well in the one one-day series I saw, VB Series 2001\02.
Tuffey in Tests - seen him bowl exceptionally when the ball's seaming (Third Test Auckland, 2001\02) and he's clearly done so since, looking at match-reports. When it's not seaming (again, seen match-reports plus the 2001\02 Second Test at Bellerive) seen him bowl very, very poorly. Read of the Second India Test (2003\04) when he apparently bowled well without seam-movement.
Bond in Tests - simple, evidence so far is restricted (one Bangladesh series counts for sod-all IMO; India Tests were on stupid seam-friendly wickets; in the three serious challenges he's failed twice and succeeded once).