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

[Flem274*]

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

or a leftovers XI of...

Tom Latham
Matt Horne
Andrew Jones
Jesse Ryder
Nathan Astle
Jacob Oram
BJ Watling (wk)
Dion Nash (c)
John Bracewell
Simon Doull
Iain O'Brien

Since I don't really count Baz the keeper and Baz the batsman as the same player I'd have him in the leftovers as skipper but I think that would be a minority opinion. The leftovers are still a very solid side tbh. Would be fine in any test era, which you can't usually say about NZ teams..

 

[watson]

Clearly not enough batting. Why is Cairns at 6 when he spent most of his time at 7 and 8?

 

[Flem274*]

not sure if srs

 

[watson]

Devil's advocate. Also, why is Fleming opening? He's not an opener.

 

[NUFAN]

I would probably bat McCullum at 6 with Cairns 7 and Vettori 8 in that lineup but I would be very comfortable with the amount of batting.

 

[Flem274*]

Devil's advocate.

introducing the batting allrounder at #8 that I assume most people picked ahead of early Vettori

All-round records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[Howsie]

I really didn't see the point of Chris Cairns in this team tbh.

 

[Smudge]

I really didn't see the point of Chris Cairns in this team tbh.

He could be 12th man so he could fix . . .






. . . the drinks.

 

[Zinzan]

I would probably bat McCullum at 6 with Cairns 7 and Vettori 8 in that lineup but I would be very comfortable with the amount of batting.

Yup, McCullum should bat 6 and Cairns 7.

 

[SteveNZ]

McCullum above Cairns every day of the week. Better hope Brendon gets out before the other guy at 4 down however, or there might be some interesting interplay when Cairns walks in.

Fair that Fleming opens too, can't think of anyone else who merits it.

 

[NZTailender]

I really didn't see the point of Chris Cairns in this team tbh.

He's 2nd name down on the sheet after Crowe, given the guidelines.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

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

Not enough runs.

1 Richardson
2 Jones/ McCullum (c) / Flemming (c)
3 Williamson
4 Crowe (c) / /
5 Taylor
6 Ryder
7 Watling (wk)
8 Cairns
9 Vettori
10 Bond
11 Boult
12 Nash

would have been a much stronger side and could actually challenge some of the better comparative period teams. But with Cairns at 6 coming up against sides with Gilchrist at 7, don't fancy that. That batting line up would give Bond, Boult and Cairns more than enough runs to bowl opposition teams out, with support with big overs from Dan while Ryder, Williamson and Crowe to chip in overs as required.

 

[Zinzan]

Not enough runs.

would have been a much stronger side and could actually challenge some of the better comparative period teams. But with Cairns at 6 coming up against sides with Gilchrist at 7, don't fancy that. That batting line up would give Bond, Boult and Cairns more than enough runs to bowl opposition teams out, with support with big overs from Dan while Ryder, Williamson and Crowe to chip in overs as required.

Sorry, but It's absolutely absurd to suggest a 6,7 & 8 of McCullum, Cairns & Vettori = not enough runs, especially given the NZ talent pool. If anything that middle/lower order would be one of the main strengths in the side. The fact you choose the greatest no. 7 in history to compare them with is meaningless considering no number 7 in history compares with Gilchrist.

Ftr, Here's how Cairns compared with other no. 7s in Test history (1500+ runs) and we already know Vettori is arguably the best number 8 ever.

 

[Zinzan]

I really didn't see the point of Chris Cairns in this team tbh.

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.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

Sorry,

Apology accepted

but It's absolutely absurd to suggest a 6,7 & 8 of McCullum, Cairns & Vettori = not enough runs, especially given the NZ talent pool.

6 Ryder, 7 Watling+ 8 Cairns 9 Vettori is stronger in runs though isn't it? So which part is absurd "especially given the NZ talent pool"? The only logical assessment of playing talent is whether Bond, Boult and Cairns is enough of a seam attack supported by Crowe and Ryder. I say yes. But I think 6 Cairns 7 McCullum 8 Vettori is too weak as a batting line up to compete with other ATG when a far more competitive side could be selected.

If anything that middle/lower order would be one of the main strengths in the side.

It would be if Ryder bats 6, Watling bats 7, Cairns bats 8 and Vettori at 9

The fact you choose the greatest no. 7 in history to compare them with is meaningless considering no number 7 in history compares with Gilchrist.

Watling appears on his way. Prior was not that far off. Sarfraz is currently ahead on overall average and knocking on the door of #7 of Gilly. Do they have to bat 7, or can this be a middle order wicket keeper thing - because I'd put Flower into the discussion too. The point is there is quality batting at 7.

Gilly may be the best, but comparing a team or a player to the best is not meaningless. It gives comparison and Gilly's record as best #7 ever will be under real challenge in years to come as Watlings and Sarfraz's and Priors become the norm.

Ftr, Here's how Cairns compared with other no. 7s in Test history (1500+ runs) and we already know Vettori is arguably the best number 8 ever.

Except he has been selected at 6, where to use your almost nonsensical of batting 6, 7 or 8 specific averages Cairns averages 25. I am using his career average of 33, to say hey, bat him at 8. Make better use of the fact that the third best seamer could bat well too. Stack an eleven full of runs that Cairns, Bond and Boult can win matches with.

 

[Zinzan]

I've already said I'd swap McCullum and Cairns around so Cairns is at 7. I also accept there's a perfectly valid argument for Watling to be the wicket keeping no 6 ahead of McCullum, and I gave my reasons why I'd still pick McCullum marginally ahead (mainly due to his keeping, but if Watling keep his form up he's not far off surpassing him).

But a 6 to 9 of Ryder, Watling, Cairns & Vettori just wouldn't be viable since you'd have to leave one of Boult, Bond & Southee on the sidelines which weakens the bowling significantly.

Whether it's Watling or Bmac keeping at 6, I'm not overly concerned, but Cairns & Vettori are undoubtedly no.s 7 & 8 for me, and a damn strong 7 & 8 at that.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

I've already said I'd swap McCullum and Cairns around so Cairns is at 7. I also accept there's a perfectly valid argument for Watling to be the wicket keeping no 6 ahead of McCullum, and I gave my reasons why I'd still pick McCullum marginally ahead (mainly due to his keeping, but if Watling keep his form up he's not far off surpassing him).

But a 6 to 9 of Ryder, Watling, Cairns & Vettori just wouldn't be viable since you'd have to leave one of Boult, Bond & Southee on the sidelines which weakens the bowling significantly.

Southee is happily dropped.

Cairns, Bond and Boult is plenty to win many tests. If a fourth frontline seamer is so eagerly wanted in a West Indies 1980's "rip off", drop Vettori for Nash. 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.

 

[Zinzan]

Ok so you're dropping both Southee & Vettori now?...all to strengthen this supposedly weak 6,7,8 of Bmac (or Watling), Cairns & Vettori.... Righto.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

Ok so you're dropping both Southee & Vettori now?...all to strengthen this supposedly weak 6,7,8 of Bmac (or Watling), Cairns & Vettori.... Righto.

I was always dropping Southee. There is no need to be obtuse.

If you want a fourth frontline bowler to improve the bowling unit, sure drop Vettori for Nash and be like the 1980's West Indies.

Southee is no automatic inclusion in this side, which seems to be a popular consensus that he is. Cairns is. Bond is. Vettori is if you want a spinner. I prefer Boult to Southee, Nash and Doull.

But to have a batting line up with 6 Ryder 7 Watling 8 Cairns 9 Vettori 10 Bond 11 Boult just says to the opposition that they're not going to have an easy time in the field, nor when they're batting.

 

[Zinzan]

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.