[Player of the Year] VOTE: New Zealand T20/ODI

[Jemisi]

Matsi and Rainsford are hardly excelling domestically so I see no reason to select them. Matsi had 8 years of opportunities, why give him any more. I can't think of any player ever who has suddenly excelled after 8 years of mediocrity.

Vusi?

[hhm]

Matsi and Rainsford are hardly excelling domestically so I see no reason to select them. Matsi had 8 years of opportunities, why give him any more. I can't think of any player ever who has suddenly excelled after 8 years of mediocrity.

Vusi?

Thank you!

Now watch them come up with the kind of magic that only Mudede can dish out!

[FlowerPower]

Hhm, now you're talking. Ervine has had a raw deal. We don't often drop test players averaging 32.

I think Craig is class, and yes maybe the drop (specifically for the Test squad, not so much the ODI) was a tad premature, as he had only played 2 matches (4 innings), but we must be factual about the average of 32, its a bit like reading too much into Mawoyo's average after the 164* (you must have a look at them they are quite a sight)....they don't really say anything, the guy has a 6, 5, 35*, and 49 (the 35* masking a lot).

Having said that, the only thing saving an equally famined Hami now is his 100 against Bangladesh, he and Ervine for me need to really work hard before the NZ tour to earn a spot, but I really don't have qualms with Waller getting ahead, he's earned it, and proved a worthy replacement. But I really do want to see a form left handed Ervine back, just can't see who for.

But his 35 was a genuine not out. He was likely to make more runs in that innings, it wasnt just being the no10 left standing when Mpofu gets knocked over. He would likely to have gone on to more runs in that innings and that is why averages work the way they do. I'm not saying Waller shouldn't be in the team, if you look at my picks, I have both of them in there. Reading too much into Tinos average is more about it being a standout big hundred which is likely to produce a high average that will taper off some rather than the not out.

But you are slightly all over, "Craig's average should make him immune from being dropped" and then next post "Tino's average is more about the stand out hundred"...argue one line mate... I say both averages are non-sense at this point and cannot be used as a basis for keeping them in the team, that there is my argument, nothing else...and I also said in another post, Craig was a tad unlucky to be dropped after two matches, but what I dispute is your use of his superficial (as is almost everyone's average after just 3 matches) and cannot be used as justification...that is my point....anything else I have nothing to do with it...

[Jemisi]

I think I am arguing one line. I dont think Tino should be dropped either. Where is the difference?

My original point was simply that we rarely drop players averaging 32.

Averages dont mean a great deal after 2 or 3 games, I agree. But surely the burden of proof lies with the one wanting to discount the average. After all, it represents what was done in those games.

I think it is ok to want Ervine in the team ahead of Chakabva and I think that his average of 32 isn't an argument against this point, even if you think it shouldn't be used as an argument supporting my point.

[eugene]

Matsi and Rainsford are hardly excelling domestically so I see no reason to select them. Matsi had 8 years of opportunities, why give him any more. I can't think of any player ever who has suddenly excelled after 8 years of mediocrity.

Vusi?

Vusi was never mediocre, he has steadily improved over time. Matsi has never had any trend to suggest his game is improving. His inning-by-innings list shows a completely inconsistent player.

[FlowerPower]

I think I am arguing one line. I dont think Tino should be dropped either. Where is the difference?

My original point was simply that we rarely drop players averaging 32.

Averages dont mean a great deal after 2 or 3 games, I agree. But surely the burden of proof lies with the one wanting to discount the average. After all, it represents what was done in those games. ....

Din't imply you were arguing that Tino be dropped. Agreed we don't drop/shouldn't drop people with a 32 average. Correction, I would say, "we don't drop people with a substantive average of 32". After only 4 inning any inference on averages is fundamentally flawed.

I would also go on to qualify it and say, its not only average that matters but also current form. In Ervine's case average of 32 from 6, 5, 35*, and 49, the 35* masking a lot, cannot be used as a basis of immunity from being dropped. Its his form that cost him, and if this 32 was after say 20 innings, by all means he'd be entitled to lean on it, after 4, including a 35*, I think its straws.

But don't get me wrong I still feel he was unlucky, to be dropped after just 2 matches, but not because he had an average of 32, therefore he was unlucky (that is where I beg to differ).

[FlowerPower]

....Also, we don't need to develop vitriol towards Rainsford just because there are a lot of threads talking about Rainsford Vs Jarvis. This need not be Rainsford Vs Jarvis. Jarvis is in the team and has proved that he deserves to be there, whereas Rainsford not your average joe who is making up the numbers in the domestic scene. He has been a proven performer in the past, at the highest level, but is out of it due to injuries and off form. In fact, when on song, he has a nice smooth action and a great seam position after delivery, which lands on the deck with no wobble, thus maximizing movement from the deck. He is an extremely useful bowler, but just that he needs to put in the performances and need to stay fit to stake the claim again. Him and Williams have been the most talented yet the most injury prone guys we have had.

Thank you so much you Sir are my hero!

[hhm]

....Also, we don't need to develop vitriol towards Rainsford just because there are a lot of threads talking about Rainsford Vs Jarvis. This need not be Rainsford Vs Jarvis. Jarvis is in the team and has proved that he deserves to be there, whereas Rainsford not your average joe who is making up the numbers in the domestic scene. He has been a proven performer in the past, at the highest level, but is out of it due to injuries and off form. In fact, when on song, he has a nice smooth action and a great seam position after delivery, which lands on the deck with no wobble, thus maximizing movement from the deck. He is an extremely useful bowler, but just that he needs to put in the performances and need to stay fit to stake the claim again.

Thank you so much you Sir are my hero!

There it is! I couldn't find it and was trying to remember who said it, between CrimsonAvenger and DrSitu. Almost ascribed that to the good Dr, but opted to be general.

I think jarvis has just recovered from a worse injury, or should I go to the point to say he hasn't fully recovered yet. I don't agree with many here that injuries have finished him. That's an exaggeration of facts and I've pointed out the number of overs he has bowled without breaking down. Contrary to what some believe, I still say that Raisnford is very much in form. they just don't see it that way way because they choose not to. What's the benefit therefore of me copying and pasting the same stats from Cricinfo, when you looked at them yourself, and judged them to be below par!

[Jemisi]

I think I am arguing one line. I dont think Tino should be dropped either. Where is the difference?

My original point was simply that we rarely drop players averaging 32.

Averages dont mean a great deal after 2 or 3 games, I agree. But surely the burden of proof lies with the one wanting to discount the average. After all, it represents what was done in those games. ....

Din't imply you were arguing that Tino be dropped. Agreed we don't drop/shouldn't drop people with a 32 average. Correction, I would say, "we don't drop people with a substantive average of 32". After only 4 inning any inference on averages is fundamentally flawed.

I would also go on to qualify it and say, its not only average that matters but also current form. In Ervine's case average of 32 from 6, 5, 35*, and 49, the 35* masking a lot, cannot be used as a basis of immunity from being dropped. Its his form that cost him, and if this 32 was after say 20 innings, by all means he'd be entitled to lean on it, after 4, including a 35*, I think its straws.

But don't get me wrong I still feel he was unlucky, to be dropped after just 2 matches, but not because he had an average of 32, therefore he was unlucky (that is where I beg to differ).

I think I can agree with most of that. I didn't think he was immune from dropping, but I do think that his class and performance should have kept him in the side ahead of chakabva. Although probably not ahead of Mutizwa.

[Jemisi]

Matsi and Rainsford are hardly excelling domestically so I see no reason to select them. Matsi had 8 years of opportunities, why give him any more. I can't think of any player ever who has suddenly excelled after 8 years of mediocrity.

Vusi?

Vusi was never mediocre, he has steadily improved over time. Matsi has never had any trend to suggest his game is improving. His inning-by-innings list shows a completely inconsistent player.

I agree with you on Matsi, but Vusi was in the Matsi class or worse for a good long time. It was years.