Tristan Holme Response

[americanzimfan]

Thought I would post this in a separate thread. Here it is.

Responses from Tristan Holme
1) Given our performance in the last test against Sri Lanka and their current performance against India right now, is Zimbabwe still up for the test league?

Has it been finalized?

Surely, we are not that far off from teams like Sri Lanka and the West Indies. We can't get better unless we face the Herath's of this world.

Tristan Holme: It's a tough one. I got grief on Twitter for mentioning that Sri Lanka are a fading force when Zim won the ODI series, but we're getting a good idea of how poor they are now.

That doesn't need to take away from Zimbabwe's achievement and where they are at though. Zimbabwe's cricket system is still far from perfect, but improvements have been made in the last 18 months and we're starting to see that on the field. Now more than ever we deserve some opportunities.

This time last year I would have taken a demotion - even to sit with Afghanistan and Ireland. It’s not like we were playing Test cricket anyway. Now that we seem to be helping ourselves, we’re probably earning the help of the teams higher up. What that means in a Test league remains to be seen. It was put on the back burner during the ICC meeting in June because of the focus on a new ICC constitution and funding model, but I think we’ll get a clearer idea at the next meeting (in October I think) of what the Full Members are planning. I know that ZC put together a lengthy document for the ICC that explained why they should not be demoted into a bottom three. I don’t expect that to happen anymore - I think they will find a different model.

2) Apart from the West Indies Tour and possible series against Afghanistan are there any other series in the pipeline?

Tristan Holme: Nothing concrete that I’m aware of, but ZC seems to have been doing whatever they can to pick up some fixtures. As good as it would be to see some Tests (and improve on the zero rankings points that we currently have!), the focus needs to shift to ODIs ahead of the World Cup qualifiers. Let’s hope for a busy year in 2018, which could be pivotal for the future of the game in Zim.

3) Is there any more news on Brendan Taylor, Kyle Jarvis & Sean Ervine returning?

Tristan Holme: You probably saw Brendan’s comments in the Sunday Mail over the weekend, where he said that he’s still waiting to figure out his future. I’m pretty confident that he’ll be playing for Zimbabwe again soon - possibly as soon as the West Indies series. From what I’ve heard, he wants to come back and he is ZC’s top priority. It’s just a case of them agreeing on a long-term deal that gives him some security for the future and which ZC can afford.
I’ve also heard that Kyle is keen to come back, and as I reported there have been some negotiations. It may depend on whether ZC can afford Brendan *and* him at this particular point. He’s obviously contracted with Lancashire until the end of next season, so there isn’t necessarily a rush although both sides would like to make it happen.

I’m not sure what Sean’s contract status is at Hampshire, but he is less likely than the other two.

4) Also, is there a reason Zimbabwe and South Africa don't play more regularly?

Tristan Holme: Finance, I guess. It’s not profitable for South Africa to host Zimbabwe, and it’s not worth their while to send the national team up too often because their top players already face a heavy schedule - especially with the T20 leagues, which CSA have to allow the players to play in because they can’t afford to pay them top dollar. What is viable is tours below national level and we’ve seen a fair bit of that with South Africa A coming last year and the SA Emerging team visiting recently.

Hopefully, that continues. It’s an outside chance, but it’s possible that Zimbabwe could be invited for the Boxing Day Test this year now that the first Test against India won’t start until the New Year. Apparently CSA’s broadcast and sponsorship rights include a Boxing Day Test, so if CSA need to fulfill those obligations with a one-off Test then Zimbabwe would be perfect. But they may well come up with something else - like a North-South four-day match that would provide their players with a good warm-up ahead of the India series, and excite fans and sponsors more than a Zimbabwe Test.

5) Who is a better bowler between Hami, Chibhabha, Burl & Solomon Mire?

Tristan Holme: I’ve hardly seen any of Burl and Mire, so I’m not qualified to comment on this one, although I rate Chamu ahead of Hami. I’ve been pretty tied up with South African cricket since I signed on with Cricbuzz and hardly saw any of the Sri Lanka series, but I’m hoping to be in Zim for the West Indies Tests.

[pariah]

Tristan Holme:Finance, I guess. It’s not profitable for South Africa to host Zimbabwe, and it’s not worth their while to send the national team up too often because their top players already face a heavy schedule - especially with the T20 leagues, which CSA have to allow the players to play in because they can’t afford to pay them top dollar. What is viable is tours below national level and we’ve seen a fair bit of that with South Africa A coming last year and the SA Emerging team visiting recently.

Hopefully, that continues. It’s an outside chance, but it’s possible that Zimbabwe could be invited for the Boxing Day Test this year now that the first Test against India won’t start until the New Year. Apparently CSA’s broadcast and sponsorship rights include a Boxing Day Test, so if CSA need to fulfill those obligations with a one-off Test then Zimbabwe would be perfect. But they may well come up with something else - like a North-South four-day match that would provide their players with a good warm-up ahead of the India series, and excite fans and sponsors more than a Zimbabwe Test.

India have a much heavier schedule than South Africa, but have always found a way to tour Zimbabwe so that's not the reason. Even a weakened SA, just like India, would be more than enough (Reeza, Bavuma, Markram, Miller-c, Farhaan, Mosehle(wk), Morris, Phehlukwayo, Shamsi, Ngidi, Dane Paterson)

Cricket is now shown on state TV, and it's cricket actually has multiple times more viewership than pay-TV(Multichoice-DSTV-Supersport). More eyes means more sponsorhip revenue. Further to that, ther are plenty Zimbabweans in South Africa so a cricket match between SA and ZIM in South Africa, would actually have more fans than if the same match was held in ZIM. In fact, I think next to India, Australia and England, a SAvZIM match in South Africa would have more fans in the venue (particularly Wanderers and Supersport Park, to a lesser extent Newlands). Only reason why it wouldn't is because CSA would hide it at Senwes Park or something like that(just as they are doing with Bangladesh later this year - Bangladesh will play in all the s*** stadiums no one cares about ).

So SA hosting ZIM is quite profitable both on the pitch and TV. I don't think Tristan considered all the factors in that response. I doubt a NZ/SL tour to SA is more profitabel than a ZIM one.

[eugene]

So the big question I take away from this is if ZC can only afford one of Taylor or Jarvis which one should they take? I can really see the arguments for both, but perhaps Jarvis has the edge because he is three years younger and our bowling stocks are pretty ordinary. Then again, Taylor is a galvanizing force for the team and batsmen have less chance of injury.

[pariah]

So the big question I take away from this is if ZC can only afford one of Taylor or Jarvis which one should they take? I can really see the arguments for both, but perhaps Jarvis has the edge because he is three years younger and our bowling stocks are pretty ordinary. Then again, Taylor is a galvanizing force for the team and batsmen have less chance of injury.

Taylor is a no-brainer. Zimbabwe need an ODI/T20 batsman who can keep.

Question is where will Murray try his luck as a result of Taylor's return? SCO, IRE, ENG?

[eugene]

Taylor's keeping is certainly invaluable and means we aren't carrying a passenger with the bat in limited overs cricket like Moor or Chakabva seem to be most of the time. Murray is still very young (19) and could be groomed as Taylor's successor.

[pariah]

Taylor's keeping is certainly invaluable and means we aren't carrying a passenger with the bat in limited overs cricket like Moor or Chakabva seem to be most of the time. Murray is still very young (19) and could be groomed as Taylor's successor.

Time will tell. Burl too was talked up but he’s looked extremely out of depth.

[Kriterion_BD]

So the big question I take away from this is if ZC can only afford one of Taylor or Jarvis which one should they take? I can really see the arguments for both, but perhaps Jarvis has the edge because he is three years younger and our bowling stocks are pretty ordinary. Then again, Taylor is a galvanizing force for the team and batsmen have less chance of injury.

BOTH!

Kick guys like Hamilton (harsh, yes) and anyone else on central contracts who are 30+ and have never or only rarely won ZIM games in the past 10-15 years. I guess Chigumbura and Chibhaba already don't have contracts. Free up the moolah and dish it out to guys who are good enough to play county cricket. Its very fair IMO and more to the point serves the interests of Zimbabwe cricket.

[pariah]

BOTH!

Kick guys like Hamilton (harsh, yes) and anyone else on central contracts who are 30+ and have never or only rarely won ZIM games in the past 10-15 years. I guess Chigumbura and Chibhaba already don't have contracts. Free up the moolah and dish it out to guys who are good enough to play county cricket. Its very fair IMO and more to the point serves the interests of Zimbabwe cricket.

If that is your measure, then Hami, Chigumbura, Vusi (and Taibu & Utseya), have been better match winners for Zimbabwe than Sean, Craig, Malcolm and even Taylor himself.

Your response is very strange because Jarvis isn't exactly young anymore plus has nothing on even a 38 year old Hami as an ODI&T20 player. Madziva and Jongwe are actually better white (not red) ball prospects than Jarvis, but Hami must be culled for Jarvis??? Shocking!

[Flakeman]

BOTH!

Kick guys like Hamilton (harsh, yes) and anyone else on central contracts who are 30+ and have never or only rarely won ZIM games in the past 10-15 years. I guess Chigumbura and Chibhaba already don't have contracts. Free up the moolah and dish it out to guys who are good enough to play county cricket. Its very fair IMO and more to the point serves the interests of Zimbabwe cricket.

If that is your measure, then Hami, Chigumbura, Vusi (and Taibu & Utseya), have been better match winners for Zimbabwe than Sean, Craig, Malcolm and even Taylor himself.

Your response is very strange because Jarvis isn't exactly young anymore plus has nothing on even a 38 year old Hami as an ODI&T20 player. Madziva and Jongwe are actually better red ball prospects than Jarvis, but Hami must be culled for Jarvis??? Shocking!

Most of that was fair enough until you said Madziva is a better red ball prospect than KJ. Madziva is the definition of an average bowler. Trust me there, I've watched him live countless times. How you could say that just proves your bias. Jarvis is a very good red ball bowler.

[jaybro]

Hahah Hhm going back and editing his post after Flakeman quotes him