Originally Posted by Swervy
I think that is very unfair to the NZ squad really. First off, you seem to give the fact that they are well drilled a negative slant, which of course it isnt.
The talent in world cricket is pretty much the same amongst the top 8 (bar Australia) in ODIs at the moment, its how well a team is prepared physically, mentally and tactically which separates them. The fact that NZ are good at those things shouldnt go against them...especially given that they do actually have what I would consider very very good one day players
The conditions in this World Cup have been ideal for New Zealand and they've still been smashed by Sri Lanka (twice) and Australia. Just look at the records of New Zealand's batsmen, all their experienced batsmen average low 30s or worse and the bowlers all average 30+ except for Bond. None of their batsmen have any real class about them apart from Fleming occasionally, same with the bowling apart from Bond.
The definition of mediocre fits New Zealand exactly. Average players and distinctly lacking in class or quality.
Before any illiterates start I'll state now that mediocre can also or just refer to whether someone has some class or quality about them - Vaughan as a ODI batsman for example has some class or quality, but performs crap, so you could say he's not a mediocre player but his ODI record is mediocre (or rubbish more precisely).