NZTailender
I can't believe I ate the whole thing
I've been thinking over the last few days about the state of NZ cricket and how we've seen the retirement recently of a number of key players which has left a massive impact on our cricket team. I've decided to compare the two teams (then and now) to see what the difference is.
This comparison is for test cricket.
So, rewind to 2001. Perth, Australia. New Zealand come agonisingly close to defeating the worlds best team at home when the game ends in a draw after NZ had the upper hand throughout most of the match. This isn't, per se, the very best New Zealand team from 10 years, but it's a good starting point.
Two years previously, NZ managed to defeat England at home and in the space of 3 years, had a very good run in test cricket. So what was different then to now? Lets look.
The Openers.
Then - Mark Richardson, Matthew Bell, Lou Vincent, Matthew Horne.
Mark Richardson, arguably one of the openers in an all time NZ XI did a great job for New Zealand at the top of the order and finding a replacement for him has yet to come to fruition. The man left a massive gap, and whats more annoying is that he could still be playing for us!
Matthew Bell played 13 tests between 1998 and the 2001 Australian tour, with little success. He scored just 1 century and 2 fifties at the type of the order and never really cemented himself as New Zealand's first choice opener nor was he seen to be test class.
Matthew Horne had varied success as an opener. 4 centuries and 5 half centuries is OK but a test average of 28.38 is not. Was he just not good enough? IMO, no. I think he was our best option to partner Richardson during that time but he simply wasn't up to it.
Lou Vincent was asked to open on debut at Perth - a very tough call, and answered with a century. He went on to have moderate success opening the batting after that test, the Richardson-Vincent combination the last 'successful' opening partnership New Zealand had.
Ratings:
Mark Richardson - B+
Matthew Bell - D-
Matthew Horne - C-
Lou Vincent - C+
Overall: C+
Now - Craig Cumming, Michael Papps and Jamie How.
There is no doubt that noone has really put their hand up as Richardsons replacement. Noone ever really put their hand up as Richardsons partner either. Since his departure, a number of options have been tried, with the aforementioned 3 the ones who have been given the longest run.
Craig Cumming is the oldest of the lot and, according to most, just a stop gap solution. IMO he's suffered simply by not being given enough game time. New Zealand have played very few tests in recent years, and when they have he's been overlooked for middle order specialists being bumped up the order. Had he played in all the tests since his debut, I think he would've had more success and been averaging mid 30's rather than mid 20's.
He's still our best opening option, and should be persisted with until someone else shoves him out of the team by weight of domestic runs.
Michael Papps is somewhat of an enigma. Slays domestic attacks, has a good technique and seems gifted as a batsman, yet his record is absolutely terrible in tests. True, most of it has been at the hands of the South Africans who have slayed him at every turn. Should he be discarded because of his recent form with the bat, or should he persisted with as one of the very few options we have? IMO, we should keep him for another few series yet. As HeathDavidSpeed said, the South Africans have it over him. I think, nay I HOPE, playing against some different teams this summer will result in some better performances from him.
Jamie How was dropped after failing miserably against Sri Lanka. How seemed to have it going okay before his international call up. He scored runs at domestic level and has a okay technique for an opener, so it was only a matter of time before he was called up. To me, I just don't think he can be a test class opener; ODI grafter, perhaps. But remember, we're not talking about the shorter form here. If he plays any further tests, I hope its due to injury because he should not play on merit alone.
Ratings:
Craig Cumming - C
Michael Papps - D
Jamie How - E
Overall - D-
Next: The Middle Order...
This comparison is for test cricket.
So, rewind to 2001. Perth, Australia. New Zealand come agonisingly close to defeating the worlds best team at home when the game ends in a draw after NZ had the upper hand throughout most of the match. This isn't, per se, the very best New Zealand team from 10 years, but it's a good starting point.
Two years previously, NZ managed to defeat England at home and in the space of 3 years, had a very good run in test cricket. So what was different then to now? Lets look.
The Openers.
Then - Mark Richardson, Matthew Bell, Lou Vincent, Matthew Horne.
Mark Richardson, arguably one of the openers in an all time NZ XI did a great job for New Zealand at the top of the order and finding a replacement for him has yet to come to fruition. The man left a massive gap, and whats more annoying is that he could still be playing for us!
Matthew Bell played 13 tests between 1998 and the 2001 Australian tour, with little success. He scored just 1 century and 2 fifties at the type of the order and never really cemented himself as New Zealand's first choice opener nor was he seen to be test class.
Matthew Horne had varied success as an opener. 4 centuries and 5 half centuries is OK but a test average of 28.38 is not. Was he just not good enough? IMO, no. I think he was our best option to partner Richardson during that time but he simply wasn't up to it.
Lou Vincent was asked to open on debut at Perth - a very tough call, and answered with a century. He went on to have moderate success opening the batting after that test, the Richardson-Vincent combination the last 'successful' opening partnership New Zealand had.
Ratings:
Mark Richardson - B+
Matthew Bell - D-
Matthew Horne - C-
Lou Vincent - C+
Overall: C+
Now - Craig Cumming, Michael Papps and Jamie How.
There is no doubt that noone has really put their hand up as Richardsons replacement. Noone ever really put their hand up as Richardsons partner either. Since his departure, a number of options have been tried, with the aforementioned 3 the ones who have been given the longest run.
Craig Cumming is the oldest of the lot and, according to most, just a stop gap solution. IMO he's suffered simply by not being given enough game time. New Zealand have played very few tests in recent years, and when they have he's been overlooked for middle order specialists being bumped up the order. Had he played in all the tests since his debut, I think he would've had more success and been averaging mid 30's rather than mid 20's.
He's still our best opening option, and should be persisted with until someone else shoves him out of the team by weight of domestic runs.
Michael Papps is somewhat of an enigma. Slays domestic attacks, has a good technique and seems gifted as a batsman, yet his record is absolutely terrible in tests. True, most of it has been at the hands of the South Africans who have slayed him at every turn. Should he be discarded because of his recent form with the bat, or should he persisted with as one of the very few options we have? IMO, we should keep him for another few series yet. As HeathDavidSpeed said, the South Africans have it over him. I think, nay I HOPE, playing against some different teams this summer will result in some better performances from him.
Jamie How was dropped after failing miserably against Sri Lanka. How seemed to have it going okay before his international call up. He scored runs at domestic level and has a okay technique for an opener, so it was only a matter of time before he was called up. To me, I just don't think he can be a test class opener; ODI grafter, perhaps. But remember, we're not talking about the shorter form here. If he plays any further tests, I hope its due to injury because he should not play on merit alone.
Ratings:
Craig Cumming - C
Michael Papps - D
Jamie How - E
Overall - D-
Next: The Middle Order...
Last edited:
.....anyone? 
