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.
-
@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.
-
@MN5 taking an extreme position against a possible opinion that nobody expressed. "Classic ferning".
-
The fern has spoken.
Our best ever test XI is:
Turner (60% of voters voted for him)
Latham (52%)
Williamson (100%)
Crowe (100%)
Taylor (88%)
McCullum (33%)
Watling (62%)
Vettori (78%)
Hadlee (100%)
Bond (91%)
Boult (61%)Next best or backups:
Sutcliffe (40%)
Donnelly (25%)
Wagner (39%)Back up keepers was a tie between Smith & McCullum (14%), so McCullum is back up keeper as he's already in the squad.
Now argue away until your blue in the face.
-
@Gunner said in Best Test XI - General chat:
The fern has spoken.
Our best ever test XI is:
Turner (60% of voters voted for him)
Latham (52%)
Williamson (100%)
Crowe (100%)
Taylor (88%)
McCullum (33%)
Watling (62%)
Vettori (78%)
Hadlee (100%)
Bond (91%)
Boult (61%)Next best or backups:
Sutcliffe (40%)
Donnelly (25%)
Wagner (39%)Back up keepers was a tie between Smith & McCullum (14%), so McCullum is back up keeper as he's already in the squad.
Now argue away until your blue in the face.
I couldn’t vote in the batting line up thread, if I could I’d want Cairns for McCullum ( no way should he be there as a specialist batsman ), Watling up to six. Aside from that a pretty decent team. Boult is a big step down from Paddles and Bond but all things considered is probably our third best.
How did Taylor not get 100% ????
-
@MN5 said in Best Test XI - General chat:
How did Taylor not get 100% ????
3 guys decided Taylor wasn't among our best 4 batsmen. I'm surprised by who they are. Maybe they were very rigorous about seeing hi as a 4 and that we wasn't the best option in that one position?
-
Not a bad team if we're picking a team of the last 50 years - but, I'm pretty sure there's some significant recency bias.
Five of our current team make it, but no-one from the 40 years preceding 1970?
Biggest travesty is, I think, Tommy Latham ahead of Stewie Dempster.
Now, I like Tom - a lot. But, I also watched him batting against the current Australian bowlers last year and he got sorted out. There was a stint of commentary - probably during the Sydney test, where Mark Waugh was rubbishing the rankings that had Tom as one of the current top 10 batsmen in the world. I was pretty much biting my lip, but nodding along. I don't think Mark is going to rate our selecting him as one of our best ever.
As I said previously - we have an opening batsmen who averaged 65, but we're not going to pick him?
This guy has picked The Demon Spofforth for Australia, on the back of 18 tests, against far more illustrious competition for a fast bowling spot.
https://www.theroar.com.au/2020/04/14/all-time-australian-test-xi/
-
@Chris-B said in Best Test XI - General chat:
Not a bad team if we're picking a team of the last 50 years - but, I'm pretty sure there's some significant recency bias.
Five of our current team make it, but no-one from the 40 years preceding 1970?
Biggest travesty is, I think, Tommy Latham ahead of Stewie Dempster.
Now, I like Tom - a lot. But, I also watched him batting against the current Australian bowlers last year and he got sorted out. There was a stint of commentary - probably during the Sydney test, where Mark Waugh was rubbishing the rankings that had Tom as one of the current top 10 batsmen in the world. I was pretty much biting my lip, but nodding along. I don't think Mark is going to rate our selecting him as one of our best ever.
> As I said previously - we have an opening batsmen who averaged 65, but we're not going to pick him?
This guy has picked The Demon Spofforth for Australia, on the back of 18 tests, against far more illustrious competition for a fast bowling spot.
https://www.theroar.com.au/2020/04/14/all-time-australian-test-xi/
No, because he did it over 10 tests, not 100
-
@MN5 And yet here's a very recent article arguing that 10 test innings is enough to assess whether a batsman ought to be dropped.
Averaging 65 across 15 innings isn't trivial - and he's got a significant first class record that also show he's not Rodney Redmond. And plenty of plaudits from people who saw him play.
Recency bias and terrible selecting!
-
@Chris-B As i said in the nomination thread I'm not bothered by the fact that Dempster only played in 10 tests (only batted in 9 if we want to be really accurate), it's that his figures are inflated by 4 NO's which is a high proportion of only 15 innings.
Now you could argue that this makes him an even better opener if he could carry his bat, but one of the NO's he wasn't opening and two it was the 2nd Innings and NZ didn't bat long before it petered out into a draw.
For these reasons i would discount him. His first class average is 'only' 45 - mainly against Kiwi attacks. I think Sutcliffe has a stronger case ahead of Latham.
The old timer who I think is unlucky is Donnelly behind McCullum. I don't have a problem with McCullum as keeper but I don't think he was our best option at 6 Still not a bad side and would be competitive - weaknesses for me being the two I have mentioned and Vettori.
We fall away pretty quickly quality wise though. Imagine our 2nd XI taking on - well any of the long established nations really. Carnage.
