Contrary to popular opinion, this is NOT a new thing. I remember when I was 11 and our school was just about to enter into the regional school cricket tournament, our headmistress withdrew our team from the tournament because "we'd won it for 3 years in a row and we should give other schools a chance!"I agree with slugger. I have heard stories that schools in NZ are now not awarding wins to 5 and 6 year-old rugby teams, because of this 'everyone's a winner' philosophy, so as not to discourage people who are useless at sport.
Blah blah blah. Neither you nor most of my fellow countrymen watch enough domestic cricket it seems to judge on who's coming through. I agree, if that's the core of our team that we probably are screwed, but this is the 'current' generation you're looking at; and not the next generation. Players are coming through, though maybe we don't make such a song and dance about them as other countries.If that's the core of a team in the future you're screwed....
Taylor is not, cpntrary to public opinion, our best talent. Jesse Ryder, Greg Hay, Rob Nicol and Matthew Sinclair IMO are all better players than he. All are consistent bar Sinclair, and all are very talented.If that's the core of a team in the future you're screwed. A couple of average batsmen, a very good keeper but who is a below average bat, two often expensive bowlers with some other strings to their bow who only play part of the time and a wily old pro finger spinner who can keep it tight but isn't a wicket-taker. That's not much to base a team around.
Fleming doesn't sound like he'll be playing much longer, Oram only seems to perform in one discipline in any given format, apart from being injured most of the time, which will probably lead to his bowling declining further. Styris might hang around for a few year (or might not) but he's only really effective on certain pitches. McMillan, Vincent and Gillespie are liable to be useless for long periods.
I don't really see the younger players improving a great deal either, if you look at players like Cook and Bell for England - there's a strong foundation (defense and technique etc.) there to improve on and they're young. You look at Taylor... he doesn't have a really good technique to build on, he's not solid defensively and he has to rely on slogs and heaves to score at a decent rate. Fulton is 28 already, I could see him become an above average solid international batsman if he works hard - but as I've said before no world beater.
I'd give my left testicle to see that happened. That would help New Zealand cricket in such a big way, even though I think we'd generally struggle. By being part of such a competition it would help develop our players to another level IMO, a level at which they might just become good Test cricketers. Unfortunately t'would never happen, and having a domestic side play in the Pura Cup would be far too weak to compete.Since you're not keen on Test cricket, maybe NZ should try and enter the Pura Cup for a couple of years as a way of hardening up.
This kind of behaviour and attitude is exactly why I hate New Zealand sometimes, and admire Australia so much. You play sport to win, not to compete or to have fun. If you're part of a competitive team and have more fun if your team is losing than if it's winning, then you've got a screw loose.Contrary to popular opinion, this is NOT a new thing. I remember when I was 11 and our school was just about to enter into the regional school cricket tournament, our headmistress withdrew our team from the tournament because "we'd won it for 3 years in a row and we should give other schools a chance!"
As a born competitor, I was absolutely livid at this craven act perpetuated by a namby-pamby, airy-fairy harlot. What right did she have to deprive US of our RIGHT to play in the regional tournament. ****ing bitch.
I agree with you largely, a lot of the players that New Zealand fields are rubbish, no point denying it, and this is even before we've discussed the Hamish Marshall's and Michael Mason's of this world. However, I do think you let your bias get in the way of your judgement sometimes, which is unfortunate, because you're a smart chap and know your cricket.If that's the core of a team in the future you're screwed. A couple of average batsmen, a very good keeper but who is a below average bat, two often expensive bowlers with some other strings to their bow who only play part of the time and a wily old pro finger spinner who can keep it tight but isn't a wicket-taker. That's not much to base a team around.
Fleming doesn't sound like he'll be playing much longer, Oram only seems to perform in one discipline in any given format, apart from being injured most of the time, which will probably lead to his bowling declining further. Styris might hang around for a few year (or might not) but he's only really effective on certain pitches. McMillan, Vincent and Gillespie are liable to be useless for long periods.
I don't really see the younger players improving a great deal either, if you look at players like Cook and Bell for England - there's a strong foundation (defense and technique etc.) there to improve on and they're young. You look at Taylor... he doesn't have a really good technique to build on, he's not solid defensively and he has to rely on slogs and heaves to score at a decent rate. Fulton is 28 already, I could see him become an above average solid international batsman if he works hard - but as I've said before no world beater.
You've got both hands on it if you think Bell is by far and away the better batsman of the two.If that's the core of a team in the future you're screwed. A couple of average batsmen,
I don't really see the younger players improving a great deal either, if you look at players like Bell for England - there's a strong foundation (defense and technique etc.) there to improve on and they're young.
You look at Taylor... he doesn't have a really good technique to build on, he's not solid defensively and he has to rely on slogs and heaves to score at a decent rate.
No, he's exactly right. You are wrong.You've got both hands on it if you think Bell is by far and away the better batsman of the two.
Bell is easily better.You've got both hands on it if you think Bell is by far and away the better batsman of the two.
Bond has done before but I am a bit surprised about his performances these days...Bond used to win games for us single-handedly, but I'm not sure if he can do that now. Can he actually bowl at 145 km/h anymore?
1981\82 season right? Yep, sure was.Contrary to popular opinion, this is NOT a new thing. I remember when I was 11 and our school was just about to enter into the regional school cricket tournament, our headmistress withdrew our team from the tournament because "we'd won it for 3 years in a row and we should give other schools a chance!"
As a born competitor, I was absolutely livid at this craven act perpetuated by a namby-pamby, airy-fairy harlot. What right did she have to deprive US of our RIGHT to play in the regional tournament. ****ing bitch.
Maybe if we'd played that season, I would have ironed out the wides and no-balls at an early age and would still have been playing at this 20:20 world cup, eh?
You know my age; this was a long time ago.
I had a party at my house when Hamish decided to take up a contract with County Cricket. Good Riddance.