Only 24? Hm, looks like I'll have to put my hand up here & admit to not having committed Flower's Shield average to memory. I based what I said off of one particular domestic one dayer where he went to town on the bowlers. Hit the ING sign that day IIRC (was probably one of the few times a smile creeped across his face).
On paper the 2004 side that gave away winning positions to lose 3-0 in England could've been the best, but instead are what ifs. They had Oram and Styris as an improvement from Vincent and Sinclair in 01 and a young McCullum for Parore.
Yeah good call.
Tbf, we also got within 10 runs of winning the first test. It was thanks to a bold declaration, but still.
What's surprising is that their 1957 XI for the last two Tests included Worrell, Weekes, Walcott, Sobers, Kanhai, Smith and Alexander, but they were bowled out for under 150 all four times and lost both games by an innings.
That's the key. It was a very one-sided game regardless.
Probably the three best you could pic. It comes down to overall strength, I guess. Th 85 have two genuine ATG in Hadlee and Crowe, and then some very good players. The '01 probably has the most consistently 'very good' quality, with no out and out ATG players (considering Bond's hampered career) but probably has the better bowling attack considering Bond, Vettori, Cairns and Martin with handy part timers. The '17 version has an ATG contender in Williamson, NZ ATGs in Boult and Taylor, with Wagner on his way, and Southee as well. Honestly, they all have their own strengths and weaknesses. The '17 team has the building blocks to become the clear cut ATG NZ side, but I'd probably give it to the 85 side ultimately.
True, but the funny thing about that series is that NZ didn't once get bowled out in any of their innings in the whole series :P
Yeah, I'm probably leaning that way.
Lol, you successfully managed to make a post about New Zealand teams all about Australia.
