Craig Ervine - Debate

[brmtaylor.com admin]

Too early for a debate on Ervine while Waller's still in the team.

Ervine's a class player, he'll come good - just in a bit of a rough patch.

[TapsC]

Too early for a debate on Ervine while Waller's still in the team.

Ervine's a class player, he'll come good - just in a bit of a rough patch.

For me his place in the team isn't in doubt but I think it's pretty obvious now that number 3 just might not be for him in conditions which favour pace bowlers. Looking towards the future if we somehow manage to qualify for the world cup you surely can't expect him to play his best cricket at 3 in English conditions. He will be a walking wicket every single game. It's so easy for a team to collapse if your number 3 is shaky.

[brmtaylor.com admin]

If it's just about position, what about:

1. Taylor
2. Mire
3. Masakadza
4. Ervine

[Conant]

If it's just about position, what about:

1. Taylor
2. Mire
3. Masakadza
4. Ervine

I don't know if we want Taylor to open. Especially in England. But Masakadza really should be batting at three. Since he seems destined for 1 now, this is trite.

But who remembers me saying Ervine would be perfect for us if he could play the new ball. But he can't play the new ball, "he is a nervous starter, he is off form, he is a slow starter, he kills the team's momentum (forumers' words some not mine, some of them his supporters). So what is his use exactly?


My guess is he got a decent run in 2016 and he is riding on it. Conclusion: Really needs to work on his technique to keep his Tests place because eventually, within a year, he will be replaced in this side.

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.

Lol you need an eternity to work out Burl isn't a limited overs player.

[jaybro]

If it's just about position, what about:

1. Taylor
2. Mire
3. Masakadza
4. Ervine

I really don't understand everyone wanting to move Hamilton from opening, IMO he's the second best ODI opener in Zimbabwean history behind Niel Johnson, the way he hits boundaries at will with the field up I really don't know why people want to move him.

Although I disagree I can understand the want to move him to 3 in Tests but not ODI's

[grant]

There's hardly any lateral movement with the new ball in ODIs these days, even in England! Hami is the best guy at the top and I don't think it makes any sense to move him to the number 3 position, in ODIs.

[TapsC]

If it's just about position, what about:

1. Taylor
2. Mire
3. Masakadza
4. Ervine

This is interesting. I remember saying in an interview he wouldn't mind opening. There are pros and cons to it all with the obvious risk being losing your best batsman very early. But they should try it for a change. We don't want a situation where Craig comoletely loses confidence.

Is 5 too low for BT?

I was thinking more of a line-up like.

Hami
Mire
Tari
Craig
BT
Williams
Raza
Cremer
Vitori
Jarvis
Chatara


I honestly feel like PJ and Waller are just not reliable guys. Their inclusion only works when you have 8 batsmen because out 8 maybe 4 will come good. To me this is the strongest team we can field in the short term.

[brmtaylor.com admin]

Moor's a funny one. He's never really set it alight in the one-dayers, but whenever he's played a Test he's looked solid (and even attacking in the sense that he seems suited to one-dayers). But I think he's got what it takes... I mean, the conventional wisdom is if your technique stands up in Test cricket it should translate downwards into limited overs cricket.

[sloandog]

Moor's a funny one. He's never really set it alight in the one-dayers, but whenever he's played a Test he's looked solid (and even attacking in the sense that he seems suited to one-dayers). But I think he's got what it takes... I mean, the conventional wisdom is if your technique stands up in Test cricket it should translate downwards into limited overs cricket.

Would rather see Moor higher in the order. Being wasted down there with that 6 hitting ability

[eugene]

Yeah I don't know. I think Moor is best suited to lower order hitter, at least in ODIs. If only he were a better keeper - it would make it easier to justify his inclusion batting at 7 or 8.