New Zealand's second-greatest bowler post-1960

[Richard]

Just put your paranoia to one side for a second. You know damn well that Danny Morrison is a far stronger candidate than at least half of that list, the only reason he's not there is because you forgot about him. But if you want to cover it up by producing an argument showing Dayle Hadlee, Lance Cairns and Simon Doull are better candidates then go ahead, it would make interesting reading.

Paranoia? I've admitted that it was an oversight on my behalf to fail to include Morrison, and no of course I don't really think Hadlee or Cairns Snr. (Doull is a different matter) have much of a case to be so, but I tried to include as many possibles as I could. I forgot two - Chatfield and Morrison.

There's no way on Earth in my mind, however, that Morrison was even close to being 2nd-best - he was too much of a home-track bully (Collinge was that too, but a) he was much better than Morrison and b) with him it was more to do with a dislike of leaving home than lack of ability on different pitches). Indeed Morrison might have a better case than Hadlee (D) and Cairns (BL), but I doubt he'd have received many votes. There's no way he's "the most obvious candidate".

Nonetheless - someone, please, edit him in too. As I say - he's certainly one of NZ's better seamers.

 

[Goughy]

Paranoia? I've admitted that it was an oversight on my behalf to fail to include Morrison, and no of course I don't really think Hadlee or Cairns Snr. (Doull is a different matter) have much of a case to be so, but I tried to include as many possibles as I could. I forgot two - Chatfield and Morrison.

There's no way on Earth in my mind, however, that Morrison was even close to being 2nd-best - he was too much of a home-track bully (Collinge was that too, but a) he was much better than Morrison and b) with him it was more to do with a dislike of leaving home than lack of ability on different pitches). Indeed Morrison might have a better case than Hadlee (D) and Cairns (BL), but I doubt he'd have received many votes. There's no way he's "the most obvious candidate".

Nonetheless - someone, please, edit him in too. As I say - he's certainly one of NZ's better seamers.

Its not like the other players include guys like Ambrose, Waqar, McGrath etc.

Its quite possible to have him as number 2 as none of the others stand out.

Sure his average was far lower at home than away. But then all of them can be criticised. Nash averaged less than 3 wickets a Test, never took a wicket against Australia, took less than 100 Test wickets, took cheap wickets against Zim and forged a decent reputation on the back of only 1 good game.

I like Morrison. He bowled at a good lick and got the ball to swing around. He gave NZ an edge and carried that attck for a while.

 

[Richard]

I know. Morrison, at home, was a damn good bowler for most of his career. He was one of New Zealand's better ones - partly, of course, simply because he managed to stay fit where so many others didn't. Between Hadlee's retirement and about 1995, a decent length of time, he was often a one-man attack and, at home, made the difference between New Zealand being a poor Test team and an acceptable one.

But I cannot see how he has any case at all for being a better bowler than Collinge or Taylor. And nor do I think he's unequivocally better than several others, especially those whose careers were disrupted by injury. With those many in that camp (Bond included) you're mostly guessing. I think all of Doull, Nash and Cairns could've been top-shelf bowlers but for injury, and obviously Bond could've been. And I've also always been disappointed Allott got injured, much as his Test career that he did have was very poor.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Paranoia? .

When you start replying to posts made three years that no one even gave a toss about then, never mind now that's paranoia. A fairly prime example too.

 

[Nutter]

Allott and Bond... fit... playing together even...

What could have been. *sigh*

 

[Richard]

When you start replying to posts made three years that no one even gave a toss about then, never mind now that's paranoia. A fairly prime example too.

No, it's called "covering all eventualities". I don't do paranoid, at any time, under any circumstances.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

No, it's called "covering all eventualities". I don't do paranoid, at any time, under any circumstances.

Refusal to accept it is one of the main symptoms. Incidently the reply and reasoning behind that three year old post also displays "Sting syndrome."

 

[_Ed_]

Allott and Bond... fit... playing together even...

What could have been. *sigh*

Great thought that...wouldn't have been many better ODI opening bowling partnerships in the last few years.

Allott was largely ineffective in Tests though for some reason.

 

[aussie]

Great thought that...wouldn't have been many better ODI opening bowling partnerships in the last few years.

Allott was largely ineffective in Tests though for some reason.

That was basically due to him being so injured often he never got the chance to work out his strenghts & weaknesses in the longer form of the game. When he was probably at the peak of his powers during the 99 WC he got injured again & well was lost forever.

If Allot, Nash, Doull were fit bowlers the NZ 2001 touring team to Australia could have probably been your greatest ever side.

 

[Smudge]

If Allot, Nash, Doull were fit bowlers the NZ 2001 touring team to Australia could have probably been your greatest ever side.

If those bowlers were on tour, Bond would have been left at home.

 

[Richard]

Refusal to accept it is one of the main symptoms.

Refusal to accept things can be one of the main symptoms of many things if someone (other than the supposed sufferer, of course) wants something which isn't true to be true.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Refusal to accept things can be one of the main symptoms of many things if someone (other than the supposed sufferer, of course) wants something which isn't true to be true.

I see. Purely for research purposes, what "eventualities" were "covered" by replying to a three year old post that no one would have read had you not revived it?

 

[Richard]

That people wouldn't think I'd said something nonsensical which it was claimed I had said. I never said "Shane Bond can't swing a red ball", so chose to point-out that a post (which had re-entered the public eye after 3 years out of it - a re-entering which wasn't my doing) which claimed I had was incorrect. It wasn't difficult to do - if it was, I probably wouldn't have bothered.