Aus v NZ -Chappell Hadlee series III - MCG
-
@Bovidae said in Aus v NZ -Chappell Hadlee series III - MCG:
The bowling mix gets much more complicated when Mitch and Milne are available again.
If Henry plays he needs to open the bowling and then bowl out during the middle overs. He's never looked comfortable at the death.
Exactly. This puts him behind Boult and Southee for me despite his good record. McClenaghan is a ready made death bowler. On the other hand, Milne could go for plenty at the death unless he has a few variations. So, I wouldn't be picking Boult, Milne and Henry as my three pace bowlers either.
-
@Chris-B. said in Aus v NZ -Chappell Hadlee series III - MCG:
Yeah - although I'd argue that only a handful of Aussies really stood up - particularly Warner and Smith with the bat - Starc and Hazlewood with the ball.
None of Finch, Bailey or Marsh had good series with the bat. A few half chances given by Smith and Warner in games 1 and 3 desperately needed to be clung onto - or even more accurately, they were so tough that it was more we needed to somehow find a way to catch them (plus a straightforward one from Head dropped by Henry).
As NQ says: a team sport played by individuals. Sometimes it comes down to moments more than anything. If you want people to stand up over the whole series, nobody did in every game.
Marsh smacked 70-odd in Canberra to take the game away, was cut down by some flukey bullshit in Sydney, and was his usual self in Melbourne i.e. shit. So he stood up once, but that was enough at the time.
One guy who demonstrated consistency of effort was Travis Head - couple of 50s, and a 37, bowled tidily and took some wickets at the MCG when we really needed them.
Looking at the averages kind of bears this out: http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/records/averages/batting_bowling_by_team.html?id=11129;type=series
Top 5 batting Australia:
Warner - 299 @ 99.66 (HS 156)
Smith - 236 @ 78.66 (HS 164)
Head - 146 @ 48.66 (HS 57)
Marsh - 77 @ 38.5 (HS 76*)
Wade - 63 @ 21 (HS 50)** Top 5 batting NZ **
Guptill - 193 @ 64.33 (HS 114)
Neesham - 108 @ 54.00 (HS 74)
Williamson - 103 @ 34.33 (HS 81)
Munro - 80 @ 26.66 (HS 49)
Henry - 34 @ 17.00 (HS 27)Looking at the bowling averages is carnage: Starc 20.50, Hazlewood 18.83, Cummins 16.12 being the big notes.
Best Kiwi was Boult 30.00 followed by Neesham 35.00
-
On the bowling front - I think Smith and Warner batted so well that it creates a bit more disparity between the attacks than really exists. The Aussie bowlers shared 30 wickets between them, while our guys only captured 20 - so we missed 10 mainly tail enders.
I thought Starc, especially, and Hazelwood were significantly better than Cummins - though the averages don't tell that story.
On that note, I think someone said that Henry was the number five ranked ODI bowler? I'm thinking perhaps that's been inflated because he's bowled less at the death than many?
-
@Chris-B. said in Aus v NZ -Chappell Hadlee series III - MCG:
On the bowling front - I think Smith and Warner batted so well that it creates a bit more disparity between the attacks than really exists. The Aussie bowlers shared 30 wickets between them, while our guys only captured 20 - so we missed 10 mainly tail enders.
I thought Starc, especially, and Hazelwood were significantly better than Cummins - though the averages don't tell that story.
On that note, I think someone said that Henry was the number five ranked ODI bowler? I'm thinking perhaps that's been inflated because he's bowled less at the death than many?
Henry also has a great average though. Bowling first up with the new ball means you are up against the other team's best batsmen and you don't get the cheap wickets at the death. Starkest thing about Henry is how good he is at home and how poor he is away from home.
I reckon in ODI cricket we need player stats broken down by when a player bowls. Economy rate for instance is quite meaningless. Corey Anderson has an economy rate of above 6 but that isn't so bad for the situations he bowls in.
-
@hydro11 said in Aus v NZ -Chappell Hadlee series III - MCG:
@Chris-B. said in Aus v NZ -Chappell Hadlee series III - MCG:
On the bowling front - I think Smith and Warner batted so well that it creates a bit more disparity between the attacks than really exists. The Aussie bowlers shared 30 wickets between them, while our guys only captured 20 - so we missed 10 mainly tail enders.
I thought Starc, especially, and Hazelwood were significantly better than Cummins - though the averages don't tell that story.
On that note, I think someone said that Henry was the number five ranked ODI bowler? I'm thinking perhaps that's been inflated because he's bowled less at the death than many?
Henry also has a great average though. Bowling first up with the new ball means you are up against the other team's best batsmen and you don't get the cheap wickets at the death. Starkest thing about Henry is how good he is at home and how poor he is away from home.
I reckon in ODI cricket we need player stats broken down by when a player bowls. Economy rate for instance is quite meaningless. Corey Anderson has an economy rate of above 6 but that isn't so bad for the situations he bowls in.
Agree - a lot of the stats are simply not comparable player vs player.
Is my memory right that Kyle Mills also got to be ranked No.1 in ODIs, but that usually he bowled a long opening spell and rarely bowled at the death?
We also lost a lot of games bowling Harry and Vettori in tandem through the middle overs. They'd be relatively economical, but wouldn't take wickets - statistically they looked like a good combo, but in practice I think it was ineffective in terms of actually winning games.
-
@Chris-B. said in Aus v NZ -Chappell Hadlee series III - MCG:
Is my memory right that Kyle Mills also got to be ranked No.1 in ODIs, but that usually he bowled a long opening spell and rarely bowled at the death?
There was a reason he didn't bowl at the death. Think it was called Klusener ...
-
You'd need to tie yourself if knots on that tho'. Pre mid 90's opening the bowling was great for RR but bad for wickets as teams looked to accumulate & most teams opened with test quality openers, mid 90's to 00's opening was terrible for RR but great for wickets as everyone decided to toss a pinch hitter up there & opened by slogging etc.
By the last WC we were the only team opening with a smasher, but most sides had specialist ODI openers, I think they'd brought in the 2 new balls law a few years earlier? So bowling in the middle overs offered more chance to get seam but a less soft ball meant sides could attack - ie the Harris-Vetorri unit was operating with a ball twice as soft as our middle over guys are now using etc...
ODI cricket is such a tinkered with tweaked thing the stats across eras are meaningless
