*Official* Group B Discussion - South Africa, Sri Lanka, New Zealand, England

[Uppercut]

What happened to McGlashan? Why exactly is Hopkins around when he isn't?

[Zinzan]

Originally Posted by Athlai

Would cut Oram from it, and keep Elliott. Other than that I agree totally. The batting order could be changed up but the players are the best we have and there is no need to change it.

Totally forgot about Elliott truth be told & wouldn't be massively disappointed if he was selected ahead of Oram assuming all were fit. Even though Oram has copped plenty of justified criticism for his batting in recent times, we mustn't forget he's a damn good ODI bowler as his career econ of 4.39 in over 130 games illustrates.

[Zinzan]

Originally Posted by Uppercut

What happened to McGlashan? Why exactly is Hopkins around when he isn't?

64k question that, I'm still scratching over it

[Athlai]

Originally Posted by zinzan12

Totally forgot about Elliott truth be told & wouldn't be massively disappointed if he was selected ahead of Oram assuming all were fit. Even though Oram has copped plenty of justified criticism for his batting in recent times, we mustn't forget he's a damn good ODI bowler as his career econ of 4.39 in over 130 games illustrates.

Franklin isn't that much worse an ODI bowler and Elliott is certainly a better batsman so I reckon the team as a whole would benefit more in dropping Oram.

[Zinzan]

Originally Posted by Athlai

Franklin isn't that much worse an ODI bowler

Disagree here, would back Oram to out-bowl Franklin in ODI's they both played about 7-8 times out of 10. There's quite a big difference between an econ-rate of 4.39 & 5.10 considering both players have played over 60 games, not to mention Oram having both the better ave & strike rate. On the other side of the coin would much rather Franklin as a test bowler than Oram, but that's pretty obvious.

Originally Posted by Athlai

Elliott is certainly a better batsman so I reckon the team as a whole would benefit more in dropping Oram.

Definitely on recent form you'd back his batting over Oram's. That said, I think most of us realise Elliott's outstanding ODI record after 20 odd games - ave 40 bat & 21 ball - does flatter to deceive a little.

[Athlai]

Originally Posted by zinzan12

Disagree here, would back Oram to out-bowl Franklin in ODI's they both play about 7-8 times out of 10. There's quite a big difference between an econ-rate of 4.39 & 5.10 considering both players have played over 60 games, not to mention Oram having the better ave & econ rate. Incidentally, would much rather Franklin as a test bowler than Oram, but that's pretty obvious.



Definitely on recent form you'd back his batting over Oram's. That said, I think most of us realize Elliott's outstanding ODI record after 20 odd games - ave 40 bat & 21 ball - does flatter to deceive a little.

Oram is definitely more economical and therefore a better ODI bowler but in a 5th bowler capacity I think Franklin is a very decent prospect.
Think Oram has completely lost his eye with the bat as well.

[Zinzan]

Originally Posted by Athlai

Think Oram has completely lost his eye with the bat as well.

Nah, only thing he's lost is his confidence which typifies his whole career if you study it. Lack of confidence has always been Oram's achilles heel, something even Astle alluded to in his book.

Would be exceedingly surprised if it we're 'the loss of his eye' given he's just turned 31 remembering very few players lose their eye until they're around 33 & older.

[Athlai]

Originally Posted by zinzan12

Nah, only thing he's lost is his confidence which typifies his whole career if you study it. Lack of confidence has always been Oram's achilles heel, something even Astle alluded to in his book.

Would be exceedingly surprised if it we're 'the loss of his eye' given he's just turned 31 remembering very few players lose their eye until they're around 33 & older.

Hope you're right TBH.

[Flem274*]

Originally Posted by zinzan12

Disagree here, would back Oram to out-bowl Franklin in ODI's they both played about 7-8 times out of 10. There's quite a big difference between an econ-rate of 4.39 & 5.10 considering both players have played over 60 games, not to mention Oram having both the better ave & strike rate. On the other side of the coin would much rather Franklin as a test bowler than Oram, but that's pretty obvious.



Definitely on recent form you'd back his batting over Oram's. That said, I think most of us realise Elliott's outstanding ODI record after 20 odd games - ave 40 bat & 21 ball - does flatter to deceive a little.

Still can't deny Elliott performs when it matters, which is a rarity for an NZ player sometimes.

I like the team you listed though, pretty darn good.

Uppercut: As already said, no idea. I'm not sure why we think Hopkins is better than McGlashan but we do for some reason. Pretty harsh considering McGlashan has a fifty against India and has only played a couple of games.

[thierry henry]

Originally Posted by Days of Grace

Totally agree.

In the professional era NZ sporting teams have often been accused of lacking the mental toughness and hard edge to compete. Now, that we have someone who likes to take advantage of his opponent's adsent-mindedness, you complain about that too?

Is this a serious post or some sort of parody of talkback callers and NZ Herald letter to the editor writers?

All I'm saying is McCullum is pretty much the only guy around doing this stuff. So if what he's doing is ok, that must mean every other international cricketer is soft and McCullum is a genius. Pretty far-fetched.

[thierry henry]

And since I've been lured into this ridiculous "PC vs Un-PC" argument of slogans and cliches, let me just say....

I would love our cricketers to be a lot mentally tougher, i.e. BAT AND BOWL BETTER! Concentrate harder, keep giving 100% at all times, be able to keep your wits about you during tough times or pressure moments.

Has nothing to do with trying to run people out when they think it's the end of the over. Actually, if you looked up "soft option" in the dictionary.....

[thierry henry]

(yes, I know, you wouldn't find it because it's two words)