[Match Thread] Zimbabwe v New Zealand: Test Match

[Dr_Situ(ZimFanatic)]

(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

Team A any day.

[hhm]

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.

You may not, but I do. Our poor XI team beat them for crying out loud! Are you telling me that attack is better than mine? Be realistic BRM

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.

Easily 600/7dec by tea in the second day, then a little over 3 days to bowl out Bangladesh for an innings victory!! Very simple, and no need to make a 'strategic declaration' in the second innings, which makes one appear bolder than they really are. As for the Rainsford bit don't oversimplify the matter - an attack takes wicket, not a man. Did Vitori take another 5fer against Pakistan?

You need to watch that Bangladesh game again because you seem to forget that Jarvis (& Elton) was the standout bowler for us, while almost all of Vitori's wickets were down to the Bangladeshis' poor shot selection! My attack would've taken 20 Bangladeshi wickets no doubt! It was a tired Bangladesh that even the full strength Tuskers would've hammered them! How they spanked our young opening seam attack in the ODI games once they picked up, proves how easy they are to deal with.

[brmtaylor.com admin]

That attack certainly has more variation; Jarvis and Chatara can both bowl over 140 and get some shape while Chigumbura, Rainsford and Mpofu are 135 max with no movement. I'm not saying it's a better attack obviously (there's no Price for a start!) but a diverse attack means the batsmen can't settle which opens up more chances of taking a wicket.

If it weren't for injury, I would have Lamb or Cremer in the team somewhere for that very reason. I thought Lamb with his attacking lines complemented Price's more negative lines against Pakistan very well. Both are turning the ball different ways - it means the batsmen can't settle. If he was fit, I would prefer Lamb over Chigumbura against New Zealand. No matter what your thoughts are on Lamb as a bowler, he bowled very well against Pakistan and I was very impressed with the amount of spin he was extracting.

Cremer will be an important inclusion in the future. I maintain that a good team needs a good legspinner; but we'll overcome that hurdle when we get to it. I'm not sure how long he is out for.

[FlowerPower]

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

Thanks. Just wanted to show you can't surely be basing it on "form" alone, I always had your position, just thought saying it was based on form was not totally correct...

[Zimfanatic69]

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

Your side is interesting and, of course, having Matsi in it makes it appealing to me however I would definately play Tino over Duffin. Tino has done nothing wrong at all in his first two tests. Jarvis v Rainsford is interesting. I am not convinced Rainsford would take a hatful of wickets but he would certainly not go for the number of runs Jarvis would go for. Wicket taker versus containment. On bal;ance I would rather see Jarvis in there for his raw pace and ability to take wickets.

[foreignfield]

Easily 600/7dec by tea in the second day, then a little over 3 days to bowl out Bangladesh for an innings victory!! Very simple

Stop the press! Parallel universes do exist!

[Boundary]

Wicket taker versus containment.

You have summarised the argument succinctly there. Basically hhm wants to contain teams, lose less embarrassingly for a while whilst the proper team is being groomed. Hhm's team B will be a more consistent number 9, consistently competing with Bangladesh whilst losing to everyone else but less embarrassingly. Team A will pull out some stunning victories against the likes of WI, NZ, Sri Lanka and Pak, whilst sometimes losing badly especially against the higher ranked teams. Prodigy vs cool old head? I'd choose prodigy - one day we might be ranked 5th in the world! Team A plus Cremer is basically both the present and the future, barring injuries and tactical tweaks. Guys like Duffy and Ewing still have a chance to crack the team but I don't foresee wholesale changes from here on out.

[maehara]

You have summarised the argument succinctly there. Basically hhm wants to contain teams, lose less embarrassingly for a while

AKA the Kevin Curran approach. And we all remember how much fun it was when he was coach...

[hhm]

You have summarised the argument succinctly there. Basically hhm wants to contain teams, lose less embarrassingly for a while

AKA the Kevin Curran approach. And we all remember how much fun it was when he was coach...

You see! That's just it right there. You guys don't get it at all. Ewing might be chubby, and Rainsford might be disciplined but it doesn't mean this team is a containing one. What are you observations based on? I see Jarvis and Vitori get hammered painfully yet that's how you rate greatness!!! Vitori literally wished the ground would swallow him when Bangladesh smacked him all over the park later on and Pakistan made him toil with no success, while NZ are intent on on destroying Jarvis as did Pakistan (even Elton&Mpofu outbowled both of them - experience)! Is it the fact that they get pummelled so much until the batsmen haul out into the deep after having had enough fun hence they are more wicket-taking and varied in that sense compared to Rainsford&Co who are given more respect by the opposition? (I see you prefer Donal to Polly then!) These youngsters won't win at all! In fact, they'll be the Curran side instead! They will ALWAYS lose embarassingly period! These old heads on the other hand will not only lose less embarassingly against the top sides, they will beat a few along the way. That's your number 5 side. This is TEST cricket remember, don't confuse it with ODIs and T20s (Ireland, Canada & Bermuda). It's called maturity - stop living in the past - look at Vusi (surely your negativity about the rest must apply to him as well - why differentiate). If Vusi was left out and Duffin/Matsi was the one who was around of the 32 group, and played in the A series/ODI/Tests no doubt you would be saying the same of Vusi when I make mention of him in their place. In fact others were and no need for me to point out who they are all over the forum. Double standards! Be consistent guys! Anyway, the good thing is the next 3 years won't lie - a few Tests with short uncomplicated series from which to judge! Who knows how far into the 60s Vitori's average will have swelled!

[sloandog]

This 'team of youngsters' beat Bangladesh on our return test after 6 years....period. Explain that, considering the fact that you're so sure that this side won't win