Modern New Zealand XI (dayboo post 1980): Your Team

[CaptainGrumpy]

It's not being obtuse, it's telling it like it is.... you've said yourself that the original line-up lacked batting depth and you'd leave out Southee and possibly Vettori as well. Not sure how paraphrasing back to you is being obtuse.

If you want to paraphrase me, do so accurately. Dropping Vettori was conditional with the use of an "if", that is, if 4 front line seamers are wanted in a 1980's West Indies "rip off", swap Vettori for Nash, and used again with "If you want a fourth frontline [seam] bowler to improve the bowling unit, sure drop Vettori for Nash and be like the 1980's West Indies." I am personally quite content with Vettori batting at 9 with Cairns, Bond and Boult as the three front line seamers. That should have been evidenced by me saying "The support of Ryder, KW and Crowe to Bond, Boult, Cairns and Vettori gives a bowling attach that is dynamic and able, as well as a batting line up that will score plenty and take a lot of good bowling to get the upper hand against."

As soon as the keeper Watling (or McCullum for that matter) bats at 6 instead of 7, the batting potential of the team is significantly weakened. Far too much for my liking. Fourth frontline seamer Southee is a luxury that the team does not need or benefit from at the cost to the batting in my opinion.

 

[harsh.ag]

Richardson
Jones
KW
Crowe
Taylor
Fleming
BMac
Cairns
Vettori
Boult
Bond

Interesting in hindsight

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

Richardson
Jones
KW
Crowe
Taylor
Fleming
BMac
Cairns
Vettori
Boult
Bond

Interesting in hindsight

Even this is a stronger team than the one voted for. And it doesn't even have Watling as the keeper or Ryder at 6.

 

[NZTailender]

I think your inclusion of Ryder is a bit iffy. Too much of a what if still at international Test level. Didn't do enough in his short time to be worthy of consideration IMO - unless we're exclusively playing India, or at home.

 

[Howsie]

If you don't want to pick him due to the recent allegations, then say so. But if that isn't reason, then it's an utterly insane thing to say. Cairns in arguably the 2nd best in that whole team behind Crowe. I expect Williamson and possibly even Taylor and Boult to surpass him in terms of test cricketing greatness, but they haven't done so yet.

The guy's record is not dissimilar to the likes of Botham and Kapil Dev, only he played less matches. He's the 1st or 2nd name on the sheet.

Perhaps I'm not doing this properly but his record with the ball, when he doesn't open the bowling, is bad. With Southee, Boult and Bond in the team would is bowling really be worth anything as the second change bowler? Personally I'd rather have the extra batting in Watling at seven and McCullum up the order, with Fleming at 6.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

I think your inclusion of Ryder is a bit iffy. Too much of a what if still at international Test level. Didn't do enough in his short time to be worthy of consideration IMO - unless we're exclusively playing India, or at home.

This is a really fair criticism (except I like his record against the West Indies and Bangladesh too).

Astle, McCullum, McMillan or Flemming all have a good chance here to bat at #6. A reason I chose Jesse specifically over Flemming or McCullum, who also have similar test records averaging around 40, is Jesse's bowling that we never got to see develop at international level, but that he surprised the hell out of himself and the Essex management team since his final test. I don't think that a fourth seamer of Ryder's quality is particularly needed, and given that it was not demonstrated at test level it is probably not fair of me to do so. But I am nevertheless a big Jesse fan for what he achieved with the bat internationally, and am just so frustrated by the Ryder situation.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

The New Zealand Test Side 1980-2015 is...

Mark Richardson
Stephen Fleming (c)
Kane Williamson
Martin Crowe
Ross Taylor
Chris Cairns
Brendon McCullum (wk)
Daniel Vettori
Tim Southee
Shane Bond
Trent Boult

I wouldn't mind seeing them face a pre-1980 side of

John Wright
Glenn Turner
Stewie Dempster
Bert Sutcliffe
Martin Donnelly
John R. Reid (c)
Richard Hadlee
Bruce Taylor
Ken Wadsworth (wk)
Jack Cowie
Richard Collinge

I'd back the pre-1980 side to win comfortably - strong batting lineup (including much better openers) + Hadlee. I'd drop either Collinge or Taylor for a spinner - one of Tom Burtt, Hedley Howarth or Stephen Boock. If Clarrie Grimmett had stayed in Wellington that pre1980 team would've owned the modern side. Collinge gives left-arm variety and Taylor better batting, but John R. Reid at 6 there is heaps of bowling.

 

[marc71178]

Amazing how valuable 2nd division wickets for Essex seem to be...

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

Amazing how valuable 2nd division wickets for Essex seem to be...

Not nearly as amazing to New Zealanders as Jeetan Patel's success in the County game seems to be. Although the fact that Jesse has been such a success in County Cricket with the ball is quite surprising despite taking good wickets and bowling regularly for Otago before departing for England. Noone expected Jesse to start taking ten wickets in a match like he has in England. Jesse Ryder is put forward as a 5th or 6th bowling option as a fourth seamer only, not opening the bowling like he does for Essex regularly.

While his Essex bowling was conceded as a factor, lets not read too much into it, he did get tests runs as well. Averaging over 50 in NZ is something most NZ batsmen have never managed.

 

[Bahnz]

Not nearly as amazing to New Zealanders as Jeetan Patel's success in the County game seems to be. Although the fact that Jesse has been such a success in County Cricket with the ball is quite surprising despite taking good wickets and bowling regularly for Otago before departing for England. Noone expected Jesse to start taking ten wickets in a match like he has in England. Jesse Ryder is put forward as a 5th or 6th bowling option as a fourth seamer only, not opening the bowling like he does for Essex regularly.

While his Essex bowling was conceded as a factor, lets not read too much into it, he did get tests runs as well. Averaging over 50 in NZ is something most NZ batsmen have never managed.

I don't think there's been too much development to Ryder's bowling. He just gets to bowl on club standard wickets for Essex, where putting it on a good length at 70 mph is all that's required to run through sides. This was kinda confirmed by his efforts for Otago last season when he went back and picked up 5 wickets in 6 matches. Ryder would be a handy partnership breaker in test cricket - a la Nathan Astle, but nothing more.

Another issue that probably hasn't been considered so far, is which Vettori we want in the side? Do we want the late 90's, early 00's incarnation of Vettori, who actually turned it and picked up a 12fer against Waugh's Australians, but who averaged only around 20 with the bat? Or do we want the post 2003 version of Vettori, who could only really contain opposition batsmen, but who averaged 40+ with the bat? Given the quality of pace-bowling in the lineup, and the relatively weak batting, I tend to lean towards the latter.

 

[Zinzan]

Yup, given he'd be supporting strike bowlers Bond, Boult, Southee & Cairns, I'd take the slightly less penetrable, but far more consistent and controlled Vettori circa 2003 onwards.

 

[Flem274*]

batting allrounder vettori took a lot of wickets when he wasn't the best bowler in the team. nztailender's favourite stat is vettori's average of 20 something with bond and/or cairns in the team with him.

 

[Hurricane]

His bowling at the end was all based on unerring line and length. Just nagged at you until you did something silly. I think the footage of him bowling as a young man should have R18 stamped all over it. He looked too good.
He could control his flight at will. I haven't seen anyone do it since.

I would go young dan in a heartbeat.

 

[OverratedSanity]

batting allrounder vettori took a lot of wickets when he wasn't the best bowler in the team. nztailender's favourite stat is vettori's average of 20 something with bond and/or cairns in the team with him.

Interesting. I'm not the biggest fan of late career Vettori's test bowling but still felt that he had a very tough job playing mostly on pitches not very conducive to spin in a mediocre bowling attack (post Bond and pre-Boult,Southee).

 

[Zinzan]

It's easy to forget Vettori was effectively our main striker, along with Chris Martin, for 3-4 years there. He's immeasurably more effective when there's quality and the other end and he can play more of a support role.

 

[NZTailender]

batting allrounder vettori took a lot of wickets when he wasn't the best bowler in the team. nztailender's favourite stat is vettori's average of 20 something with bond and/or cairns in the team with him.

In the 18 games he played alongside Bond he averaged 24 with the ball

 

[NZTailender]

In the 18 games he played alongside Bond he averaged 24 with the ball

I know its correlation and not causation or whatevs but had a pretty positive effect of Flem those times they played together too.

Skippywac

 

[Bahnz]

In the 18 games he played alongside Bond he averaged 24 with the ball

To be fair quite a few of those games were against Bangladesh and post-exodus Zim iirc. But yeah, in general Vettori was always at his best as part of a double-act rather than as the star attraction.

 

[NZTailender]

To be fair quite a few of those games were against Bangladesh and post-exodus Zim iirc. But yeah, in general Vettori was always at his best as part of a double-act rather than as the star attraction.

The Doull-Cairns-Vettori combo was pretty good itbt, throwing in Nash too.