zimcricketforums.com

Ervine's form or batting position seems to be a hot topic at the moment in different threads so lets debate it here.

Form is definitely an issue at the moment in his last 14 ODI innings he has only passed 50 once and has scored 236 runs @19.66

Ervine was coming off his best 2 - season block in 2015/16 scoring 866 runs in 28 matches @37.65 with 2 hundreds ( unbeaten winning 100's ) and 4 half centuries. But how relevant are these numbers from 2 seasons ago?? Not nearly as relevant as his last 2 seasons.

You could argue it's time to drop him which on these numbers is fair, but what's the plan ?? You can't just drop someone with no replacement so I ask who is the replacement ? With qualifiers just around the corner Zimbabwe should ( and seems to have ) already picked the guys they think can help us qualify so IMO we should be doing all we can to make sure these guys are in form instead of chopping and changing the side.

We also must take into consideration Sean Williams is currently out of the side and with Tari & Burl struggling for form and not on tour we're already in the situation where we have PJ Moor & Malcolm in our best XI, thats two guys averaging 20 or less in our top 7. Ryan Murray is the only other option on tour so do we really want to drop Ervine ?? I don't think so.

Moving him down the order seems to be what most people are asking for but how far down do you move him and who bats 3 ?? The common 'consensus' seems to be to move him to 4 because he is a 'slow starter' and is 'killing our momentum' according to some members. But if a guy is a slow starter do we really want him coming in @4 when we will most likely need someone who can push the ball around in the middle overs or score quickly in a late innings run chase ?? This is where BT, Raza and Williams are perfect.

Stats also say Ervine is a much better No.3 averaging 36.25 with a strike rate of 75.36 and with two hundreds and two fifties ( 3 match winning and a tie )

Batting @4 he averages 29.53 striking @ 72.62 with just the four half centuries

So statistically he's a better 3 than 4 despite people claiming batting @3 doesn't 'suit him'.

Even if they did move him to 4 who bats 3 ? BT is the obvious choice and would require the simplest reshuffle with both players just swapping positions, but BT seems to only want to bat 4 although many of us think he could / should bat higher. So if BT doesn't want to bat 3 who does ? Tari seems to be the guy everyone wants to see bat @3 after a few flashy innings, Im actually surprised how 'sufficed' people are with a flashy 30 off 20 balls. Also by playing Tari @3 and BT bats 4 then Ervine has to move to 5 where is struggles even more so.

IMO I would stick with Ervine @3 for the remaining two or three ODI matches in this series and then decide whether or not he's the No.3 we want at the Qualifiers or if he's still even in the best XI, two more low scores will Test the patience of Streak, Taibu and the forum but if he shows something in the next few matches I'd be sticking with him for the Afghanistan series and the Qualifiers.

To be honest I think this thread could end bad.

Obviously stick with him as you said, people have bad patches, everyone does. If it continues next series we might BEGIN these conversations. And only the conversation, in my opinion he's got this series and next with no scores, plus no scores in the first couple games next series then cya. Even one 50 in the next 7 games gets him the all clear from me.

He's undisputed class and has done a lot recently, no need for this. Bad form though agreed

ALSO . No one sees to realise Moor usually comes in at 7, and recently (not always) that means trying to score quick runs at the back end of an innings.

Proof

How many times you seen him score 15-25 @ 100-150?

Exactly, I'm thinking his stats suck because he's a team player and streak likes it. Again, stick with him!

The problem with ZC is we hardly play enough cricket to figure out that something just isn't working. Its like we are reassessing players with every series, which are few and far between. To think Sri Lanka has played 15 ODI since the last series and we have played none. No one is doubting Ervine's ability but the thing is he is out of form yet we continue to pick him. I remember Hammy missed a few world cups due to his form. It also took us an eternity to figure out the Ervine just wasn't a T20 player. In Bangladesh we only have Murray as a possible replacement. I don't know if that translates to him been the best of the rest, something his stats do not suggest or perhaps the selectors missed a trick there. Having a Burl or Masukanda would have given us options.

It's a complicated one. I don't want him to get dropped because I know he is one of our best. I think that needs to be clear on my part. Well not until after the qualifiers at least.

I think the obvious quick fix for this series would be to swap BT and Ervine and then we see what happens. Ervine I guess is the ideal anchor but he has to work on that early play of his for him to stay in. You see initially people don't have a game plan for you until you start doing well. Now all our opponents know he is one of our best yet he has a clear weakness so they will always exploit it. It's just like how Bangladesh knew that Hami and mire are not the best players of spin and also how Sri Lanka now set a good field for mire. If your opponent knows your weakness then you either work on it or move somewhere we it won't be exposed that badly.

As for the momentum thing I will stick with it. The last 6 months or so have shown us that you have to be aiming for about 300 in every ODI now. Anything below that will be chased down comfortably by a competent team. To me the Ervine gamble pays off if he gets in because he can always catch up. But if we are off to a flying start then he comes in and we slow down for 6-7 overs (this is more than 10% of the innings by the way) then he gets out, it then puts too much pressure on the next guy in. I liked it when he was walking in at maybe 120 for 2 in Sri Lanka and there was less pressure on him.

Also a number 3 has to be able to play from the very first over and we all know how nervous we get when Craig comes on early. I know the stats say otherwise but I think this was because his weakness wasn't known to the outside world yet.

tawac wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 20, 2018 7:46 am

The problem with ZC is we hardly play enough cricket to figure out that something just isn't working. Its like we are reassessing players with every series, which are few and far between. To think Sri Lanka has played 15 ODI since the last series and we have played none. No one is doubting Ervine's ability but the thing is he is out of form yet we continue to pick him. I remember Hammy missed a few world cups due to his form. It also took us an eternity to figure out the Ervine just wasn't a T20 player. In Bangladesh we only have Murray as a possible replacement. I don't know if that translates to him been the best of the rest, something his stats do not suggest or perhaps the selectors missed a trick there. Having a Burl or Masukanda would have given us options.

This is all true. For the first time in a long time we are going to have a lot of games in short space of time. We don't have enough games to figure things out. Also how crazy is it that we still beat Sri Lanka after they played all those games?

Stick to Ervine , too few games to drop

I think 3 is the position where the team gets the most out of him.

We just need to relax a bit here and accept that none of our batsmen is Bradman; they will all go through periods where they don't score many, so no need to panic if anyone (who is a proven match-winner with the bat) goes through a lean patch. We've seen this with Craig before.

The question is how to get him back into run-scoring mode before this bad patch seriously affects his confidence. I believe we have some Pro50 matches scheduled before the qualifiers, that's as good an opportunity to spend meanigful time in the middle as any (I don't know how much domestic cricket Craig has played over the last 12 months? probably not enough for someone not in prime form--and probably not his fault either). But maybe he'll score a ton in the next match, who knows, "form" is such a fickle beast.

Ervine has been out of form recently, but even an out of form Ervine is averaging close to the overall average of characters such as Matsikenyeri, Sibanda, Waller, and better than Moor. Ervine has usually had big knocks fairly regularly, so his rough patches are quite noticeable. His slow starts must surely be something a batting coach could fix, he has the talent, but it seems as though he is never really solid until he passes 20 runs.

foreignfield wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 20, 2018 1:35 pm

I think 3 is the position where the team gets the most out of him.

We just need to relax a bit here and accept that none of our batsmen is Bradman; they will all go through periods where they don't score many, so no need to panic if anyone (who is a proven match-winner with the bat) goes through a lean patch. We've seen this with Craig before.

The question is how to get him back into run-scoring mode before this bad patch seriously affects his confidence. I believe we have some Pro50 matches scheduled before the qualifiers, that's as good an opportunity to spend meanigful time in the middle as any (I don't know how much domestic cricket Craig has played over the last 12 months? probably not enough for someone not in prime form--and probably not his fault either). But maybe he'll score a ton in the next match, who knows, "form" is such a fickle beast.

Wise words as always