NZ All Time XI
-
@victor-meldrew said in NZ All Time Test XI:
Liked Ponting. Great player, hard bastard but never a cheat.
Didn't watch the '07/08 Indian series then?
-
@victor-meldrew said in NZ All Time Test XI:
Fleming's '99 team was pretty special and the current Black Caps look seriously good - could well become the best ever.
Really? I reckon it was more a case of that '99 England team of being real shit. Yes we did organize ourself enough to get out of our own way but honestly I feel the '94 team that preceded it and the '04 team that followed were superior to the '99 team that managed to win.
-
@rotated Wasn't the 0-4 team hyped as the best to ever leave NZ?
XI v Eng @ Lords
1994
Young
Pocock
Rutherford
Crowe
Fleming
Thompson
Parore
Hart
Nash
Pringle1999
Horne
Bell
Fleming
Astle
Twose
McMillan
Vettori
Parore
Cairns
Nash
Allott2004
Richardson
Fleming
Astle
Styris
McMillan
Oram
Tuffey
Cairns
McCullum
Vettori
MartinSorry but that 2004 team is pretty crap Top order sucks as do the openers from 99 . 94 Crowe was broken Fleming green and Rudders not much chop. Not much between 99 and 04 for me.
04 batted much deeper than 94 but 99 had Nash at 10 FFS.
94 Bowling - bit of an exaggeration to call it an attack. 99 and 04 - well both had plenty of part time options to throw in if the main strike bowlers didn't work their magic. So its Nash/Allott v Martin/Tuffey. Prob give it to 04 mainly because of the injury issues with the 99 pair but I don't know that is a foregone conclusion that 04 would beat 99. I do think both would have the measure though of 94
-
That's a reasonable opinion - certainly wouldn't be the farm on '94 beating '99. The '04 side went into day 4 in every test at about evens and screwed it all up on Sunday. That England side went onto win back the Ashes a summer later, so obviously a pretty respectable result. I think you are being overly harsh on the '04 top order - Fleming/Richardson was probably our best opening combo in two decades and for England conditions Rig is the best bat (at the time of the tour) in those three teams sans Crowe.
The 1994 side was way more snakebit in terms of injuries that '99 (Gavin Larsen needing to make his test debut because they couldn't find anyone else). But based on the Lords' test XV for each tour I would say the '94 side had the best bat and best quick; Crowe and healthy Nash which goes a long way in England.
-
That 94 team is fucken diabolical. The kind you have nightmares about. In what universe does Ken Rutherford bat at 3 !?!?!
Matthew Hart. Christ sake.
....and that opening partnership is hardly Hayden/Langer....
Dion Nash was pretty decent in a poor man's Cairns kind of fashion though....
-
-
@dogmeat said in NZ All Time Test XI:
@rotated typo by me. It's the 94 side I think was crap. 04 definitely had best openers but then again, when the comparison is Young/Pocock and Horne/Bell .....
I agree about Crowe and Nash but the rest of the side was very beige
Bryan Young was a guy I admired as a gritty low order keeper batsman but his record definitely benefited from that massive double ton. Not an opener overall.
As for Pocock he opened against Oz when Matthew Hayden couldn't even make their side.
( shudders )
Wikipedia are pretty rough on the poor bugger too.....
....and he wasn't even the worst opener to ever play for NZ called Blair....
-
Twose was a hard bastard. Used to wear about 50 deliveries per game but always soldiered on like a fucking champion.
-
@mn5 ah yes the era of the two Blairs
Did they ever open together?Which one was sconned by one of the two W's who destroyed NZ at Hamilton in 93? Herald had a fantastic photo of the Blair's helmet shedding tiny shards of plastic like a Star Wars explosion having been drilled by a bouncer.
-
@dogmeat said in NZ All Time Test XI:
@mn5 ah yes the era of the two Blairs
Did they ever open together?Which one was sconned by one of the two W's who destroyed NZ at Hamilton in 93? Herald had a fantastic photo of the Blair's helmet shedding tiny shards of plastic like a Star Wars explosion having been drilled by a bouncer.
I'm fairly sure they did on at least one occasion. Christ on a fucken bike. Numbers three and four would have padded up at the same time as them.....actually given the fact Rutherford was likely number three it'd be a brave number five to even go and have a piss and risk being timed out.....
-
I remember listening to Rutherford's debut - opening (I think) against the Windies in the Windies. The poor fuck, no wonder he under achieved in the long run.
-
@crazy-horse said in NZ All Time Test XI:
I remember listening to Rutherford's debut - opening (I think) against the Windies in the Windies. The poor fuck, no wonder he under achieved in the long run.
His overall career stats are pretty ugly. I wonder what Sir Paddles thought when he looked at many of the specialist batsmen in his team that he actually averaged more than?
-
@crazy-horse said in NZ All Time Test XI:
I remember listening to Rutherford's debut - opening (I think) against the Windies in the Windies. The poor fuck, no wonder he under achieved in the long run.
Lamb thrown to the wolves - that tour was all about revenge for 1979/80 for the Windies - most of the WI players have admitted as such - Pace like fire. Funny thing is, I hold no grudges for that tour - Crowe was just out of this world - but it was definitely the end for the last of the amateurs like Coney etc
-
There was another young batter that got selected as well and I don't think we heard much more of him after that. Ron Hart?
-
@dogmeat There were high hopes for that 04 team after the SA series that year. Martin had come from nowhere to tear the South Africans up but looked very mediocre along with Tuffey, Vettori had been badly out of form for a while, and our batting was very poorly balanced. Richardson was a star but our middle order let us down big time. Franklin should have been picked from the start but wasn't and came in for the 3rd test and bowled brilliantly.
-
@african-monkey said in NZ All Time Test XI:
@dogmeat There were high hopes for that 04 team after the SA series that year. Martin had come from nowhere to tear the South Africans up but looked very mediocre along with Tuffey, Vettori had been badly out of form for a while, and our batting was very poorly balanced. Richardson was a star but our middle order let us down big time. Franklin should have been picked from the start but wasn't and came in for the 3rd test and bowled brilliantly.
What a strange career he had. Started as a left handed Hadlee ( the great man's exact words ) who could hold a bat then transformed into an incredibly average 'batsman' and his bowling pretty much fell of a cliff.
-
I've been watching since 87 or so, and Smith is the best technical keeper I've seen from any country in that time. If we want a keeper solely on keeping ability, it's Smith, but if batting is important, any of Parore, McCullum or Watling are better options, and are all excellent keepers in their own right.
-
@godder said in NZ All Time Test XI:
I've been watching since 87 or so, and Smith is the best technical keeper I've seen from any country in that time. If we want a keeper solely on keeping ability, it's Smith, but if batting is important, any of Parore, McCullum or Watling are better options, and are all excellent keepers in their own right.
Nope. His stats indicate otherwise. I remember he played as a specialist bat at 3 for awhile too!
Personally I reckon a Sangakara/Flower/Gilly type is far more beneficial to a team cos then you have the option for essentially 7 batsmen if need be.
-
