Best New Zealand line-up?

[Richard]

Well let's look at the players who have played with success this summer.
All these players have played with success - "yes" indicates good domestic performance, "no" indicates domestic performance that would suggest that this international success is unlikely.
Tests:
Trescothick - no
Strauss - yes
Hussain - yes
Vaughan - yes
Thorpe - yes
Geirant Jones - yes
Flintoff - yes
Key - yes
Harmison - no
Giles - yes
For the previous series you could add Butcher - yes (and I'm confident that if he plays at Old Trafford and The Oval he'll make his summer into a success too).
ODIs:
Strauss - no
Flintoff - yes, just about with batting and beyond question with bowling
Gough - yes
Harmison - no
Apart from showing the appalling state of England's ODI team, this also suggests that the best guide to probability of international success is domestic cricket.
And it should be added that most of the failures could have been avoided if they'd not been picked because of poor domesic records.

 

[luckyeddie]

Trescothick NO????

He's just become the first player ever to score a century in each innings of a test match at Edgbaston.

Oh, wait. That match doesn't count.

 

[Prince EWS]

Tests

Michael Papps
Mark Richardson
Stephen Fleming
Scott Styris
Nathan Astle
Craig McMillan
Jacob Oram
Brendan McCullum
Daniel Vettori
James Franklin
Daryl Tuffey

ODIs

Nathan Astle
Stephen Fleming
Hamish Marshall
Scott Stryis
Craig McMillan
Chris Cairns
Jacob Oram
Brendan McCullum
Daniel Vettori
James Franklin
Ian Butler

 

[Richard]

Trescothick NO????

He's just become the first player ever to score a century in each innings of a test match at Edgbaston.

Oh, wait. That match doesn't count.

You seem to have misunderstood.
The yes\no is:
yes, they have good domestic records
no, they don't
Not no, their success doesn't count, or similar.

 

[marc71178]

And some of those yes's are debateable to say the least.

 

[Richard]

Such as?

 

[marc71178]

The middle order for one (Hussain, Vaughan, Thorpe).

None of those 3's domestic figures would make them surefire selections.

Likewise, Flintoff's domestic figures aren't great, and if it were just on those, I'm not so sure he'd be in there.

 

[stevo22]

Well let's look at the players who have played with success this summer:
Tests:
Trescothick - no
Strauss - yes
Hussain - yes
Vaughan - yes
Thorpe - yes
Geirant Jones - yes
Flintoff - yes
Key - yes
Harmison - no
Giles - yes
For the previous series you could add Butcher - yes (and I'm confident that if he plays at Old Trafford and The Oval he'll make his summer into a success too).
ODIs:
Strauss - no
Flintoff - yes, just about with batting and beyond question with bowling
Gough - yes
Harmison - no
Apart from showing the appalling state of England's ODI team, this also suggests that the best guide to probability of international success is domestic cricket.
And it should be added that most of the failures could have been avoided if they'd not been picked because of poor domesic records.

Have to disagree with some of these. Harmison for a start - man of the series as nominated by john bracewell against the kiwi's - and made it to no 1 bowler in the world this summer. Had a couple of quiet games against the windies but still had a good summer.
Strauss - a definite success in tests and odi's - helped rescue bad positions several times after losing vaughan and tresco cheaply.
Flintoff - just about with batting in odi's? What about the 2 blazing centuries in the natwest series?

 

[Richard]

The middle order for one (Hussain, Vaughan, Thorpe).

None of those 3's domestic figures would make them surefire selections.

Likewise, Flintoff's domestic figures aren't great, and if it were just on those, I'm not so sure he'd be in there.

So Hussain, who has a First-Class career average of 42, a career domestic average of 44.31 and whose last 2 seasons in the Championship have produced averages of 57.33 and 56.62 (and also 58.85 in 1999) doesn't show that good domestic performance indicates likelihood of good international performance?
Vaughan, whose Championship averages in the last 4 seasons have been 65.75, 25.33 (3 innings), 51.76 and 49.78 to make a First-Class average since Test selection of over 56 (including tour-games).
Thorpe, whose First-Class career average is 45.31, and who has averaged 52.75, 55, 34.25, 90, 23.33, 51 and 41.83 in his last 7 Championship seasons.
Yes, sure, none of them demonstrate that domestic cricket is the best guide to international form, do they?
Flintoff's career First-Class average is 36.21, domestically it's 38.44. That is one of the few things that made me think twice about whether he was so woefully substandard in Test-matches as everything else suggested.

 

[Richard]

Have to disagree with some of these. Harmison for a start - man of the series as nominated by john bracewell against the kiwi's - and made it to no 1 bowler in the world this summer. Had a couple of quiet games against the windies but still had a good summer.
Strauss - a definite success in tests and odi's - helped rescue bad positions several times after losing vaughan and tresco cheaply.
Flintoff - just about with batting in odi's? What about the 2 blazing centuries in the natwest series?

You, too, seem to have misunderstood - the "yes" or "no" isn't referral to success in internationals, it's whether or not their domestic performance would suggest they were going to be an international success.

 

[tooextracool]

So Hussain, who has a First-Class career average of 42, a career domestic average of 44.31 and whose last 2 seasons in the Championship have produced averages of 57.33 and 56.62 (and also 58.85 in 1999) doesn't show that good domestic performance indicates likelihood of good international performance?
Vaughan, whose Championship averages in the last 4 seasons have been 65.75, 25.33 (3 innings), 51.76 and 49.78 to make a First-Class average since Test selection of over 56 (including tour-games).
Thorpe, whose First-Class career average is 45.31, and who has averaged 52.75, 55, 34.25, 90, 23.33, 51 and 41.83 in his last 7 Championship seasons.
Yes, sure, none of them demonstrate that domestic cricket is the best guide to international form, do they?

err why look at vaughan's record now,a whole 5 years after hes been selected? and of course a successful international player is bound to succeed at the domestic arena, the question is do successful domestic players always succeed at the international arena?
and looking at peter martin,alan mullally,neil fairbrother,nick knight,mark ramprakash,graeme hick,alex tudor,chris silverwood, ed smith and the rest, im leaning towards a no.

 

[Craig]

Tests

Michael Papps
Mark Richardson
Stephen Fleming
Scott Styris
Nathan Astle
Craig McMillan
Jacob Oram
Brendan McCullum
Daniel Vettori
James Franklin
Daryl Tuffey

ODIs

Nathan Astle
Stephen Fleming
Hamish Marshall
Scott Stryis
Craig McMillan
Chris Cairns
Jacob Oram
Brendan McCullum
Daniel Vettori
James Franklin
Ian Butler

Well at least somebody has been able to stay on topic

I hope James Franklin gets his chance to cement himself, however, I wouldn't be surprised if Bruce Martin is fitted in there during Bangladesh.

And it is a pretty good Test and ODI XIs IMO.

 

[Swervy]

Well let's look at the players who have played with success this summer.
All these players have played with success - "yes" indicates good domestic performance, "no" indicates domestic performance that would suggest that this international success is unlikely.
Tests:
Trescothick - no
Strauss - yes
Hussain - yes
Vaughan - yes
Thorpe - yes
Geirant Jones - yes
Flintoff - yes
Key - yes
Harmison - no
Giles - yes
For the previous series you could add Butcher - yes (and I'm confident that if he plays at Old Trafford and The Oval he'll make his summer into a success too).
ODIs:
Strauss - no
Flintoff - yes, just about with batting and beyond question with bowling
Gough - yes
Harmison - no
Apart from showing the appalling state of England's ODI team, this also suggests that the best guide to probability of international success is domestic cricket.
And it should be added that most of the failures could have been avoided if they'd not been picked because of poor domesic records.

erm..I dont think Trescothick,Vaughan,Flintoff or Harmison have actually played in the Championship this year, Hussain played 3 innings,Strauss has batted twice,Geraint Jones has batted three times with an average of 10.50,Thorpe has scored 1 half century in his 5 CC innings,Giles has taken 4 wickets in the CC this year (only played one game)...and Butcher has scored a tad over 200 runs in 4 or 5 innings, 180 odd of them in one innings.

The one person who can claim to had any success at domestic level (not including one dayers,even then I doubt many of the above have played that much) is Key.

So Richard...could you explain what your point was again!!!!!

 

[Swervy]

Equally, look at the number of "hunches" who have failed: McGrath, Foster, Collingwood thus far (though equally if he had a good First-Class record and had failed he wouldn't count towards that), Batty, Jones thus far, Dawson, Schofield, Adams, Maddy, Read, Hegg, the examples from 1998 onward, in Test-matches. In ODIs there are plenty more: Mahmood, Kabir Ali, Key, Troughton, McGrath, Clarke, Harmison, Batty, Blackwell, Tudor, Sidebottom, Snape, Kirtley, Foster, Shah, Vaughan, Solanki, Wells, Maddy, Adams.
The examples often quoted as successful hunches are Trescothick (lucky, I don't consider him a success), Vaughan (whose First-Class average has gone up and up from his Test-debut onwards) and Harmison (6 good matches doesn't yet prove anything, especially given the two most recent games). These are in Test-matches; in ODIs recently there have been two that, so far in their careers, have been successes despite average domestic records, Strauss and Johnson, neither who have played a compelling number of ODIs.
So really you can see why I prefer to judge an international selection on domestic success.

well then if you had have been a selector, you probably would never have picked David Gower,Bob Willis, maybe even Ian Botham,or Vaughan, or Flintoff, or Trescothick (how you dont consider Tresco a success is beyond me,4000 test runs in 50 ish tests, with 8 test centuries and an average in the mid 40's)...I would take a guess that the England players of the last 20 years would be consisting of the likes of Phil Newport, or Derek Pringle, or Vic Marks etc

 

[Darrin]

i'll stay on the topic!

In my opinion one of the reasons for new zealands lack of progress of late in test cricket stems from the fact that they have an element of multi-skilled cricketers in the team.

It means you are going to get average scores but nothing of substance. We miss the big scores regularly by players.

I think we need to bring back a bit more specialisation to our test side. having people bat or bowl. then we may see large scores consistently by players.

This is the approach by australia and they have been very successful obviously over a long time.

 

[tooextracool]

Equally, look at the number of "hunches" who have failed: McGrath, Foster, Collingwood thus far (though equally if he had a good First-Class record and had failed he wouldn't count towards that), Batty, Jones thus far, Dawson, Schofield, Adams, Maddy, Read, Hegg, the examples from 1998 onward, in Test-matches. In ODIs there are plenty more: Mahmood, Kabir Ali, Key, Troughton, McGrath, Clarke, Harmison, Batty, Blackwell, Tudor, Sidebottom, Snape, Kirtley, Foster, Shah, Vaughan, Solanki, Wells, Maddy, Adams

now hold on a second here....i seem to remember you making these strange comments
"Failure cannot, like it or not, be absolutely judged on 5 innings.
Clearly? No, not clearly at all. For clarity, you need about 10 or 15 innings"

so lets take a look at how many of those players got to play those many innings shall we?
darren maddy got 4 innings,clearly below your requirments
anthony mcgrath got 5 innings once again not near the requirements.
paul collingwood got 4 innings
gareth batty got 8 innings once again not enough
chris schofield bowled 18 overs....quite a brilliant deduction that.
chris adams got 8 innings, again not enough
and warren hegg got 4 innings again far below your requirements

then in ODIs
mahmood- this is just stupid, how anyone can call someone a failure from 1 ODI is plain ridiculous
kabir ali never got to bowl in his only ODI so how you can call him a failure is beyond me.
troughton got just 5 ODIs once again far from enough
how you can call harmison and ODI failure already is beyond me, perhaps the same way you were calling him a test failure after his performances against SA.
batty got 5 odis again not enough
tudor bowled only 21 overs in his 3 games once again falling below your threshold
ryan sidebottom got 14 overs in his 2 ODIs, again not enough
jeremy snape with an economy of 4.57 is hardly a failure
james foster got 6 innings, not enough
vince wells got 7 chances, again not enough
darren maddy got 6 chances,not enough
chris adams who has a domestic ODI record of 41 should actually be used to contradict your argument that successful domestic players=successful international players

its amazing how you manage to get yourself in further trouble by twisting around your own comments. im afraid the argument is lost again richard.

 

[marc71178]

jeremy snape with an economy of 4.57 is hardly a failure

Oh it must be as it's more than 4.50 and we all know that anything over that is absolutely woeful!

 

[tooextracool]

oh yes i forget....the same .07 difference that makes ealham as good a bowler as caddick also makes jeremy snape a totally useless failure.

 

[Richard]

err why look at vaughan's record now,a whole 5 years after hes been selected? and of course a successful international player is bound to succeed at the domestic arena, the question is do successful domestic players always succeed at the international arena?

You don't seem to understand this comment - you play domestic cricket first, so therefore it doesn't matter which success happens to come first.
Successful international players aren't bound to improve on or sometimes even match their success at the domestic level at all, mind - Gower and Richards are two rare examples of those who didn't even have the decency to take the domestic game seriously all the time.

and looking at peter martin,alan mullally,neil fairbrother,nick knight,mark ramprakash,graeme hick,alex tudor,chris silverwood, ed smith and the rest, im leaning towards a no.

And given that neither Martin nor Mullally's First-Class record suggest a bowler of international calibre, these two are taken out.
Given that I've already explained why Smith's Test-career proves nothing as regards failure we can take him out too.
Given that neither Tudor nor Silverwood have shown any consistency in domestic cricket, even if their overall records aren't bad, we can take them out.
And given that "the rest" amounts to basically nothing, we can cut that down to Knight, Hick and Fairbrother (in Test-matches only, too) which proves nothing!

 

[Richard]

erm..I dont think Trescothick,Vaughan,Flintoff or Harmison have actually played in the Championship this year, Hussain played 3 innings,Strauss has batted twice,Geraint Jones has batted three times with an average of 10.50,Thorpe has scored 1 half century in his 5 CC innings,Giles has taken 4 wickets in the CC this year (only played one game)...and Butcher has scored a tad over 200 runs in 4 or 5 innings, 180 odd of them in one innings.

The one person who can claim to had any success at domestic level (not including one dayers,even then I doubt many of the above have played that much) is Key.

So Richard...could you explain what your point was again!!!!!

Long-term success, that was what my point was.
Not whether they've managed to take their very limited chances this season.