Best Test XI - POLL - Keeper
-
@Godder said in Best Test XI - NOMINATIONS - Keeper:
Ian Smith - in my opinion, NZ's best keeper ever technically. Rated as the world's best during his career.
I'd go Smithy as well, because probalby the best on pure keeping ability. If we're not doing allrounders, we're probably not doing batting wicket keepers too.
-
See the issue I have here is that keeping ability is so anecdotal. What evidence do we have that Smith was that much better ( if at all ) than Watling or McCullum ?
There’s a reason Adam Gilchrist gets in so many all time teams and it’s not for his work with the gloves ( indeed, lots of people say Healy was better ) but his ability to smash huge runs nice and quick down the order. We don’t have anyone like that, indeed lots of McCullums runs were made after he hung up the gloves so by that rationale I have to go with a guy who has grafted us out of the shit on numerous occasions and to my less than expert eye done a fine job behind the stumps.
-
@ACT-Crusader said in Best Test XI - NOMINATIONS - Keeper:
I nominate Parore for the single fact he scored that ton in that partnership with Astle against some quality bowling. Somewhat against the trend, I reckon his keeping was world class at the end of his career.
scored two hundreds
one against Ambrose and Walsh
one against McGrath, Gillespie, Lee and Warne.
wasn't he also the one that delivered that amazing outburst at Mark Waugh? If so i would pick him just for that
-
@MN5 The issue I have with you giving such importance to a guys secondary role (in this case batting) is that we are talking our All Time XI.
If our top 5 specialists bats backed up by a couple of players who are there for their key skill but do know what end of the bat to hold i.e. Not Chris Martin can't build a total that our best ever bowling attack can't defend - then why the fuck bother?
-
@dogmeat said in Best Test XI - NOMINATIONS - Keeper:
@MN5 The issue I have with you giving such importance to a guys secondary role (in this case batting) is that we are talking our All Time XI.
If our top 5 specialists bats backed up by a couple of players who are there for their key skill but do know what end of the bat to hold i.e. Not Chris Martin can't build a total that our best ever bowling attack can't defend - then why the fuck bother?
when you are desperately building a case for one bloke just because he looks good in a pair of undies, you'll make all sorts of silly justifications
-
@mariner4life said in Best Test XI - NOMINATIONS - Keeper:
@ACT-Crusader said in Best Test XI - NOMINATIONS - Keeper:
I nominate Parore for the single fact he scored that ton in that partnership with Astle against some quality bowling. Somewhat against the trend, I reckon his keeping was world class at the end of his career.
scored two hundreds
one against Ambrose and Walsh
one against McGrath, Gillespie, Lee and Warne.
wasn't he also the one that delivered that amazing outburst at Mark Waugh? If so i would pick him just for that
Poor old junior was also on the end of that ‘at least I’m the best player in my family’ jibe.
-
@dogmeat said in Best Test XI - NOMINATIONS - Keeper:
@MN5 The issue I have with you giving such importance to a guys secondary role (in this case batting) is that we are talking our All Time XI.
If our top 5 specialists bats backed up by a couple of players who are there for their key skill but do know what end of the bat to hold i.e. Not Chris Martin can't build a total that our best ever bowling attack can't defend - then why the fuck bother?
I disagree with that.
If there’s not much between guys in terms of their key skill I’ll always pick the one who is able to provide more worth to the team in a secondary discipline.
Our mythical top order might collapse as even the best teams do. If so I want guys who can swing a bat or graft as is sometimes needed.
-
@MN5 said in Best Test XI - NOMINATIONS - Keeper:
See the issue I have here is that keeping ability is so anecdotal. What evidence do we have that Smith was that much better ( if at all ) than Watling or McCullum ?
There’s a reason Adam Gilchrist gets in so many all time teams and it’s not for his work with the gloves ( indeed, lots of people say Healy was better ) but his ability to smash huge runs nice and quick down the order. We don’t have anyone like that, indeed lots of McCullums runs were made after he hung up the gloves so by that rationale I have to go with a guy who has grafted us out of the shit on numerous occasions and to my less than expert eye done a fine job behind the stumps.
Just on the OZ discussion, I’m not a fan of Healy, Haddin or Gilchrist. The player I liked as a kid and thought he was athletic behind the stumps and a good test batsman, was Wayne Phillips.
-
@MN5 said in Best Test XI - NOMINATIONS - Keeper:
There’s a reason Adam Gilchrist gets in so many all time teams and it’s not for his work with the gloves ( indeed, lots of people say Healy was better ) but his ability to smash huge runs nice and quick down the order. We don’t have anyone like that, indeed lots of McCullums runs were made after he hung up the gloves so by that rationale I have to go with a guy who has grafted us out of the shit on numerous occasions and to my less than expert eye done a fine job behind the stumps.
You have to draw a line somewhere though. Why not have Bruce Edgar (who kept a test) or Bryan Young (who kept internationally several times) as the all time XI keeper - it kills two birds with one stone as second opener is probably our weakest spot behind spinner (if one is needed at all).
-
@rotated said in Best Test XI - NOMINATIONS - Keeper:
@MN5 said in Best Test XI - NOMINATIONS - Keeper:
There’s a reason Adam Gilchrist gets in so many all time teams and it’s not for his work with the gloves ( indeed, lots of people say Healy was better ) but his ability to smash huge runs nice and quick down the order. We don’t have anyone like that, indeed lots of McCullums runs were made after he hung up the gloves so by that rationale I have to go with a guy who has grafted us out of the shit on numerous occasions and to my less than expert eye done a fine job behind the stumps.
You have to draw a line somewhere though. Why not have Bruce Edgar (who kept a test) or Bryan Young (who kept internationally several times) as the all time XI keeper - it kills two birds with one stone as second opener is probably our weakest spot behind spinner (if one is needed at all).
If I was picking a keeper to open, any of Tom Latham, Watling or McCullum would be my choices over Young.
-
@ACT-Crusader said in Best Test XI - NOMINATIONS - Keeper:
@MN5 said in Best Test XI - NOMINATIONS - Keeper:
See the issue I have here is that keeping ability is so anecdotal. What evidence do we have that Smith was that much better ( if at all ) than Watling or McCullum ?
There’s a reason Adam Gilchrist gets in so many all time teams and it’s not for his work with the gloves ( indeed, lots of people say Healy was better ) but his ability to smash huge runs nice and quick down the order. We don’t have anyone like that, indeed lots of McCullums runs were made after he hung up the gloves so by that rationale I have to go with a guy who has grafted us out of the shit on numerous occasions and to my less than expert eye done a fine job behind the stumps.
Just on the OZ discussion, I’m not a fan of Healy, Haddin or Gilchrist. The player I liked as a kid and thought he was athletic behind the stumps and a good test batsman, was Wayne Phillips.
I don’t think you could get more of a contrast between dickhead and good bloke if you tried.
Aw, you mean their keeping ability ?
-
@rotated said in Best Test XI - NOMINATIONS - Keeper:
You have to draw a line somewhere though.
Apparently you don’t. There are no lines given Cairns name keeps getting mentioned...
-
@Godder said in Best Test XI - NOMINATIONS - Keeper:
@rotated said in Best Test XI - NOMINATIONS - Keeper:
@MN5 said in Best Test XI - NOMINATIONS - Keeper:
There’s a reason Adam Gilchrist gets in so many all time teams and it’s not for his work with the gloves ( indeed, lots of people say Healy was better ) but his ability to smash huge runs nice and quick down the order. We don’t have anyone like that, indeed lots of McCullums runs were made after he hung up the gloves so by that rationale I have to go with a guy who has grafted us out of the shit on numerous occasions and to my less than expert eye done a fine job behind the stumps.
You have to draw a line somewhere though. Why not have Bruce Edgar (who kept a test) or Bryan Young (who kept internationally several times) as the all time XI keeper - it kills two birds with one stone as second opener is probably our weakest spot behind spinner (if one is needed at all).
If I was picking a keeper to open, any of Tom Latham, Watling or McCullum would be my choices over Young.
Well yes, but we can't just state the obvious that Watling is a better test batsman and gloveman than McCullum and lock the thread can we? Latham I would not put above McCullum in either discipline - yet.
-
-
-
@MN5 I do get where you are coming from but I can sort of understand Turner's logic.
Germon had proven leadership ability and was the incumbent back-up keeper. Rutherford was the test captain but his form had fallen off a cliff so he needed replacing. Plus from memory he was out injured anyway. then there was the hang over from the SA Tour and the dope bullshit.
So a new captain was needed and there weren't exactly any obvious candidates from within the squad. Flem was too young (22?), had only just started his test career and was one of the trio of naughty boys.
Germon wasn't tainted had a decent first class record and was probably worth a punt as a Todd Blackadder type stop gap.
He was no great shakes as a keeper - prone to a howler every innings but averaged OK with the bat from memory. problem was he was seen as the teachers pet and was saddled with a couple of very precious "stars" and a team that was still infighting and who didn't trust each other. Still as a seat warmer until Fleming had a couple more birthdays he just about gets a pass.
-
@dogmeat said in Best Test XI - NOMINATIONS - Keeper:
@MN5 I do get where you are coming from but I can sort of understand Turner's logic.
Germon had proven leadership ability and was the incumbent back-up keeper. Rutherford was the test captain but his form had fallen off a cliff so he needed replacing. Plus from memory he was out injured anyway. then there was the hang over from the SA Tour and the dope bullshit.
So a new captain was needed and there weren't exactly any obvious candidates from within the squad. Flem was too young (22?), had only just started his test career and was one of the trio of naughty boys.
Germon wasn't tainted had a decent first class record and was probably worth a punt as a Todd Blackadder type stop gap.
He was no great shakes as a keeper - prone to a howler every innings but averaged OK with the bat from memory. problem was he was seen as the teachers pet and was saddled with a couple of very precious "stars" and a team that was still infighting and who didn't trust each other. Still as a seat warmer until Fleming had a couple more birthdays he just about gets a pass.
Just a very dark period in NZs test history. We should all be made to look back at footage of Germon and other such greats like Matthew Hart, Darren Murray, Richard De Groen and be thankful for what we have now.
-
@dogmeat said in Best Test XI - NOMINATIONS - Keeper:
@MN5 Blair squared [shudder]
Those two got more runs off their helmets than they did off their bats.
Wikipedia telling it like it is.....
"Pocock was one of the many openers used in the poorly performing New Zealand cricket team of the mid-1990s, but made little impact in Test cricket, averaging under 23"
.....and the other Blair who played less tests at an even lower average gets a much more extensive write up.....
"When the English cricket team visited New Zealand in 1991, Hartland opened for the New Zealand Emerging Players team; though he faced 36 balls in his two innings he only made one run for twice out,[1] but that didn't prevent the New Zealand selectors from selecting him for the first Test at his native Christchurch two weeks later, as New Zealand sought a replacement for the defensive opener Trevor Franklin who had opened on tour of Sri Lanka a year earlier.[2]
However, Hartland's debut did not yield a good result for New Zealand. England were put in to bat, made 580 for nine declared, before spin bowler Phil Tufnell took eleven wickets in the match, including Hartland twice, for 22 in the first innings and then 45 in the second when stumps were drawn on day four. Hartland watched as Tufnell added a further six victims in the second innings, and England secured a victory by an innings and four runs.[3][4] Hartland was retained for the second Test, however, and recorded a pair of ducks as New Zealand went down by 168 runs – before scoring 2 in New Zealand's first innings of the third Test where the team made 432 for 9 declared after a stand of 241 between John Wright and Andrew Jones.
Hartland had still not passed fifty in six Test innings, but was still taken on tours of Zimbabwe and Sri Lanka in 1992–93, and though he did not play a Test against Zimbabwe (with Mark Greatbatch and Rod Latham preferred as openers), he played his first ODI on that tour, scoring five runs from number three in the batting order as New Zealand won by four wickets. Greatbatch and Latham were dropped for Sri Lanka, however, and Hartland was back as opener together with Wright; after he was out to Dulip Liyanage for 3 in the first innings, and Sri Lanka had declared 39 runs ahead with five sessions remaining, Hartland batted for four hours in an opening stand worth 110 with Wright, making his maiden Test fifty. New Zealand batted out the match, making 195 for 5 in the second innings to draw the game.[5][6]
That was enough for Hartland to be picked for the second Test a week later, where he made the second highest score of New Zealand's innings. However, that was only 21, as New Zealand fell from 57 for 0 to 102 all out; following on, Hartland made 21 again as New Zealand made 361, but Sri Lanka took a nine-wicket win and the series by 1–0.[7] Hartland also played two of the three ODIs in the series, recording his maiden ODI fifty,[8] but New Zealand still lost both matches and the series 0–2.[9]
Hartland also played New Zealand's next Test,[10] a home match against Pakistan, but after he once again failed to pass 50 and made 9 in a second-innings chase of 127 to win, where New Zealand were bowled out for 93 by Wasim Akram (five for 45) and Waqar Younis (five for 22)[11] he was dropped and did not play international matches for over a year. When he did return, it was once again against Pakistan, scoring 13 runs in two innings in a five-wicket win for New Zealand. He continued to feature in the New Zealand side for the remainder of the 1993–94 season, making 68 not out in a successful chase of 146 in a One Day International against Pakistan, but otherwise not passing 25 in one Test and seven One Day Internationals.
Hartland was, however, picked for New Zealand's tour of England in 1994; he played nine matches against first-class sides of the country, but only one Test, his last. Hartland made 6 and 22 in an innings defeat,[12] and was replaced by Blair Pocock in the next match.[13] He played a further five ODIs during the 1994–95 season, but after five scores below 50 he was dropped after the Mandela Trophy. He played a further two seasons for Canterbury before retiring"
