- Apr 19, 2012
- 10,473
- 10,836
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
- Other Teams
- San Francisco 49ers, Hertha Berlin
Steyn at 8 has to be one of the worst tails you'll see in short form cricket.
-
LIVE: Richmond v Melbourne - 7:25PM Wed
Squiggle tips Demons at 77% chance -- What's your tip? -- Team line-ups »
Zimbabwe Tri Series: Australia/South Africa/Zimbabwe
- Thread starter The_Reaper
- Start date
- Tagged users None
tazzietiger
Premiership Player
- Sep 10, 2010
- 4,808
- 508
- AFL Club
- Richmond
In the final against South Africa
- Thread starter
- #1,003
Maxwell should have opened the batting right?
Very satisfying win.
LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
It has merit as we won't have all of Hughes, Finch, Warner in the WC squad. It is too top heavy and despite todays innings, Hughes rarely does it in ODI's.
He's had fifties in 2/3 games in this tournament. Recent form wouldn't suggest "rarely".
I wouldn't be surprised to see those three in the side at one time.
- Thread starter
- #1,007
Why won't we have them all in the squad?
Hughes would also double as the backup keeper.
What is your 15 man squad?
PTizzle
Brownlow Medallist
Phew. That's a shocking batting card for SA - thank god Faf had the kindness to stand on his off-stump.
No change for the final I guess?
No change for the final I guess?
- Thread starter
- #1,009
Four stumps for Faf in the final.
Wouldn't have thought so. Probably the best side we can put out with the squad available.
- Thread starter
- #1,011
Zimbabwe can still make the final with a big bonus point win
it was reward for correct selection but i didn't think any of the bowling was particularly good. Thankfully AB nailed one to square leg, Haddin took a screamer etc and it was happy days with most of the bowlers walking away with nice figures. they'll need to improve in the final.
LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
Warner
M.Marsh
Watson
Faulkner
Maxwell
Haddin
Smith
Bailey (c)
Finch
Starc
Johnson
Coulter-Nile
Lyon
Richardson/Cutting
No need for a 2nd keeper, we are playing in Australia, Smith can keep if Haddin so needs a rest! It will be his last tournament, he will want to play every match!
Our bowling is rarely good these days. I'll take the win anyway! Their bowlers weren't that much better... in either match.
- Thread starter
- #1,016
No Clarke?
Has Smith ever kept?
Why so many allrounders who aren't good enough with the ball?
HBF
Flying Scotsman
- Sep 24, 2002
- 156,160
- 100,963
- AFL Club
- Carlton
Good win last night. Pity I missed the last 20 overs after falling asleep on the couch.
LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
Bit of each way with Clarke, as good as he is, I rather Smith at 3, and I want him to keep playing tests for longer, Smith's leggies will be important. All rounders are important in ODI's.
- Thread starter
- #1,019
So a Kiwi bitsa lineup is the way to go?
I guess we had too many batsmen back in the day with Hayden, Ponting, Martyn, Mark Waugh, Bevan...
LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
All those all rounders can bat. All of Finch, Bailey, Warner, Watson and Smith are elite ODI bats. That is plenty, then you have Mitch Marsh, Faulkner as the AR's, Haddin the keeper, then the bowlers, whatever makeup you wish.
- Thread starter
- #1,021
Why do we need so many allrounders?
Why select our number 8 on the basis of his batting? How often should we depend on our number 8 to score runs?
It's even more ridiculous when Johnson and Starc can actually bat anyway.
Number 8 to 11 should be our three best fast bowlers and our best spin option or our four best bowlers. Faulkner isn't in that. Coulter-Nile probably isn't (especially if Harris plays).
Watson is a very handy bowler at ODI level and if he can't bowl ten then Maxwell and Clarke or Smith if he plays can do the rest.
So we select more allrounders? We should only plan for ten overs to be bowled by the rest.
LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
Mitch Marsh would be at 6 in my side, perfect 6 really, can bowl, good in the field and is a lower order hitter which is important. You can have an all rounder at 8, and I would rather that, against good sides it is good to have a bit of batting insurance. Johnson at 9, and then Coulter Nile/McKay, etc at 10, and Lyon at 11.
- Thread starter
- #1,023
Why do we need an allrounder at 8?
Wouldn't selecting a better bowler and putting more pressure on the batsmen by threatening for wickets and keeping it tight be better than selecting your bowler because your number 8 might need to save the day?
I'd rather select my best bowlers and select my best batsman.
- Thread starter
- #1,024
Look at our 2007 lineup for instance- Hogg, Bracken, Tait and McGrath.
The best four bowlers available to us at the time.
The best four bowlers available to us at the time.
LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
Go on tell us who is our Bracken and McGrath...they were the best two ODI bowlers by 10 lengths! We don't have 2 Dale Steyn's.
Each to their own, I would select an all rounder, you would go a bowler. Happy to agree to disagree.
Similar threads
