NZ All Time XI
-
@mn5 said in NZ All Time Test XI:
@baron-silas-greenback said in NZ All Time Test XI:
@mn5 said in Cricket - NZ vs Pakistan:
@baron-silas-greenback said in Cricket - NZ vs Pakistan:
@mn5 said in Cricket - NZ vs Pakistan:
@baron-silas-greenback said in Cricket - NZ vs Pakistan:
@mn5 said in Cricket - NZ vs Pakistan:
@baron-silas-greenback said in Cricket - NZ vs Pakistan:
@mn5 said in Cricket - NZ vs Pakistan:
@baron-silas-greenback said in Cricket - NZ vs Pakistan:
@mn5 said in Cricket - NZ vs Pakistan:
@baron-silas-greenback said in Cricket - NZ vs Pakistan:
@mn5 said in Cricket - NZ vs Pakistan:
@baron-silas-greenback said in Cricket - NZ vs Pakistan:
@mn5 said in Cricket - NZ vs Pakistan:
@baron-silas-greenback said in Cricket - NZ vs Pakistan:
@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.
No. Fucken. Way.
I'm no mathetician but 87 wickets in 18 tests beats 222 in 57. You are talking out of your arse. Bond also averaged better than that Hadlee guy....
I wouldnt trust Bond to thrive on surfaces all around the world and perform in series after series to get his team to the top. I may be talking out of my arse, but that just shows my ass knows about cricket than your whole body.
Oh of course silly me....it was just helpful conditions that had shit batsmen like Hayden, Ponting, Gilchrist etc playing and missing and then getting out.
You're right. Bond was shit, just really, really lucky to get so many wickets so quickly and with an exceptional average in both forms of he game.
@MN5
And did he do it series after series on varying surfaces in differing conditions? No.
Attack straw men as much as you like, but you are living in a fantasy world where Bond played more than 18 tests.
newsflash he didnt, and he didnt prove himself in varying conditions over a decent period of time.
Could he have, maybe, maybe not.No one is disputing longevity it's the fact you made some bullshit claim that Boult is better. I'm not denying he's good but I still reckon Bond did enough in 18 tests to make a team ahead of him.
Bullshit claim? Longevity matters because it shows you have been tested all around the world, in all sorts of conditions. Bond didnt do that. Boult has, they both are class acts , but Boult has proven he is a class act around the world in all sorts of conditions.
You have done nothing to counter my point at all, because you cannot. Beyond saying it doesnt matter, which is actually a 'bullshit claim.'
But Bond was indisputably better when he did play. Fact.
No, not fact. Opinion. But I understand you cannot tell the difference.
Going by your logic, Somerville is now one of our best ever spinners.If he has truly world class stats after 18 tests then yes he is. As it is Vettori is cos of immense longevity, an ok average and cos he was also a good batsman.
18 tests? You just pick that number because that is how many Bond played.. how convenient.
But no. You can just cherry pick when longevity matters, but dont expect others to not call you on it.
Bond didnt perform consistently around the world. 18 tests is not enough to do that.We're not a country who produce genuine world beaters.
Some people pick Barry Richards and Graeme Pollock in their all time SA teams for example despite less test cricket than Bond....
Bond was world class when he did play. Stats back this up. If you choose not to agree then that ain't my fault.
Somerville was also world class when he played..... stats back that up as well....
Doesnt make Somerville world class.
Cool, 18 tests is more than one though.
So now longevity counts? Make your mind up.
Well in Vettoris case it does cos relatively speaking he isn't a patch on Hadlee or Bond.
Well Hadlee anyway... Bond is more Somerville than Vettori.
Although OSmerville is less brittle than Bond....
-
18 tests is a small sample but hell unless you pick only modern players you will have a small sample size.
Playing against multiple opposition and all around the world is likewise a limiting factor.
Do you ignore the greatness of Bradman because he played almost all his test cricket against one opponent or Jack Hobbs because he only played against Oz Windies (twice) and SA? Of course not. Longevity and variety of conditions and opposition are important considerations but not IMO the sole arbiters of greatness.
Virtual uppercut to any pistonwristedgibbon who points out Hobbs and Bradman don't qualify for NZ
-
A big argument just to decide which of the two gets the new ball with Hadlee.
I'm increasingly thinking I wouldn't play a spinner in the all time NZ XI - unless we're playing in the subcontinent. I'd probably go with 6 batsmen, Watling/Smith for keeping, and Hadlee, Boult, Bond, plus Jack Cowie.
Cowie perhaps swapped out for Collinge if playing against Boycott, or swapped out for Nash if playing at Lords.
I reckon an all time NZ XI would go pretty well against their counterparts. None of this defeatist stuff. It reminds me of the line Lee Grant used to take when Oz rugby was doing well. Other nations might have the depth to pick eight amazing all time teams, but they can only play one of them at the top.
Our third XI might get smashed by their opposites, but NZ has produced a few all time greats.
-
@dogmeat said in NZ All Time Test XI:
18 tests is a small sample but hell unless you pick only modern players you will have a small sample size.
The accepted metric among cricket statisticians is to consider a minimum of 20 innings batted or 20 innings bowled. This removes the outliers like Redmond but also recognises that the frequency of test matches now compared to yesteryear is much different.
-
@donsteppa said in NZ All Time Test XI:
A big argument just to decide which of the two gets the new ball with Hadlee.
I'm increasingly thinking I wouldn't play a spinner in the all time NZ XI - unless we're playing in the subcontinent. I'd probably go with 6 batsmen, Watling/Smith for keeping, and Hadlee, Boult, Bond, plus Jack Cowie.
Cowie perhaps swapped out for Collinge if playing against Boycott, or swapped out for Nash if playing at Lords.
I reckon an all time NZ XI would go pretty well against their counterparts. None of this defeatist stuff. It reminds me of the line Lee Grant used to take when Oz rugby was doing well. Other nations might have the depth to pick eight amazing all time teams, but they can only play one of them at the top.
Our third XI might get smashed by their opposites, but NZ has produced a few all time greats.
Gee, I have McCullum Captain and Keeper. I truly think he is the reason we are what we are today (along with Hesson of course)
I agree too that we wouldn't need a spinner
-
@hooroo said in NZ All Time Test XI:
@donsteppa said in NZ All Time Test XI:
A big argument just to decide which of the two gets the new ball with Hadlee.
I'm increasingly thinking I wouldn't play a spinner in the all time NZ XI - unless we're playing in the subcontinent. I'd probably go with 6 batsmen, Watling/Smith for keeping, and Hadlee, Boult, Bond, plus Jack Cowie.
Cowie perhaps swapped out for Collinge if playing against Boycott, or swapped out for Nash if playing at Lords.
I reckon an all time NZ XI would go pretty well against their counterparts. None of this defeatist stuff. It reminds me of the line Lee Grant used to take when Oz rugby was doing well. Other nations might have the depth to pick eight amazing all time teams, but they can only play one of them at the top.
Our third XI might get smashed by their opposites, but NZ has produced a few all time greats.
Gee, I have McCullum Captain and Keeper. I truly think he is the reason we are what we are today (along with Hesson of course)
I agree too that we wouldn't need a spinner
I haven't put a lot of thought into the captaincy, but @SynicBast makes some good points about Crowe.
For keeping it's probably a close call between Watling, Smith, and McCullum, depending on the preferred balance, views on keeping/keeper-batsmen I guess.
Thinking of the Aaron Hopa thread and 'what might have been' - another candidate for keeper might have been Ken Wadsworth, but sadly we'll never fully know. Hadlee spoke very highly of him, which is a good sign.
-
I don't think Smith has a claim anymore. Baz and Watling are both clearly ahead of him. Watling is number one on performances as a keeper only and Baz ahead on whole career summary. To be honest I think Smith and Parore are pretty evenly matched.
I don't think the difference in work between the stumps would be noticeable between the three of them.
-
@donsteppa said in NZ All Time Test XI:
A big argument just to decide which of the two gets the new ball with Hadlee.
I'm increasingly thinking I wouldn't play a spinner in the all time NZ XI - unless we're playing in the subcontinent. I'd probably go with 6 batsmen, Watling/Smith for keeping, and Hadlee, Boult, Bond, plus Jack Cowie.
Cowie perhaps swapped out for Collinge if playing against Boycott, or swapped out for Nash if playing at Lords.
I reckon an all time NZ XI would go pretty well against their counterparts. None of this defeatist stuff. It reminds me of the line Lee Grant used to take when Oz rugby was doing well. Other nations might have the depth to pick eight amazing all time teams, but they can only play one of them at the top.
Our third XI might get smashed by their opposites, but NZ has produced a few all time greats.
Chiming in on the captain's argument. As Hooroo said, Macca had a major part in a highly successful period for NZC, and in part the era we are in now. He was far more pro-active than many of his predecessors (I thought Flem was a very good tactician) and despite BJ being the better keeper/batsman you could make an argument for Macca to be in as wicketkeeper/batsman/Captain
-
@cyclops said in NZ All Time Test XI:
I don't think Smith has a claim anymore. Baz and Watling are both clearly ahead of him. Watling is number one on performances as a keeper only and Baz ahead on whole career summary. To be honest I think Smith and Parore are pretty evenly matched.
I don't think the difference in work between the stumps would be noticeable between the three of them.
Fair call, from memory Parore went a huge amount of runs/overs without conceding a bye at one stage too.
Watling has certainly risen up the ranks. Watling batting with the bowlers in my side might grind out a few more runs on the board. McCullum batting all guns blazing with Hadlee swatting away at the other end would also be great lower order entertainment!
-
@donsteppa said in NZ All Time Test XI:
@cyclops said in NZ All Time Test XI:
I don't think Smith has a claim anymore. Baz and Watling are both clearly ahead of him. Watling is number one on performances as a keeper only and Baz ahead on whole career summary. To be honest I think Smith and Parore are pretty evenly matched.
I don't think the difference in work between the stumps would be noticeable between the three of them.
Fair call, from memory Parore went a huge amount of runs/overs without conceding a bye at one stage.
Watling has certainly risen up the ranks. Watling batting with the bowlers in my side might grind out a few more runs on the board. McCullum batting all guns blazing with Hadlee swatting away at the other end would also be great lower order entertainment!
Or he just whips up another 300.....
-
@hooroo said in NZ All Time Test XI:
@donsteppa said in NZ All Time Test XI:
A big argument just to decide which of the two gets the new ball with Hadlee.
I'm increasingly thinking I wouldn't play a spinner in the all time NZ XI - unless we're playing in the subcontinent. I'd probably go with 6 batsmen, Watling/Smith for keeping, and Hadlee, Boult, Bond, plus Jack Cowie.
Cowie perhaps swapped out for Collinge if playing against Boycott, or swapped out for Nash if playing at Lords.
I reckon an all time NZ XI would go pretty well against their counterparts. None of this defeatist stuff. It reminds me of the line Lee Grant used to take when Oz rugby was doing well. Other nations might have the depth to pick eight amazing all time teams, but they can only play one of them at the top.
Our third XI might get smashed by their opposites, but NZ has produced a few all time greats.
Gee, I have McCullum Captain and Keeper. I truly think he is the reason we are what we are today (along with Hesson of course)
I agree too that we wouldn't need a spinner
We have always picked a spinner because picking a spinner is the thing to do.
Vettori was always one of my favourite players, gave everything, improved heaps with the bat, excellent captain and a good long career but for NZs best ever spinner he isn't a patch on some of the guys that other teams can produce.
-
@mn5 said in NZ All Time Test XI:
@hooroo said in NZ All Time Test XI:
@donsteppa said in NZ All Time Test XI:
A big argument just to decide which of the two gets the new ball with Hadlee.
I'm increasingly thinking I wouldn't play a spinner in the all time NZ XI - unless we're playing in the subcontinent. I'd probably go with 6 batsmen, Watling/Smith for keeping, and Hadlee, Boult, Bond, plus Jack Cowie.
Cowie perhaps swapped out for Collinge if playing against Boycott, or swapped out for Nash if playing at Lords.
I reckon an all time NZ XI would go pretty well against their counterparts. None of this defeatist stuff. It reminds me of the line Lee Grant used to take when Oz rugby was doing well. Other nations might have the depth to pick eight amazing all time teams, but they can only play one of them at the top.
Our third XI might get smashed by their opposites, but NZ has produced a few all time greats.
Gee, I have McCullum Captain and Keeper. I truly think he is the reason we are what we are today (along with Hesson of course)
I agree too that we wouldn't need a spinner
We have always picked a spinner because picking a spinner is the thing to do.
Vettori was always one of my favourite players, gave everything, improved heaps with the bat, excellent captain and a good long career but for NZs best ever spinner he isn't a patch on some of the guys that other teams can produce.
You were concerned about Border and S Waugh earlier? Just need to pick John Bracewell
http://www.espncricinfo.com/series/16825/scorecard/63423/new-zealand-vs-australia-3rd-test-australia-tour-of-new-zealand-1985-86We got there just as Chats got Zoehrer. The name stood out for some reason.
-
@donsteppa said in NZ All Time Test XI:
@mn5 said in NZ All Time Test XI:
@hooroo said in NZ All Time Test XI:
@donsteppa said in NZ All Time Test XI:
A big argument just to decide which of the two gets the new ball with Hadlee.
I'm increasingly thinking I wouldn't play a spinner in the all time NZ XI - unless we're playing in the subcontinent. I'd probably go with 6 batsmen, Watling/Smith for keeping, and Hadlee, Boult, Bond, plus Jack Cowie.
Cowie perhaps swapped out for Collinge if playing against Boycott, or swapped out for Nash if playing at Lords.
I reckon an all time NZ XI would go pretty well against their counterparts. None of this defeatist stuff. It reminds me of the line Lee Grant used to take when Oz rugby was doing well. Other nations might have the depth to pick eight amazing all time teams, but they can only play one of them at the top.
Our third XI might get smashed by their opposites, but NZ has produced a few all time greats.
Gee, I have McCullum Captain and Keeper. I truly think he is the reason we are what we are today (along with Hesson of course)
I agree too that we wouldn't need a spinner
We have always picked a spinner because picking a spinner is the thing to do.
Vettori was always one of my favourite players, gave everything, improved heaps with the bat, excellent captain and a good long career but for NZs best ever spinner he isn't a patch on some of the guys that other teams can produce.
You were concerned about Border and S Waugh earlier? Just need to pick John Bracewell
http://www.espncricinfo.com/series/16825/scorecard/63423/new-zealand-vs-australia-3rd-test-australia-tour-of-new-zealand-1985-86We got there just as Chats bowled Zoehrer. The name stood out for some reason.
That was a great series. I remember Bracewell owned Border the whole series, he was on fire
-
-
Just a week ago on another forum, I statsgurued NZ's all time statistical 11 based on the following position/role criteria:
ā¢ Batting position by batting average (minimum 1000 runs): Openers, 3, 4, 5 , 6
ā¢ Wicket Keeper: by dismissals per innings (as designated keeper), (min 20 tests as keeper).
ā¢ 2 x Opening bowlers: by bowling average in innings as new ball bowlers (minimum 50 wickets).
ā¢ 1 x '3rd/4th seamer': by bowling average (minimum 50 wickets).
ā¢ Spinner: by bowling average in 3rd and 4th innings only (minimum 50 wickets).
-
At the time I originally did the above, J F Reid was NZ's greatest statistical number 3. But Kane's 100 and 80 in the next test put him above him.
Watling has both the best batting average for a designated keeper and the highest Dismissal /Innings average.
-
Great work @Rapido, I'm pretty happy with that team TBH. All well and good having three spearhead bowlers, but the value of Wagner in a real-life test match situation cannot really be overstated - he's an awesome 3rd seamer and his record backs that up.
-
Also, I love that we've had this exact discussion and these exact same arguments nearly every year but nobody gives a fuck and everyone just piles in. This is what makes the Fern great. Awesome thread lads.
-
Thought this was of note. McCullum is NZ's:
- best Number 5.
- 4th best opener
- second best keeper by D/I
- second best keeper-batsman by batting average (also second best number 7 by batting average)
And subjective. One of NZ's best captain's. Where exactly he ranks can be left to personal choice.
