Black Caps First Eleven for hall of fame.
-
@Godder said in Black Caps First Eleven for hall of fame.:
@MN5 Sir Paddles is still a viable selection for an all-time XI, where KW isn't currently although I suppose if he can score another 3,000 runs, he'd be getting close.
All time world XI ?
Yep, Paddles is an option.
Vettori and McCullum aren’t even certainties for an all time NZ XI if we’re being honest
-
@MN5 said in Black Caps First Eleven for hall of fame.:
@Godder said in Black Caps First Eleven for hall of fame.:
@MN5 Sir Paddles is still a viable selection for an all-time XI, where KW isn't currently although I suppose if he can score another 3,000 runs, he'd be getting close.
All time world XI ?
Yep, Paddles is an option.
Vettori and McCullum aren’t even certainties for an all time NZ XI if we’re being honest
Sorry, yes, all-time World XI.
Disagree about Vettori and McCullum - obviously it's possible to select a viable all-time NZ XIs for particular formats without either if selecting a particular team balance e.g. 5 batters, 5 bowlers and Watling at 6 would leave McCullum out of a test XI, and wouldn't be that hard to have 4-5 quality pacers and leave Vettori out of a test XI as well.
However, in ODIs and T20Is, they are top tier selections, so any all-format NZ XI really has to include them. Obviously the older players like Paddles didn't play T20Is, but their ODI play would give some indication of likely quality in T20Is as well.
-
T20 play shouldn't qualify.
-
@antipodean said in Black Caps First Eleven for hall of fame.:
T20 play shouldn't qualify.
Indeed. It’s like choosing an All Black hall of fame and basing it on how a player went at sevens
-
@MN5 said in Black Caps First Eleven for hall of fame.:
@antipodean said in Black Caps First Eleven for hall of fame.:
T20 play shouldn't qualify.
Indeed. It’s like choosing an All Black hall of fame and basing it on how a player went at sevens
If world cricket went to wholly separate series for T20 along the lines of rugby 7s, with 5 or 6 a side, maybe. Cricket doesn't do that though, so it's not really a fair comparison - sure, there are format specialists, but there is still plenty of player overlap between the formats at international level, particularly between ODIs and either Tests or T20.
Perhaps the point is more that T20 specialists aren't going to get far in an all-format selection where tests are always going to be weighted as most important and ODIs second, but T20 play might have something to offer as part of a balanced process.
Also, for the players in question (McCullum and Vettori), even if their T20 records were ignored, their ODI records were still phenomenal.
-
@Godder said in Black Caps First Eleven for hall of fame.:
@MN5 said in Black Caps First Eleven for hall of fame.:
@antipodean said in Black Caps First Eleven for hall of fame.:
T20 play shouldn't qualify.
Indeed. It’s like choosing an All Black hall of fame and basing it on how a player went at sevens
If world cricket went to wholly separate series for T20 along the lines of rugby 7s, with 5 or 6 a side, maybe. Cricket doesn't do that though, so it's not really a fair comparison - sure, there are format specialists, but there is still plenty of player overlap between the formats at international level, particularly between ODIs and either Tests or T20.
Perhaps the point is more that T20 specialists aren't going to get far in an all-format selection where tests are always going to be weighted as most important and ODIs second, but T20 play might have something to offer as part of a balanced process.
Also, for the players in question (McCullum and Vettori), even if their T20 records were ignored, their ODI records were still phenomenal.
Yeah I can justify ODI records being part of the criteria but even then, would Vettori and BMac ever be World XI contenders ?
…..and I say that as someone who is a massive fan of both.
BMac wouldn’t get past Gilly, Sehwag, Hayden, Gayle etc as an opener, obviously Gilly is a keeper too.
Vettori might get in as a spinner although it would be a tough ask ahead of Warne, Murali, Kumble etc although he actually took more wickets than Warnie in that format and his record is pretty close to Kumbles.
But then again, both have been massive for NZ cricket in terms of some of the intangibles so look, they probably deserve to be there.
-
@MN5 For Dan - the proof is in the pudding.
AUS vs ICC Cricket Scorecard, 1st ODI at Melbourne, October 05, 2005
Get cricket scorecard of 1st ODI, AUS vs ICC, ICC World XI tour of Australia 2005/06 at Docklands Stadium, Melbourne dated October 05, 2005.
-
@MN5 Generally agree, as did the selectors since 'could make world XI' was a softer criterion - the stats highlighted in BMac's profile are first NZ test 300, fastest test 100 and first player to play 100 consecutive tests from debut along with the team culture under his captaincy.
BMac outlasted most of those players other than Gayle (2019), so there's possibly a time after Sehwag retired in 2013 when BMac would have been in contention for the other opener spot up until his retirement in 2016 (has a slightly better record than Warner in some of their overlapping years for example). Probably some other opener I've forgotten about though.
Also a phenomenal time for legendary WK-batsmen throughout BMac's career with Gilchrist, Sangakkara and AB DeVilliers all prominent, so he would have struggled to be first pick in that department whether as an opener or middle order dasher.
-
“The first intake is always the most straight-forward as it includes some players who essentially pick themselves, they stand out that much,” said Payne.
Disagree. Didn't know about the 4 women criteria. Never heard of Jackie Lord but 55 wickets @19.07 from 15 tests. What's she doing Thursday?
I have real issues with McCullum's inclusion. Yes, he was good, but it seems like a vibe selection. He certainly doesn't pick himself IMO. Granted he has the 300, but Fleming would probably have got their earlier if he hadn't put the team ahead of personal glory. Does that mean he would have been included? Is Ajaz going to get in for his 10fer?
-
-
-
@dogmeat said in Black Caps First Eleven for hall of fame.:
@booboo Well it's a far greater achievement than a 300
Greater, but not sure I’d say far greater.
Test cricket went 16 years 1974-1990 without a single triple ton. It’s still pretty damn amazing.
-
6.7K views · 415 reactions | Honouring the “First Eleven” 🇳🇿 The...
Honouring the “First Eleven” 🇳🇿 The eleven inaugural NZC Hall of Fame inductees were celebrated at a special opening ceremony at the New Zealand Cricket Museum in Wellington last week. Each of the...
-
-
@dogmeat said in Black Caps First Eleven for hall of fame.:
@MN5 and a 10fer has happened 3 times in 150 years. 300 - 32 times. I'd say - at the risk of going all Thomas Aquinas - that represents a far greater achievement based on the rarity of it occurring
On that basis it's equivalent to 375 runs ...
Test matches | Batting records | Most runs in an innings | ESPNcricinfo
Find records of Most runs in an innings in Test matches only on ESPNcricinfo.
-
Ok I’ve had a think and yes, a 10 fer actually is a far more impressive achievement purely cos it is getting ALL the wickets. There’s no real equivalent as a batsman as theoretically you can go for as long as you want.
Fair to say this is far and away the best bowling performance ever……
Only got 9 in the first innings so thought fuck it and got 10 in the second !!!!
ENG vs AUS Cricket Scorecard, 4th Test at Manchester, July 26 - 31, 1956
Get cricket scorecard of 4th Test, ENG vs AUS, Australia tour of England 1956 at Old Trafford, Manchester dated July 26 - 31, 1956.
-
Nah I don't buy that. Getting all 10 just means that the rest of the bowlers were rubbish. Its a neat statistical anomaly, but doesn't change the course of a match like a triple century does. Technically the batting equivalent would be get 100% of the runs but that's vastly harder to do. Maybe make the cut off 2/3rds of the runs and you then get 2 instances in test history.
The equivalent to a triple century is a hattrick. No one is pushing for Jimmy Franklin or Peter Petherick to be included though.
I think McCullum is a fair inclusion though when you consider the whole body of work. If he'd had a career like Andy Sandham or Karun Nair I'd get it. But the second half of so of his career he was phenomenal on the pitch and a fantastic captain. The triple and the fastest ton push him over the top.
-
@Cyclops said in Black Caps First Eleven for hall of fame.:
Nah I don't buy that. Getting all 10 just means that the rest of the bowlers were rubbish. Its a neat statistical anomaly, but doesn't change the course of a match like a triple century does. Technically the batting equivalent would be get 100% of the runs but that's vastly harder to do. Maybe make the cut off 2/3rds of the runs and you then get 2 instances in test history.
The equivalent to a triple century is a hattrick. No one is pushing for Jimmy Franklin or Peter Petherick to be included though.
I think McCullum is a fair inclusion though when you consider the whole body of work. If he'd had a career like Andy Sandham or Karun Nair I'd get it. But the second half of so of his career he was phenomenal on the pitch and a fantastic captain. The triple and the fastest ton push him over the top.
I sort of get what you mean but if you were right it would happen far more often than it does.
We all agree Hadlee was the best of his time and of all time. He got 9-52 in one innings. Amazing stuff. But in terms of other amazing performances the next best he got was a couple of 7 fers meaning the rest of the NZ bowlers ( and all his teammates were quite a few rungs below him in terms of quality ) often chipped in with a few here and there.
10 in an innings is incredible and rare.
But then your point about it not changing a match like a triple ton stands too.
-
@MN5 said in Black Caps First Eleven for hall of fame.:
But then your point about it not changing a match like a triple ton stands too.
Actually no.
Ajaz's 10 fer didn't change that match, but Lakers certainly did. The other England bowlers - Statham, Lock. Bailey so no slouches, bowled 90+ overs in that match against a decent Australian batting side without taking a wicket. Laker definitely bowled England to victory. Kumble also played a significant role in India's victory over Pakistan. Sure, other bowlers might have stepped up, but you could say the same for a lot of the batting records.
The bowling is a small sample but one definitely won the match, one went a long way towards the same and one had no real influence.
A lot more triples but if I could be arsed I'm sure you'd see a similar pattern. Sure, Baz's innings saved the match for us but just taking one example - chosen just for you. Gayle scored halfish of the Windies 700 odd against SA, but SA had already posted nearly 600 on an absolute road. There were only 30 overs possible in SA's second innings before the match finished during which time SA lost one for 127. The triple was a nice statistic for Gayle and padded his average but it had a negligible effect on the games outcome.
The 10 fer is rare for a reason. Absolutely McCullum is a NZ great but in the top 8 male players of all time. Not for me. All the other male players would have got into a World XI or second XI at their peak. Baz didn't ever get close to that level.
-
