zimcricketforums.com

Vote here for your man of the series for the T20 and ODI matches against New Zealand. You can find stats for the series here: T20, ODI.

At the end of the season (which for this purpose is the final day of the Logan Cup final next year), we'll tally up who has the most votes and see who the ZCF Player of the Year is. I'll put a running tally of the results in the Announcements section of the forum so you can see who's making the running.

You can vote for up to three players, and you can change your vote at any time up until voting closes.

Taylor, Waller, Meth!
Sorry Njabulo. This is where Waller deserves a vote, not in the Test!

hhm wrote:Taylor, Waller, Meth!
Sorry Njabulo. This is where Waller deserves a vote, not in the Test!

I'm a Meth fan hhm but he went for 85/0 in the last ODI, took 2/52 in one game from his 3 game, Njabulo only got one game and took 3, ended up with the highest number of wickets from ONE game as opposed to 3 for some bowlers who still took none...am I missing something hhm?

I know a lot of people (initially myself as well) were not too chuffed about Ncube being fast tracked, but credit where it's due the boy outperformed even the seasoned bowlers in the ODI and didn't get a chance in the T20...if you want to punish him (not that I think he did terribly there either) you can deny him the vote in the TEST...or am I missing something, and this is a popularity vote and not a performance vote (which the poor boy lost already before bowling a single ball)...enlighten me (as I have been voting all wrong, based on performance and not my favourite)..

I voted for Meth. Flower your reasoning is solid in saying hey this guy has performed well in the odi's, sort of punched above his weight you can say.

Meth has that xfactor that few cricketers have like Jesse Ryder, Mitchell Marsh, Umar Akmal etc. I thought he was playing under a lot of pressure. He should have had more wickets in the 2nd odi . Oxenford (he should have a vision test) turned down a couple of plumb decisions and then Hamiton and Waller dropped the proverbial sitters. He was bit predictable with his fuller length and this i think can be attributed to him trying to take wickets with every ball.
If he just bowled a little shorter length that will add an extra dimension to his bowling where the ball will naturally seam because the seam is already semi vertical and when it hits the ground it can wobble and create problems. This is the adjustment he has to make and once he does that I think he will get a lot more wickets than he does now.


This is where the coaches come in. I can see it on television and pass judgement but the coaches are there on the ground to refine this talented guy. It will be a great injustice to Zimbabwe cricket if he is not used consistently in the future.

Here is my frustration about the whole episode. This guy is the highest wicket taker in your first class competition and he can be lethal with the new ball which is for everyone to see. He has bowled his team single handedly to victory on many occasions especially in the last year when he got the new ball. I think he is a much improved cricketer this year who is on the upward curve.He should have played on current form alone.

In a test match he would have gotten 4 chances to impress and I am sure he would have contributed significantly at least once to have an impact on the game.

You have to remember how poorly Jarvis and Mpofu bowled in the T20's and one dayers. They got pulverized and the NZ middle order must have felt they were on paid vacation. If they can be forgiven so should Meth who went for a few but created a whole lot of chances and pressure. When he was not there Zimbabwe very much looked like the whipping boys.

NCube got one wicket in the test that too was off a wide delivery which should have been left alone by the batsman.

First of all I wanted to give a vote to at least one of the bowlers. Meth palyed two ODI games plus bowled a full quota. Out of the bowlers his stats, to me, look better overall. I can't give Njabulo my vote for one game where he was gifted wickets and still got pasted. That was a high scoring game and inevitably all bowlers got a hiding, including NZ's bowlers. Better bowlers like Streak&Polly have been spanked heavily before and gone wicketless. In his two games Meth showed me signs that he was thinking besides just running in and hoping, he was on top of batsmen and seriously troubled them. No other bowler did that so that's why he got my nod. Ncube would have fared worse had those NZ batsmen had an earlier look at him. Unkown entity taking the new ball - you're bound to give yourself sometime to assess him.

Performance wise my vote goes to captain fantastic , truly led from the front and put a foundation ,without the foundation we could have not gone for that record run chase .My other split will be Waller for his excellent finish , put the team first before personal glory .
A relay team needs a good starter , and then guys who can maintain the momentum in the middle, and perhaps an anchor and then the cool finisher who can finish despite being in a good or bad position . Our batting nearly has those characteristics now ....
You should see the Jamaica 4x100m relay team .

hhm wrote:First of all I wanted to give a vote to at least one of the bowlers. Meth palyed two ODI games plus bowled a full quota. Out of the bowlers his stats, to me, look better overall. I can't give Njabulo my vote for one game where he was gifted wickets and still got pasted. That was a high scoring game and inevitably all bowlers got a hiding, including NZ's bowlers. Better bowlers like Streak&Polly have been spanked heavily before and gone wicketless. In his two games Meth showed me signs that he was thinking besides just running in and hoping, he was on top of batsmen and seriously troubled them. No other bowler did that so that's why he got my nod. Ncube would have fared worse had those NZ batsmen had an earlier look at him. Unkown entity taking the new ball - you're bound to give yourself sometime to assess him.

Cant agree more. Very well summarized.

Look guys I am not campaigning that you vote for any particular player, just wanted to know if we were voting for our favourites or performers, for me performance equates to results, your take (hhm and sscricket) reminds me of a hilarious quote of Chappel during a barren spell, he said he "wasn't batting badly, [the problem was] he was just getting out." , this has been remixed by Ricky Ponting, who has only 1 100 in 53 innings, "declaring himself to be batting the best he has in two years. He just doesn't have the scores to show for it."
Parellel: Meth bowled well despite 85/0 now that's at least a boundary every over, and Njabulo bolwed 3(Three) out for 69, because he "was lucky", that's 3 lucky wickets for almost 20 less runs? Look like I said I'm not trying to convince you (doubt that is possible) but merely seeking clarity...and if I am to be honest, I am ever so slightly baffled by your line of thought. hhm Vitori got canned by the Pakistanis (62/1), and you called him useless but Meth gets canned (85/0) by the New Zealanders and he bowled well? ...

hhm wrote:Meth palyed two ODI games plus bowled a full quota. Out of the bowlers his stats, to me, look better overall.

Meth played 2, Jarvis, Mpofu, Price, played 3...ok simplistic but would that therefore make them more worthy and hence Meth less? I would vote for Ncube IN SPITE of playing less games he got more wickets than anyone else in the ENTIRE series...am I losing it? Hardly an indictment, on the contrary I'd say its a commendation for him.

hhm wrote:I can't give Njabulo my vote for one game where he was gifted wickets and still got pasted.

But you'd rather give it to Meth who played one MORE, no T20, and got one LESS, for more runs leaked... ...I am getting a bit slower by the day...

hhm wrote:Better bowlers like Streak&Polly have been spanked heavily before and gone wicketless.

So you get spanked its okay, that counts as a good outing ? Just bear with me I am slowing to a halt here...I thought we were not evaluating the bowler's career but performance in THIS series...and I am sure Polly and Heath had stinkers, for those stinkers, they underperformed, nothing about their illustrious legacies...point is on the basis of that performance they stunk, period. On this outing Meth got pasted and had no wickets, Njabulo was marginally better and got more wickets (technically infinitely more!)...

hhm wrote:In his two games Meth showed me signs that he was thinking besides just running in and hoping, he was on top of batsmen and seriously troubled them.

.....85/0????

hhm wrote:Ncube would have fared worse had those NZ batsmen had an earlier look at him.

In legal parlance its called conjecture, fair enough fairly reasoned, but conjecture non the less...

sscricket wrote:I voted for Meth. Flower your reasoning is solid in saying hey this guy has performed well in the odi's, sort of punched above his weight you can say.

...thanks for the vote of confidence, but no where do I say or infer he punched above his weight (and hence I voted due to that), he was picked as a bowler and he did this job, better than anyone in the series. Batsmen are judged on runs scored, bolwers on wickets taken, he took 3, more than anyone else period.

sscricket wrote:Meth has that xfactor that few cricketers have like Jesse Ryder, Mitchell Marsh, Umar Akmal etc. I thought he was playing under a lot of pressure. He should have had more wickets in the 2nd odi . Oxenford (he should have a vision test) turned down a couple of plumb decisions and then Hamiton and Waller dropped the proverbial sitters.

...I feel for him, I really do, but 8.5 rpo? ODI that is not T20...really can we attribute that down to bad, luck?

sscricket wrote: He was bit predictable with his fuller length and this i think can be attributed to him trying to take wickets with every ball.
If he just bowled a little shorter length that will add an extra dimension to his bowling where the ball will naturally seam because the seam is already semi vertical and when it hits the ground it can wobble and create problems. This is the adjustment he has to make and once he does that I think he will get a lot more wickets than he does now.

...and all these make his performance IN THIS SERIES, better than Njabulo's?.... ...if I were the infering type I'd say you were clutching at straws for excuses for the poor guy, face it it wasnt one of his better outtings, and certainly not better than Ncube's

sscricket wrote:NCube got one wicket in the test that too was off a wide delivery which should have been left alone by the batsman.

You are forgiven sscricket this is the wrong thread, we are basing the vote on T20/ODI, not Test...

Maybe I am missing it maehera, could you give us a run down of the guideline, I thought we were basing our votes on the performance of the aforementioned games, not who we like better, not who has done better in the past, not who is going to do much better after coaching, but based on RESULTS of the aforementioned games and nothing else...please clarify....

Disclaimer: I am a Meth fan (see my Kyle vs Keegan thread months ago), and I am not a Njabulo fan (don't hate the guy, see point 5 here), but I always hate injustice happenning, and I think you guys have grossly discriminated against the poor guy...not saying he is the next big thing, probably he is behind, Vitori and Meth, but based on this ODI, you are being unfair.

Neither Meth nor Ncube deserve votes in this series

Jemisi wrote:Neither Meth nor Ncube deserve votes in this series

I know we were all taken aback with his selection, but honestly, are we that mean? lets be fair, on debut, gets 3 wickets, puts him on top of the list, where everyone failed to get any wickets....I really must be losing my mind, I give up....its an unjust world we live in...have it your way guys...

and Ray (a legend in Zim cricketing terms), in this series (ODI) guys he took no wickets and in a containing role went for over 4.5 one maiden in 30 overs...and we have given him 2 votes? At least in the T20 he went for 8 ( a miserly EIGHT!)...some one help please I seem to have the wrong rule book...

Vusi made 24 runs (HS 19) in 3 innings, hardly 10 more than Pro, who only enjoyed 2 innings!! and he has 2 votes???? Guys please apply your minds!

Chamu made one huge 65 in the hit and giggle (T20)...the other score was 11(ELEVEN), and a massive 4(FOUR) in his only ODI, and has 4 votes!!

This is a waste of time!