[Match Thread] Zimbabwe v New Zealand: Test Match

[FlowerPower]

My argument has been based almost exclusively on form. Vitori, Jarvis, Waller, Mawoyo (for example) have been in better form than Rainsford, Panyangara, Matsikenyeri, Duffin so they should make the team.

I think we can't do that comparison, Vitori hasn't played FC since last season, and his last match for Zim was hardly a player on form. The old heads haven't had the fortune of international cricket, so comparison is a bit unfair.

Jarvis has played a bit of FC, same as Rainsford, Jarvis has 5 wkts at 28.2 from 4 innings, less than Rainsford's 7 at 21.85. Based on form, Meth with 12 from 4 innings at an average of 13.88, Masakadza with 12 and Chinouya also 12 should be in the seam attack, hence form wise as you suggest, this should be our attack? Of course we can't whittle it to just numbers, I'm sure we agree there is more than just numbers to it, so lets take the contentious pair of Rainsford and Jarvis, Rainsford should be partnering Mpofu who has 9 from 2 innings at an average of 10.55? Correct me if I am not getting your "form" logic. And if it's form we go by Jarvis in the last outing had no wickets and went for 9.8, based on form would you persist with him?

Mawoyo asides the 164* has little else to show, locally where we can compare, Matsi has been streets ahead, Ewing also ahead...so if we are to use form...

As for Duffin and Panyangara, I don't think they have lit the place. So based on form I wouldn't argue with you.

The fact that these youngsters are in the team, cannot be used as a fact to say they are the form players, on the contrary as shown above some are actually off. So strictly speaking I don't think you want to go the form route. Not only would we relegate the youngsters we could very well have a new team every series.

[zimfan1]

I have herd from friends in Bulawayo that Taibu is going to play after all and Nube is going to make his debut as will Mutizwa and that Waller and Meth will not play.

[brmtaylor.com admin]

I think it is unfair to say that if a player hasn't performed in their last outing then they are "hardly a player in form", but that is your prerogative. Personally, I'm looking at this season as a whole from the A-Team tri-series onwards. And based on that I think that Vitori, Jarvis, Waller, Mawoyo, etc have been showing good form at international level. Yes there have been matches where they have gone wicketless or not scored many runs but by and large they have been going well.

Raw numbers as you say don't tell the whole story. Players are required to perform a certain role in the team. So even if S Masakadza is showing a bit at domestic level, or even if Masakadza's domestic form is better than Vitori's international form, that's not to say that he could fill the same role as Vitori in the Test team (let's say fast bowler who can swing... or even left arm fast bowler who can swing!). I said form was very important (but Vitori isn't in bad form, so I think this is a moot point), but I also said horses for courses is a factor. Ultimately you can't pick an in-form player if they have no role to perform; otherwise we'd probably have eleven batsmen in the team right now.

I'm guessing the selectors do this: determine the characteristics that they think the Zimbabwe cricket team needs to perform at its best at a particular time. Devise the roles that best exemplify these characteristics. Select the best players who can fill these roles. Probably the best example I can think of is Mushangwe; the selectors felt a legspinner was needed, but in the absence of Cremer they had to look at the best domestic options. It also explains why an attack of Chinouya, Panyangara, Rainsford, Mpofu etc will not get selected - it's doubtful that the selectors will be on the lookout for four right arm medium pacers at the same time.

I hope that clarifies my position FlowerPower

[eugene]

I have herd from friends in Bulawayo that Taibu is going to play after all and Nube is going to make his debut as will Mutizwa and that Waller and Meth will not play.

Why would Waller and Meth not play but Mutizwa and Ncube play? There is something fishy with our selection policies. I don't know what it is but something is going on. Maybe bayhaus has a theory?

[takleg]

S**ty squad imo. I just hope the journos are wrong.

[hhm]

I'm guessing the selectors do this: determine the characteristics that they think the Zimbabwe cricket team needs to perform at its best at a particular time. Devise the roles that best exemplify these characteristics. Select the best players who can fill these roles. Probably the best example I can think of is Mushangwe; the selectors felt a legspinner was needed, but in the absence of Cremer they had to look at the best domestic options. It also explains why an attack of Chinouya, Panyangara, Rainsford, Mpofu etc will not get selected - it's doubtful that the selectors will be on the lookout for four right arm medium pacers at the same time

Despite the fact that you say you're guessing, you still devoted time in building that into your argument so,
1.are you personally in agreement with that approach? If so;
2.do you believe that is what's been happening on the ground so far? If so;
3.why do they bother then calling up and trying out other players who do not fit the bill in the first place;
4.which roles have the selectors sought to fill; and finally
5.under the circumstances, have they 'selected the best players who can fill these roles' for this Test?

Between you and me(anyone can feel free to chip in with their A or B selection), assuming we kept to these XIs throughout, which of these two lineups would have attained better overall Test&ODI results by the end of the NZ return leg (probably Ireland is somewhere in there)?
A:Selector BRM:Vusi, Tino, Hami, Taylor(c), Craig, Taibu(wk), Elton, Price, Jarvis, Vitori, Mpofu
B:Selector me:Duffin, Hami, Vusi, Taylor, Matsi, Ewing(c), Taibu(wk), Elton, Price, Rainsford, Mpofu

[brmtaylor.com admin]

Yes, it is the right approach and of course it's been happening. A more general example is: 6 batsmen, 1 wicket keeper, 4 bowlers. I think we can both agree that in a game of cricket more often than not that is the breakdown of roles. You can subcategorise them by attacking batsmen, grafters, etc or spinners, pace bowlers or go into even further detail like leg spinners and off spinners, right and left handed batsmen etc. Obviously I don't know how far any selectors go with this; but of course it is happening to some degree.

As to why they call up players who do not fit the bill, I guess you are thinking of a player like Zhuwawo who comes into the team with a somewhat undefined role. Only the selectors can explain that because your guess is as good as mine.

I'm not a selector so I've got no idea which roles they want to fill, we can make educated guesses based on the teams we see but that is all they will be. I listed a few examples above, I'm sure everyone has their own opinion on the sort of lineups or breakdown of roles they would like to see.

Finally, no I don't think this looks like the best squad for the Test match. For example, what role is Chakabva filling if Mutizwa is the wicket keeper? One can only assume he is a middle order batsmen in which case Ervine would be a better option to fill that role.

As for your team listings, if you are in the business of winning matches then the first list is more likely to do that. Unless Price takes 10 wickets in a match, I just cannot see Chigumbura, Price, Rainsford and Mpofu taking 20 wickets.

A more pertinent question is would the second list (Duffin, etc) have won the Test match against Bangladesh? We know the first list was able to. Without Jarvis and Vitori, would Rainsford have been able to take those extra 10 wickets himself?

[eugene]

There is no way Rainsford would have taken 10 wickets agaist Bangladesh. He would be lucky to take 2.

[eugene]

This team looks significantly weaker than the one that beat Bangladesh.

Be that as it may, in accord with your key reasoning it is in line with the esteemed progress to which you proclaim, towards a 'brighter' future and away from the 'dead-wood' which is not fitting to grace this level once again Enjoy . I know BRM is.

How is this squad in line with my key reasoning. My thinking is that you select the best players, Mushangwe, Chakabva and Mutizwa are not the best players. Neither are Rainsford, Duffin, Ebrahim, Kasteni or whoever else's bandwagon you seem to be on.

[brmtaylor.com admin]

This team looks significantly weaker than the one that beat Bangladesh.

Be that as it may, in accord with your key reasoning it is in line with the esteemed progress to which you proclaim, towards a 'brighter' future and away from the 'dead-wood' which is not fitting to grace this level once again Enjoy . I know BRM is.

How is this squad in line with my key reasoning. My thinking is that you select the best players, Mushangwe, Chakabva and Mutizwa are not the best players. Neither are Rainsford, Duffin, Ebrahim, Kasteni or whoever else's bandwagon you seem to be on.

I should have kept my reasoning this concise. I agree, well said