greg said:
For NZ in ODIs see England in tests. The allround excellence gives less opportunity for individuals to shine and so the perception arises that they have no "big names" and all their success is down to team work.
Hmmm.
I am not sure they are individually less likely to shine if the team is very good as a unit. Its a bit other way around.
When there are many individuals of great gift/talents/skills, it can lead to a lower than expected performance as a team unless there is high quality leadership which is really tough for a team of individual "greats"
So teams that are not full of prima donnas tend to provide a good platform for the good leader of men (which is still a pre-requisite). Most great captains have led less than great teams a) because they have been easier to manage and b) because there has been so much to do for the captain.
On top of it, led by a top class leader, the less-than-top drawer players tend to put in much more effort and the collective team , as opposed to the individual, takes over as far as who-am-I-performing-for is concerned.
The prima donnas of the sub-continent have so often played for themselves. Its amazing how much one hears the term, pressure to perform to stay in the team OR pressures of selection affecting players performance, in this part of the world.
Teams like NZL, because they do not posess the Tendulkars, Dravids, Inzemaams, Waqars, Wasims etc AND , most importantly, because they are led by such good leaders (I avoid the term captain for obvious reasons) tend to play for the side, play above themselves , so to speak, and produce results that the individual skill sets do not seem to suggest.
This is not the same as saying that if they were not doing so well as a team they would somehow perform better (shine) as individuals.
