Modern New Zealand XI (dayboo post 1980) 4th poll: The batting usually starts here

[Flem274*]

Since you ****s are being so boring in the spinner thread....

Pick three blokes to bat at #3 to #5. Try not to be a pain in the arse and pick McCullum or Fleming to open the batting and bat in the middle order. I don't think it will happen but this is CW.

I'm picking three names to win by a long way but I think a couple of guys will push hard and everyone here gets a second or third chance when we pick the final player in the team.

The team is currently

Mark Richardson
Brendon McCullum/Stephen Fleming
-
-
-
-
-
Daniel Vettori
Tim Southee
Shane Bond
Trent Boult

Looks like CW has chosen a fairly traditional balance rather than extra bowling or batting so far.

 

[mr_mister]

matty sinclair

 

[Bahnz]

Straightforward really. KW, Crowe and Taylor. Taylor will do doubly well given he'll be batting with his personal coach at the other end. Honorable mentions to Jones, McCullum and Fleming who are all good bats but all a notch below the best.

Reckon JF Reid deserves to be in the poll even if he didn't play a whole lot. Oh and Jeremy Coney too, deserves a nomination as much as Astle or McMillan, and arguably more given he copped a broken ****en arm from Malcolm Marshall in the service of his country (actually he probably daybooed b4 1980 right?).

 

[Hurricane]

Straightforward really. KW, Crowe and Taylor. Taylor will do doubly well given he'll be batting with his personal coach at the other end. Honorable mentions to Jones, McCullum and Fleming who are all good bats but all a notch below the best.

Reckon JF Reid deserves to be in the poll even if he didn't play a whole lot.

This answer will be the prevailing view. All three men were childhood phenoms

I don't see another phenom on the horizon. Young leopard on investigation tonned up against the same team who 3-4 other peeps tonned up against also in the tournament.

We've got a ton of youngsters playing on the back of the World Cup, trentham memorial park was packed with kids after the semi I have never seen anything like it. Hopefully we uncover another diamond.

 

[Bahnz]

This answer will be the prevailing view. All three men were childhood phenoms

Taylor wasn't quite the wunderkind that KW and Crowe were. The other chap of Taylor's vintage was probably closer to that class.

For me the gap is narrowest between Fleming and Taylor - and I have a suspicion that by the end of Ross' career it'll likely be a harder decision than it is now (Flem only got better with age whereas I suspect Taylor is probably close to his peak if not already past it). But as of right now, Taylor has it over Flem in terms of game changing knocks and a plainly superior overall record.

 

[mr_mister]

so cairns and mccullum for 6 and 7? this has been a pretty straightforward list. west indies(not post '80, just oat imo) would be much more exciting
'

 

[Hurricane]

Let him have the Australian series. He has significantly improved his defensive system from what I saw last night. That will help his test game even if his decision to accentuate his bottom hand has hurt his off side play. (There is the review on him that I promised last night)

Taylor averaged 130 in an under 14s tournament for cd
That gives him some claim to the phenom tag
Under 14s is very strong cricket at that level
In my opinion anyway having tried out for some age group stuff just for Hamilton let alone northern districts.

 

[Prince EWS]

Blasphemy I know but I'm not picking Kane yet. I'm almost sure I will by the time he retires but if he retired right now I wouldn't, and I'm not going to be speculative.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Blasphemy I know but I'm not picking Kane yet. I'm almost sure I will by the time he retires but if he retired right now I wouldn't, and I'm not going to be speculative.

He already has more hundreds than Fleming. And I doubt it's speculation. You know KW is better.

 

[Prince EWS]

He already has more hundreds than Fleming.

This is definitely a case of the abitrary cut-off point for hundreds really counting against Fleming in this comparison. Fleming has more 80+ scores (20 v 11), more 90+ scores (15 v 11), more 120+ scores (7 v 6), more 150+ scores (5 v 3) and more 200+ scores (3 v 1).

Often the argument that X scored more hundreds than Fleming is a decent one because it's not so much about the difference between 85 and 100 but the difference between 85 and a real match-defining innings like 150, but in this case it's not a good argument because Williamson only 'already' tops him in the 100-115 range. I don't think the difference between getting out just before a ton (as Fleming often did) and just after one (as Williamson often has) is really significant enough to make that statistic useful here.

And I doubt it's speculation. You know KW is better.

It would be speculation on my part; Williamson needs to do more before I'd put him higher than Fleming. I think it's extremely likely he will indeed go ahead and do that but that's speculative so I'm not factoring it in.

 

[Zinzan]

This is definitely a case of the abitrary cut-off point for hundreds really counting against Fleming in this comparison. Fleming has more 80+ scores (20 v 11), more 90+ scores (15 v 11), more 120+ scores (7 v 6), more 150+ scores (5 v 3) and more 200+ scores (3 v 1).

Often the argument that X scored more hundreds than Fleming is a decent one because it's not so much about the difference between 85 and 100 but the difference between 85 and a real match-defining innings like 150, but in this case it's not a good argument because Williamson only 'already' tops him in the 100-115 range. I don't think the difference between getting out just before a ton (as Fleming often did) and just after one (as Williamson often has) is really significant enough to make that statistic useful here.



It would be speculation on my part; Williamson needs to do more before I'd put him higher than Fleming. I think it's extremely likely he will indeed go ahead and do that but that's speculative so I'm not factoring it in.

Quite some acrobatics happening now. If you just opened with Fleming, had McCullum keeping & batting @ 6, you wouldn't be in this predicament and would be able to rightfully select KW at no. 3

The top 3 of;

Richardson
Fleming
Williamson

looks more solid than;

Richardson
BMac
Fleming

 

[Prince EWS]

Quite some acrobatics happening now. If you just opened with Fleming, had McCullum keeping & batting @ 6, you wouldn't be in this predicament and would be able to rightfully select KW at no. 3

Yeah I didn't really consider Fleming as an opening option when I first voted in the other thread because he did so little of it, but in hindsight that's probably the way to go.

 

[OverratedSanity]

It would be speculation on my part; Williamson needs to do more before I'd put him higher than Fleming. I think it's extremely likely he will indeed go ahead and do that but that's speculative so I'm not factoring it in.

See I value longevity as much as the next guy, but it's a given that KW will achieve a better career record, even by your own metrics. He doesn't even have to be anything that great from now on. Even if he's a middling 35-40 average batsman from now on, he's going to breeze past Fleming. Your argument just sounds like the classic case of 'longevity trumps everything, even actual quality'.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Straightforward really. KW, Crowe and Taylor. Taylor will do doubly well given he'll be batting with his personal coach at the other end. Honorable mentions to Jones, McCullum and Fleming who are all good bats but all a notch below the best.

Reckon JF Reid deserves to be in the poll even if he didn't play a whole lot. Oh and Jeremy Coney too, deserves a nomination as much as Astle or McMillan, and arguably more given he copped a broken ****en arm from Malcolm Marshall in the service of his country (actually he probably daybooed b4 1980 right?).

John F Reid and Coney both debuted a bit early (JFR 1979).

Rutherford (Ken) was better than most - did well against Australia but started (WI) and ended his career too early.

I thought Greatbatch was going to be fantastic but he turned to custard. His 146 against Aus is still one of our best innings

 

[harsh.ag]

Yeah, I think in the keeper poll, the BMac option should come with a qualifier that his selection would mean Fleming opening

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Andrew Jones ahead of Fleming imo (but KW has eclipsed both)

 

[Bahnz]

See I value longevity as much as the next guy, but it's a given that KW will achieve a better career record, even by your own metrics. He doesn't even have to be anything that great from now on. Even if he's a middling 35-40 average batsman from now on, he's going to breeze past Fleming. Your argument just sounds like the classic case of 'longevity trumps everything, even actual quality'.

To be fair, Fleming was verygood through the back half of his career. Averaged about 45 from 2002 onwards. And longevity does have value in that it shows a playable is durable and adaptable. Who knows, 6 months from now Kane might develop some technical weakness or go through a form trough or something, and lose 5 runs from his average.

 

[Riggins]

Disappointed TMac wasn't' a middle order option after indefensibly missing out on a spot at the top.

 

[AldoRaine18]

What about Roger Twose? Is my memory playing tricks with me or was he actually half decent?

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

What about Roger Twose? Is my memory playing tricks with me or was he actually half decent?

His ODI career was far more impressive than test.

Test average 25 with the bat.