NZ- gutsy overachievers, gormless underachievers, or just kinda average?

[thierry henry]

ok, I kinda suspect this thread might be a little dire and has surely been done before, but nevertheless I wanted to raise the issue again, because it intrigues me

NZ are often regarded by overseas fans as a relatively untalented group of players who punch above their weight. In recent times, they have occasionally been elevated to the status of "a competitive side who are generally of a similar standard to other teams apart from Australia, and sometimes South Africa/England". In other words, we are a middle of the table side with similar talent levels to other international teams.

Believe it or not, NZers often regard our team as UNDERACHIEVERS, who regularly perform below potential and should do better.

I'm intrigued- how do you all see it?

 

[thierry henry]

(I think we overachieve btw)

 

[Prince EWS]

Given the relatively small player pool at their disposal, I'd say they overachieve by a fair bit to be where they are. Either that, or every team except Australia and New Zealand underachieve - depends which way you look at it really.

 

[thierry henry]

How about if you look at it from the perspective of the players who actually turn out for our national side, and not the talent pool as a whole?

(I still think we overachieve btw)

 

[Prince EWS]

How about if you look at it from the perspective of the players who actually turn out for our national side, and not the talent pool as a whole?

(I still think we overachieve btw)

Well it's hard for me to judge that, because I don't see any NZ domestic cricket. If I said a NZ player overachieved at international level, I wouldn't actually be comparing it to anything so it'd be somewhat of a silly statement. Sometimes it amazes me that someone like Craig McMillan can play a good innings, but his overall career is still quite poor so I wouldn't say he overachieved.

In fact, a lot of NZ players have pretty poor looking sets of stats, although that very fact combined with the fact that NZ still do reasonably well a lot of the time could indeed point to them overachieving.

 

[thierry henry]

What I mean is, you can actually watch most of these players individually and form an opinion on how talented they are. Then you can make a judgment on how much we get out of that talent as a team.

 

[Prince EWS]

What I mean is, you can actually watch most of these players individually and form an opinion on how talented they are. Then you can make a judgment on how much we get out of that talent as a team.

In terms of converting talent into actual performances, NZ certainly have overachieved, yeah. Mark Richardson for example had bugger all talent - he was just a good student of the game who thought about his cricket and ended up being a gun test opener by basing him game around simplifying the technicalities of cricket. Someone like Chris Harris who clearly has very little bowling talent at all who turned out to be a very, very good ODI bowler.

So yeah, overachieved in that aspect.

 

[Smudge]

I think we make do what we have and by and large overachieve. Although there are still moments when we inexplicably fall apart.

 

[The Big Cheese]

NZ cricketers are an enigma. The most talented players underachieve and the players somewhat lacking in talent overachieve. Generally though... overacheivers. Players like styris who mainly bowled originally and (due to injury) converted their game into a batting allrounder amaze me. Richardson and even Astle in the same category.

 

[tooextracool]

For all the talk about their lack of quality bowlers, NZ havent had an excellent batsman since Martin Crowe and it always appears as though their batting( in ODIs at least) only starts from number 4 or 5. At the moment they are shockingly average in test cricket as a result of this, and they will continue to be until they can find a few young quality batters.

In response to the question, i would say that they have almost always been average in tests in the last couple of decades and have always been overachievers in ODI cricket because of their tendency to stress on the disciplines.

 

[Flem274*]

Our biggest problem is that our most talented players either get injured constantly, or fail. It really annoys me.

 

[tooextracool]

The bowlers and all rounders have had a fair share of injuries, but that doesnt explain why NZ have barely produced any world class batsmen in the last decade. Mark Richardson is the only one i can think of who was closest to being world class since Martin Crowe.

 

[Will Scarlet]

NZ cricketers are an enigma. The most talented players underachieve and the players somewhat lacking in talent overachieve. Generally though... overacheivers. Players like styris who mainly bowled originally and (due to injury) converted their game into a batting allrounder amaze me. Richardson and even Astle in the same category.

Totally agree.

And for the main question: I'm sick of people saying NZ cricketers are a bunch of untalented over-achievers. We've got as much talent as most nations; but we have less to choose from as far as cricketing population.

Steve Harmisson is the biggest over-achiever in cricket, because generally his bowling is crap. However, since he's English - the worst performing top-level ODI nation, and rubbish test nation away from home - he isn't viewed as a player that is over achieving. I look forward to what Richard has to reply.

 

[vic_orthdox]

In Tests, someone always bobs up and puts in a really good performance, but they don't produce an 11-man performance often enough to really bury a side.

In ODIs, they do all the little things right to maximise their performance. A lot of people just put it down to Fleming's captaincy, but I think that they have a number of players in their side with very good cricketing brains, which helps them achieve what they do.

 

[JBH001]

In regards to recent history I would say that NZ are overachievers - but their test cricket is mediocre, and their ODI cricket usually just good.

Historically though, NZ are poor and for a nation that have been playing cricket for a long time (compared to some other countries) are absolutely awful.

 

[thierry henry]

And hence we are underachievers overall??

It's something a lot of NZers believe, certainly- I just can't comprehend it.

 

[_Ed_]

It's just because of our beloved All Blacks. No other NZ team has a hope of being seen in the same light, and when any other team inevitably fails to live up to them they can only be seen as underachieving in comparison.

 

[JBH001]

And hence we are underachievers overall??

It's something a lot of NZers believe, certainly- I just can't comprehend it.

No, I do not think that we are underachievers historically speaking.

I think we are right where we should be, at the bottom or close to the bottom.
In other words, we are neither over or underachievers (looked at in terms of the longview). We are just right - that is pretty piss poor.

Its only recently that NZ cricket has actually even looked like going anywhere, therefore our recent overachievers lift a poor team and cricketing country to the ranks of mediocrity from where it was, which was sh*t.

 

[Flem274*]

It's just because of our beloved All Blacks. No other NZ team has a hope of being seen in the same light, and when any other team inevitably fails to live up to them they can only be seen as underachieving in comparison.

Exactly.

IMO all the Rugby meatheads that don't really know a thing about cricket or care about it should be banned from commenting on cricket in public. Same goes for those annoying people who only open thier mouths when we lose and strangely disappear when we win.

 

[NUFAN]

It's just because of our beloved All Blacks. No other NZ team has a hope of being seen in the same light, and when any other team inevitably fails to live up to them they can only be seen as underachieving in comparison.

Silverferns seem to go alright.