[Match Thread] Zimbabwe v Bangladesh: 2nd Test

[betterdays]

I know we don't have anyone else but these two aren't scoring runs anyway so what does it matter.

It matters if they can't even see us to the 15th over ... which would make Taylor a de facto opener anyway so why not simply make him open!?

[Kriterion_BD]

It will be interesting to see how Taylor goes about this task. The requirement is really Herculean from him now, and so far he's stepped up to the challenge. This wicket seems to suit us more than the first one - I guess this is our "Bulawayo" Test, or conversely the first test was our "tour match". With Waller, Mutumbami, Chigs, and the tail there is still some batting left. Bangladesh will have to bowl out of their skin for a follow on to be a question. That said, with this start, I'd be heavily disappointed if we didn't get a substantial lead of around 100. That said, ZIM bat all the way down to #10, that will force Rahim to keep thinking.

I am quite perplexed as to why Hamilton gets so much adoration. His hundred against WI was ages ago, wasn't against Walsh or Ambrose, and he's a senior player. Hindsight might be T20, but I am inclined to think ZIM would have been better off axing him and giving his central contract to Craig Ervine instead, who would not have jumped ship.

[Jemisi]

Let's see if we can at least win an hour

[Trevor]

Hi guys...does anyone know if there is radio commentary link to this game at all? Im at work so I cant really stream and sneaking a peak at Cricinfo every now and then just doesnt work for me.

[Ming]

Guy, guys, guys...if we're going to make some changes, let's at least play people in their preferred positions. As unconvinced as I am about this, I'd rather have a Chari, who claims to be an opener that someone who doesn't play in that position on the LC.

[brmtaylor.com admin]

Mawoyo would make three batsmen with a test century.

Apologies to Tino, that was a pretty big oversight!

I know we don't have anyone else but these two aren't scoring runs anyway so what does it matter.

It matters if they can't even see us to the 15th over ... which would make Taylor a de facto opener anyway so why not simply make him open!?

Two years ago I would have agreed. I even argued the case here myself. Taylor opening made perfect sense.

But you have to admit that this is one thing that the coaching staff (Taylor said before the series his preferred Test batting position was opening) got spot on. The results speak for themselves; he averages 71.10 at #4. Just like with Michael Clarke at #5 really, sometimes the best thing for the team is to have a player in their best performing position at the expense of filling gaps elsewhere.

[Zimfanatic69]

It will be interesting to see how Taylor goes about this task. The requirement is really Herculean from him now, and so far he's stepped up to the challenge. This wicket seems to suit us more than the first one - I guess this is our "Bulawayo" Test, or conversely the first test was our "tour match". With Waller, Mutumbami, Chigs, and the tail there is still some batting left. Bangladesh will have to bowl out of their skin for a follow on to be a question. That said, with this start, I'd be heavily disappointed if we didn't get a substantial lead of around 100. That said, ZIM bat all the way down to #10, that will force Rahim to keep thinking.

I am quite perplexed as to why Hamilton gets so much adoration. His hundred against WI was ages ago, wasn't against Walsh or Ambrose, and he's a senior player. Hindsight might be T20, but I am inclined to think ZIM would have been better off axing him and giving his central contract to Craig Ervine instead, who would not have jumped ship.

Ervine has hardly been a resounding success at international level.

He took Matsi's place and played worse than Matsi did.

[betterdays]

I am quite perplexed as to why Hamilton gets so much adoration. His hundred against WI was ages ago, wasn't against Walsh or Ambrose, and he's a senior player. Hindsight might be T20, but I am inclined to think ZIM would have been better off axing him and giving his central contract to Craig Ervine instead, who would not have jumped ship.

It might be to do with the fact that Craig has only scored one 30+ score in tests and apart from the last one, his only 2 half centuries in ODIs came against Canada and Kenya (oops, sorry and one vs Pk (certainly not Akram and Younis though) whereas Hammi has hit 50+ in ODIs vs Eng, SA, WI, SL and PK (with some huge scores vs Kenya and a century vs BD).

[Zimfanatic69]

I am quite perplexed as to why Hamilton gets so much adoration. His hundred against WI was ages ago, wasn't against Walsh or Ambrose, and he's a senior player. Hindsight might be T20, but I am inclined to think ZIM would have been better off axing him and giving his central contract to Craig Ervine instead, who would not have jumped ship.

It might be to do with the fact that Craig has only scored one 30+ score in tests and apart from the last one, his only 2 half centuries in ODIs came against Canada and Kenya (oops, sorry and one vs Pk (certainly not Akram and Younis though) whereas Hammi has hit 50+ in ODIs vs Eng, SA, WI, SL and PK (with some huge scores vs Kenya and a century vs BD).

I always said, and I was proven right, that Matsi should have played ahead of Ervine as Ervine clearly was not up to it.

He is no loss to the team.

[betterdays]

But you have to admit that this is one thing that the coaching staff (Taylor said before the series his preferred Test batting position was opening) got spot on. The results speak for themselves; he averages 71.10 at #4. Just like with Michael Clarke at #5 really, sometimes the best thing for the team is to have a player in their best performing position at the expense of filling gaps elsewhere.

...with Aussies at their lowest trough in the batting dept while Clarke soars the tables it is not a convincing argument to me. If Taylor hits 72 every test and the top order get 30 between them (a hypothetical example) then they've got it wrong - especially if he can hit 40 at the top and someone else hits 30 at 4 (that's 80 runs for two wickets every match) better than 90/5?