What have we really achieved?

[hhm]

Kriterio_BD you are challenging points which I did not raise. Read my comments and take them for what they are not what you want to perceive them to be. If you are unable to do that then let's agree to disagree. No harm in that. Next thing you'll be telling me Bhaji is an AR of note! When MSD gives Yuvi an extended spell people&commentators begin to question his tactics. When Afridi goes up the order they demand he have his head checked. Swann drops down the order for every seamer who can bat. DV&SAH are decent batsmen, but on their batting alone they can only make it into a side which will never acheive anything notable. Name any top side which would slot them into the top 7. The only spinning allrounder I've ever rated is SJ. The point is not that spinning arounders don't exist or are less important, the reality is whatever the conditions seamer allrounders dominate. Neither did I at any point state that a spinner is less valuable than a pacer. English might not be your first language, I wouldn't know, but probably that's the reason why you have drawn absent conclusions. Subcontinent teams are pathetic at developing seamer allrounders and I've heard many reputable former players Asian origin lament that fact. The day the do is the day they'll start CONSISTANTLY conquering outside their backyard, while teams with seamer allrounders have conquered them at home in the past.

[foreignfield]

I'm sorry foreignfield but I don't quite get you there, and the part 'now feel free to question my intelligence'. Are you saying that based on my squad, that's the eleven that should have played the Aus game? Please elaborate.

I simply wanted to point out that these eleven players were the only eleven fit and available players (in your squad) at that time. Injuries really played a big part in the make-up of our sides for the A games. The idea was obviously to give all the core batsmen two matches (didn't work with Taibu and Taylor due to injuries; didn't turn out well for Craig), give the established bowlers (Mpofu, Price) a match each (no need to bowl Mpofu into the ground against Warner and co.) and get a good look at the other pace options. We found Vitori, and only come thursday we'll know if that's a premature selection (as you think) or a revelation. I can't judge him on scorecards only, but Streak's been working with these guys and I would trust his judgement some way (and I hope AC does as well).

As for the other part: I like your passion hhm, but when adressing other people on here you could sometimes tone it down just a tad

[hhm]

Point taken foreignfield. If Mpofu&Price don't bowl into the ground against Warner, Hughes etc who will they do that to Ashraful, Asad Shafiq, Kane Williamson&Darren Bravo! I know which experience I would prefer to have. That was the challenge, not what's to come in our next couple of series. Bangladesh and a weak Pakistani side. Even if we beat both those teams we won't get full credit and you know. We'll be accepted as a worthy Test but it's simply not the same. Whose to say Warner&Hughes won't both get opening double tons against us again.

I generelly tone it down but there are instance where circumstances fan the flames of a uncouth spirit. It's upsetteing whensomeone reads too much into things and makes a meal out of nothing. Reading carefully precedes understanding, so when when that is overlooked then the purpose is lost.

[foreignfield]

Point equally taken hhm. I doubt one could bowl Pricey into the ground anyway.

[eugene]

Most allrounders (pace or spinner) wouldn't make the very top sides on their batting alone - hence why they are allrounders. Sir Ian Botham averaged about 33 with the bat in tests, that would certainly put him in the picture for national selection as a batsman, but his place would hardly be secure.

[hhm]

Most allrounders (pace or spinner) wouldn't make the very top sides on their batting alone - hence why they are allrounders. Sir Ian Botham averaged about 33 with the bat in tests, that would certainly put him in the picture for national selection as a batsman, but his place would hardly be secure.

A lot of the whole spinner-allrounder/seamer-allrounder comparison in Test teams is really entirely up to one's outlook or opinion on things. From what I've observed in international test cricket to this point, seamer all-rounders are superior and more dominant than spinner all-rounders. When selectors sit they invariably look to identify a seamer-allrounder who can be picked in the eleven. In many cases it allows them to then pick just two other specialist seamers and a specialist spinner(however pathetic his batting is) making it a four man attack. The opposite is not true of spinners. Batting will never give the spinner a nod (as Johan Botha will soon find out with Tahir now around), but batting can, (as Tremlett may well find out with Bresnan firing).

[Conant]

How did my topic degenerate into an argument about Daniel Vettori! If there's one thing that's true about most sports forums it's that posters really like making a mountain out of a molehill. If not to prove an unsolicited point, it's a display of one's acumen. My statement was, I admit, casually open-ended BRM, but you know better and mounted an argument simply because you choose to, not have to. What I said about spinning all-rounders in Test cricket is a fact. They are really not regarded in Test cricket and the balance of a Test side will never hinge on them. Selectors would rather find a seaming all-rounder and select a specialist seamer. If he can bat it's a bonus, if not no big deal.
.

Very curious how this thread turned out to be one of a debate, nay argument as to what kind of player is qualified to classed an all-rounder, a spinner for that matter.

But all of this above is true of course, and as such have been quite unable to understand this argument or need for a number 8 batsman who can bowl; no, this bowler who bats at number 8!! Huh, what am I saying?? I am confused by it all, quite mystified!!

Eternally cricket has always been played by 11 people in a team, five batsmen, five bowlers (including an all-rounder) and a wicketkeeper, now a wicketkeeper who can bat. Seldom do you find them batting lower than 7 even six nowadays; but once, like Jack Russell and Rashid Latif of Pakistan, these wicketkeepers used to bat at 8, at 9.

No doubt cricket has evolved and as such also evolved the need to find wicketkeepers who could bat hence Adam Gilchrist, but there were already more before him of course. As such again perhaps cricket will evolve one day to demand 11 players who can a bat and bowl, other than the keeper.

But until then there requires an existing formula: 5 batsmen, a batting wicketkeeper an all rounder, normally a seeming all-rounder, and other four specialist bowlers. On may be a spinner or two of them, I don’t know.

But there is an irrefutable truth in what hhm, is saying.

A fast bowling all-rounder has always been better regarded that a batting off spinner or leg spinner. Whether this is correct or not I do not know; all a spinner is required to do in Test cricket to my knowledge is to take wickets, preferably heaps of them, like Murali, and hopefully one day like Graeme Cremer.
That therefore Cremer can also bat at 8 is incidental, it does not matter.

To go therefore to this puzzling argument about Proper batting at 8? For what purpose precisely, when you have you six batsmen plus the all rounder Chigumbura?? True, tail end batsmen now bring a little more value to the team, like Stuart Broad: but their functions remain eternally the same: strike, and get wickets. When Broad ceases to do this, he will be dropped. Hell not even Shaun Pollock was able to remain in the team once his value as a bowler was considered redundant. Again here people remember that I do not judge or considering the merits of each decision, just stating the trend worldwide.

But for this argument: why Meth, why not Utseya, or vice versa. Simply because Meth, a fast bowler or medium pace whichever you will (you don’t want to start another childish one on why I classified Meth a fast bowler!!

He offers more value that Utseya. Even if he couldn’t bat, but if he was taking wickets he will still go in ahead of Utseya, simply be because he is a fast bowler. They are four fast bowlers first in a team and THEN a spinner or two if you are in the subcontinent and in our case at Queens. That is the trend.

Puzzling however is this from hhm :

Boundary, you're not disagreeing with me. You are reaffirming a lot of what I said.

But, the top order wasn't in a mess. Taylor said he prefers to open, I wonder who or what changed that. In the absence of the injured Duffin, Hamilton has been opening with him in the past, so that was settled from that standpoint. Vusi should not be opening. The only concern was a middle order batsman to replace Williams. Only Mutizwa, Ewing & Waller were the options.

If Taibu was unavailable then Taylor should have kept wicket once he recovered. Again he said his preferred fielding position is to keep wicket.

When precisely and is it on record did Taylor say he preferred to open in TEST cricket??


As far as I know we at zimcricketforums have elevated him thus, if that is indeed an elavation, simply because of the glaring gap identified and incompetency of the rest at that position.


But again remains this irrefutable truth: the best batsmen in any team have always batted at four or five and been cushioned against the new ball. Brian Lara, Sachin Tendulkar, for a brief period David Gower, Aleck Stewart, Andy Flower, Dave Houghton, are examples among many. This is irrefutable. Virender Sewhag and Tamim Iqbal are an exception: India because they have simply not lacked a middle order, as for Bangladesh, for whatever reason.
Tendulkar will open in a one day: he simply cannot be risked in tests.


Simply put, the spot for openers are the ones that nobody wants so which will thereferore be competed over by the next batch of competent batsmen, after Taylor, Masakadza, and Sean Williams. When then did Tyalor decide that opening was best for him in Test cricket when he spent the better part of last season of franchise cricket cushioned in the middle order?

Like I said before one day when Vusi comes of age he will say I have proved myself, my wicket is too valued now: somebody else need to open.

Cue Chibhabha, Razza, at al.

[hhm]

Very interesting! And expertly put together as well Conant. All the more so when I would rate you as my greatest detractor in this forum!

No doubt cricket has evolved and as such also evolved the need to find wicketkeepers who could bat hence Adam Gilchrist

I'll hand the mention of Cremer to you, but do you hold an Aussie passport mate or did the black armband fiasco erase your memory of the man who has so aptly led the charge to break the aura of my beloved Aussies, and dispelled the myth that India were the number one side let alone in the top two. One of our national symbols the lily should nurse your tender memory which, in the context, briefly returned at the less distinct part of your post.

When precisely and is it on record did Taylor say he preferred to open in TEST cricket??

No doubt opening duties were thrust upon him initially, but the following should give an indication of his preference to open the batting, as well as keep wicket. But of course he's glad to concede that duty to the more-experienced[capable] Taibu(not Chakabva!).
http://www.dailynews.co.zw/index.php/sp ... aylor.html

[hhm]

Still a holey middle order The recently recovered Tatenda Taibu, although a fortress, will inevitably be rusty. Despite his failures Ervine will still be picked for the Test to replicate his wretched run. Crap isn’t it! Any of Chakabva, Mutizwa, Waller, Chibhabha & Raza is either unsuitable or too underdone to succeed. Experience is lacked, but none is sought while we see the likes of Gavin Ewing & Stuart Matsikenyeri lie idle;

I get the sense you don't have the same belief in Craig Ervine as I do? Some players crumble when it comes to the real thing after looking great in practice matches (Vusi has a history of this), while others rise to the occasion only when the stakes are at their very highest.

I agree with you here. We should not look too much into these warm-ups and there is no denying about Craig's talent. I am though very pessimist when it comes to noises about Matsi and Panyangara. I think we should move forward, no point in discussing same names in all threads.

Well, one down, next up Vitori! eugene & Dr_Situ What say you fellas?

[eugene]

Ervine is one of the few batsmen who actually got out to a decent delivery. His form is obviously a concern however.