Agree, no way England are going to string together the number of wins needed, even if they do have the outstanding performance every once in a while, and I feel that WI are in a similar boat. SA is the strongest contender for Australia by streets.
I think the West Indies proved in the last two Champions Trophy tournaments that they're capable of stringing together victories.
Our problem is not that we lack "matchwinners" - guys like Bond, Fleming, McCullum and even Vettori and Styris have played that role in the past - but that we've got all the killer instinct of a potato. We have a big problem with winning close games, especially versus Australia, and have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory many times in the past.
Yes, but to suggest he's suddenly not a proven standout would be stupid.
Other than keep going as he has to date, I can't see what.
Economical bowlers tend to go quite a way to winning matches... and Vettori is certainly a standout in terms of most of the current crop of bowlers.
Chris Harris was (is?) certainly FAR more than a bits-and-pieces player, but I too hate such a spouting-of-assumption.
Well for one he has to perform against more than three teams. Especially when two of those teams are the West Indies and England. It's a good show for him to have started well against Australia, but he needs to do more than that against more varied opposition.
An economical spinner is not going to signifcantly push toward winning matches in an attack such as New Zealand's. I'm a Vettori fan, but I don't consider him a "matchwinner".
Given that they're the only 3 teams he's played in his recent incarnation, I hardly see how that's a fair criticism. There's nothing to suggest he won't perform against everyone, nothing at all.
That's quite true, but the more low scores you get the more "matchwinning" ones you're gonna get (if, obviously, you have a high average).
An economical bowler (spinner, seamer, same thing) is going to give more chance to win than an expensive one.
Yes, and when he does actually perform against everyone, he can have his matchwinning title. Until then he's largely unproven.
That doesn't make him a matchwinner. It's not a situation of picking between two evils. Being the lesser does not make him a matchwinner. It may make him a far more effective bowler than an expensive spinner, but that doesn't mean he's going to contribute significantly toward victories.
Of course it's not his fault, but you seem to think that someone can be a matchwinner by default. He stands out in his field, but that means nothing in the grand scheme of things.
He's as proven as he can possibly be. He's shown enough to suggest he could help take NZ to a World Cup win.
Anyone who bowls economically in a ODI has the potential to contribute to victories. Were Vettori to have achieved his deeds in, for example, South Africa's team he'd in all likelihood be hailed as one of the ODI greats - at least by those who recognise greatness in economy. The only reason he's held so lowly is because NZ's seamers have often been wholly inept and as a result games have been lost.
If someone stands-out, they have the potential to be a "matchwinner", simple as. But no-one, however good, can be a "match-winner" if their team-mates are terrible. However, they retain the potential to be so if their team-mates were to improve.
And still not proven enough. You need more than to simply suggest. Surely you, more than most, know this.
Not the same. Being a matchwinner requires more than making a mere contribution.
Vic Marks is greater than he then.
And I never called him a top-class ODI batsman or anything of that context. I said certainly appeared to be capable of standing-out and playing a part in winning matches for New Zealand.
It requires a sizeable contribution. Yes, 10-38-1 isn't such a thing but 10-23-0 certainly is, and I'd back most to dispute such a thing.
In his day?Vic Marks is greater than he then.
I doubt it has, except as part of a 6 man attack. Concerns over Styris' and Oram's consistency would maybe force selectors' hands.Richard said:
Umar Gul has one month to gain fitness and since his illness is not that serious he's very likely to be fit and be the opening bowler with Asif.Asif is a world class bowler already and i think along with GUl he will form a very good opening bowling pair.As for Asif's struggle in SA, the kind of work load he had in SA , only a few pacers would be having such a workload in recent time, besides in OD one does get hammered at times,Ntini, Pollock , Kallis were all thrashed in one match, i fail to see how one question's asif's class and abilty. Naveed might have struggled in SA, but if he regains his form then the bowling combination of Asif/Gul/Naveed(or Anjum)/Afridi/Razzak>Malik seems very good to me.
