the world XI's

[nibbs]

bahhahahaha

a joke imo. honestly what was richie and those other so called experts thinking. kallis at 7 in the odi team and how the hell did chris gayle make it? honestly, the selection was really poor in my opinion. it's crap if you ask me. considering NZ had risen to 2nd in the world up until a few weeks ago it's really hard to figure how no nz players even the odi team.

 

[a massive zebra]

I agree, but shouldn't this be in 'the ICC Awards Tonight' thread?

 

[marc71178]

For a start Nibbs - Gayle is about the 2nd best ODI all rounder in the world - so you'd want him in the team.

Secondly, as already said, the voting period ended in about June or July.

Thirdly, NZ are where they are because they are a team without stars.

 

[cbuts]

they arent a team without starts, thats just on old english attitude, who cant handle that perhaps our players are just better than theirs. flemming marshall oram must have been ****en close. pollock is deadset past it, oram is no.2 allrounder and should have been in their instead of pollock. richie should of been in the test team for gibbs, he is the best test opener in the game at the moment.

 

[age_master]

nah no kiwi's should be in the team, individually the kiwis have nothing on any of those players.

 

[Majin]

Where is the team?

 

[Jono]

Look at the stats since August 1 2003 till July 31 2004 and you'll see that no New Zealander warrants a place. NZ is a good side, but you don't have any stand out superstars who anyone, not just those selectors, would of chosen in a best XI.

 

[Waughney]

Where is the team?

http://www.cricketweb.net/articles/EpAuZEVkZZBFJlgJUi.shtml
Down the page.

 

[marc71178]

they arent a team without starts, thats just on old english attitude, who cant handle that perhaps our players are just better than theirs.

No, they have no true stars - they have a very very good team.

oram is no.2 allrounder and should have been in their instead of pollock.

Oram is not number 2 all rounder - his batting is nowhere near that level, and his bowling isn't as good as Pollock.

richie should of been in the test team for gibbs, he is the best test opener in the game at the moment.

Ignoring a couple of Aussies, Gibbs' partner, a fairly in form Sri Lankan skipper....

 

[anzac]

sory cbuts but I agree with the rest..............

while Fleming & Richardson may be the best in the NZL team they are not good enough to have displaced any of those selected ahead of them.............

IMO not only is NZL a team without world class stars - only ZIM & BAN would be in the same position - but I am of the opinion that we will start to see their ranking decline over the next season...........unless there are changes made re selections & strategy..............

main reason for this is that their run of success in Test series has already been broken Home & Away & we are about to face AUS in 2 series...........

so far as strategy goes IMO we do not have the right players / balance to 'advance the game'...............& so far as selections go IMO we have too many batsmen who can only perform under Home conditions & are consequently too inconsistant Away (& I'm not just referring to Macca).............

 

[Majin]

I'm so happy Dravid got those two awards, I didn't think he would. I'm chuffed that Chaminda Vaas is in the world XI aswell, I thought I was like the only person who rated him.

 

[nibbs]

fleming isn't a star? he's scored lots of hundreds of late in one day cricket and even a 99. he should've been there. he was nominated for one day player of the year, so you'd think that would;ve meant he'd make it. i think that's well worth noting

 

[marc71178]

No, he's a not a huge star, and there's definitely more than 2 better ODI openers than him (seeing as Gayle didn't even get in as an opener)

And a hell of a lot of people were nominated for that award but not in the team.

 

[Tim]

Right now...only Fleming would come close to making that ODI side from NZ.
Im sure the rest of the NZ players are sick of hearing people say there aren't any stars in the team...but it's really up to them to prove that they can score runs, take wickets consistently etc.

 

[JASON]

Tim, I sure hope Flem can score heavily in Champions trophy and over the next 6 months in ODIs. Because he must then be a certainty to Captain the Rest of the World ODI Team IMO.

 

[Richard]

pollock is deadset past it

So that's why his economy-rate for the voting period is 3.45-an-over - a whole 0.28-an-over lower than his whole career.
Not to mention his batting-average of 23.50 - perfectly acceptible for someone regularly coming in with not very long left.
Sorry, whether or not all these people can take it that someone can be phenominally brilliant for 9 years without any denegration in performance or not, I'm afraid Pollock is every bit as good now as he was 7 years ago.

 

[a massive zebra]

His bowling lacks penetration these days though. His economy might be just as good as ever but strike rates are also important. If you take wickets frequently the opposition are going to struggle to post a competitive total, but you ignore this I see.

The batting average you give is fine for someone coming in where he does, but it does not match up to his career average.

Pollock may still be a quality player but is not 'as good as ever', as you imply.

 

[Richard]

His bowling lacks penetration these days though. His economy might be just as good as ever but strike rates are also important. If you take wickets frequently the opposition are going to struggle to post a competitive total, but you ignore this I see.

If your economy-rate is that good, you don't need to take wickets.
And Pollock hasn't become any less proficient at taking wickets in seaming or uneven conditions, he just doesn't happen to have bowled in that many of them in the relevant period.
And please don't tell me he used to be capable of taking wickets with good deliveries in all conditions.

 

[tooextracool]

And please don't tell me he used to be capable of taking wickets with good deliveries in all conditions.

yes most of those 350 odd wickets came by luck......

 

[a massive zebra]

If your economy-rate is that good, you don't need to take wickets.

Yes you do. If frontline bowlers like Pollock don't take wickets then even if the score is 60-0 after 20 overs, the opposition know they have a lot of batting resources left. They can then go hell for leather against the lesser bowlers, and often post a good total. You never see first innings ODI scores of 190-1 do you?

If the frontline bowlers do breakthrough, the batting team know that their remaining batting resources are limited, so they have to treat the lesser bowlers with more caution and safeguard their wickets. Consequently, you often see first innings ODI scores of 204-8.