[Match Thread] Zimbabwe v New Zealand: Test Match

[bayhaus]

rewind to the shoot out 3rd ODI, Ncube took 3 NZ wickets and Meth got taken apart for none...based on that I can live with the decision.

If Ncube and Meth were had equal first class records then the shoot out would be cool. But if not then shoot outs will decide positions while those who have performed over a period of time are sidelined, potential confidence crusher.

[FlowerPower]

rewind to the shoot out 3rd ODI, Ncube took 3 NZ wickets and Meth got taken apart for none...based on that I can live with the decision.

If Ncube and Meth were had equal first class records then the shoot out would be cool. But if not then shoot outs will decide positions while those who have performed over a period of time are sidelined, potential confidence crusher.

Valid point. I was merely giving a plausible explanation as to why things would have gone that way, not that I condone it or happy with it. Merely giving possible logic, and to be honest the more I think of it the more I like it. Was watching the '94 B&H series between Aus and Proteas, and a young Darly Cullinan was being bamboozled by Shane Warne, and he was having a nightmare, imagine if Darly was spared the mental scars once he was found to have a weakness against Warne, so as terrible/unfair as it may seem maybe sparing Meth the tourment of facing Guptil and co who evidently have his number was a masterstroke and Ncube who showed ability to get them out (3 out of how many in total for the whole series? less than 10?) made sense. Look I don't select so don't take my word for it, I'm as clueless as you are but if that is the reason, I'd say brilliant move, I as a Meth fan would have hated to see him fetch more so that we went with no seam allrounder...

Personally I'm sure you now know my view all these kids have a great future ahead of them (Jarvis, Vitori, Meth, Ncube, Chatara, Chinouya, Querl, etc) IF they are handled well, which means taking our time about them and letting them come through naturally and in a controlled manner, not this "wow, you look good...wanna have a try" attitude, like I said in the other post, I rate these kids highly and Zim seam bowling future looks exciting, but it's just that, the future. Currently they are rough diamonds, which will not fetch full value if "sold" now, but if we take our time to polish them, they will be our lifeline tomorrow. Maybe its just me and I'm old fashioned, but I have problems with the world today and this instant gratification, T20 over Test cricket, everything now, now...chop chop, quick fix...Look prodigies do exist by all means let them through, but a whole attack emerging and taking over at the same time, all less than 3 years first class experience...I have reservations.

[eugene]

The problem is that we are assuming the 'more experienced' would do any better and haven't been scarred by prior defeats. Players like Jarvis have already tasted more victories and psychological highs than Rainsford and Panyangara. If anyone will be emotionally scarred and a shell of their formerselves it is the generation of cricketers who were playing for Zimbabwe between 2004-09.

[sscricket]

Guys I support India and tuned in to watch the match yesterday hoping for entertainment.

I have seen Meth bowl only twice and clearly he was troubling both Guptill and McCullum than any bowler I have seen.
The only reason he did not get wickets was because Mpofu was leaking runs at the other end and the umpire turned down
appeals just like he did yesterday.

Ncube got a couple of wickets but that was only because the batsmen were going after him. It is shocking the selectors cannot see who the better bowler is.

In a test match situation I can see Meth tormenting batsmen for long periods. You cannot see him off like in one dayers. All international batsmen have problems with swing (except Dravid) no matter how good they are. This is because there are not many genuine swing bowlers around any more.

The attack looks totally one dimensional, no swing no reverse swing no turn. NZ will not lose this game even though their attack is equally worse. Any first class side from Aus or South Africa will beat NZ.

Chakabwa should be playing club cricket. I dont understand how he has played so many games.

Average bowlers or batsmen will never win you a test match.

I am beginning to worry the selectors will not take Meth or Mutizwa to NZ next year where the ball will swing a lot more and it will be a lot more entertaining to watch.

[brmtaylor.com admin]

I didn't see any of the game, so I just looked at the scorecard for the first time now. I'm shocked by the Chakabva inclusion over Mutizwa; I think that is a pearler of a mistake. Gone are the days when you can pick specialist wicket keepers who can't bat. The jury is still out on Ncube vs Meth and it's unfair for me to make an assessment on Ncube without having seen him bowl. I suspect on paper Meth would have complemented Jarvis and Mpofu better but we will only know for sure at the end of the match.

But ultimately this is the team that has been picked, I am heartened to see most people are barracking for Zimbabwe instead of banging on hysterically for 15 pages about the unsurprising lack of ex-players...

Someone said on one of the earlier pages the match was lost at the toss - I couldn't agree more. Zimbabwe's only chance of winning was to score 500+ in the first innings. Now New Zealand will do that themselves, so a draw looks like the best result. Vettori will be a tough customer...

[FlowerPower]

The problem is that we are assuming the 'more experienced' would do any better and haven't been scarred by prior defeats. Players like Jarvis have already tasted more victories and psychological highs than Rainsford and Panyangara. If anyone will be emotionally scarred and a shell of their formerselves it is the generation of cricketers who were playing for Zimbabwe between 2004-09.

Unfortunately I think my argument has been convoluted with hhm's argument, undersatndably because on the surface they appear the same. The difference is the reasons for wanting experienced heads, I stand corrected, but what hhm says is the old heads are better, whereas I say, they are more experienced, and currently not hugely worse for performance.

[Sorry to burst your bubble BRMT, here comes a 15pager about a=old heads, just saw your post before submitting this one, but please indulge me and give it consideration and give me your thoughts]


So I in no way say Panyangara is a better bowler than Vitori for example, or Rainsford is better than Jarvis, or Mpofu better than Ncube, etc..I am merely saying talented as these youngsters are they are not ready. As has been shown in the instances they have been taken apart. Its not that they dont have the talent, but they dont have the experience. I even gave a nice chronological example of two great fast bowling nations, Aus and SA who manage their bowling very well, you had Matthews helping out Donald, who in turn ushered in Pollock, and then Ntini, who in turn saw the immergence of with Dale Steyn, then Morkel, currently Tsotsobe is being shoed in and there abouts you have Theron and Parnell understudying them. No matter how impressive, the Proteas would never rush Parnel and Rusty Tsotsobe through (unfortunately that is not the best example as Dale and Morne are quality and it would take an exceptional youndg talent to dislodge them).

You have a progression as opposed to a sudden influx of inexperience. I also acknowledge there is room for prodigy (e.g. Amir sadly for Pakistan cut short, Broad for England, etc) by all means put them through, but a glut of four fresh bowlers at the same time (Ncube, Meth, Jarvis, Vitori, for example)? Irrespective of how talented they are, you are courting problems and confidence punishment and that is shortsightedness and irresponsible.

The only country that has done that in the recent is Zim, post 2004 and we know why that had to happen, but now we are under no pressure to do so. Rainsford showed he is able to bowl at this level (albeit coming from injury) in the practice game, so I don't think throwing him in with Mpofu and Jarvis/Ncube/Meth would have been a bad move. Let the youngsters come through naturally rather than rush them through, they can compete for the third seam slot in the team, play the bulk of tour matches and tour in the A team and gradually shunt Rainsford/Mpofu out as they become more assured and consistant, they are after all only 20 - 23, its not as if their biological clocks are ticking, there is more time than we seem to make it look like. Let Heath work his magic under no artificial pressure, and I will guarantee you in 2/3 years time we will spoilt for choice, and boast one of the best attacks around.

What I'm saying is, give the lads a chance to learn their trade, they are undeniably talented, but way too green and if we dont handle them correctly we may lose a golden opportunity, I'd say for a while why dont we have for our 3 man pace attack:

Mpofu (focal point); one of Rainsford/Panyangara/Masakadza; one from Jarvis/Vitori/Ncube/Chatara/Chinouya/Querl (rotate these to give experience make this the core of the A team, and make sure they play a lot of FC cricket, and in 2 years we'll have embarrassing wealth of talent and experience); Chigs (pace all rounder)

[hhm]

The problem is that we are assuming the 'more experienced' would do any better and haven't been scarred by prior defeats. Players like Jarvis have already tasted more victories and psychological highs than Rainsford and Panyangara. If anyone will be emotionally scarred and a shell of their formerselves it is the generation of cricketers who were playing for Zimbabwe between 2004-09.

Unfortunately I think my argument has been convoluted with hhm's argument, undersatndably because on the surface they appear the same. The difference is the reasons for wanting experienced heads, I stand corrected, but what hhm says is the old heads are better, whereas I say, they are more experienced, and currently not hugely worse for performance.

First of all 2004/5 is 6 years ago when Rainsford/Panyangara were 20 years old, this is now! As of now they haven't appered on the same platform so let's agree to disagree. Because we're all debating from questionable angles.

Fact is , ten years down the line IF Jarvis, Vitori & Ncube etc have not hit the required strides, history & stats will judge them to be worse bowlers than Rainsford. Period. 200odd wickets @20odd with a 2odd economy. They don't have the FC record and they are doing nothing in the international scene to give the impression that will turn the corner soon - so much so that their internatinal records will be relatively comparable albeit with a hugely inferior FC record. If you don't do the hard yards early on, even your legacy will remain questionable. That's what will count when we/our kids will be discussing Zim legends in the ZCF 10-20 years from now. They will be a Watambwa, while these 'mature' guys you shun will be an Olonga!

[FlowerPower]

The problem is that we are assuming the 'more experienced' would do any better and haven't been scarred by prior defeats. Players like Jarvis have already tasted more victories and psychological highs than Rainsford and Panyangara. If anyone will be emotionally scarred and a shell of their formerselves it is the generation of cricketers who were playing for Zimbabwe between 2004-09.

Unfortunately I think my argument has been convoluted with hhm's argument, undersatndably because on the surface they appear the same. The difference is the reasons for wanting experienced heads, I stand corrected, but what hhm says is the old heads are better, whereas I say, they are more experienced, and currently not hugely worse for performance.

First of all 2004/5 is 6 years ago when Rainsford/Panyangara were 20 years old, this is now! As of now they haven't appered on the same platform so let's agree to disagree. Because we're all debating from questionable angles.

Fact is , ten years down the line IF Jarvis, Vitori & Ncube etc have not hit the required strides, history & stats will judge them to be worse bowlers than Rainsford. Period. 200odd wickets @20odd with a 2odd economy. They don't have the FC record and they are doing nothing in the international scene to give the impression that will turn the corner soon - so much so that their internatinal records will be relatively comparable albeit with a hugely inferior FC record. If you don't do the hard yards early on, even your legacy will remain questionable. That's what will count when we/our kids will be discussing Zim legends in the ZCF 10-20 years from now. They will be a Watambwa, while these 'mature' guys you shun will be an Olonga!

Are we therefore in agreement hhm? Or do we still differ? I tend to say we somewhat agree for different reasons, I'll take that and more importantly what do you make of my blueprint for our seam attack future?

[Jemisi]

I didn't see any of the game, so I just looked at the scorecard for the first time now. I'm shocked by the Chakabva inclusion over Mutizwa; I think that is a pearler of a mistake. Gone are the days when you can pick specialist wicket keepers who can't bat. The jury is still out on Ncube vs Meth and it's unfair for me to make an assessment on Ncube without having seen him bowl. I suspect on paper Meth would have complemented Jarvis and Mpofu better but we will only know for sure at the end of the match.

But ultimately this is the team that has been picked, I am heartened to see most people are barracking for Zimbabwe instead of banging on hysterically for 15 pages about the unsurprising lack of ex-players...

Someone said on one of the earlier pages the match was lost at the toss - I couldn't agree more. Zimbabwe's only chance of winning was to score 500+ in the first innings. Now New Zealand will do that themselves, so a draw looks like the best result. Vettori will be a tough customer...

The game isn't lost. NZ will get over confident. They will declare for 500 give or take. We will then only need to manage 650ish, and knock them over in a couple of sessions on a worn day 5 pitch. Vusi is well due for say 230odd. Keep your spirits up everyone.

[bayhaus]

I think that is a pearler of a mistake.

Mistake no. ZC just filling the quota for a bad decision each match. After that are the power struggles at play and trade offs for positions (if so and so play then I want so s and so in), anything after that is now where we can say there was a mistake...