What have we really achieved?

[hhm]

What have we really achieved?

After all this time spent in training camp, facing the Australians and South Africa in the List A triangular, plus the added bonus of two First Class games against the world class Australia A side , what have we really achieved? What have we learned, that we did not already know? Is there much to all of these series beyond the fact that it was just a preparation? Are all interested parties wiser after this or are they even more confused?

In reviewing all of these questions I seem to arrive at the words 'No' and 'Nothing'.

As we go into this Test match our new captain, Brendan Taylor, has hardly captained the side much, meaning he also hasn’t played much as well. The trio of himself, Hamilton Masakadza and Vusumuzi Sibanda, has produced the odd half century interspersed with starts or nothing, but most concerning is this statistic: not a single century between them.

We did not need to solicit the services of a sage to know that Elton Chigumbura would drown under the weight of being captain, and thrive off it. Now that the term expectation is associated with Craig Ervine, it appears he is clamouring for the time when the word promise was synonymous with mention of him. Raymond Price and Prosper Utseya on the other hand, have remained the bedrock that they are, while Christopher Mpofu continues to grow in leaps and bounds.

Revelations of the past domestic season – Keegan Meth and Chatara, have had mixed results. The former has graduated, but the latter must continue his apprenticeship. Kyle Jarvis has proved that appearing in the modest club cricket setup in the unsung corners of the UK was in no way a humble step by his standards, but a fitting one. Persistence with Chakabva and Mawoyo was never going to yield fruit, while scandalously limited opportunities will continue to plague the undeniable talents of Forster Mutizwa and Waller. No doubt, the dark horse has been a left-armer who goes by the alien name Vitori. Injuries to Graeme Cremer and Terrence Duffin, it must be said, have been most unfortunate.

It is unacceptable and damaging for one of our top national cricket team players to switch to playing club hockey, especially if it’s not in the NHL! Yet all these things and many around it continue to cloud any bit of success that is there in a shroud of madness.

Many will be quick to disagree and argue that plenty has been accomplished. In response my question pre-empts: what are the results?
A weak opening pair Much was invested in Mawoyo opening and he has failed. His partner, Vusi, had of late been unaccustomed to opening hence the inconsistent results. In remedying that the eventuality will be to turn to the tried and tested pair of Hamilton & Taylor so what was the point?
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;
Questionable seamers Positives abound in this department, but then again, the ‘old order’ of Mpofu, Edward Rainsford and Panyangara is just as good or bad as any that we will or have come up with during this time; and
No all-rounders Only God knows which Chigumbura will turn up on the day. No rival was unearthed to light a fire under his arse!

My dear companions, the sad reality is that very little value, if any, has been added to the final product during this phase. Perhaps the exercise has left some battle-hardened, but that’s about it. Some characteristics for failure in the long run remain, and very little from which extrapolate an upward graph in most departments. That the selectors have on many occasions been unable to distinctly name respective sides ahead of time clearly shows their indecision and ineptitude. Some will say the players themselves made selection a headache, but is that really so? In the end, the very players who will be overlooked have had the most game time and least success. Those who will be selected on the other hand, have had the least exposure. Perfect preparation isn't it! This has really been much ado about nothing?

[eugene]

How we perform in the tests will be the true indicator of what, if anything, has been gained from these warm-ups. I get the sense you don't have the same belief in Craig Ervine as I do? There are many questions about the lineup which can only be answered in the tests themselves. 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. When you have such a small pool of international quality players - i.e. less than 11, there will always be some places up for grabs. I think it would be wildly optimistic to think that our test 11 will ever be completely set in stone.

[Dr_Situ(ZimFanatic)]

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.

[eugene]

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.

I can't believe Matsi is still being mentioned. The guy had eight years of failures for us - when is enough enough? He played 3 decent innings for us in an 8 year period! Craig Ervine in his short career has already achieved more than Matsi. Panyangara looked very ordinary when I last saw him bowl and Rainsford is an injury waiting to happen.

[hhm]

Gentlemen, had you paid particular attention to the underlying message of the article you would have understood its objective instead of arguing petty things which I did not make my primary concern Dr Situ. In no way am I saying the matches should not have been scheduled, neither am I implying that battle-hardening the players wasn’t the goal Jemisi. What do you take me for!

My point is we knew who our senior players are, and we knew who the core players would be. It follows then that we should have ensured that THEY play the majority of the games, and that in the final games we played, in both the First class and List A, something close to our respective First XIs should have featured AS A UNIT. That way the key players would have benefited from that battle-hardening process instead of players who we knew, for certain, are unsuitable at this level right now. Injuries and absences would have affected things, but suitable options would have filled in. Instead, what all this has done is waste time that could have been channelled towards fine tuning the core players.

Can you argue that there is confusion? One can easily tell from many comments and suggestions that in the ZCF itself there is a lot of confusion. Ironically, not too long ago we were voting for our First XI, now compare how you voted AND COMMENTED then, with the noises all of you are making now. Very inconsistent, and yet you expect the selectors to be any better! Yet nothing significant has happened since then to justify change in opinion. I remain consistent, and swiftly&humbly adjusted my negative views about Elton when he gave me reason to(as I will about Vitori), and that’s about it. Eugene, Craig is in my squad of 15, most importantly, in my first XI because I don’t doubt his class. I am simply pointing out the truth. Overall, he is playing rubbish at the moment but will still play in the Test and we will expect him to perform. On the back of this record he will likely fail again, and when he does we should not be surprised. Get it? I also subtly named certain players in full, and emboldened them(apart from the obvious Taibu whom I forgot ) to reveal a pattern to you – my preferred line-up and backup players: 1Taylor, 2Duffin, 3Hamilton, 4Vusi, 5Craig, 6Ewing, 7Taibu, 8Elton, 9Price, 10Rainsford, 11Mpofu, 12Meth, 13Mutizwa, 14Utseya, 15Cremer, with 16Jarvis & 17Matsi standing by as the wild cards. Wild cards in the sense that Jarvis is the only true impact bowler we have, while Matsi has experience, and is someone who can adjust to batting anywhere in the top 7. Don’t tell me the other try-outs have/will do better. They’ve been utter rubbish period.

The bone of contention you will inevitably have with me is my exclusion of Vitori. In this entire exercise I believe he is the only positive outcome and the only justification for going through this mundane all-inclusive process from the 32 till now. Of the others who excelled, we obviously expected nothing less, so no surprises there. But the fact that it’s one only out of this whole lot doesn’t invalidate my point. Vitori has done well, superbly really, more so than Jarvis. But in the long run Jarvis WILL BE a better bowler. At the end of our domestic season I’d say he will still finish behind Meth, Mpofu, Rainsford, Jarvis, Nicholson & Chatara in the wicket-takers standings and there lies my point. We can put a wager on that one. He has done well, but so have Panyangara, Mpariwa etc when they first got their chances. What attracts me to him is that he is a fast left arm bowler with the potential to be a good asset to us for many years to come. What I refuse to accept is that he is ready now, and I stand by the fact that it’s a mistake to throw him in now. I am not easily swayed. Even if he may well go on to do well in that Test, it takes much more to maintain that standard as it so often has been the case with all the players we’ve produce since the rebels.

In summary, the games against such top sides should have mostly benefited our core players not fringe players, and mediocrity should not have been persisted with! As it stands those core players were not improved as a team, as a unit and that will come back to bite us. Valuable opportunity misused. We may win against Bangladesh but get blown away by a Pakistani side much weaker than the Aussies we played. What then? Another high profile match against Ind&SL A sides? Just admit the relevance of my post.

[foreignfield]

Well everyone is entitled to their opinion. I only really changed my mind about Tino, because I would trust GF's judgement and thought it fair for him to be given a chance. He didn't take it. so that's that.

So looking at your squad:

1Taylor, 2Duffin, 3Hamilton, 4Vusi, 5Craig, 6Ewing, 7Taibu, 8Elton, 9Price, 10Rainsford, 11Mpofu, 12Meth, 13Mutizwa, 14Utseya, 15Cremer, with 16Jarvis & 17Matsi standing by as the wild cards.

this is the team that should have played in the first match against the Aussies (Taylor returned from injury for the second match; and with Ewing apparently on honeymoon I'd file him under "not available"): 1 Hami, 2 Vusi, 3 Mutizwa (wk), 4 Craig, 5 Matsi, 6 Elton, 7 Utseya, 8 Meth, 9 Price, 10 Jarvis, 11 Mpofu ???

And now feel free to question my intelligence

[hhm]

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.

[Zimfanatic69]

I can't believe Matsi is still being mentioned. The guy had eight years of failures for us - when is enough enough? He played 3 decent innings for us in an 8 year period! Craig Ervine in his short career has already achieved more than Matsi. Panyangara looked very ordinary when I last saw him bowl and Rainsford is an injury waiting to happen.

Matsi is mentioned as he is a proven performer for us in the past and he has got the experience. I would fully expect Matsi, if picked, to get at least a solid 40 or 50 under his belt. I am not saying he is the best player we have or merits selection in the side but he would justify a selection certainly if picked.

[Zimfanatic69]

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.

Matsi deserves a place above Chakvaba and Mawoyo.

[Boundary]

I agree with you hhm more often than not but not on this occasion. I take your point of disagreeing with the strategic decision of naming 32 players and using the matches to whittle down the squad to 11 or so. Now, since that decision was made, the TPTB have stuck with it admirably and from that point of view we've a learnt a lot. Questions existed before the new season and a semblance of answeres had to be found before the Bangladesh test.

1. Besides Mpofu, which other seamers are ready and what is their perking order? The answer was that Jarvis wasn't ready yet, Chatara and Masakadza Jnr not forceful enough for their cases and that Vitori, Meth and an in-form Chigumbura are lining up behind Mpofu.

2. Strategically, should we stick with a spin heavy attack or not? Not in Tests, and this was decided before any of the matches. However, besides Price and possibly the injured Cremer, questions remain about the other spinners' position in the starting 11. But the Cremer question was delayed for obvious reasons and the Utseya one noone is wiser. Should he compete with Meth for a non-specifed de facto 2nd allrounder role behind Chigs? Does he take enough wickets? (Yes) and can he bat (yes), so why leave him out? (because, um, we can only have 11 players on the field).

3. The batting top order is a mess. After the world cup, the Coventry and Masakadza shenanigans were the selectors' own doing. That panel was changed somewhat and the mistake (ie Hamilton being unceremoniously dumped) was reversed but there were still plenty of issues to be addressed. In order to avoid experimenting during a Test, decisions were taken and tried out under the Zim "A" guise: Sibanda to open (validated, so he will play), Mowoyo to open (invalidated, so he should not play but who knows!), Masakadza to bat at three as he does in Mutare (validated), Taylor at four (potential validated, but with the Mawoyo failing at the top, this experiment will have to wait). So all in all, a succesful endeavour.

4. Middle order weakness. This source of the Zimbabwe Collapse was worryingly not rectified until today, really. Mutizwa coming in at four and Ervine regaining some confidence is what the doctor ordered. Ervine was off form (my concern is about form, not long term because he's a find and Zim better hold on to this guy but he needs to learn how to convert decent starts into fifties and hundreds). Chakava at six was not doing any good to my nerves but Taibu was injured so I can understand why he played. And Chigs ....

5. Chigumbura. He needed to regain form because all our plans go through him. He earned a county contract last year, he bolws, he can score tons. Basically dropping him would've been like dropping Masakadza but he needed to avoid putting the selection panel in that corner. And he did. Success!

6. Who comes in at 8? I feel this hasn't been answered by the "A" series at all. Meth has made an impeccable case for himself, Utseya refuses to be ignored and there's a whole seamer/spinner ratio that needs to be taken into account when naming the whole team. So this was a decision put on ice until next week I guess but like I said in another thread, it's a good problem to have, for once.

So, judging the outcome against the specific objective of settling on a team based on results on the ground, I think this has been a success. If the selectors knew their preferred team the yes, playing that team as often as possible would've made more sense. But that would've effectively meant naming a 15-man squad (give or take) for half a season until the November series. I've tried to show that a) they didn't know their team and b) they needed to confirm current form and c) cast the net wider considering the implications of a busy-ish international schedule.