the new zealand dilemma

[salman85]

Got this idea from the thread recently closed by Flem.
*
why do New Zealand continue to struggle as a Test Nation?A side that has been playing test cricket for so long,yet has never quite managed to compete with the big boys on a regular basis.There have been phases of brilliance here and there,some fantastic players,but they have never truly developed a team that was the best in the world at a given point in time.If they had such a team pre-1990,please correct me.As a supporter of Pakistan,i love Pakistan playing against them,since we have always done well against them.I'm sure other cricketing nations have never really had sleepless nights before facing New Zealand either.All other nations barring Zimbabwe and Bangladesh,have had moments at some point in history,where they could claim to be the best in the world,or atleast right up there with the best.That doesn't seem to be the case with NZ.Ofcourse my primary judgement of NZ comes from cricket post 1990.But from what i've read,heard and seen footage of,NZ have been a good side at best even in the past,but never quite reached the point of being called great.
*
*
No disrespect intended to NZ,or their fans.We have quite a few NZ supporters on the forum,so there insight on the topic would be nice.Also,i would not mind being corrected if my impression of NZ Cricket and their history is wrong.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

A country of 4m whose sporting environment is dominated by Rugby Union is always going to struggle to have a team of 11 international class cricketers. The best NZ teams have always based themselves around 1 or 2 world class players with the rest of the team filled by decentish players. If anything, with the resources it's arguable that NZ overperform.

 

[Spark]

Their population is small and cricket is not even close to being the premier sport.

End of story.

 

[Athlai]

More Warren Lees please.

 

[Noble One]

New Zealand is a cricket success considering the factors outlined above.

They have the odd lapse, however they have been an ultra competetive cricket nation for near 30 years.

 

[benchmark00]

Surely NZ should have a better chance of success than say Sri Lanka. Population isn't the only factor, and while I acknowledge that rugby is very dominant in NZ, it's not like rugby is played over summer there.

It's like saying Australia is dominated by AFL. It is during winter, but what about summer?

I think they've been punching below their weight for far too long.

 

[Flem274*]

In the 80s we had a team that was right up there. It wasn't just Hadlee and Crowe. Wright, J.F. Reid, Smith, Coney (ridiculous home record) etc were guns.

It's hard to answer the bulk of the question, because there are so many things that have gone horribly downhill over our history. Dempster for example, should have played much more than he did but NZC were ****s about players who played county cricket. Some would say population, and they would be half right, but the Windies dominated with a population of 5 million or so. The main difference is cricket is not our national sport, just our national summer sport.

If you wanted to shrink the list to a couple of reasons, then you have to look no further than the same problems that have plagued us last decade. Shane Bond provides the first idea and I agree with him: Some players cruise through the ranks without having to work too hard and meet equals for the first time in international cricket. This ends badly.

The other problem has been keeping bowlers fit. It's not surprising our most successful era coincided with some of our most durable bowlers (one of whom was exceptional), and for the most part, whenever we have had our best bowlers fit they've been a test standard attack.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Rugby starts earlier and earlier each year and I know a few younger guys who don't play cricket because they're concerned about taking injuries into the rugby season.

 

[benchmark00]

Rugby starts earlier and earlier each year and I know a few younger guys who don't play cricket because they're concerned about taking injuries into the rugby season.

Yeah but that's the same here in Australia, it's not unique to NZ and rugby. Also the fact that AFL takes alot of talented cricketers who are perceived to have the talent to make it as a cricketer.

It's much easier for Australia though because we have the population plus the infrastructure, and I do think that infrastructure is more important than just pure population numbers.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Also, club cricket is extremely poorly funded. Our cricket pitches are atrocious and having played in Australia and the UK I can certainly attest that there's a massive difference in pitch quality. It certainly doesn't help up and coming batsmen learn technique that will stand up to scrutiny at the highest level. Pitches are curated by council contractors at club level and they don't care about the quality of the pitch produced.

 

[Flem274*]

I'm not sure how widespread this is so don't take it as gospel, but all through my school years no one ever wanted to open the batting in any team I played in. They all wanted to be Martin Crowe or Chris Cairns.

Half the time I ended up opening because I can see off the new ball, and I wanted to do it or I would have been at eleven (twelve if possible) otherwise.

 

[salman85]

How many nz players have played shield cricket regulalry?that would benefit the players most certainly.

I also think that on some subconcious level,being in the shadow of a cricket powerhouse like australia plays on the minds of nz players.

 

[Flem274*]

Since I haven't been told I'm a ****ing **** today, I'll fufill my quota.

As a foreigner, you will notice that if you call NZ a bunch of hard working honest triers with no real talent, we will show a national unity not seen since the last world war and stop at nothing until we kill you.

If you accuse NZ of being a bunch of talented but underperforming mediocre ****s as a foreigner, we (broad brush we) will quickly get defensive and point out all the reasons why for such a **** country, we're good and punch above our weight with our honest triers from our tiny population.

We also defend individual players as being good by New Zealand standards.

The "Good by NZ standards/punch above our weight/good for our population" attitude needs to die in a fire, or we will never get better, because sometimes I suspect players and staff in and around the national side buy into it on occasion.

edit: If a left arm spinner can convert himself to being a dogged opener averaging 44 in his mid-twenties, then guys who have been opening the batting since they were twelve can do it.

If the current side had the mental prowess of Mark Richardson, we would be number one in the world. Our best two openers since 2000 are a left arm spinner and a wicket keeper ffs.

 

[Mike5181]

I thought it would be fairly obvious why we haven't been consistent world beaters.

- There are only four million people in New Zealand.
- Two million are females = 2 million left
- Half of the population is over 36 = 1 million left
- Half a million of those remaining males are children/under 18 = 500,000 left

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

NZ's Top 10 most popular sports
1.Rugby
2.Rugby
3.Rugby
4.Rugby
5.Rugby
6.Rugby
7.Rugby
8.Rugby
9.Rugby
10.Rugby

(Cricket came in at 89 in the Top 100)

 

[Burgey]

Would NZ supporters prefer to be reduced to Associate status then?

 

[salman85]

Surely not 89.around 88 perhaps.

 

[Flem274*]

Would NZ supporters prefer to be reduced to Associate status then?

As a foreigner, you will notice that if you call NZ a bunch of hard working honest triers with no real talent, we will show a national unity not seen since the last world war and stop at nothing until we kill you.

...

 

[straw man]

Surely NZ should have a better chance of success than say Sri Lanka. Population isn't the only factor, and while I acknowledge that rugby is very dominant in NZ, it's not like rugby is played over summer there.

It's like saying Australia is dominated by AFL. It is during winter, but what about summer?

I think they've been punching below their weight for far too long.

Pretty much agree with benchmark. Not suggesting by any stretch that we should be dominating but periods like mid 90s when we were truly utterly abysmally awful and then some of the last five years just should not be happening. Low population is such a weak excuse.

Low population just means there is less margin for error with your limited resources. Some failings are due to bad luck with injuries at the top level but there are also numerous examples of poor organisation and facilities down to the junior levels, generally not being good at spreading cricket to kids who aren't white and affluent, years of ****y management at a higher level, and selection policies that have driven away good and potentially good players.

I think our most legitimate excuse is the ****y weather - really does make it difficult to play a summer sport that relies on dry conditions like no other.

Rugby certainly doesn't help but the AFL comparison is an interesting one seeing as it near monopolises the attention of Victoria - not so many Australian fast bowlers coming from Victoria at present are there?

 

[Flem274*]

Siddle.

Runs in hard, bowls all day, big heart iirc.

Victoria must be West New Zealand.