[Player of the Year] VOTE: New Zealand T20/ODI

[hhm]

Agreed Snr Power, Ncube got more wickets than Meth, so Ncube is the better performer! Truce

Jemisi, between you and me, we know if it was up to me none of Meth would've played against NZ, and especially Ncube wouldn't have had his debut for another season or two.

[FlowerPower]

Agreed Snr Power, Ncube got more wickets than Meth, so Ncube is the better performer! Truce

Jemisi, between you and me, we know if it was up to me none of Meth would've played against NZ, and especially Ncube wouldn't have had his debut for another season or two.

Ironically we are of the same thinking hhm vis a vis Ncube debut, but that's what happened and judging him on that he did better than all else, especially the ones I chronicled:

and Ray (a legend in Zim cricketing terms), in this series (ODI) guys he took no wickets and in a containing role went for over 4.5 one maiden in 30 overs...and we have given him 2 votes? At least in the T20 he went for 8 ( a miserly EIGHT!)...some one help please I seem to have the wrong rule book...

Vusi made 24 runs (HS 19) in 3 innings, hardly 10 more than Pro, who only enjoyed 2 innings!! and he has 2 votes???? Guys please apply your minds!

Chamu made one huge 65 in the hit and giggle (T20)...the other score was 11(ELEVEN), and a massive 4(FOUR) in his only ODI, and has 4 votes!!

This is a waste of time!

[hhm]

Agreed Snr Power, Ncube got more wickets than Meth, so Ncube is the better performer! Truce

Jemisi, between you and me, we know if it was up to me none of Meth would've played against NZ, and especially Ncube wouldn't have had his debut for another season or two.

Ironically we are of the same thinking hhm vis a vis Ncube debut, but that's what happened and judging him on that he did better than all else, especially the ones I chronicled:

Do you know what the sad part about this trend is? For the seamers we've now had Ncube, Jarvis, Vitori, Meth in addition to Mpofu & Elton; while for the batsmen we've had Tino, Waller&Forster in addition to the usual guys. That means if any one of these is not doing well, they simply have to bear with them for as long as the others don't do outstandingly better, which makes it tough and hard to drop such players! Once you're in the frame, you stay in the frame! That's why they have to keep Meth in camp and pay him as well as they do some of the juniors in the playing XI. The one I feel for, and believe (considering that my favorites were not considered) should have played ahead of Waller etc is Craig Ervine!

[FlowerPower]

Do you know what the sad part about this trend is? For the seamers we've now had Ncube, Jarvis, Vitori, Meth in addition to Mpofu & Elton; while for the batsmen we've had Tino, Waller&Forster in addition to the usual guys. That means if any one of these is not doing well, they simply have to bear with them for as long as the others don't do outstandingly better, which makes it tough and hard to drop such players! Once you're in the frame, you stay in the frame! That's why they have to keep Meth in camp and pay him as well as they do some of the juniors in the playing XI. The one I feel for, and believe (considering that my favorites were not considered) should have played ahead of Waller etc is Craig Ervine!

I don't get you are you saying its a good thing people should stay in the frame? (i.e. hence you feel sorry for Ervine)...or because there is a small pool, only those will ever be considered? Clarify, you seem to have an interesting point but can't get my head around it...

[Jemisi]

Hhm, now you're talking. Ervine has had a raw deal. We don't often drop test players averaging 32.

[FlowerPower]

Hhm, now you're talking. Ervine has had a raw deal. We don't often drop test players averaging 32.

I think Craig is class, and yes maybe the drop (specifically for the Test squad, not so much the ODI) was a tad premature, as he had only played 2 matches (4 innings), but we must be factual about the average of 32, its a bit like reading too much into Mawoyo's average after the 164* (you must have a look at them they are quite a sight)....they don't really say anything, the guy has a 6, 5, 35*, and 49 (the 35* masking a lot).

Having said that, the only thing saving an equally famined Hami now is his 100 against Bangladesh, he and Ervine for me need to really work hard before the NZ tour to earn a spot, but I really don't have qualms with Waller getting ahead, he's earned it, and proved a worthy replacement. But I really do want to see a form left handed Ervine back, just can't see who for.

[Flower power]

Hhm, now you're talking. Ervine has had a raw deal. We don't often drop test players averaging 32.

I
Having said that, the only thing saving an equally famined Hami now is his 100 against Bangladesh, he and Ervine for me need to really work hard before the NZ tour to earn a spot, but I really don't have qualms with Waller getting ahead, he's earned it, and proved a worthy replacement. But I really do want to see a form left handed Ervine back, just can't see who for.

if Taibu has recovered from his finger injury and resumes keeping duties then we can slot in the lefty Ervine .will be chance to improve on his potential . H e should really pick momentum in the domestics to be able to niggle the selectors though.

[FlowerPower]

if Taibu has recovered from his finger injury and resumes keeping duties then we can slot in the lefty Ervine .will be chance to improve on his potential . H e should really pick momentum in the domestics to be able to niggle the selectors though.

That is what I have a problem with power we can't just slot people because there is an "openning", I'd rather people force their way in through performance, personally on current form Craig must work his way past Mutizwa and Waller, at best he can relieve Hami for the same reasons he left, but for me it should be because there is improvement first because that's why he went out in the first place.

And just in case eugene thinks I have something against Ervine, given the following players:

A: has over 3000 FC runs from 48 matches at an average of 43, including 9 Centuries and 13 Fifties, HS 190;
an ODI average of 31 from 17 with 4 Half Centuries and a HS of 79, SR of 80;
current FC season: 281 from 2 matches (4 innings), at 93.66, 1 Centuries, 1 Fifties, HS 164*
Age: 26yrs 77days

B: has over 2351 FC runs from 37 matches at an average of 41.98, including 5 Centuries and 13 Fifties, HS 174;
an ODI average of 24.11 from 21 with 3 Half Centuries and a HS of 99*, SR of 86;
current FC season: 174 from 1 matches (1 innings), at 174 1 Centuries, 0 Fifties, HS 174
Age 27yrs 42days

C: has over 2331 FC runs from 34 matches at an average of 41.62, including 5 Centuries and 15 Fifties, HS 177;
an ODI average of 32.27 from 23 with 4 Half Centuries and a HS of 85, SR of 75.65;
current FC season: 159 from 3 matches (4 innings), at 39.75 0 Centuries, 2 Fifties, HS 60
Age 26yrs 82days

Given a choice without names attached who would you choose? I know who I would. All have played comparable FC matches, A marginally more by about half a dozen (is this equal to a season or two?), A has a better FC record (marginally), interestingly A has had less ODI chances, but has a comparable number of 50s (one more than B and same as C), a comparable average of 31 ( C is 32.27, and B 24.11). All are around the same age, so maturity should be about the same. Who would you choose?

A is Mutizwa, B is Waller and C is Ervine. So if you think Ervine is hard done by, spare a thought for Mutizwa, whom I am sure without names, you too would see the fairness of giving him a chance...food for thought.

I prefer a situation where people get in on form and performance rather than name.

[eugene]

I have no problem with Mutizwa getting a decent shot. From what I have seen of him so far I just don't get the feeling he is going to be as succesful in international cricket as Craig Ervine will be. I have no 'evidence' for that other than my opinion s from watching them both bat.

[FlowerPower]

I have no problem with Mutizwa getting a decent shot. From what I have seen of him so far I just don't get the feeling he is going to be as succesful in international cricket as Craig Ervine will be. I have no 'evidence' for that other than my opinion s from watching them both bat.

Fair, honest call mate, you have my respect for that, I believe there is always room for both camps, those who like solid tangible proof (doubting Thomases like myself) and the intuitive gut feel such as yourself and "wise heads" hhm and needless to say it creates good debate as long as we respect each other.

PS my point wasn't that Ervine is an inferior cricketor (I actually rate him), I wanted to highlight Mutizwa could be entitled to feel even worse if not more deserving of a chance, especially that Taibu was injured and Chakabva (nothing against him) overtook him, and now we clamour for Ervine's return ahead of him...