***Official*** New Zealand in Bangladesh & Sri Lanka 2013

[hendrix]

Nah even without their slow starts Southee (fingers crossed) and Anderson are about 28 average bowlers, IMO. That's very, very good, but not in the ATG category (although Southee still in with a chance to make the NZ side).

I think that's where Bond really demands selection, because he was a bowler who we could have realistically expected to average 25 or less.

 

[Flem274*]

Bond was at worst the third best quick we've produced, no question about it, but if Southee and Boult reach 200-300 at under 30 then the question has to be asked whether Bond did enough. For all his skill he missed 90% of our tests during his career.

 

[Hurricane]

Bond was at worst the third best quick we've produced, no question about it, but if Southee and Boult reach 200-300 at under 30 then the question has to be asked whether Bond did enough. For all his skill he missed 90% of our tests during his career.

the nz atg selectors don't care about number of games played e.g donnelly.

 

[hendrix]

It's strange, I would consider Southee and Boult's careers to be very successful if they average around 28, but that's not even better than someone like Paul Reiffel's average.

 

[Flem274*]

IIRC Anderson's average only came down because he cut it in half for the second part of his career.

I may have my records iffy but there was definitely a few years at least of hovering around the magic 2-0.

 

[Flem274*]

It's strange, I would consider Southee and Boult's careers to be very successful if they average around 28, but that's not even better than someone like Paul Reiffel's average.

That's because you support one of the most underachieving test nations and have very low expectations.

And it's worth remembering Reiffel played in a different era, and also not for many tests. Southee must be close to playing 35 tests already. Feels like it anyway, and it's bloody hard to average 28 now when every other **** has a batting average over 45, though hopefully times are changing.

 

[Mike5181]

Southee's played 26 tests so far. He's got a good 8 years left ahead of him if he's good enough, maybe more.

 

[SteveNZ]

Southee's average has plummeted recently. He's always in with a chance for a very big haul at home due to favourable conditions and I don't think he had as long a period of prolonged mediocrity as Anderson, and he snapped out of it at a younger age. He's a decent shot at finishing with an average below 30.

I do wonder what we may think of Anderson now had he got his act together a bit faster.

Jimmy Anderson? Jimmy Anderson is one of the great swing bowlers of all-time - in fact he'll probably end up the greatest, stats-wise. To me it's perhaps not irrelevant, but easy enough to look over a shaky start to a career if you post the sort of numbers Anderson has - averaged under 30 in five of the past 6 years. He could easily finish up with only Walsh and McGrath ahead of him for pace bowling scalps. I can't think of anyone I've enjoyed watch bowl more, apart from Flintoff/Bond and company who didn't have his durability.

Any all-time team without Dan V is incomplete. We're not accomplished enough to brush a 4500run/350 wicket man

 

[Flem274*]

Imagine if Anderson had clicked four or even two years earlier though - the **** would have a ridiculous amount of wickets considering his durability, the amount of tests England play and how good he is, and at a very respectable average.

I don't say this often, but he's a player who is better than his stats say. Even when he isn't taking wickets he gives the oppo nothing and builds pressure for the other end to exploit (or release, if Finn happens to be bowling).

 

[Flametree]

Also worth remembering Reiffel was a damn fine bowler. And averaged mid-high 20s witth the bat - a very under-rated cricketer.

 

[Flem274*]

Tidy umpire as well.

 

[Immenso]

Southee's average has plummeted recently. He's always in with a chance for a very big haul at home due to favourable conditions and I don't think he had as long a period of prolonged mediocrity as Anderson, and he snapped out of it at a younger age. He's a decent shot at finishing with an average below 30.

Actually, it's at home that Southee's stats let him down. Averages 27 away and 40 something at home.

Need less tests on the dried rolled mud in cold swingless Dunedin.

Maybe now that the Saffas and Poms have been and gone we won't have our groundsmen protecting our inept batsmen the next few years, won't have to blunt our own strength anymore in attempt to avoid home defeats.

 

[Bahnz]

That's because you support one of the most underachieving test nations and have very low expectations.

And it's worth remembering Reiffel played in a different era, and also not for many tests. Southee must be close to playing 35 tests already. Feels like it anyway, and it's bloody hard to average 28 now when every other **** has a batting average over 45, though hopefully times are changing.

This is why suggesting that Taylor is close to making the ATG on the basis of an average of 42 is ridiculous. I seriously think that if he'd debuted at the same time as Fleming, he would've been viewed as a very similar batsman in terms of overall quality. He's good, but he doesn't belong in the same tier as the likes of Turner, Crowe, Sutcliffe etc. If he seriously wants to be rated with that bunch, he needs to lift his career average by about 5 runs. At this stage, that would take a hell of an effort.

 

[SteveNZ]

Imagine if Anderson had clicked four or even two years earlier though - the **** would have a ridiculous amount of wickets considering his durability, the amount of tests England play and how good he is, and at a very respectable average.

I don't say this often, but he's a player who is better than his stats say. Even when he isn't taking wickets he gives the oppo nothing and builds pressure for the other end to exploit (or release, if Finn happens to be bowling).

Absolutely he would've - he'd be on track for 500. I guess I take a differing view on 'ATGs' to some - if the sample size is big enough, ie Anderson's 5 out of 6 below 30 as previously mentioned, I'm willing to overlook the years before that and even if he ended up bowling a final season of weasel piss then was forced out. Some base it on career stats, and I get that. But to me, Anderson is already one of the greats based on half a dozen outstanding seasons. Southee could end up being a carbon copy (stats wise) if he wants it enough, with runs to boot as well. Eerily similar - swing bowlers, took 5-for on debut (just realised I was at both matches, not that the annuls of time will give a toss), achieved not a hell of a lot for the next 3-4 years while dominating with white ball, then worked their game out with the red.

 

[Bahnz]

Jimmy Anderson? Jimmy Anderson is one of the great swing bowlers of all-time - in fact he'll probably end up the greatest, stats-wise. To me it's perhaps not irrelevant, but easy enough to look over a shaky start to a career if you post the sort of numbers Anderson has - averaged under 30 in five of the past 6 years. He could easily finish up with only Walsh and McGrath ahead of him for pace bowling scalps. I can't think of anyone I've enjoyed watch bowl more, apart from Flintoff/Bond and company who didn't have his durability.

Any all-time team without Dan V is incomplete. We're not accomplished enough to brush a 4500run/350 wicket man

Anderson is good, but he's also pretty inconsistent. You watch him the way he bowled during the Lord's test against us earlier this year, and it's hard to believe that he doesn't average under 25, let alone 30. But then you remember the way he bowled on the tour of NZ (and for large parts of the Ashes), Slow, inaccurate and without even much shape to give him a chance. I don't know what causes him to lose his touch, but it will always keep him out of the "great" tier of fast bowlers imo.

 

[Flem274*]

This is why suggesting that Taylor is close to making the ATG on the basis of an average of 42 is ridiculous. I seriously think that if he'd debuted at the same time as Fleming, he would've been viewed as a very similar batsman in terms of overall quality. He's good, but he doesn't belong in the same tier as the likes of Turner, Crowe, Sutcliffe etc. If he seriously wants to be rated with that bunch, he needs to lift his career average by about 5 runs. At this stage, that would take a hell of an effort.

He's not competing against those guys though, he's competing against Donnelly, J.F. Reid, Astle, and Fleming, and he's already better than at least two of those, and considering Donnelly played for five minutes it's already hard enough to include him over the others mentioned (which I admit I do).

Before the captaincy fun Taylor was averaging 50 as skipper and beginning to come into his own as a batsman. Considering for most of his career he has been almost a de facto opener, and has never scored a test hundred where he came in with more than 100 runs on the board), and excels when the heat is on, he can and will become a deserved name in our all time eleven. I have no doubt in my mind. While Jesse Ryder and Brendon McCullum were busy finding new ways to piss into the wind, Ross Taylor was New Zealand top six batting, and still mostly is.

If he had played in an earlier era with the same team I think he would be averaging 38-39, but put the likes of John Wright, Andrew Jones, Glenn Turner or Mark Richardson above him in the order to provide the balls Crowe, Donnelly, Sutcliffe and Fleming got, and he would probably have the same record.

Martin Crowe often gets written up as being the only batsman in a poor line up but tbh Wright, Reid, Jones and Coney all had very respectable if not outstanding records for their era. Taylor is surrounding by blokes struggling to average 30 in the best era for batting in history. I'm not saying Taylor is better than Crowe, but you almost have to go back to Dempster to find another New Zealand gem so far ahead of his peers. We have never been so reliant on one batsman before. He's unfortunate not to have played in the 80s or the early 2000s where he would have been surrounded by test standard, if not world class for the most part, batsmen.

 

[Flem274*]

Here's a woolly one for you all - Watling - will he sink or swim long term and where will we rank him amongst kiwi keeper batsmen?

Attend your crystal balls.

 

[Bahnz]

He's not competing against those guys though, he's competing against Donnelly, J.F. Reid, Astle, and Fleming, and he's already better than at least two of those, and considering Donnelly played for five minutes it's already hard enough to include him over the others mentioned (which I admit I do).

Before the captaincy fun Taylor was averaging 50 as skipper and beginning to come into his own as a batsman. Considering for most of his career he has been almost a de facto opener, and has never scored a test hundred where he came in with more than 100 runs on the board), and excels when the heat is on, he can and will become a deserved name in our all time eleven. I have no doubt in my mind. While Jesse Ryder and Brendon McCullum were busy finding new ways to piss into the wind, Ross Taylor was New Zealand top six batting, and still mostly is.

If he had played in an earlier era with the same team I think he would be averaging 38-39, but put the likes of John Wright, Andrew Jones, Glenn Turner or Mark Richardson above him in the order to provide the balls Crowe, Donnelly, Sutcliffe and Fleming got, and he would probably have the same record.

Martin Crowe often gets written up as being the only batsman in a poor line up but tbh Wright, Reid, Jones and Coney all had very respectable if not outstanding records for their era. Taylor is surrounding by blokes struggling to average 30 in the best era for batting in history. I'm not saying Taylor is better than Crowe, but you almost have to go back to Dempster to find another New Zealand gem so far ahead of his peers. We have never been so reliant on one batsman before. He's unfortunate not to have played in the 80s or the early 2000s where he would have been surrounded by test standard, if not world class for the most part, batsmen.

I disagree. Taylor is a better player than Astle, I'll grant you. But I don't think he was a better player than Fleming, he certainly wasn't as good as Donnelly. JF Reid is kinda tricky, as he didn't play that long. But still, averaging 46 in the 1980's is no joke.

Furthermore, Taylor's run as captain in 2012 is not the first time he's averaged 50 for a sustained period. He did it during the first half of 2008 against a strong England side, he did it again in 2009 and yes again in 2012. Unfortunately his career has also been peppered with periods of low-output characterised by shakey decision-making and an inability to turn starts into big scores.

The problem is, to average 45+ you either need to be freakishly consistent (a la Mark Richardson), or you need to be capable of making BIG hundreds (a la Crowe). Taylor is neither, and so appears doomed to a career averaging in the low-40's. McCullum has the same problem, although to a much greater extent. Of the current batsmen, I reckon only Williamson has a serious chance of one day cracking the big leagues. I once would've said the same about Jesse, but I've long since given up on him fulfilling his potential.

And I don't think that playing in a shaky batting lineup has had a particularly detrimental affect on his batting. Taylor's never had any problems with coming in against the newish ball. It's one of the main reasons why I've always felt that he should be batting at number 3 in tests (especially while Kane was still very new to the side). He thrives on the pressure. To paraphrase the emperor, it gives him focus, makes him strong. In fact, on the occassions when he's come in with serious runs on the board he's often looked pretty average. This strange weakness when it comes to down-hill skiing is the main factor that causes him to fall short of NZ greatness imo. His inability to cash in when the hard work has been done (either by his partners or by himself) constantly drags him back to the ranks of the good. Maybe the captaincy was good for him in that respect, in that it made him feel the need to really make it count more often, and to really squeeze the maximum out of his ability.

 

[Bahnz]

Here's a woolly one for you all - Watling - will he sink or swim long term and where will we rank him amongst kiwi keeper batsmen?

Attend your crystal balls.

Yeah, I reckon he'll keep his place. He only needs to average 30 and not drop too many sitters to ward of the competition. And his proven ability to minnow-bash in combination with his solid technique and his current batting position (that will generally allow him to avoid the new ball) should see him achieve that comfortably. As for where he'll rank, it's very tough to say at this stage. In terms of batsmanship, my guess is in between Parore and McCullum (so 2nd all time). In terms of keeping I'd say probably below the big 3, but still very well.

 

[Flem274*]

He's better than Fleming already, and there will be a very clear gap when they finish their careers.

Fleming achieved highs Taylor hasn't yet, but Fleming made a career out of half centuries and doing half the work. Fleming could, should have averaged 50, but his mind let him down. Taylor is more up and down, but when he gets in he finishes the job. He has only needs two more ton to pass Fleming in less than half of Fleming's tests, despite making his debut at a similar age and less complete as a batsman.

I hear you on Taylor's flaws, but he's just entered what are traditionally the best years to bat and I think we're going to see very soon whether he's just a good player or whether he joins the ranks of Crowe and Turner. A nastier person than I would hope the McHesson situation is fueling his extra gear he finds when no one else does. That ability to do it all himself is a large part of why I'll be picking him in my all time NZ side when he retires. If Crowe is walking back to the sheds for a duck, Taylor would be the one man to save us.

On Donnelly: while I pick him as well, I can't help but look at him in the same light as Barry Richards, and apply the Mark Waugh Case that was used in another thread recently. All three were ***y as **** and gunned it at first, but then two stopped while Waugh went on to disappoint (relatively) after his amazing start. Waugh always looked the best in the world, then he got out for 40.

Mark Waugh would stroll into the NZ ATG side of couse, but I hope the argument I'm trying to make is clear. I can't help but be dubious of the small sample size. I don't think his is a Cowie or a Dempster situation either.