Best Test XI - General chat
-
@MN5 said in Best Test XI - General chat:
@Godder said in Best Test XI - General chat:
@MN5 said in Best Test XI - General chat:
@rotated said in Best Test XI - General chat:
@MN5 said in Best Test XI - General chat:
The whole six batsmen thing irks me a bit cos it means I theoretically can’t put in a keeper/batsman or all rounder. I’m not gonna pick Astle or McMillan just cos they were occasionally useful bowlers to balance the side.
Crowe and Williamson are both going to make it and could bowl as effectively or moreso than those two.
14 wickets in 77 tests.
If we’re hedging any bets on Hogans bowling ability then the team is fucked.
Hogan stopped bowling because of back issues, not inability with the ball. Not sure where that fits in this, but if it's a fully fit team with no long term injuries etc., then Hogan's bowling works for me.
Coulda....shoulda.....
I prefer to go on proven ability not what might have happened.
It's not like he's being used as any more than the 6th bowler, he just has to roll his arm over.
-
@Godder said in Best Test XI - General chat:
@MN5 said in Best Test XI - General chat:
@Godder said in Best Test XI - General chat:
@MN5 said in Best Test XI - General chat:
@rotated said in Best Test XI - General chat:
@MN5 said in Best Test XI - General chat:
The whole six batsmen thing irks me a bit cos it means I theoretically can’t put in a keeper/batsman or all rounder. I’m not gonna pick Astle or McMillan just cos they were occasionally useful bowlers to balance the side.
Crowe and Williamson are both going to make it and could bowl as effectively or moreso than those two.
14 wickets in 77 tests.
If we’re hedging any bets on Hogans bowling ability then the team is fucked.
Hogan stopped bowling because of back issues, not inability with the ball. Not sure where that fits in this, but if it's a fully fit team with no long term injuries etc., then Hogan's bowling works for me.
Coulda....shoulda.....
I prefer to go on proven ability not what might have happened.
It's not like he's being used as any more than the 6th bowler, he just has to roll his arm over.
No course not and I’m certainly not doubting his place in the team but I don’t factor his bowling into the equation one iota.
-
@nzzp said in Best Test XI - General chat:
@Godder said in Best Test XI - General chat:
Not sure where that fits in this, but if it's a fully fit team with no long term injuries etc.,
Shane Bond has entered the chat
One might think that, but I couldn't possibly comment...
-
@MN5 said in Best Test XI - General chat:
@Godder said in Best Test XI - General chat:
@MN5 said in Best Test XI - General chat:
@Godder said in Best Test XI - General chat:
@MN5 said in Best Test XI - General chat:
@rotated said in Best Test XI - General chat:
@MN5 said in Best Test XI - General chat:
The whole six batsmen thing irks me a bit cos it means I theoretically can’t put in a keeper/batsman or all rounder. I’m not gonna pick Astle or McMillan just cos they were occasionally useful bowlers to balance the side.
Crowe and Williamson are both going to make it and could bowl as effectively or moreso than those two.
14 wickets in 77 tests.
If we’re hedging any bets on Hogans bowling ability then the team is fucked.
Hogan stopped bowling because of back issues, not inability with the ball. Not sure where that fits in this, but if it's a fully fit team with no long term injuries etc., then Hogan's bowling works for me.
Coulda....shoulda.....
I prefer to go on proven ability not what might have happened.
It's not like he's being used as any more than the 6th bowler, he just has to roll his arm over.
No course not and I’m certainly not doubting his place in the team but I don’t factor his bowling into the equation one iota.
I'm not factoring his or Kane's bowling into their selections, but they do improve the balance of the side and are a factor in the selection of the number 6.
-
On the Cairns debate, which is really just @MN5 vs the world, for an all rounder to be considered they have to command their spot in one discipline. E.G. Hadlee makes it as a bowler, and his batting is a bonus that strengthens our lineup.
Cairns weakens our batting and weakens our bowling where better batsmen and bowlers could take those places at 6 or in our group of bowlers. I'm really not a fan of bits and pieces all rounders in test cricket. They're worth it in the shorter forms but carrying a player in the 5 day game can be really costly.
-
@No-Quarter said in Best Test XI - General chat:
On the Cairns debate, which is really just @MN5 vs the world, for an all rounder to be considered they have to command their spot in one discipline. E.G. Hadlee makes it as a bowler, and his batting is a bonus that strengthens our lineup.
Cairns weakens our batting and weakens our bowling where better batsmen and bowlers could take those places at 6 or in our group of bowlers. I**'m really not a fan of bits and pieces all rounders in test cricket**. They're worth it in the shorter forms but carrying a player in the 5 day game can be really costly.
No team carried Cairns, it was the other way round. He's not bits and pieces he was one of five Wisden players of the year in 2000 and universally regarded as one of the best ever in his prime. NZ has had a fuck load of the types you mention, he was not one. Very good bowler. Good batsman. He was not an absolutely World Class player but I believe in our entire history we've only had two who are, Paddles and KW.
13 five fors ( third on the all time NZ list ), five tons. In other words 18 big moments in 62 test matches. I agree, not quite as good as Southee, Wags or Boult with the ball but not much behind.....and the batting makes him a much more valuable pick for a team.
-
@MN5 despite his career including taking money from the bookies, he was a fine player and he absolutely did carry some very poor NZ teams when he played. But this is an all time XI we are talking about. We either compromise our batting lineup or our bowling lineup depending where we slot him in the team.
I get your argument but if we assume we are playing other all time XIs then we definitely can't afford to weaken our bowling lineup so he'd have to play as a 6, but he's not good enough to bat that high.
You're basically arguing that we should lengthen our batting lineup at the expense of our bowling as we don't back our top 6 to get the job done. You don't tend to win test matches with that line of thinking.
-
@No-Quarter said in Best Test XI - General chat:
@MN5 despite his career including taking money from the bookies, he was a fine player and he absolutely did carry some very poor NZ teams when he played. But this is an all time XI we are talking about. We either compromise our batting lineup or our bowling lineup depending where we slot him in the team.
I get your argument but if we assume we are playing other all time XIs then we definitely can't afford to weaken our bowling lineup so he'd have to play as a 6, but he's not good enough to bat that high.
You're basically arguing that we should lengthen our batting lineup at the expense of our bowling as we don't back our top 6 to get the job done. You don't tend to win test matches with that line of thinking.
Yeah if only cricket was played perfectly each time huh ? Even splendid batsmen get ducks, even splendid bowlers get no wickets and go for runs.....for my all time team I’d like to hedge my bets on a guy who is a good chance to make a big contribution. Contrary to fern logic our current trio, while all bloody good, are in no ways head and shoulders above him.
Does Cairns as a bowler compete with Paddles or Bond ?
No way.
Does he compete with the trinity playing now ? Absolutely.
-
@No-Quarter said in Best Test XI - General chat:
@MN5 despite his career including taking money from the bookies, he was a fine player and he absolutely did carry some very poor NZ teams when he played. But this is an all time XI we are talking about. We either compromise our batting lineup or our bowling lineup depending where we slot him in the team.
I get your argument but if we assume we are playing other all time XIs then we definitely can't afford to weaken our bowling lineup so he'd have to play as a 6, but he's not good enough to bat that high.
You're basically arguing that we should lengthen our batting lineup at the expense of our bowling as we don't back our top 6 to get the job done. You don't tend to win test matches with that line of thinking.
I don't think Cairns carried poor NZ teams. When the NZ teams were poor, Cairns was also poor, and anecdotally he was probably a large reason why the team was poor in the first place. (Culture and discipline)
He got good, when the team matured, the leadership fitted the egos, and the culture got good.
But, yes, it is harder to shine or excel in a poor team. But I don't think he did much carrying. I thnk he may have pulled off some good ODI batting in that period, but don't think he carried any test lienups.
-
@Rapido said in Best Test XI - General chat:
@No-Quarter said in Best Test XI - General chat:
@MN5 despite his career including taking money from the bookies, he was a fine player and he absolutely did carry some very poor NZ teams when he played. But this is an all time XI we are talking about. We either compromise our batting lineup or our bowling lineup depending where we slot him in the team.
I get your argument but if we assume we are playing other all time XIs then we definitely can't afford to weaken our bowling lineup so he'd have to play as a 6, but he's not good enough to bat that high.
You're basically arguing that we should lengthen our batting lineup at the expense of our bowling as we don't back our top 6 to get the job done. You don't tend to win test matches with that line of thinking.
I don't think Cairns carried poor NZ teams. When the NZ teams were poor, Cairns was also poor, and anecdotally he was probably a large reason why the team was poor in the first place. (Culture and discipline)
He got good, when the team matured, the leadership fitted the egos, and the culture got good.
But, yes, it is harder to shine or excel in a poor team. But I don't think he did much carrying. I thnk he may have pulled off some good ODI batting in that period, but don't think he carried any test lienups.
So you're saying that any number of donkeys who played for the Black Caps in the mid 90s would have been better players if Cairns wasn't around ?
-
@MN5 said in Best Test XI - General chat:
@Rapido said in Best Test XI - General chat:
@No-Quarter said in Best Test XI - General chat:
@MN5 despite his career including taking money from the bookies, he was a fine player and he absolutely did carry some very poor NZ teams when he played. But this is an all time XI we are talking about. We either compromise our batting lineup or our bowling lineup depending where we slot him in the team.
I get your argument but if we assume we are playing other all time XIs then we definitely can't afford to weaken our bowling lineup so he'd have to play as a 6, but he's not good enough to bat that high.
You're basically arguing that we should lengthen our batting lineup at the expense of our bowling as we don't back our top 6 to get the job done. You don't tend to win test matches with that line of thinking.
I don't think Cairns carried poor NZ teams. When the NZ teams were poor, Cairns was also poor, and anecdotally he was probably a large reason why the team was poor in the first place. (Culture and discipline)
He got good, when the team matured, the leadership fitted the egos, and the culture got good.
But, yes, it is harder to shine or excel in a poor team. But I don't think he did much carrying. I thnk he may have pulled off some good ODI batting in that period, but don't think he carried any test lienups.
So you're saying that any number of donkeys who played for the Black Caps in the mid 90s would have been better players if Cairns wasn't around ?
Might have had a better attitude?
-
@booboo said in Best Test XI - General chat:
@MN5 said in Best Test XI - General chat:
@Rapido said in Best Test XI - General chat:
@No-Quarter said in Best Test XI - General chat:
@MN5 despite his career including taking money from the bookies, he was a fine player and he absolutely did carry some very poor NZ teams when he played. But this is an all time XI we are talking about. We either compromise our batting lineup or our bowling lineup depending where we slot him in the team.
I get your argument but if we assume we are playing other all time XIs then we definitely can't afford to weaken our bowling lineup so he'd have to play as a 6, but he's not good enough to bat that high.
You're basically arguing that we should lengthen our batting lineup at the expense of our bowling as we don't back our top 6 to get the job done. You don't tend to win test matches with that line of thinking.
I don't think Cairns carried poor NZ teams. When the NZ teams were poor, Cairns was also poor, and anecdotally he was probably a large reason why the team was poor in the first place. (Culture and discipline)
He got good, when the team matured, the leadership fitted the egos, and the culture got good.
But, yes, it is harder to shine or excel in a poor team. But I don't think he did much carrying. I thnk he may have pulled off some good ODI batting in that period, but don't think he carried any test lienups.
So you're saying that any number of donkeys who played for the Black Caps in the mid 90s would have been better players if Cairns wasn't around ?
Might have had a better attitude?
Actually I might change my vote for bowlers, Hadlee chose to keep the car that he won which created a bit of division in the team by all accounts.
Decent enough player but I might pick Ewen Chatfield or Martin Snedden from that era instead, they never won cars or got accused of being prima donnas.
-
I wasn't saying that, just rated him as a culturally negative passenger at that stage, not a carrier. But now that you mention it. You can make a case that NZ's other players were better when Cairns wasn't around.
In NZ's 1990s nadir.
1991 to 1997 (after the retirements at the end of England 1990 tour, until the Rixon and Fleming leadership started to bed down).
When Cairns transitioned from junior member of the team to a (too soon) senior member.
NZ were better when Cairns didn't play.
1991 - 1997 Played W D L
Total 52 7 20 25
with Carins: 27 2 12 13
without Cairns: 25 5 8 12His personal stats in that period are resonable for a youngish allrounder.
Averaged 29 with the bat with 1 test century v Zimbabwe
Averaged 33 the ball, at 3 wickets per tests, four 5-fers -
The 2 tests NZ won with Cairns involved. Cairns played as a specialist batsman and did not bowl a ball. (averaged 28 with the bat). V Sri Lanka in 1997.
The 5 tests NZ won without Cairns included the 3 best wins of the decade: v Australia at Eden Park, v South Africa in Johannesberg, v Pakistan in Lahore. (plus allegedly dodgy win v Pak in Chch, and a win v Zimbabwe)
-
Yes, Cairns was a great player.
Just, he never carried a weak team. His own peak coincided with a generation of core players all peaking.
No shame in needing a good team to be allow yourself the ability to show your skills. But, just the carrying part is a myth. Well, not a myth, as it isn't a generally held opinion I don't think.
-
If he shone in strong teams, and this exercise is selecting our best team, then that suggests he'd do well. On the other hand, our team would probably be one of the relatively weakest teams of the cricketing nations, so maybe he'd be dragged down by that.
