Future looks very bright!

[Jemisi]

I'm hopeful we can beat the WI, but for the moment we can't lay claim to being better than them without appeal to wild nationalism.

[hhm]

just to be clear. I think the Windies are better than us ... with more promise for the time being. But we're moving in the right direction

I'm hopeful we can beat the WI, but for the moment we can't lay claim to being better than them without appeal to wild nationalism.

Common sense prevails!

[sscricket]

hhm,
you havent answered my question as to why WI win dont often (one day series or test matches).

I am not comparing the batting just the bowling.

It is hypocritical when you demand so much from the Zim bowlers but can live with mediocrity from (Sammy,Fidel,Rampaul etc) who had one 5 wicket haul in 8 innings combined as opposed to Vitori in one series against Ban home conditions or not.

If the reverse were true and Sammy etc (who are really good atheletes being passed off as cricketers) were to play for Zim you know as well as I do that you will be the first to turn around in a hearbeat and point the finger at them.

[betterdays]

I'm very pleased you acknowledge that common sense has come from Jemisi and I - who both recognise the gap is not insurmountable ... Jemisi (who is hopeful we can beat WI) and myself (who pointed out that BD would certainly have rolled WI over in the first test had there not been two days of rain).

are you refering to Bracewell's success (compared to in Zim) after 10 overs bowling only at Clarke (a 50 ave man), Ponting (a decade in the top 3) and Khawaja (who played Steyn and Morkel with some understanding)? I think Jemisi and I have monopolised the common sense on this one

[hhm]

hhm, you havent answered my question as to why WI win dont often (one day series or test matches). I am not comparing the batting just the bowling. It is hypocritical when you demand so much from the Zim bowlers but can live with mediocrity from (Sammy,Fidel,Rampaul etc) who had one 5 wicket haul in 8 innings combined as opposed to Vitori in one series against Ban home conditions or not. If the reverse were true and Sammy etc (who are really good atheletes being passed off as cricketers) were to play for Zim you know as well as I do that you will be the first to turn around in a hearbeat and point the finger at them.

I think we're all missing each other here. It's not about how I rate them, tolerate them or the extent to which I'm prepared argue on their behalf. I couldn't be bothered about how WI&it's players fare against other teams, but the main point is they are better that us - batting, seamers, allrounders and we can maybe claim the spinning department, but they will always do better against us, and better than us in comparison to how they fare against the same teams we play against.

If you have been listening to every other cricket analyst the world over, you'll have realised that WI, like Pakistan, have been plagued by player/board troubles, player dissent etc, not to mention injuries, and have often never been able to field their strongest team. If you have your best batsmen and bowlers playing together as often as circumstances permit, then you stand a better chance of getting the results. The WI have posted huge totals against the best teams countless times in the last few years, and they've also skittled out big teams - something which we can never do. Most top Full memebrs will often send weakend sides to face us, but they'll almost never try the same thing with the WI. That tells you a story.

True, if they were playing for Zim, or I was a WI supporter, then I would be equally scathing of those same players' shortcomings. The difference is, however, I know those players have the ability to do better and I'm criticising them with justification, but I don't really expect Jarvis, Vitori & Taylor to do any better than they did against Pakistan because they are at a lower level(taking for example both teams' performances against Pakistan - apple to apples so to speak).

Let's not turn this into a hhm&Wi vs Zim&it's supporters! The reality is, we're infreior, they are superior! Looking at our policies and selection approach etc, I don't think any of that will change at any point in the next 5 years.

....are you refering to Bracewell's success (compared to in Zim) after 10 overs bowling only at Clarke (a 50 ave man), Ponting (a decade in the top 3) and Khawaja (who played Steyn and Morkel with some understanding)? I think Jemisi and I have monopolised the common sense on this one

I'm not sure what you mean. You might want to unravel that to me.

[betterdays]

I agree wholeheartedly with the fact that, for now (well always - but particularly now with so little Int exposure) we have to compare our success with results of those we play against.

....are you refering to Bracewell's lack of success (in Oz compared to in Zim) after 10 overs bowling only at Clarke (a 50 ave man), Ponting (a decade in the top 3) and Khawaja (who played Steyn and Morkel with some understanding)? I think Jemisi and I have monopolised the common sense on this one

I'm not sure what you mean. You might want to unravel that to me.

I have added in red for absolute clarity ... to understand where it came from ... this:

Look at Bracewell! From bowling to Zim now and inexperience Aus lineup which absolutely crushed the bowlers we heap so much praise on!

I did look and the inexperienced lineup Bracewell bowled to in his 10 overs were Ponting, Clarke and Khawaja. the rest of the line-up that bowled, Martin got a wicket, was swinging it and 'quite' often beating their best and Vettori did what he does. Southee, who bowled well, was the one person we all agreed they were missing in Zim.

So, to simplify: Martin actually bowled pretty well, Vettori did ok and Bracewell, the linchpin of your argument, bowled at two of the most experienced (and successful) campaigners on the Test curcuit these days + a few at Khawaja who is clearly competant. A poor comparison. similarly poor is:

other cricket analyst the world over, you'll have realised that WI, like Pakistan, have been plagued by player/board troubles, player dissent etc, not to mention injuries, and have often never been able to field their strongest team ... That tells you a story.

yes, a very, very familiar story

and this:

they [WI] will always do better against us, and better than us in comparison to how they fare against the same teams we play against.
.

except that the only comparison we can make is BD, who we bothknow would have won the first test. luckily it rained and WI got a second chance.

[hhm]

I think I get where you're coming from. I'm well aware that Bracewell bowled to better batsmen in Ponting&Clarke, and very little if at all against Hughes&Warner etc. My point was I don't rate his fiver against a really poor Zim side by international standards, an inference to my fellow collegues in the forum that they also shouldn't be blinded by Vitori&Jarvis' fivers against relatively poor batting orders, under ripe conditions. I struck a parallel between how our bowlers totally failed against a quality side in Pakistan and then seemingly 'excelled' against weaker batting orders, to how Bracewell did the same to poor us(fooling the inept and fledgling NZ selectors), and is now predictably struggling(not growing/improvng) against Aus. The fact that he didn't get an opportunity to bowl against Hughes&Warner, doesn't necessarily mean he would succeed if he did and will most likely fail as did our boys. Khawaja didn't really do well against our young bowlers(well Chatara only), so that alters things as far as your view of him.

Anyway, in discussing how Zim measures in comparison to the WI, I see you have leaned towards the weaker, irrelevant Bangladesh and falsely claim that it's the ONLY comparison we can make, instead of the more relevant Pakistan. Even then you have focused mainly on the first match as opposed to the embarrasing defeat they inflicted on the Tigers in the second. Nonetheless that first match could have still gone either way, but I believe the WI are more than good enough to have gotten at least a draw had it been a full 5 days or chased down any total the Tigers set for them in the 4th innings. What in that first match leads you to believe that Bangladesh had it in the bag because I certainly don't see it?

I on the other hand would like to base Zim's comparison to the WI, by using Pakistan. You will recall that both sides faced Pakistan in the space of four months, prior to the WI-Ban tour. Why would I want to be a coward by factoring Bangladesh into any discussion of substance! In both instances Zim&WI were the hosts. In that two Test Series, the much maligned Sammy, Rampaul & Roach, acquitted themselves extremely well. Far much better in comparison to our bowlers, only losing the 2nd Test due to a batting failure. They drew the series one-all and came off the bigger winners. We lost in the first&only match at home, to a weakened Pakistan in comparison, and didn't have the courage to field a four prong attack(3seam+1spin) which I strictly operate by. None of our youngsters did anything commendable, besides Tino who goes into the Kirk Edwards territory so it gets even steep! The gulf between Zim&WI right now is significant my friend. Very significant.

I have every confidence that our young batsmen&bowers will also get better with age, and our team will likewise improve, but the same applies to Darren Bravo, Barath, Brathwaite, Roach & Russell etc. With all due respect, I don't think our future looks better than theirs, nor is it surrounded by class - Gayle, Sarwan & Chiva playing alongside it at present!

What I have always found disconcerting from certain sections in this forum when we engage in these kinds of exchanges is that they are always quick to point to isolated bright spots against a poor Bangladesh and a weakened NZ, but shy away from a weakend Pak(no Gul, Rehman, Wahab Riaz) who technically beat us by an innings; as well as an Aus XI side who pretty much beat us by in innings on both occasions inside four days - that second match when they beat us properly by an innings, is just about the strongest side we can field according to most of you. To this date I remain mystified as to why you choose to ignore those highly disappointing performances, and conveniently focus on performances against the weaker less relevant opposition on either side of those pathetic displays! I ALWAYS wonder............but I think my private assumptions are accurate!

[Flower power]

Left arm seamer.....Vittori your replacement

Smooth Action -Chipembre.jpg (20.14 KiB) Viewed 2614 times

Boom Boom .....Elton your replacement

379511_10151015009260298_854965297_22589849_1486540345_n.jpg (30.16 KiB) Viewed 2614 times

Need for Speed......Jarvis your replacement

375396_10151014952650298_854965297_22589626_1468309332_n.jpg (19.1 KiB) Viewed 2614 times

[foreignfield]

I struck a parallel between how our bowlers totally failed against a quality side in Pakistan and then seemingly 'excelled' against weaker batting orders, to how Bracewell did the same to poor us(fooling the inept and fledgling NZ selectors), and is now predictably struggling(not growing/improvng) against Aus.

Sorry guys to interrupt your argument, but really hhm, the way you frequently dismiss bowlers after one average performance makes me wonder how your teams would look if you were a selector. You would probably vow to only select "proven experienced campaigners" only to find out there aren't any, because you've discarded them all years ago (ok, I'm exaggerating) I would love to travel back in time and hear your thoughts about that blonde Aussie kid that got absolutely murdered in his tests: "Shane Warne, ah he's too young and clearly crap. The incompetent Aussie selectors should send him back to to Grade Cricket where he belongs. If he keeps going he might be selected for his Sheffield Shield side in a few years."

[betterdays]

To this date I remain mystified as to why you choose to ignore those highly disappointing performances, and conveniently focus on performances

very Zimbabwean characteristic. constant hope ... rewarded by hopelessness ... which we reward with more hope. a burden we carry!!

However, in the case of assessing our Test players we only have 3 opportunities to point to - none of which we looked completely outclassed - and then see how that opposition has been doing: PK have added Gul and done exceedingly well since (how does that aid your argument? - i left that out becasue I didn't want to bring a gun to your knife-fight). NZ , unforunate to get an Oz team high on drawing vs SA, have done no worse than expected; 300 batting while keeping them to 400 - Oz will wrap it up soonish (nothing surprising there - no-one compared our team to Oz). BD went to WI and were duly giving them a solid working over until rain intervened only to lose in the second test. BTW, I took your lead in comparing WI vs BD, though instead of jumping to the second test, i started at the beginning. WI's no more crushed BD than we did. So, in short; WI won 1:0 (like we did) they drew to BD, we never had to endure the infamy of drawing a test to such an 'irrelevant' side. They should've lost a Test, we were never looking like losing.

Khawaja has been rated highly by the Aussies for a while - no-one is flawless: you pick out a bad performance. i pick a good one. but I think to point to a Test match vs Steyn and Morkel is slightly more meaningful than an A game of little consequence, ... you are also guilty of isolated examples (one massive failure against Hughes/Warner - as better bowlers than ours have had before - forms your passion...thereafter reason will be its slave: to mangle the quote)

... you can very easily select just Bracewell's overs vs Oz and, using someone else's eyes, reach a conclusion it wasn't the 'nothing' bowling you suggest he serves up (the conclusion was he bowled well and was rather unlucky) ... he literally 'grew/improved' as the innings went on:
69.2 Bracewell to Clarke, no run, the ball of the day so far,
69.6 Bracewell to Clarke, no run, dropped, Bracewell's unfortunate once again,
83.6 Bracewell to Clarke, 1 run, dropped, Clarke continues to be lucky,

our bowlers struggled against a PK side in the same way that PK side (doing so well now) struggled - to some extent anyway (5 bats getting to 40 in the first innings) - against our 'poor' batsmen. [*edit: this point is to compound the one i made a few days ago that - going from the past two innings at least - the B'yo pitch had more runs than wickets in it]. I believe I judge from a realistic perspective (ie from where we were and what we really expected pre-test come back. You damn their second innings effort vs PK but I don't think it was THAT unexpected (though it was still disappointing)