CWC Final - Black Caps v England
-
36 hours later..ðŸ˜ðŸ˜…😡🤔😳
-
I think some people are underestimating the talent pool and production of New Zealand cricket. Kane is truly special player. I would be surprised if I saw a better player in the black cap.
But the supporting players aren't that level. Boult is a great talent and perhaps a top 10 bowler for us. But we have consistently produced great bowlers. Ferguson's pace will be harder to replace. Hopefully the development work that has supported him will inform future development programmes. Henry is pretty much about average for a New Zealand bowler.
Neesham is a special talent, but power hitting all rounders seems to be our specialty area. (Incidentally, imagine this side with de Grandhomme replaced with a fully fit Corey Anderson).
Taylor is another special talent, and in our ODI side might be harder to replace than Kane. But I'm not convinced that the rest are significantly better than at any other period.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that if the fern was around in 92 we would probably have said the same thing. And in the 80s when we had Hadlee and Crowe together. And around 2003 as Flem, Astle etc retired.
But actually, every generation we've got better. The freak talents (Hadlee, Crowe, Bond, Kane) might keep coming at same rate, but the talent around them will keep rising.
I'm not predicting a Australian or West Indian period of dominance in another couple of decades. But there will be other teams that have as good or better chances to win major titles.
-
@Cyclops said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
I think some people are underestimating the talent pool and production of New Zealand cricket. Kane is truly special player. I would be surprised if I saw a better player in the black cap.
But the supporting players aren't that level. Boult is a great talent and perhaps a top 10 bowler for us. But we have consistently produced great bowlers. Ferguson's pace will be harder to replace. Hopefully the development work that has supported him will inform future development programmes. Henry is pretty much about average for a New Zealand bowler.
Neesham is a special talent, but power hitting all rounders seems to be our specialty area. (Incidentally, imagine this side with de Grandhomme replaced with a fully fit Corey Anderson).
Taylor is another special talent, and in our ODI side might be harder to replace than Kane. But I'm not convinced that the rest are significantly better than at any other period.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that if the fern was around in 92 we would probably have said the same thing. And in the 80s when we had Hadlee and Crowe together. And around 2003 as Flem, Astle etc retired.
But actually, every generation we've got better. The freak talents (Hadlee, Crowe, Bond, Kane) might keep coming at same rate, but the talent around them will keep rising.
I'm not predicting a Australian or West Indian period of dominance in another couple of decades. But there will be other teams that have as good or better chances to win major titles.
Ever ?
I'd still place Paddles on a higher echelon but KW has a long career to go and that might change......doubtful though, we're talking an all time legendary bowler who had the added bonus of being a decent batsman.
Crowe maybe slightly edges Taylor but that's pretty close.
Latham and Guptill underperformed hugely but the former will prove his worth again especially in the longest form.
Boult would be top three surely behind you know who and Bond. Who else compares ?
-
@MN5 said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
@Cyclops said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
I think some people are underestimating the talent pool and production of New Zealand cricket. Kane is truly special player. I would be surprised if I saw a better player in the black cap.
But the supporting players aren't that level. Boult is a great talent and perhaps a top 10 bowler for us. But we have consistently produced great bowlers. Ferguson's pace will be harder to replace. Hopefully the development work that has supported him will inform future development programmes. Henry is pretty much about average for a New Zealand bowler.
Neesham is a special talent, but power hitting all rounders seems to be our specialty area. (Incidentally, imagine this side with de Grandhomme replaced with a fully fit Corey Anderson).
Taylor is another special talent, and in our ODI side might be harder to replace than Kane. But I'm not convinced that the rest are significantly better than at any other period.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that if the fern was around in 92 we would probably have said the same thing. And in the 80s when we had Hadlee and Crowe together. And around 2003 as Flem, Astle etc retired.
But actually, every generation we've got better. The freak talents (Hadlee, Crowe, Bond, Kane) might keep coming at same rate, but the talent around them will keep rising.
I'm not predicting a Australian or West Indian period of dominance in another couple of decades. But there will be other teams that have as good or better chances to win major titles.
Ever ?
I'd still place Paddles on a higher echelon but KW has a career to go and that might change......doubtful though, we're talking an all time legendary bowler who had the added bonus of being a decent batsman.
Crowe maybe slightly edges Taylor but that's pretty close.
Latham and Guptill underperformed hugely but the former will prove his worth again especially in the longest form.
Boult would be top three surely behind you know who and Bond. Who else compares ?
In my life time (ie that I'll see). There's a bit of projection in there since he's 28, but I think by the time he retires he'll be past Hadlee.
-
@Cyclops said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
@MN5 said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
@Cyclops said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
I think some people are underestimating the talent pool and production of New Zealand cricket. Kane is truly special player. I would be surprised if I saw a better player in the black cap.
But the supporting players aren't that level. Boult is a great talent and perhaps a top 10 bowler for us. But we have consistently produced great bowlers. Ferguson's pace will be harder to replace. Hopefully the development work that has supported him will inform future development programmes. Henry is pretty much about average for a New Zealand bowler.
Neesham is a special talent, but power hitting all rounders seems to be our specialty area. (Incidentally, imagine this side with de Grandhomme replaced with a fully fit Corey Anderson).
Taylor is another special talent, and in our ODI side might be harder to replace than Kane. But I'm not convinced that the rest are significantly better than at any other period.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that if the fern was around in 92 we would probably have said the same thing. And in the 80s when we had Hadlee and Crowe together. And around 2003 as Flem, Astle etc retired.
But actually, every generation we've got better. The freak talents (Hadlee, Crowe, Bond, Kane) might keep coming at same rate, but the talent around them will keep rising.
I'm not predicting a Australian or West Indian period of dominance in another couple of decades. But there will be other teams that have as good or better chances to win major titles.
Ever ?
I'd still place Paddles on a higher echelon but KW has a career to go and that might change......doubtful though, we're talking an all time legendary bowler who had the added bonus of being a decent batsman.
Crowe maybe slightly edges Taylor but that's pretty close.
Latham and Guptill underperformed hugely but the former will prove his worth again especially in the longest form.
Boult would be top three surely behind you know who and Bond. Who else compares ?
In my life time (ie that I'll see). There's a bit of projection in there since he's 28, but I think by the time he retires he'll be past Hadlee.
Time will tell.
At this stage to me KW is still firmly second name down in an all time XI. That's how good Hadlee was......but that's still well ahead of other "kiwi" greats ( I still think Paddles is our one and only "legendary" test player, some other countries might have 15-20 over time ). Then I guess you're gonna get to the whole longevity argument which despite the length of Hadlees career ( 17 years ) he won't be able to compete with given KW is just 14 tests shy of what he finished up with and he has years in reserve.
KW is well and truly on the way to be mentioned in Paddles echelon, no doubt. It's hard to see him being a clear number one though.
-
The problem with 2023 is that three teams who aren't a threat have just come into consideration. Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Afghanistan (if they are there) will be much better. I'm not saying Afghanistan will be a threat for the playoffs but I bet they win a game in India. England should still be good in four years. The Aussies and Saffas don't have good spinners lined up but are generally strong.
One problem with NZC is that we are under performing at recent u-19 world cups. That probably has to have some ramifications down the line.
-
@shark said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
You're having a little tug on your own whizzer there if you seriously believe the Poms will give a second thought to the way they were awarded this WC. They won't give a flying fuck. It's in the record books, that's all that matters. And we'd feel exactly the same. At most they'll feel mildly sympathetic towards us but they'll feel completely justified in having taken this title, one way or another.
Yeah I walked that one back a little after a bit of reflection. The champagne tastes just the same either way and in a similar situation at the 2011 RWC walking away with the trophy and not screwing it up again would have been enough for most at the time.
But I still wouldn't be surprised if in the fullness of time there is a "yeah but" attached to it which I'm sure will shit them just a little from time to time. With the 1995 RWC example before, if we had held on 2 minutes and won a red card I wouldn't be sure that the guys could dine out on it the same way other teams have... but then again look at Fitzy and they lost.
-
-
-
@Frank said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
Can we talk about rugby please?
No. There's too much of that on here already with instagram stalking, whining about Beaudie going, what injury has SBW got, friendlies, breakdancing coaches and "when is the team named?" bullshit. I for one am enjoying the brief hiatus.
-
@mofitzy_ said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
Not a fan of Stead coming out and saying a draw is something that could be considered. Fuck that, it's a world cup - just figure out a better way to award the winner.
To be honest - in a game like cricket - if you get a tie, which very rarely happens, I don't see what's wrong with just sharing the title.
In a game like soccer, I can see why you need a tiebreak.
But, if necessary - why not just come back the next day and play another match? If TV companies can't sort out to cover the replay then fuck 'em.
p.s. rugby needs to sort something better out than the drop-kick-off, which was what supposedly happens last time I looked. Far rather share the title than indulge in "fucking foolishness".
-
@Chris-B said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
p.s. rugby needs to sort something better out than the drop-kick-off, which was what supposedly happens last time I looked. Far rather share the title than indulge in "fucking foolishness".
Johnny Wilkinson deserves a knighthood - not so much for winning the final in 2003, but saving rugby from that drop-kick off about 30 seconds later...
-
@Catogrande said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
@Frank said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
Can we talk about rugby please?
Not just yet.
Cheating pommy bastard, you're banned from commenting on cricket for at least 6 months.
-
One further surprise in the final, the annual Wimbledon final out TV-rated the first England World Cup Final appearance since 1992. A consequence of "live international cricket returned to free-to-air television for the first time in 14 years" perhaps...
4.5 million Britons watch Cricket World Cup final on Channel 4
Viewing peaked for drama of super over but still lagged behind Wimbledon final
-
@Donsteppa said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
One further surprise in the final, the annual Wimbledon final out TV-rated the first England World Cup Final appearance since 1992. A consequence of "live international cricket returned to free-to-air television for the first time in 14 years" perhaps...
4.5 million Britons watch Cricket World Cup final on Channel 4
Viewing peaked for drama of super over but still lagged behind Wimbledon final
I know I don't speak for a shitload of people but I seriously don't get the obsession with tennis. It's a dreary sport and, McEnroe aside, played by a bunch of folk completely devoid of any personality. Imagine if Roger Federer had to talk up a match the same way Tyson Fury does for a fight ?
The world ( sporting or otherwise ) boggles my mind sometimes.
-
@No-Quarter said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
@Catogrande said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
@Frank said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
Can we talk about rugby please?
Not just yet.
Cheating pommy bastard, you're banned from commenting on cricket for at least 6 months.
Fair enough, that will still leave me three and a half years of gloating before we inevitably get dumped out in the first round next time.
-
@Frank said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
Can we talk about rugby please?
Fuck that, not everyone on the Fern actually lives for all things Rugby - Cricket is my first love and only AB Tests feature on my rugby interest. I care bugger all about domestic rugby for the most part but when something involves ODIs and Tests for Cricket - I'm in like Flynn.
