Test Squad for NZ Test Announced

[aydee]

http://www.espncricinfo.com/zimbabwe-v- ... 38615.html

Updated squad on cricinfo. Now 15 man... and featuring Mpofu & Utseya...

[FlowerPower]

Good try Baiju, but I'm not convinced...

Appreciated Flower . Its hard to accept when some of our favourite players are not in the squad. Yes, I too like Rainsford a lot. I like to see him in the ODI squad for the next series as he can be very economical.
But, Meth has done much better than him in domestic cricket for a consistent period. He is better batsman too. I suppose, there is no harm in giving Meth a game just to appreciate his competitive spirit and big heart.

On the contrary Baiju, remember I even had the Meth vs Jarvis (that takes guts on this forum), I am a HUGE Meth fan, I like Rainsford to say he is a favourite would be stretching it a bit...but for reasons stated I would rather have Rainsford, largely due to how he has done vs NZ and how Meth has been taken apart by NZ.

For the record I RATE these youngsters but I do not think they are ready yet, and as suggested by my friend hhm Raisford, Mpofu, Chigs and Price would be a better attack for all intents and purposes. And also I don't go on how many of my favourites are in, there are plenty of my favourites that aren't in and for the record I'm advocating of some of my favourites to go and learn in FC (Jarvis, Vitori and Meth)...

But more importantly you still haven't told me why our most successful and experience quick was sidelined, want to give that one a go?

[EDIT] no worries I see he's been included...

[hhm]

I got to your post pretty late. You're hardly any more diplomatic as you accuse me lacking in that area. Just kidding. I only hope it goes some way towards 'redeeming' some of the guys from the path they're headed! . It took you a while

Yes, too upset to mention the Pro omission as well, Mushangwe is a leg spinner, and hence more an attacking option, but still, Pro out shown him...yes my friend hhm may say it was in a once off practise match, but fact is Pro would have been a safer bet...I hope these guys have the squad wrong, there's just too many holes...

I think that should be directed at your namesake Flower power. I wouldn't pick Utseya for Tests but I did say in the absense of Cremer, between Mushangwe and Utseya I'd pick Pro.

ANyway, It seems the facts were incomplete there. Having said that, we're the home team so what's the point of picking 13-15man squads on the eve of the Test. You do thta weeks before. Just select your 12 man squad and very clear about who's in your starting XI!

Some guys are concerned about the absense of Lamb (who is injured). He did well in the Pak Test, and again in the absence of Cremer, to decide between Lamb and Pro is very tight to call (assuming you want two spinners). In any event I would pick neither, and weven at QSC would go with a single spinner i.e. Price, and tell him to attack - he's done it before!

[FlowerPower]

I got to your post pretty late. You're hardly any more diplomatic as you accuse me lacking in that area. Just kidding. I only hope it goes some way towards 'redeeming' some of the guys from the path they're headed! . It took you a while

Only reason I said that is I see the value of your argument, and the way you go at it guns blazing tends to alienate those reading... I was a bit worried when I wrote it, but I'm glad you're made of sterner stuff ...good on you, but seriously conciser my advice

Yes, too upset to mention the Pro omission as well, Mushangwe is a leg spinner, and hence more an attacking option, but still, Pro out shown him...yes my friend hhm may say it was in a once off practise match, but fact is Pro would have been a safer bet...I hope these guys have the squad wrong, there's just too many holes...

I think that should be directed at your namesake Flower power. I wouldn't pick Utseya for Tests but I did say in the absense of Cremer, between Mushangwe and Utseya I'd pick Pro.

ANyway, It seems the facts were incomplete there. Having said that, we're the home team so what's the point of picking 13-15man squads on the eve of the Test. You do thta weeks before. Just select your 12 man squad and very clear about who's in your starting XI!

Agreed!

Some guys are concerned about the absense of Lamb (who is injured). He did well in the Pak Test, and again in the absence of Cremer, to decide between Lamb and Pro is very tight to call (assuming you want two spinners). In any event I would pick neither, and weven at QSC would go with a single spinner i.e. Price, and tell him to attack - he's done it before!

Really? I take it you haven't bought my horses for courses argument, spin friendly then include an extra spinner for a quick...tend to agree with the line of thought though Price>Creamer>Pro>Mushangwe (although technically it should be Pro v Price and Creamer v Mushangwe with Creamer and Price playing in my two man spin attack, and Price in one man spin attack (HSC and any quick anti spin surface)...

[hhm]

Really? I take it you haven't bought my horses for courses argument, spin friendly then include an extra spinner for a quick....

Nope, unfortunately I don't, and in the case of Zimbabwe, probably never will! I've got Matsi & Ewing in my lineup (or even Waller or the Cassanova), they can fill in the overs, so Price is good enough as the sole specialist. After all, it's not like we've got quality spinners to choose from. Cremer's been mauled before and we have no idea if he would be able to avert suffering the same fate again(he's a leggie so his best years are still ahead of him), it's widely accepted that Utseya is more of a liability in Tests, whoever said Lamb was a spinner - I thought was a first a pathetic bat then an accidental part-time, in the last couple of months more than a few in the ZCF have questioned the usefulness of Price. That pretty much substantiates my point. On that note I think it would be safe for you to accept that it's of no benefit to go into a Test with an extra spinner at the expense of a shorter tail (i.e. extra batsman). Even if we're playing in Sri Lankan pitches! The bottom line is in these kind of pitches we will never prevent our opposition from racking up high scores 500+ (so why bother trying ), but it's not a guarantee that they will fail to skittle us for little, so have the extra batsman like me and go with a 4-man attack 3seam+1seamer.

You know, I actually find it shocking that some believe Zim even has the luxury or should I say the right to be tactical/strategic in anything! We should always play it safe/conservative until we earn that right or grow into a position of some strength(perhaps that's why my pushig for the mature heads sounds foreign to most). Unbelievable playing two spinners! During the Streak-Andy era, and even after the rebel saga when Streak returned we almost always stuck to a 4-man attack with one spinner(the likes of Dabengwa and Ewing are more batsmen and part-time spinners) or even an extreme case where we didn't even employ a specialist spinner in Colombo but for some reason chose an extra seamer to a batsman. Whenever we were stupid enough to employ a second spinner it always proved to be surplus to requirements because one was sufficient, and we paid dearly for a long tail. Anyday, I'll take a batsmen who scores 30 runs in 150 balls, as opposed to an extra spinner who speeds up the over-rate at a high economy rate for little or no wickets! That only applies in Zim's case. Other teams can afford to drop a batsmen for a second spinner, but mainly they always go with a spinner plus 3 seamers.

[eugene]

Adam Huckle did pretty well as a second spinner.

[FlowerPower]

hhm one thing I can give to you is when you don't want something you dont want it...period nothing will move you, which kind of leaves me lost as to why we even bother discuss it, I mean its your way or no way unless I'm misreading something here.

....anyways just in case I have misread things and this is open to discussion. I hear you and respect your view (I'm not even going to attempt change your mind...near impossible!), but just a question, if you talk of a 4 seam attack, or even a 3+1 attack, how does going 2+2 lengthen the tail?? I just don't get that theory. you still have a 6 batsmen + 4 bowler set up + the keeper, so whatever you do with the 4 bowlers, (4 seam, 3+1 or 2+2) your tail is still the same, feel free to correct me if I misinterpret.

In Columbo your favoured 4 seam attack with smatterings of spin parttimers went for 586, not too sure who could have been our two spinners, but the parttime spin of Gripper got 2 wickets, Muthia for SL taking 8 in the match and would a Ray not have taken more than our part timer Trevor? Conjuncture I suppose, but more importantly this is a classical case of where 2 specialist spinners would be a great idea from where I stand.

I like your choice of example for the use of the 2+2, this is where a 19 year old, to use your term "inexperienced" Creamer (I also ascribe to the term in this instance too) was playing his 3rd Test vs a rampant NZ, Dabengwa (also inexperienced then) took 2...but I'd like to think Creamer has come a long way since then (2005) and to borrow from your theory should have a wise-ish head 6 years FC on, I'd like to bet him with Price tomorrow would be better than any 4 seam attack (even if you threw in Rainsford and Panyangara there)...

I also don't get this unexplained rule that for Zim, the only option is a 4 seam attack (on QSC?? ) unlike you I wont dismiss your theory but care to elaborate? I mean even the Proteas see the value of a specialist spin option, and yes the WC was ODI, but they even had 3+2 split, yes the Proteas, and we can't (correct me but spin was our strength, ofcourse 3+1 spin loaded attack was never going to work in Test, but from that to 4+0...if I may ask...I mean are there any sides without a spinner at all? Was trying to run through, Eng never leave home without Swan, Monty before, Aus Xavier (I prefered Hauritz), India have Baji, WI big Ben, lately Bishoo, Pakistan have Ajmal SAeed, Bangladesh the whole team... explain the great idea behind this...I am genuinely lost...

[EDIT] My bad...you are arguing for a 3+1 and where we differ is getting an extra spinner at the expense of a batter, which isn't what I'm advocating, I was talking of a 2+2 as opposed to a 3+1. In a 2+2 then a Chigs (a form Chigs) could be the extra seamer, so effectively you have 3 seam attack with 2 spinners, technically you don't need to grow the tail, just drop a seamer for a spinner and let Chigs fill any gaps left...genuine mistake...

[eugene]

hhm doesn't like spinners for some reason. Just like how no spinner could ever be classified as an allrounder.

[Jemisi]

I wouldn't pick Utseya for Tests but I did say in the absense of Cremer, between Mushangwe and Utseya I'd pick Pro.

ANyway, It seems the facts were incomplete there. Having said that, we're the home team so what's the point of picking 13-15man squads on the eve of the Test. You do thta weeks before. Just select your 12 man squad and very clear about who's in your starting XI!

Some guys are concerned about the absense of Lamb (who is injured). He did well in the Pak Test, and again in the absence of Cremer, to decide between Lamb and Pro is very tight to call (assuming you want two spinners). In any event I would pick neither, and weven at QSC would go with a single spinner i.e. Price, and tell him to attack - he's done it before!

I agree with three points in 1 Hhm post!

[sloandog]

I wouldn't pick Utseya for Tests but I did say in the absense of Cremer, between Mushangwe and Utseya I'd pick Pro.

ANyway, It seems the facts were incomplete there. Having said that, we're the home team so what's the point of picking 13-15man squads on the eve of the Test. You do thta weeks before. Just select your 12 man squad and very clear about who's in your starting XI!

Some guys are concerned about the absense of Lamb (who is injured). He did well in the Pak Test, and again in the absence of Cremer, to decide between Lamb and Pro is very tight to call (assuming you want two spinners). In any event I would pick neither, and weven at QSC would go with a single spinner i.e. Price, and tell him to attack - he's done it before!

I agree with three points in 1 Hhm post!

As do I!