NZ All Time XI
-
@mn5 Cairnsie was never up to batting in the top 6 even among some of the somewhat mediocre options he played with.
Never saw John Reid, but he mainly batted at four for NZ, so he gets quite a few more marks than Cairnsie even though their averages are similar.
I'd be somewhat tempted to leave him out for Rossco, though - and just have four bowlers.
-
@chris-b said in Cricket - NZ vs Pakistan:
@mn5 Cairnsie was never up to batting in the top 6 even among some of the somewhat mediocre options he played with.
Never saw John Reid, but he mainly batted at four for NZ, so he gets quite a few more marks than Cairnsie even though their averages are similar.
I'd be somewhat tempted to leave him out for Rossco, though - and just have four bowlers.
Thats debatable but he'd bat 7 or 8 in my all time team.....
Cairns was so superior to Reid in terms of his bowling it wasn't funny.....not to mention CC has a good batting record too.....Very similar to Reids in fact.
Consider this.....a 5 for and a century are pretty much what every bowler and batsman strive for respectively right ? Cairns has 18 combined from 62 tests......Reid had 7 from 58 tests.
I get that Cairns had a polarizing personality and obviously the allegations play a massive part in that too but anyone who doesn't think he's one of our all time greats has rocks in their head.
-
@mn5 He doubtless is a New Zealand great - if we're allowed to have twenty or thirty "greats". But, for me he sits alongside someone like Fleming - a good test player, but not exceptional.
In terms of World "Greats", only Sir Paddles would be sure of an invite. Marty might get a seat in the room, and Little Kane is filling in an application form.
-
@chris-b said in Cricket - NZ vs Pakistan:
@mn5 He doubtless is a New Zealand great - if we're allowed to have twenty or thirty "greats". But, for me he sits alongside someone like Fleming - a good test player, but not exceptional.
In terms of World "Greats", only Sir Paddles would be sure of an invite. Marty might get a seat in the room, and Little Kane is filling in an application form.
I agree, Paddles is our only true great but I have no doubt KW will join him.
Again, Cairns walks into the team for me, only stickler is the "balance" and where he bats.....
-
-
-
-
Boult is the superior choice over Bond.
-
Problem with Cairns in an all-time team is he doesn't stack up as batsmen or bowler alone against the other options. You'd only play him if you think you needed an extra batsmen at 7, or another bowling option and bat him at 6, to cover weaknesses. You don't have those weaknesses in all-time teams so for me he doesn't make the cut as he either weakens the batting or the bowling. 6 batsmen, 1 keeper and 4 bowlers gives the best balance to this team.
Someone like Kallis can make teams like this as he makes the team as a batsmen alone, and the bowling is just a bonus. Cairns isn't quite good enough at either.
-
@no-quarter Yeah - and that's the thing.
Ideally, you'd want everyone in the top 6 to have averages of 50+, because that's going to be the benchmark of the Aussies/English/Windies etc. Which is why I'll pick Dempster (a coulda been Great, but didn't play enough) over someone like Wright or even Sutcliffe.
Bowling-wise, you want people who can dynamite a world class batting line-up - in my lifetime that's Hadlee, Bond and just maybe Boult.
Harsh reality of NZ cricket is that we have to include people like Turner and Vettori - excellent players, but guys who wouldn't get a look in in an all-time Australian team.
-
@chris-b said in Cricket - NZ vs Pakistan:
@no-quarter Yeah - and that's the thing.
Ideally, you'd want everyone in the top 6 to have averages of 50+, because that's going to be the benchmark of the Aussies/English/Windies etc. Which is why I'll pick Dempster (a coulda been Great, but didn't play enough) over someone like Wright or even Sutcliffe.
Bowling-wise, you want people who can dynamite a world class batting line-up - in my lifetime that's Hadlee, Bond and just maybe Boult.
Harsh reality of NZ cricket is that we have to include people like Turner and Vettori - excellent players, but guys who wouldn't get a look in in an all-time Australian team.
Ummmmmm......It's New Zealand?
An Aussie all time 2nd or even 3rd XI would destroy our best.
-
@baron-silas-greenback said in Cricket - NZ vs Pakistan:
Boult is the superior choice over Bond.
Longevity vs utter brilliance....I disagree. Bonds career was just long enough to be included.
-
@baron-silas-greenback said in Cricket - NZ vs Pakistan:
Boult is the superior choice over Bond.
Not if you need to knock Bradman's head off!
-
@mn5 said in Cricket - NZ vs Pakistan:
@chris-b said in Cricket - NZ vs Pakistan:
@no-quarter Yeah - and that's the thing.
Ideally, you'd want everyone in the top 6 to have averages of 50+, because that's going to be the benchmark of the Aussies/English/Windies etc. Which is why I'll pick Dempster (a coulda been Great, but didn't play enough) over someone like Wright or even Sutcliffe.
Bowling-wise, you want people who can dynamite a world class batting line-up - in my lifetime that's Hadlee, Bond and just maybe Boult.
Harsh reality of NZ cricket is that we have to include people like Turner and Vettori - excellent players, but guys who wouldn't get a look in in an all-time Australian team.
Ummmmmm......It's New Zealand?
An Aussie all time 2nd or even 3rd XI would destroy our best.
That's because you're picking people like Cairnsie! He's going to get pumped!
-
@chris-b said in Cricket - NZ vs Pakistan:
@mn5 said in Cricket - NZ vs Pakistan:
@chris-b said in Cricket - NZ vs Pakistan:
@no-quarter Yeah - and that's the thing.
Ideally, you'd want everyone in the top 6 to have averages of 50+, because that's going to be the benchmark of the Aussies/English/Windies etc. Which is why I'll pick Dempster (a coulda been Great, but didn't play enough) over someone like Wright or even Sutcliffe.
Bowling-wise, you want people who can dynamite a world class batting line-up - in my lifetime that's Hadlee, Bond and just maybe Boult.
Harsh reality of NZ cricket is that we have to include people like Turner and Vettori - excellent players, but guys who wouldn't get a look in in an all-time Australian team.
Ummmmmm......It's New Zealand?
An Aussie all time 2nd or even 3rd XI would destroy our best.
That's because you're picking people like Cairnsie! He's going to get pumped!
Well considering guys as good as Hayden, Langer, possibly both Waughs, Border, Ponting, Clark, Hussey, Healy, McDermott, Thomson, Gillespie and whoever else are highly unlikely to make a top oz team I believe your point is moot
-
@mn5 You fucking defeatist!
Lillee is going to be steaming in at Little Kane, with his fucking headband - and with a minimum of fuss Kane will just guide him away through backward point to the boundary.
Out comes Bradman - on comes Jack Cowie. Only met one another once and Jack fucked him up!
-
@chris-b said in Cricket - NZ vs Pakistan:
@mn5 You fucking defeatist!
Lillee is going to be steaming in at Little Kane, with his fucking headband - and with a minimum of fuss Kane will just guide him away through backward point to the boundary.
Out comes Bradman - on comes Jack Cowie. Only met one another once and Jack fucked him up!
I know.....but when Border, S Waugh, Hussey and Clark are competing for the same spot in an all time XI you know the BCs are in for a pounding.....
-
@mn5 said in Cricket - NZ vs Pakistan:
@baron-silas-greenback said in Cricket - NZ vs Pakistan:
Boult is the superior choice over Bond.
Longevity vs utter brilliance....I disagree. Bonds career was just long enough to be included.
Boult wins on both counts.
