Black Caps Tour to Zimbabwe
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="shark" data-cid="601934" data-time="1469962353">
<div>
<p>Yep spot on re the late-ish debut and thats why his career thus far feels a little brief relative to his age.<br><br>
I'd love to see Taylor play on for another five years. <strong>But the reality is, he'll probably play another two or three.</strong> It seems these days that the likes of Australian and Indian batsmen often play until nearly 40 but our guys typically bow out of test cricket no later than 35.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Yeah but we won't know this until it happens.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Good predictable enough win for the team, Wagner possibly hard done by missing MOM to Taylor.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="shark" data-cid="601932" data-time="1469961959">
<div>
<p>Oops sorry Crazy Horse I think I somehow gave you a negative vote or something when I was actually trying to quote you! Stupid app (or stupid user!)<br><br>
But yes you're quite correct. I could have easily used Vettori as another example of a guy who seemed to play for 50 years. But I used Flem. Next time I won't use a correct example if that person happens to also be a Cantabrian, because I wouldn't want to risk someone like Mariner casting petty aspersions.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>It's when you contrast him with a guy like Alistair Cook. They both made their international debuts on the same day 1 March 2006. Cook has played 131 tests for 10446 runs and Taylor has played 69 tests for 5232. Basically half and that is all down to scheduling. I don't think at this stage of his career Cook is that much better than Taylor if at all, but when you have twice as many opportunities to play big innings your career is going to look much better.</p> -
<p>There's no shortgage of test cricket coming up though - another 13 tests by March 31. We're also playing next week, 2 in South Africa, 3 in India and then seven in the home summer - 2 x Pakistan, 2 x Bangles, 3 x South Africa.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Before you can blink Rossco should be up past 80 tests and could be into second on the all time runs list behind Flem.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Chris B." data-cid="601974" data-time="1470004254">
<div>
<p>That might change if Hesson hangs around and we continue in this golden era. </p>
<p> </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>He's re-signed past the 2019 World Cup.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.espncricinfo.com/newzealand/content/story/1019731.html'>http://www.espncricinfo.com/newzealand/content/story/1019731.html</a></p> -
<p>Okay I'm going to call it. Hesson has been the best coaching/administration change to happen to the Black Caps in my memory. I love the ethos and temperament of this group of players. Just as the ABs started their current era with the November 2004 French test, this side started the day after the capitulation in South Africa.<br>
</p>
<p>It's been fun to watch them and the emotional investment is back, with a vengeance.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="SynicBast" data-cid="602027" data-time="1470009887">
<div>
<p>Okay I'm going to call it. Hesson has been the best coaching/administration change to happen to the Black Caps in my memory. I love the ethos and temperament of this group of players. Just as the ABs started their current era with the November 2004 French test, this side started the day after the capitulation in South Africa.<br>
</p>
<p>It's been fun to watch them and the emotional investment is back, with a vengeance.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>I'll go the opposite way I think he is definately good and above average, but he is certainly overrated - but the tide was turning before Hesson/McCullum. Vettori who was a very pedestrian captain went and we got flooded with a bunch of test quality bowling options that we knew were coming for a while. Plus I think Kane much like Martin Crowe/Richard Hadlee has a tremendous influence on the others - well before he was skipper. When you have a world class competitor in the sheds its harder to play silly buggers.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Rixon's overhaul was much more dramatic. Trist struck me as better than Hesson too - but he had the worst deck to play with. Aberhart/Jeff Crowe was my favourite because they were smart enough to compliment Fleming and let them do their thing. That era was still the most consistent quality cricket we have played in my life outside of 85/6.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="rotated" data-cid="602032" data-time="1470010542">
<div>
<p>I'll go the opposite way I think he is definately good and above average, but he is certainly overrated - but the tide was turning before Hesson/McCullum. Vettori who was a very pedestrian captain went and we got flooded with a bunch of test quality bowling options that we knew were coming for a while. Plus I think Kane much like Martin Crowe/Richard Hadlee has a tremendous influence on the others - well before he was skipper. When you have a world class competitor in the sheds its harder to play silly buggers.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Rixon's overhaul was much more dramatic. Trist struck me as better than Hesson too - but he had the worst deck to play with. Aberhart/Jeff Crowe was my favourite because they were smart enough to compliment Fleming and let them do their thing. That era was still the most consistent quality cricket we have played in my life outside of 85/6.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>There was still a heap of backroom bullshit going on with Buchanan and Littlejohn wanting to run things completely different to Wright - and before that Vettori was doing everything except drive the bus, and before that was Bracewell who seemed to me to be a mini-GlennTurner, and around that time was Justin Vaughan.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I think you're completely wrong about it being hard to play silly buggers in the sheds when you have a world class competitor there. Hadlee and Crowe were both significant players of silly buggers in the sheds. The Crowe/Rutherford/Howarth period involved some of the most c*ntish behaviour on record.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Chris B." data-cid="602053" data-time="1470014347">
<div>
<p>There was still a heap of backroom bullshit going on with Buchanan and Littlejohn wanting to run things completely different to Wright - and before that Vettori was doing everything except drive the bus, and before that was Bracewell who seemed to me to be a mini-GlennTurner, and around that time was Justin Vaughan.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I think you're completely wrong about it being hard to play silly buggers in the sheds when you have a world class competitor there. Hadlee and Crowe were both significant players of silly buggers in the sheds. The Crowe/Rutherford/Howarth period involved some of the most c*ntish behaviour on record.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Is there a good biography that exposes that era?</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Baron Silas Greenback" data-cid="602061" data-time="1470016061">
<div>
<p>Is there a good biography that exposes that era?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Whose side of the story do you want? :)</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Rutherford's A hell of a way to make a living</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Howarth's Stirred but not Shaken</p>
<p> </p>
<p>In some ways you have to read quite a few to build up a picture (there's no shortage of them - Crowe, Greatbatch, Pringle, Cairns, Morrison...), and it's quite a while since I read any of them - but, I seem to recall Rutherford's and Parore's both being pretty frank and interesting.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Edit: I've just had a quick flick through Parore's "The wicked keeper" and it's not a bad place to start.</p> -
<p>Coney and Hadlee had a major and public falling out as well and didn't even speak to eachother which must have made it tough given the chances of them batting together would have been high as they were 6 and 7/8 respectively.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>That car thing caused a huge shitfight in the team with some voting for Hadlee to keep it and others wanting it sold and divided up. I can see both sides of the argument pretty well, even Paddles himself conceded it would be a tough prize for Smith as keeper or a bowler like Chatfield to win. I think he argued he'd won a few before, sold them and divided the pool so felt within his right to keep a car for once ( I might be wrong on these particulars )</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I bring that up because the team still did very well in this period obviously but so much was on the back of Hadlee and M Crowe with contributions here and there from others.....</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="MN5" data-cid="602067" data-time="1470017733">
<div>
<p>Coney and Hadlee had a major and public falling out as well and didn't even speak to eachother which must have made it tough given the chances of them batting together would have been high as they were 6 and 7/8 respectively.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>That car thing caused a huge shitfight in the team with some voting for Hadlee to keep it and others wanting it sold and divided up. I can see both sides of the argument pretty well, even Paddles himself conceded it would be a tough prize for Smith as keeper or a bowler like Chatfield to win. I think he argued he'd won a few before, sold them and divided the pool so felt within his right to keep a car for once ( I might be wrong on these particulars )</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I bring that up because the team still did very well in this period obviously but so much was on the back of Hadlee and M Crowe with contributions here and there from others.....</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>I've got Rhythm and Swing, and that's exactly what happened with the car. Also Hadlee wrote a newspaper column about it, and that didn't go down well...</p>
<p> </p>
<p>To Hadlee's credit, though, he admits in his book that he wasn't in the right in either case. Also, a key difference between the 80s and later is that much of the team was still amateur back then, so there was a bit of tension at times and differences of opinion about standards, both on and off the field.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>A lot of the current good stuff can be sheeted back to Hadlee in a different capacity - when he was made Chairman of Selectors, he actually wrote his policies and strategy down, which hadn't been done prior to that, and it still forms the basis of current selection policy, so kudos to him for that.</p> -
<p>Yeah I read Rhythm and Swing too, must have a look for it actually, I'm sure it's in the garage somewhere.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Back to the topic at hand the team is doing well because it has two guys who will very possibly go down as our best and second best batsmen in test history ( well, obviously the arguments for Crowe and Turner can be made but certainly in terms of runs scored barring disaster they will be top ) and a pace duo in Boult and Southee who whilst neither are a patch on Hadlee are both better than any of the great mans support staff ( Chats, Cairns, Morrison, Snedden etc ) Latham is developing nicely, Guptill will hopefully improve in the longer form, Watling is an excellent keeper/batsman etcetc....</p>
<p> </p>
<p>There's also no donkeys in the side, from the 90's onwards with all due respect there has been some terrible selections. Best in NZ some of them may well have been at the time but credible test players against the best ? no......</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Team dynamics are obviously a big part but the fact we have a bunch of seriously good players is more of a factor I believe.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="mimic" data-cid="602102" data-time="1470032245">
<div>
<p>Wow! That's all u got to say about Watling?<br>
He's the best test keeper/batsman the black caps have ever had..</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Him or McCullum.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Excellent is a pretty strong word though don't you think ?</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="mimic" data-cid="602109" data-time="1470033169">
<div>
<p>Yeah, but u wrote about the others comparing them to history.. best test batsmen etc..<br>
McCullums batting average as a keeper pales in comparison to Watling.. (at least I think it does lol)</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>I guess keeper are just easy to forget unless they're Gilchrest, that's my reasoning and I'm sticking to it !</p> -
<p>Watling has as many test centuries as a keeper as McCullum.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Anyway, I still think the team has some problems at test level. We only have one good opener (Guptill averages about 25 over 30 tests if you took out Bangladesh and Zimbabwe) and Nicholls doesn't look good enough to bat 5. We don't know who our best spinner is although Santner looks promising. We are very reliant on the Boult/Southee combo as well. We're a good team and the best NZ team in ages but right now I think all the teams ranked ahead of us, deserve to be. Away series to South Africa and India will be telling.</p> -
BJ has an unbelievable record as a Keeper-Batsmen. Easily our best ever. BMac only started scoring more consistently when he gave up the gloves.
-
Our current cricket team have been a revelation and I'm as proud as punch of them<br><br>
However I'm not going to be able to trumpet their test virtues for a while because we got owned by a slightly above average Aussie side last summer. That performance certainly failed the acid test I'm afraid -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="No Quarter" data-cid="602115" data-time="1470034036">
<div>
<p>BJ has an unbelievable record as a Keeper-Batsmen. Easily our best ever. BMac only started scoring more consistently when he gave up the gloves.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Fair call, probably the heart ruling the head when thinking back on McCullums often spectacular peaks and depressing troughs vs Watlings more steady and consistent results.....</p>
