Post Big 4 era

[jaybro]

There are some overly pessimistic views on this thread. Probably the same people that have been predicting doom and gloom for Zimbabwe Cricket since 2004, yet it's still here...

The youngsters are really young (19/20) and already are putting in performances on a similar level to the "big 4" (who are over 35). Where do you think these guys will be in 5, 10, 15 years time with experience and good coaching? They can potentially be even better than the current mediocre lot and isn't that what we all want?

There’s no reason why the original big 4 and the next gen big 4 can’t coexist for the next two years, by that time the older guys would definitely be at the stage of retirement and the younger guys will be two years older, more experienced and learnt more off these guys.

ZC are trying to rush through the process of getting rid of the old white players for a young promising group of black players, where have I seen this story before

The idea that good coaching will turn these guys into superstars is flawed as well, as Google has stated many times before, coaching is most vital for kids learning their games coming through school and club cricket. Once you’ve gotten to international cricket a coach can only improve a player so much, maybe 5%?

For what it’s worth I think Myers & Madhevere will tech the heights of the Big 4, they’ll average 30 odd in tears & ODIs, Shumba I think will end opening a lot, so he’ll be similar to Hammy, best case scenario he’ll average around 30. Marumani will be Vusi 2.0

As I’ve pointed out before, it’s the quality in depth that’s concerning, take the Big 4 out and we’re relying on the 4 kids, Burl & Regis. Innocent Kaia just debuted FFS, that shows how poor the depth is.

[Kriterion_BD]

Vusi 2.0 would be a MASSIVE achievement for Marumani. Vusi had technique and a sublime drive shot. Marumani blindly swings his bat at every ball...he gets beaten 75% of the balls he faces, and probably gets edges for another 15%. You know that control % feature cricinfo has? I would be shocked if Marumani has ever been above 25% in a single innings.

Marumani will have to improve his skills - be it technique, temparement, shot selection, you name it - by leaps and fucking bounds to average 20 in any format of the game.

[jaybro]

Vusi 2.0 would be a MASSIVE achievement for Marumani. Vusi had technique and a sublime drive shot. Marumani blindly swings his bat at every ball...he gets beaten 75% of the balls he faces, and probably gets edges for another 15%. You know that control % feature cricinfo has? I would be shocked if Marumani has ever been above 25% in a single innings.

Marumani will have to improve his skills - be it technique, temparement, shot selection, you name it - by leaps and fucking bounds to average 20 in any format of the game.

The comparison was more in regards to being very talented but frustrating and inconsistent, averaging around 20-25 at best

[Kriterion_BD]

The comparison was more in regards to being very talented but frustrating and inconsistent, averaging around 20-25 at best

From what I've seen of the Young 4 here are my assessments in order of confidence:

Madhevere: His game is indentical to Tari Musakanda's. Has a plethora of shots, always looking for runs, major technical flaw is that he plays on the up as a matter of habit. Shot selection also needs more work as he is prone to throwing his wicket away. Must work on batting in low gears without getting frustrated if he wants to be a complete batsman. Should average around 30, more if he can fix the issues that I highlighted. Has the potential to be as good as Raza or Ervine. I don't rate his bowling at this point in time...he'll get the occaisional wicket, but will also be taken for a lot of runs most of the time.

Myers: Looks good technically, has a lot of shots. As googly mentioned, he's very strong off his pads. When I first saw him vs Bangladesh, he batted with a lot of confidence. Like Madhevere tends to play one too many shots, but IMO is the most naturally gifted of the lot. Could easily average 40+ if he sorts his game out. I'll be bold and say he could be better than Brendon Taylor. Key word could. As a seamer, he's probably more in the mould of a Hammy or Chamu more so than a Jarvis.

Marumani: I've already written a lot about him all over the forum. He may or may not have a great eye, but to quote googly again, every batter at international level (certainly all 13 Super League teams) have at least as good an eye.

Shumba: I haven't actually seen that much of him. So this is the only assessment of the four that I'm not really willing to stand by. I'm not sure his technique is up to the rigors of top flight cricket. He's played a couple of very good middle order finishing knocks in T20s vs Ireland and Scotland. But it remains to be seen how that translates up because even Afghanistan, Sri Lanka bowling attacks are a big step up from the Irish and Scots.

[Zimco]

The comparison was more in regards to being very talented but frustrating and inconsistent, averaging around 20-25 at best

From what I've seen of the Young 4 here are my assessments in order of confidence:

Madhevere: His game is indentical to Tari Musakanda's. Has a plethora of shots, always looking for runs, major technical flaw is that he plays on the up as a matter of habit. Shot selection also needs more work as he is prone to throwing his wicket away. Must work on batting in low gears without getting frustrated if he wants to be a complete batsman. Should average around 30, more if he can fix the issues that I highlighted. Has the potential to be as good as Raza or Ervine. I don't rate his bowling at this point in time...he'll get the occaisional wicket, but will also be taken for a lot of runs most of the time.

Myers: Looks good technically, has a lot of shots. As googly mentioned, he's very strong off his pads. When I first saw him vs Bangladesh, he batted with a lot of confidence. Like Madhevere tends to play one too many shots, but IMO is the most naturally gifted of the lot. Could easily average 40+ if he sorts his game out. I'll be bold and say he could be better than Brendon Taylor. Key word could. As a seamer, he's probably more in the mould of a Hammy or Chamu more so than a Jarvis.

Marumani: I've already written a lot about him all over the forum. He may or may not have a great eye, but to quote googly again, every batter at international level (certainly all 13 Super League teams) have at least as good an eye.

Shumba: I haven't actually seen that much of him. So this is the only assessment of the four that I'm not really willing to stand by. I'm not sure his technique is up to the rigors of top flight cricket. He's played a couple of very good middle order finishing knocks in T20s vs Ireland and Scotland. But it remains to be seen how that translates up because even Afghanistan, Sri Lanka bowling attacks are a big step up from the Irish and Scots.

Shumba may be the one to pleasantly surprise. He seems to read the tempo well which Indicates he may be more mentally prepared for international cricket at this stage.

They are all very young and I think we expect a lot but realistically would any other nation be playing four batsmen 21 and younger.

[ZIMDOGGY]

A lot of people throwing up that ‘this player should be/could be a (insert average) batsman.
But I wonder how you calculate that.
Once upon a time not long ago we only played top 8 teams, then we played top 8 teams + Bdesh 50% of the time.
Now most of our games are associates and Utah ending towards UE and Oman and second rate associates.

It’s impossible to say what average a player is in this condition.
40 should be the standard at least against associates I’m guessing.

[sam_ahm]

A lot of people throwing up that ‘this player should be/could be a (insert average) batsman.
But I wonder how you calculate that.
Once upon a time not long ago we only played top 8 teams, then we played top 8 teams + Bdesh 50% of the time.
Now most of our games are associates and Utah ending towards UE and Oman and second rate associates.

It’s impossible to say what average a player is in this condition.
40 should be the standard at least against associates I’m guessing.

That's a very good point. The likes of Andy Flower, Heath Streak performed against top nations.. And not just those two, I've seen Stuart Carlisle, Sean Ervine, Grant Flower and the likes punch above their weight against bowling line up of McGrath, Lee, Gillespie and Warne. Just imagine. Andy Flower hitting a double hundred in India. Streak bowled against the likes of Sachin, Lara, Kallis, etc. and yet performed.

To his credit Brendan Taylor has performed against the best of attacks, not once but many times. I cant say the same for Williams, Ervine and Sikki though... That is why Taylor was a level above.

[zimbos_05]

There are some overly pessimistic views on this thread. Probably the same people that have been predicting doom and gloom for Zimbabwe Cricket since 2004, yet it's still here...

The youngsters are really young (19/20) and already are putting in performances on a similar level to the "big 4" (who are over 35). Where do you think these guys will be in 5, 10, 15 years time with experience and good coaching? They can potentially be even better than the current mediocre lot and isn't that what we all want?

Considering we went from a top 8 team that was rapidly rising to losing against the likes of Scotland, Netherlands, Singapore, I would say that that is very close to doom and gloom.

Had this been happening in any other test playing nation, there would be major uproar and upheaval.

Not in Zim though. We lose to Singapore or Scotland and the board and coaches get defended and the people who get blamed and punished are the only ones who can actually change the game and bring about good.

In all of the shit that we've had and the actual good coaches who have been fired previously at the drop of a hat, the board has stayed, and yet we have not progressed.

There is this idea that the new youngsters coming through are the saving grace. They are going to be so amazingly good that we will be competing among the best in the world. That is so wrong.

These youngsters are so raw that they will fizzle out at some point. They won't progress as we want them to and they'll end up having content careers like Hammy or Vusi or Elton.

The way they are progressing is not normal in any top playing side, but yet there is this false narrative that everything will be fine and nothing to worry about.

That you think they are playing better than the big 4 and you call the current big 4 mediocre, shows how deluded you are. I am convinced you are a friend to someone on the board.

[CholeZimbo]

We were the bottom team at that time as well, so it was only a matter of time the teams starting out at that time eventually caught up with us.

[zimbos_05]

We were the bottom team at that time as well, so it was only a matter of time the teams starting out at that time eventually caught up with us.

So your assumption was that we were as bad as we are now?

No chance. We were on the way up. We were definitely making progress. Beating some very good sides and pushing sides ranked 1 in the world very close, to the point where we would have developed to be beating them regularly.

Other sides may have caught up a bit, but not on the level that they have. We would definitely not be struggling against UAE, Ireland, Scotland, Netherlands etc