Modern New Zealand XI (dayboo post 1980) first poll: The Two Positions from Hell

[CaptainGrumpy]

I went for McCullum from the list given, but had forgotten that I won't be able to squeeze all of Williamson, Taylor, Jones Crowe, Fleming/Ryder into the middle order so I think I'd prefer Jones. He opened a fair bit in first class cricket I think. But ticking the "other" box doesn't seem worth it as there won't be any other votes...

Unlike most posters I think I favour a standard 6-1-4 formation, allowing you to pick your best out and out keeper and best three seam bowlers without worrying about the batting, though I do see the appeal of Watling/BMac - Cairns - Vettori at 6/7/8. Williamson, Crowe (and possibly Ryder at 6) give you a 5th bowling option, and if this side is entering a mythical contest against other world xi's, then the batting is a bit of a weakness (players averaging mid 40's vs 50+ for other teams) so I think a 6th batsman is needed.

I'm not sure the format of the polls will allow that to come through though...

This post just smacks of well thought out reasoning and rationale. Fine post.

The poll will allow a #6 to come through, the only issue is whether Cairns is not voted for in the three seamers because people want his as a #6. But if they're aware of that when they vote, as the discussion will surround this issue, then the poll can do its job. But there is a danger of well Bond, Boult, Doull, Nash, Southee, Cairns - I know "Carins can bat 6 and I choose 3 more".

 

[Zinzan]

There's certainly a case that my team is light on bowling (Vettori not really being a strike bowler at Test level, let alone ATG level). Personally, I never saw much of Cairns so was never that impressed by him. Throw in the fixing controversy and the balance of this team (not wanting Watling at 6, and neither Cairns nor Vettori being #6s at this level), and I'd rather see Astle or McMillan or Jesse in there to bat at 6 and contribute a handful of part-time overs alongside KW.

If you're excluding Cairns based on the cheating allegations, that's fine. But there should be no other reason to exclude him from this side. In fact, he has to be up there with Crowe & Williamson as one of the best 2-3 NZ cricketers debuting after 1980.

It's easy to forget his test record was practically the same as Kapil Dev and Botham (averaging 33 with bat & 28 with ball) except for the fact he only played about half their test matches due to injury. A genuine world-class all-rounder.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

If you're excluding Cairns based on the cheating allegations, that's fine. But there should be no other reason to exclude him from this side. In fact, he has to be up there with Crowe & Williamson as one of the best 2-3 NZ cricketers debuting after 1980.

It's easy to forget his test record was practically the same as Kapil Dev and Botham (averaging 33 with bat & 28 with ball) except for the fact he only played about half their test matches due to injury. A genuine world-class all-rounder.

Could reasonably argue better than Dev.

 

[Hurricane]

I don't see a case for leaving him out due to match fixing. That statement is based on my supposition he did all his black market stuff in the CPL and various domestic tournaments. Really what was the point of the CPL anyway. It would be hard to find any player who was taking those games seriously. Not that I am condoning match fixing, just pointing out I am less offended by him doing it in some tin pot tournament than Amir and Asif while representing their nation.

 

[Zinzan]

Could reasonably argue better than Dev.

Not so sure about that considering the conditions Dev primarily bowled in. But Cairns was certainly up there.

In the 2nd half of his career, between 1999-2004, he averaged 38 with the bat and 26 with the ball and only Kallis (57 bat & 32 ball) and Pollock (30 bat & 22 ball) would have challenged him as best all-rounder in the world at that 5-6 year period. And with Kallis primarily being a batting allrounder and Pollock a bowling one, Cairns was probably the most 'genuine' all-rounder of the 3. (certainly in that 5-6 year period).

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

I personally would include him.

Fantastic test record for NZ.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

Not so sure about that considering the conditions Dev primarily bowled in.

Dev averages 26 with the ball in those "conditions" he primarily bowled in in India and 39 in England.

 

[Zinzan]

I don't see a case for leaving him out due to match fixing. That statement is based on my supposition he did all his black market stuff in the CPL and various domestic tournaments. Really what was the point of the CPL anyway. It would be hard to find any player who was taking those games seriously. Not that I am condoning match fixing, just pointing out I am less offended by him doing it in some tin pot tournament than Amir and Asif while representing their nation.

Yeah, I only mentioned that since Dan said that was one of a few factors for leaving him out. My point was if that was Dan's stance, it could be the only factor for omitting him. On playing ability, he's one of the top 2-3.

 

[Zinzan]

Dev averages 26 with the ball in those "conditions" he primarily bowled in in India and 39 in England.

What was his breakdown across the board?

 

[NZTailender]

We often played Cairns as opening bowling + 2 proper seamers + Vettori/Wiseman/Patel at times; he was genuinely in the side for bowling alone and was one of the best batsmen as well.

Also it's worth noting for all his under-achievingness with the bat, Fleming averaged 47.95 (or there abouts) batting at #3, where he scored the most of his runs, despite batting at 4 more.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

What was his breakdown across the board?

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

Australia scorecards are often 4-100 or 5-100+ where Australia make decent to big scores and he has a 60+ SR.

Touring the West Indies was a standout for Kapil with a 51.5 SR with 35 wickets at 23.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

This post just smacks of well thought out reasoning and rationale. Fine post.

The poll will allow a #6 to come through, the only issue is whether Cairns is not voted for in the three seamers because people want his as a #6. But if they're aware of that when they vote, as the discussion will surround this issue, then the poll can do its job. But there is a danger of well Bond, Boult, Doull, Nash, Southee, Cairns - I know "Carins can bat 6 and I choose 3 more".

If there is a specialist bat at 6 (Ryder/McMillan/Astle?) I'd pick Smith as keeper at 9 cos we won't need BMac/Watling's if we've got 6 batsmen then Cairns-Vettori at 7-8

 

[Prince EWS]

I love BJ (as most guys do), however I'm not sure he's done quite enough now to oust McCullum as best batsmen/keeper quite yet. Another year or two scoring the way he has been and he's in my XI though.

Yeah if I could pick McCullum twice then I would. I do think having McCullum open and Watling keep makes more sense than McCullum keeping and one of the other poll options here opening though.

 

[Zinzan]

For me Stephen Fleming is more likely to prosper as an opener against good attacks than McCullum, even if the latter is more likely to play a spectacular innings once in a while.

 

[Hurricane]

The following people would either make better openers than Baz in non subcontinental conditions or were better.

Tom Latham
Flemming
Andrew Jones
Trevor Franklin (if he is eligible)
TMac
Watling
Kane Williamson
Phil Horne (if eligible)

 

[Flem274*]

trevor ****ing franklin? you can't be serious.

anyway, on baz v watling as keepers, it depends what you want really. watling is good with the gloves and a far far superior batsman to baz while baz had the gloves. averages be damned, it's watling by a mile batting wise.

likewise baz' keeping was world class. we took his keeping for granted so much because we'd been spoiled for 20 years by smithy and parore (with a bit of a robbie hart cameo) and when baz gave up those gloves a struggling team lost one edge they had. hopkins, young etc are far from bad keepers but they're not baz by any stretch. people kept talking about what a dangerous batsman he was but it was always the keeping where he stood out. he could score a quick 50 or a cheap ton in the right circumstances but mccullum the batsman is a recent phenomenon (and what a batsman he is now).

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

trevor ****ing franklin? you can't be serious.

He is.

Franklin is one half of New Zealand's supreme opening partnership with all sorts of records. Do not let his low average fool you. What he lacked in runs off the bat, he made up for with softening the ball up and collecting extras.

Lunch time NZ 55 for no wicket with Franklin and his partner Wright, none of this 45 all bowled out stuff.

 

[Zinzan]

Nah sorry, no universe exists in which Trevor Franklin > Brendon McCullum as a test opener no matter whether he had a half-decent partnership record with Wrighty or not.

 

[NZTailender]

I'm a big fan of combos, and iirc the Wright-Franklin combo averaged 50+ or something. The nearest, most substantial combo since then was Richardson and Vincent.

 

[Zinzan]

Looking at other factors like their opening partnership records is fine. But c'mon, McCullum averaged 40 as an opener and Franklin about 22 IIRC.