-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Biggest disgrace to the NZ test and ODI caps?
- Thread starter Flem274*
- Start date
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
I was quite happy with my posts re-reading this thread that put Phlegm in his place (to the extent that he'd fully agree with them now) until I said that O'Brien was dire. 
lockton2skipper
U19 Debutant
how good or bad was one test gary robertson although it was a winnining test wasn't it ?
Howsie
International Captain
Update time?
I would imagine it'll be tough to surpass Rob Nicol anytime soon, a guy with a very modest first class record, a terrible technique and laughably selected because he did 'well' against South Africa in the ODI's prior. For the record he averaged 17 during that ODI series and was made to look like a club batsman by South Africa's attack. How, and more importantly why he was ever handed a test cap we will never know but it happened.
Peter Ingram is obviously another one, unlike Nicol though he had actually built himself a decent first class record. Still, two minutes of watching him at the crease was probably all you needed to work out he wouldn't be much chop at the next level.
Grant Elliott, Colin Munro, Gareth Hopkins, Reece Young and Kruger van Wyk all worth a mention too. The three keepers all being as rubbish as each other, basic errors behind the stumps along with a major lack of runs. Thank god for BJ.
I would imagine it'll be tough to surpass Rob Nicol anytime soon, a guy with a very modest first class record, a terrible technique and laughably selected because he did 'well' against South Africa in the ODI's prior. For the record he averaged 17 during that ODI series and was made to look like a club batsman by South Africa's attack. How, and more importantly why he was ever handed a test cap we will never know but it happened.
Peter Ingram is obviously another one, unlike Nicol though he had actually built himself a decent first class record. Still, two minutes of watching him at the crease was probably all you needed to work out he wouldn't be much chop at the next level.
Grant Elliott, Colin Munro, Gareth Hopkins, Reece Young and Kruger van Wyk all worth a mention too. The three keepers all being as rubbish as each other, basic errors behind the stumps along with a major lack of runs. Thank god for BJ.
straw man
Hall of Fame Member
This thread just keeps biting Flem274*.
Nicol getting picked for tests and Rutherford for ODIs are the two selections that spring to mind as having zero logic behind them, zero domestic proof of performance in that form of the game and zero success.
Munro playing a test too even if I advocated for him a bit on that SA tour over James Franklin. In my defense I hadn't seen Munro bat much... is that a defense?
HeathDavisSpeed
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Elliott a bit harsh from Howsie. He had that good spell in ODIs during which he was well worth having in the team. Which is more than some people have provided.
His time has now passed, I hope.
Elliott in Tests would be a more reasonable call.
His time has now passed, I hope.
Elliott in Tests would be a more reasonable call.
Phlegm WAC. Nobody talks that way about OPWB.
Flem274*
123/5
I thought Hurricane would be the one to dig this when I clicked on it. It's the sort of thing he would do.
I was 16 when I made this thread, and even more of a ****** than I am today. I didn't know what I was doing when I betrayed the Mug.
Howsie you're going OTT on the keepers with some hindsight calls. Each was probably the best option at the time post-McCullum. Kruger van Wyk was putting forward a case for being picked as a batsman alone if he wanted, let alone keeper. Likewise Hopkins had a golden run later in his career and Young was considered the best gloveman in the country at the time he was picked, and initially gave us some solid batting against Pakistan before being made the scapegoat after our batting efforts in Australia.
The alternatives at the time were Derek de Boorder who probably had about two matches to his name at the time iirc, Chris Nevin, Peter McGlashan (who should have played more limited overs for NZ but never tests) and I can't even remember the rest. The three picked were the best three available prior to Watling and Ronchi. Even now Kruger has a strong argument for being picked if Watling and Ronchi were injured.
I love Ingram but I don't think he would have made it, but he was treated terribly despite being the most deserving by far of a long run in the side. He was dropped very very quickly after being run out twice and played like 2 tests. The selectors kept waiting for him to fail in the Shield and he didn't, so they threw him a test against Bangladesh hoping for a duck so they could get rid of him fast and he made a couple of solid starts so they had to give him a run against Australia, where he was run out and looked bad at batting despite not getting out to the bowler so they had the slightest excuse and dropped the best opening batsman in New Zealand for whoever the next failure in line was. They hated him. He didn't look good but he wouldn't have been the first cricketer to surprise the purists and succeed.
Lord Colin is another tough one. He deserved a chance, and it's not his fault you can average 50 in the shield if you bat at Auckland and get to hit through the line at crap spinners and the medium pace dregs who get thrown the old ball.
Nicol is a good call, though still not even the most undeserving Cantabrian to get a cap. Through the 90s we had a swarm of Cantabrian batsmen with FC averages below 30. Then in the 2000s we kept calling up James Marshall and his below average record.
I was 16 when I made this thread, and even more of a ****** than I am today. I didn't know what I was doing when I betrayed the Mug.
Howsie you're going OTT on the keepers with some hindsight calls. Each was probably the best option at the time post-McCullum. Kruger van Wyk was putting forward a case for being picked as a batsman alone if he wanted, let alone keeper. Likewise Hopkins had a golden run later in his career and Young was considered the best gloveman in the country at the time he was picked, and initially gave us some solid batting against Pakistan before being made the scapegoat after our batting efforts in Australia.
The alternatives at the time were Derek de Boorder who probably had about two matches to his name at the time iirc, Chris Nevin, Peter McGlashan (who should have played more limited overs for NZ but never tests) and I can't even remember the rest. The three picked were the best three available prior to Watling and Ronchi. Even now Kruger has a strong argument for being picked if Watling and Ronchi were injured.
I love Ingram but I don't think he would have made it, but he was treated terribly despite being the most deserving by far of a long run in the side. He was dropped very very quickly after being run out twice and played like 2 tests. The selectors kept waiting for him to fail in the Shield and he didn't, so they threw him a test against Bangladesh hoping for a duck so they could get rid of him fast and he made a couple of solid starts so they had to give him a run against Australia, where he was run out and looked bad at batting despite not getting out to the bowler so they had the slightest excuse and dropped the best opening batsman in New Zealand for whoever the next failure in line was. They hated him. He didn't look good but he wouldn't have been the first cricketer to surprise the purists and succeed.
Lord Colin is another tough one. He deserved a chance, and it's not his fault you can average 50 in the shield if you bat at Auckland and get to hit through the line at crap spinners and the medium pace dregs who get thrown the old ball.
Nicol is a good call, though still not even the most undeserving Cantabrian to get a cap. Through the 90s we had a swarm of Cantabrian batsmen with FC averages below 30. Then in the 2000s we kept calling up James Marshall and his below average record.
Gee Flem, you struggled in 2007..!I thought Hurricane would be the one to dig this when I clicked on it. It's the sort of thing he would do.
I was 16 when I made this thread, and even more of a ****** than I am today. I didn't know what I was doing when I betrayed the Mug.
Howsie you're going OTT on the keepers with some hindsight calls. Each was probably the best option at the time post-McCullum. Kruger van Wyk was putting forward a case for being picked as a batsman alone if he wanted, let alone keeper. Likewise Hopkins had a golden run later in his career and Young was considered the best gloveman in the country at the time he was picked, and initially gave us some solid batting against Pakistan before being made the scapegoat after our batting efforts in Australia.
The alternatives at the time were Derek de Boorder who probably had about two matches to his name at the time iirc, Chris Nevin, Peter McGlashan (who should have played more limited overs for NZ but never tests) and I can't even remember the rest. The three picked were the best three available prior to Watling and Ronchi. Even now Kruger has a strong argument for being picked if Watling and Ronchi were injured.
I love Ingram but I don't think he would have made it, but he was treated terribly despite being the most deserving by far of a long run in the side. He was dropped very very quickly after being run out twice and played like 2 tests. The selectors kept waiting for him to fail in the Shield and he didn't, so they threw him a test against Bangladesh hoping for a duck so they could get rid of him fast and he made a couple of solid starts so they had to give him a run against Australia, where he was run out and looked bad at batting despite not getting out to the bowler so they had the slightest excuse and dropped the best opening batsman in New Zealand for whoever the next failure in line was. They hated him. He didn't look good but he wouldn't have been the first cricketer to surprise the purists and succeed.
Lord Colin is another tough one. He deserved a chance, and it's not his fault you can average 50 in the shield if you bat at Auckland and get to hit through the line at crap spinners and the medium pace dregs who get thrown the old ball.
Nicol is a good call, though still not even the most undeserving Cantabrian to get a cap. Through the 90s we had a swarm of Cantabrian batsmen with FC averages below 30. Then in the 2000s we kept calling up James Marshall and his below average record.
And whilst you are certainly a different man now, you're a delusional one if you think Peter Ingram had any hope of succeeding in the international arena.
Flem274*
123/5
This is soooooo very harsh.
Shayne O'Connor
Jonathan Millmow
Darryl Tuffey
Murphy Su'a
Justin Vaughan
Iain O'Brien
Kerry Walmsley
Robert Kennedy
Gary Robertson.
The list goes on... Even people like Chris Martin, Shane Thomson et al are/were not fit to lace Heath's boots.
So incredibly harsh.
:LALALALALALA CANT HEAR YOU
Athlai
Not Terrible
Good times.
Howsie
International Captain
Yeah, I was meaning tests. As you said he had a really good spell in the ODI team for a period their, was actually one of my favourites for a time. His game was never really going to be suited to test cricket though, his bowling was next to useless and his defense outside off stump left a lot to be desired. Someone might correct me but his first class batting average was barely over 30 when he was called up too.
Nah, they were all terrible, absolute rubbish, the three of them. Did anyone on CW actually think they would succeed? I've dragged up a couple of comments I made before their debuts but I really can't remember anyone actually backing any of these guys. SteveNZ was pretty brutal on van Wyk iirc. I genuinely can't remember anyone backing one of the three.
Just because they were the best New Zealand had at that moment (van Wyk aside) doesn't excuse them from being rubbish test cricketers. All terrible batsman, and for the most part, crap to below average keepers. What a drak period that was, no wonder Ronchi made the jump across the Tasman.
NZTailender
I can't believe I ate the whole thing
Just put in a vote for Mason is mistaken belief this was a 'who was the best to grace the NZ team' out of the candidates provided.
Days of Grace
International Captain
The Double Brown Greatest NZ test XI of the 21st century
1. Ingram
2. Nicol
3. James Marshall (c)
4. Richard Jones
5. Elliott
6. Munro
7. Hopkins (wk)
8. Bradburn
9. Butler
10. Arnel
11. McKay
1. Ingram
2. Nicol
3. James Marshall (c)
4. Richard Jones
5. Elliott
6. Munro
7. Hopkins (wk)
8. Bradburn
9. Butler
10. Arnel
11. McKay
NZTailender
I can't believe I ate the whole thing
Harsh on Butler one feels.. Also don't think 1 Test wonders should be eligible either, even if their bowling average is 120. Bond's was 135 after his first Test...
Days of Grace
International Captain
5 tests and above, then?