**Official** New Zealand in Australia

[straw man]

With these injuries to Ryder and McCullum, we could potentially name a pretty weak lineup, something like:

McCullum
Guptill
Fulton
Taylor
Broom/Cumming
Elliott
Hopkins (wk)
Vettori
Mills
Southee
O'Brien/Patel

Only five bowlers, one of whom is Elliott. Also Hopkins, who I have zero faith in as a batsman at 6 or 7. Even worse if the selectors decide that's not enough bowling and decide to try to squeeze Diamanti in there in place of a batsman (I'm sure that's what Bracewell would have done!). We desperately need McCullum to be fit enough to keep wicket.

 

[Smudge]

thierry henry's Vettori-bashing is illogical and bordering on the ****ing boring. As Polo said, he's a spinner - if any of the anti-Vettori brigade had a ****ing clue, they'd know that 90 times out of 100, a spinner at the death doesn't work.

 

[thierry henry]

You guys realise Vettori is a spinner yeah? Why the hell would he bowl himself in the powerplays? You guys would make great captains

So why does Patel bowl in these situations (powerplays/death)?

 

[Polo23]

So why does Patel bowl in these situations (powerplays/death)?

Patel usually bowls 1 or 2 powerplay overs but very rarely bowls at the death, atleast, not more than Vettori.

I'll explain this slowly for you so you can understand. When playing 2 specialist spinners it generally means there are also 2 specialist seamers in the team and an all-rounder or two to make up 10 overs. The powerplay overs generally go from 1-15 and then 5 overs anywhere from there onwards. That's 20 overs of powerplay, and he has 20 overs max from his two frontline seamers, now he is going to want to save AT LEAST 5 overs from those seamers to bowl at the death so that means either Patel, Vettori or one of the all-rounders (in this case Elliott and Ryder) have to bowl a few power play overs and he'll obviously need two bowlers for that job, one at each end, and he usually goes with Patel and Elliott/Ryder or himself, but usually the former. Vettori does this because he knows he is the most likely bowler to take crucial wickets in the middle overs when batsmen are just trying to rotate the strikes and arent looking for the big shot, he knows his role in the team, and he knows the roles of all of his bowlers. Why should he step out of his specific role just to bowl in the powerplays when Patel does a good job?

Also, incase you didn't realise, Patel was originally brought into the team because he was seen as a death spinner, someone who could hit the blockhole more often than not.

 

[thierry henry]

Patel usually bowls 1 or 2 powerplay overs but very rarely bowls at the death, atleast, not more than Vettori.

I'll explain this slowly for you so you can understand. When playing 2 specialist spinners it generally means there are also 2 specialist seamers in the team and an all-rounder or two to make up 10 overs. The powerplay overs generally go from 1-15 and then 5 overs anywhere from there onwards. That's 20 overs of powerplay, and he has 20 overs max from his two frontline seamers, now he is going to want to save AT LEAST 5 overs from those seamers to bowl at the death so that means either Patel, Vettori or one of the all-rounders (in this case Elliott and Ryder) have to bowl a few power play overs and he'll obviously need two bowlers for that job, one at each end, and he usually goes with Patel and Elliott/Ryder or himself, but usually the former. Vettori does this because he knows he is the most likely bowler to take crucial wickets in the middle overs when batsmen are just trying to rotate the strikes and arent looking for the big shot, he knows his role in the team, and he knows the roles of all of his bowlers. Why should he step out of his specific role just to bowl in the powerplays when Patel does a good job?

Also, incase you didn't realise, Patel was originally brought into the team because he was seen as a death spinner, someone who could hit the blockhole more often than not.

Vettori isn't really a massive wicket-taker though. He is more a very economical bowler whose perceived economy is enhanced by always bowling through the middle.

I don't rate Patel at all as a death/block-hole bowler either. I'm surprised you all seem comfortable with the notion that he is better at it than Vettori, despite Vettori apparently being our best ODI bowler.

ftr I actually agree with the current arrangement, but only because I accept that (a) Vettori isn't very good when batsmen try to get after him, (b) Patel isn't very good at all, and (c) Patel is better than Vettori at the death.

 

[thierry henry]

Theoretically, if you could clone Vettori, would you prefer him to bowl Patel's death/powerplay overs? Or do you think Patel is better?

 

[Polo23]

Vettori isn't really a massive wicket-taker though. He is more a very economical bowler whose perceived economy is enhanced by always bowling through the middle.

I don't rate Patel at all as a death/block-hole bowler either. I'm surprised you all seem comfortable with the notion that he is better at it than Vettori, despite Vettori apparently being our best ODI bowler.

ftr I actually agree with the current arrangement, but only because I accept that (a) Vettori isn't very good when batsmen try to get after him, (b) Patel isn't very good at all, and (c) Patel is better than Vettori at the death.

It's like you are purposefully acting like a ****** to try and slag off Vettori.

His economy is enhanced because he bowls through the middle?! ALL SPINNERS BOWL THROUGH THE MIDDLE.

I don't think I ever recall anyone saying Vettori is a good death bowler. As I said, he has a role in the side and he performs that role perfectly. Why should he be slagged off because he doesnt perform a role that one of our quicks should?

 

[straw man]

Basically Jeetan works his game around what the team needs in one day cricket, making his fielding as high level as possible and his bowling versatile. Even his batting has improved. His knock against SL in the semi's is still one of my favorite cricketing moments.

Jeets always looks like he should be a better batsman than he is. Have seen him hit some good shots and has decent defence, so seems he has some ability. If he could improve his batting contributions to the level of say Kyle Mills, he'd be far easier to pick in the test and ODI side.

 

[Uppercut]

thierry henry's Vettori-bashing is illogical and bordering on the ****ing boring. As Polo said, he's a spinner - if any of the anti-Vettori brigade had a ****ing clue, they'd know that 90 times out of 100, a spinner at the death doesn't work.

It's not like I'm anti-Vettori. The whole point is that he's actually better than he thinks he is, therefore should bowl at more crucial times. I don't think he's bad at all when batsmen try to get after him, it wouldn't really fit with his ridiculously good (i.e. better than any other bowler in the world) T20 figures.

I wouldn't bowl him during powerplays for more than an over or two (wouldn't bowl Patel much either, but it can be useful to have a bit of a change for one over when batsmen are set against the quicks). But I certainly think Vettori as a death bowler would work.

 

[thierry henry]

It's like you are purposefully acting like a ****** to try and slag off Vettori.

His economy is enhanced because he bowls through the middle?! ALL SPINNERS BOWL THROUGH THE MIDDLE.

I don't think I ever recall anyone saying Vettori is a good death bowler. As I said, he has a role in the side and he performs that role perfectly. Why should he be slagged off because he doesnt perform a role that one of our quicks should?

It's just a minor point. If we really need to have a spinner bowling in powerplay/death overs, should it be Patel or should it be Vettori?

I'm content if you think the answer is Patel, but that's because I think Vettori's ability to restrict is a little overrated, not because I think Patel is some block-hole hitting gun. No big deal.

 

[Uppercut]

It's just a minor point. If we really need to have a spinner bowling in powerplay/death overs, should it be Patel or should it be Vettori?

I'm content if you think the answer is Patel, but that's because I think Vettori's ability to restrict is a little overrated, not because I think Patel is some block-hole hitting gun. No big deal.

So what's the deal with Vettori's T20 record?

 

[Polo23]

It's just a minor point. If we really need to have a spinner bowling in powerplay/death overs, should it be Patel or should it be Vettori?

I'm content if you think the answer is Patel, but that's because I think Vettori's ability to restrict is a little overrated, not because I think Patel is some block-hole hitting gun. No big deal.

I'd far prefer Vettori, but the question is irrelevant, because I don't think either should be bowling in powerplay overs or at the death.

And also, as uppercut said...Vettori has pretty much proven he is brilliant when it comes to the slog. Look at his T20 record.

 

[thierry henry]

So what's the deal with Vettori's T20 record?

He bowls "through the middle" even in T20s

I dunno....if he's as gun as his T20 record suggests than by all means, let's bowl him at the death. It's hard to judge imo since T20 internationals are so few and far between and 4 over spells are just so, well, short.

 

[thierry henry]

I'd far prefer Vettori, but the question is irrelevant, because I don't think either should be bowling in powerplay overs or at the death.

Who should?

I know in theory it's the 2nd/3rd good ODI seamer that we don't have...but who in reality?

And also, as uppercut said...Vettori has pretty much proven he is brilliant when it comes to the slog. Look at his T20 record.

If he's brilliant at it then why say he shouldn't do it? Is his 10-0-38-1 through the middle really so vital?

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

I think Bailey's just costing us this game, SR of 50 is not enough when we're already behind. Should have sent up the in form Christian or hitter Henriques considering we such a long batting lineup.

Solid call.

 

[Polo23]

Who should?

I know in theory it's the 2nd/3rd good ODI seamer that we don't have...but who in reality?



If he's brilliant at it then why say he shouldn't do it? Is his 10-0-38-1 through the middle really so vital?

Mills and Southee. As they have been doing.

What do you mean "if he's as gun as his T20 record suggests", do you think he is worse than his record? You're being a ****ing idiot.

Oh, so now he takes 1/38 every single time he bowls? Funny, I thought his average was lower than 38.

 

[thierry henry]

Mills and Southee. As they have been doing.

What do you mean "if he's as gun as his T20 record suggests", do you think he is worse than his record? You're being a ****ing idiot.

Oh, so now he takes 1/38 every single time he bowls? Funny, I thought his average was lower than 38.

Of course I think he's worse than his record.

You've completely lost me here- you think Vettori is as good at the death as his T20 record suggests, therefore making him the best death bowler in the world, but you don't think he should bowl at the death.

 

[Polo23]

I think he would do a good job at the death, but I think his role in the middle of the innings is more important.

 

[thierry henry]

I think he would do a good job at the death, but I think his role in the middle of the innings is more important.

If he's as good at the death as he has shown in T20 then I completely disagree.

 

[Polo23]

If he's as good at the death as he has shown in T20 then I completely disagree.

Who would have thought