Is New Zealand a better side than Australia at the moment?

[wellAlbidarned]

Barring their 5 best players, the rest are pretty average. Yeah that's the same with most teams.

 

[morgieb]

One would say New Zealand look pretty poor sans Williamson, Taylor, McCullum, Southee and Boult

 

[Salamuddin]

One would say New Zealand look pretty poor sans Williamson, Taylor, McCullum, Southee and Boult

The point is Australian sides have always been renowned for all round strength - you'd be hard pressed to find a genuine weak link in the Aussie teams of the past 25 years.

This team has so much average talent - it is incredible.
The fact that batsmen as ordinary as Watson and Shaun marsh are being considered says it all really. Add to that journeymen like Rogers, Haddin and Mitchell Marsh.

 

[Dan]

I don't think you understand what a journeyman is if you're considering Mitch Marsh to be one.

 

[Spark]

Barring their 5 best players, the rest are pretty average. Yeah that's the same with most teams.

Belongs in the same school of logic as "if you take out all his scores about 50 he average about 15!"

 

[Prince EWS]

Twatto is great but I really can't find a place for him when you have KW, Ross, Clarke and Smith to pick from as well

I think I'd just make him open and leave out Latham+Rogers. He can't be relied on to bowl as much when he opens, but I still think it's the best balance.

 

[Howe_zat]

When I want to be reminded of what I should think of Watson I read day 2 of the 2nd test thread from the Ashes 2013

It's kind of amazing

 

[Spark]

Was that where he reviewed arguably the plumbest LBW of all time that wasn't a straight-up inswinging yorker?

 

[Burgey]

As of right now, Williamson is definitely a much better test batsman than Smith.

Bish please. Anyone leaving TPC out of this combined XI will be reported and banned for a year.

Same applies to the World XI and any ATG team ftr.

 

[Niall]

Bish please. Anyone leaving TPC out of this combined XI will be reported and banned for a year.

.

I don't understand how anyone could be adamant that Kane is much superior to Smith. Kane averages 41.21 after 37 tests, while Smith averages 40.39 after 22 tests.

Smith has also had to play tougher opposition his whole career.


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


He has never played Bangladesh and West Indies unlike Kane who everyone agrees are the 2 worst test sides about. He has also unlike so many never had the luxury of playing India at home and boosting his stats.

Only 8 tests at home and the rest away. You look at who he has to deal with on his travels, a quality England side who he got a century against unlike Kane, the number one test side in the world who he was immense against South Africa who Kane has flopped against on his travels and an absolute gun Pakistan bowling line up of Gul and the 2 cheats.


I'd expect Kane will be close to a 50 average in five years, but at this moment, I don't see how you can argue Kane is that much superior to Smith who has came back incredibly well after a pretty brutal first test series against England.

 

[NUFAN]

I think the teams are so close in ability, but New Zealand are without doubt better at grinding out tough situations to draw games, which is a good trait to have.

I'm not sure how much has been said of this, or if its not a popular opinion, but I wouldn't be reading too much into New Zealand's 3rd match of the series. I mean, on paper that performance looks to be one of NZ's best ever Test matches, but did Pakistan crumble in the extraordinary circumstances?

 

[GGG]

I don't understand how anyone could be adamant that Kane is much superior to Smith. Kane averages 41.21 after 37 tests, while Smith averages 40.39 after 22 tests.

Smith has also had to play tougher opposition his whole career.


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


He has never played Bangladesh and West Indies unlike Kane who everyone agrees are the 2 worst test sides about. He has also unlike so many never had the luxury of playing India at home and boosting his stats.

Only 8 tests at home and the rest away. You look at who he has to deal with on his travels, a quality England side who he got a century against unlike Kane, the number one test side in the world who he was immense against South Africa who Kane has flopped against on his travels and an absolute gun Pakistan bowling line up of Gul and the 2 cheats.


I'd expect Kane will be close to a 50 average in five years, but at this moment, I don't see how you can argue Kane is that much superior to Smith who has came back incredibly well after a pretty brutal first test series against England.

Don't know why people are comparing them to be honest, both are going to be very good if not great batsman but one is a number 3 and the other a number 6.

 

[Hurricane]

I don't understand how anyone could be adamant that Kane is much superior to Smith. Kane averages 41.21 after 37 tests, while Smith averages 40.39 after 22 tests.

Smith has also had to play tougher opposition his whole career.


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


He has never played Bangladesh and West Indies unlike Kane who everyone agrees are the 2 worst test sides about. He has also unlike so many never had the luxury of playing India at home and boosting his stats.

Only 8 tests at home and the rest away. You look at who he has to deal with on his travels, a quality England side who he got a century against unlike Kane, the number one test side in the world who he was immense against South Africa who Kane has flopped against on his travels and an absolute gun Pakistan bowling line up of Gul and the 2 cheats.


I'd expect Kane will be close to a 50 average in five years, but at this moment, I don't see how you can argue Kane is that much superior to Smith who has came back incredibly well after a pretty brutal first test series against England.[/

Don't know why people are comparing them to be honest, both are going to be very good if not great batsman but one is a number 3 and the other a number 6.

Kane wouldn't agree to bat 6 and when he did bat 6 he asked for a promotion to three. If he went down the order to say number 5 he would average another 5-7 runs higher than what he is right now. At number 3 he quite frequently has to walk in against the new ball. I am agreeing with you by the way GGG. The only difference in opinion I have is that I don't think you will ever put the label great on a player who made his runs at number 6. I also have concerns about Smith's technique which I believe will catch up to him when he gets older and his hand eye loses some of its sharpness.

I think the teams are so close in ability, but New Zealand are without doubt better at grinding out tough situations to draw games, which is a good trait to have.

I'm not sure how much has been said of this, or if its not a popular opinion, but I wouldn't be reading too much into New Zealand's 3rd match of the series. I mean, on paper that performance looks to be one of NZ's best ever Test matches, but did Pakistan crumble in the extraordinary circumstances?

Our team cbf due to the circumstances and somehow went into a meditation and started playing awesome. The pakistanis didn't have their hearts in it and weren't prepared to do the hard yards Neither team wanted to be out there.

Without the extraordinary circumstances that game ends very differently.

 

[Howsie]

I don't understand how anyone could be adamant that Kane is much superior to Smith. Kane averages 41.21 after 37 tests, while Smith averages 40.39 after 22 tests.

Smith has also had to play tougher opposition his whole career.


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


He has never played Bangladesh and West Indies unlike Kane who everyone agrees are the 2 worst test sides about. He has also unlike so many never had the luxury of playing India at home and boosting his stats.

Only 8 tests at home and the rest away. You look at who he has to deal with on his travels, a quality England side who he got a century against unlike Kane, the number one test side in the world who he was immense against South Africa who Kane has flopped against on his travels and an absolute gun Pakistan bowling line up of Gul and the 2 cheats.


I'd expect Kane will be close to a 50 average in five years, but at this moment, I don't see how you can argue Kane is that much superior to Smith who has came back incredibly well after a pretty brutal first test series against England.

Ah, gotcha. So effectively Williamson's only played four tests to date in his career...

 

[Fuller Pilch]

​

One would say New Zealand look pretty poor sans Williamson, Taylor, McCullum, Southee and Boult

Yes and no. Watling is world-class, Latham, Neesham and Craig all average over 40 with the bat, and Craig has (somehow) twice bowled NZ to victory, Anderson hits it harder than Klusener used to, and NZ is probably 2nd only to South Africa in pace bowling depth

 

[Valer]

I think people are seriously overrating Australia . Barring Johnson, Harris, Warner, Smith And Clarke, the rest of the players in their side are all pretty average. And three of the aforementioned five are coming to the end of their careers.

I mean Australia just got smashed (not beaten - absolutely hammered) by a Pakistan side that was hardly vintage. I can't remember the Aussies ever being that badly beaten in a series - well possibly India 2013 which incidentally was with much the same set of players.

Australia's selectors had the opportunity this summer to blood some new, young talent against a subcontinental side at home - particularly in the batting ranks. Instead, they chose to play safe and stick with gash like Rogers, Watson, Shaun marsh and Haddin. They have just f***** themselves with respect to the Ashes next year - i am pretty confident that the POms will win the Ashes back quite convincingly.

Oh and on topic, NZL certainly have more talented batsmen than Australia and their new ball attack is pretty good. I'd back them to beat the Aussies fairly comfortably on their green tops at home and at the very least be competitive in OZ.

Australia hasn't won an away ashes since 2001 tbf.

 

[hendrix]

​

Yes and no. Watling is world-class, Latham, Neesham and Craig all average over 40 with the bat, and Craig has (somehow) twice bowled NZ to victory, Anderson hits it harder than Klusener used to, and NZ is probably 2nd only to South Africa in pace bowling depth

James Pattinson, Jackson Bird and Pat Cummins are far more experienced and more likely to succeed immediately than NZ's second string attack (say Bracewell, Henry, Milne).

 

[anil1405]

​

NZ is probably 2nd only to South Africa in pace bowling depth

What depth do Proteas have in pace bowling? If you remove Steyn they are a mediocre attack. If anything NZ has much better depth in pace bowling compared to Proteas at this moment.

 

[morgieb]

What depth do Proteas have in pace bowling? If you remove Steyn they are a mediocre attack. If anything NZ has much better depth in pace bowling compared to Proteas at this moment.

Outside of Steyn, Morkel and Philander, they've got McLaren, Abbott, Hendricks, Parnell, Rabada, de Lange, etc. who could all do a decent job at Test level. Lots of depth.

 

[anil1405]

The names that you have mentioned just make up the numbers for the sake of it (atleast for now). McLaren hasn't impressed with the ball and seems a good 5th bowling option in ODIs at best. The less we talk about Parnell the better, he has been absolute ****. We haven't seen enough of Hendricks, Abbott or de Lange to say how good they can be. Considering the recent history of pace bowlers coming through Proteas ranks they don't impress me much.

For the amount of international games Morkel has played, he is still an inconsistent lad. Philander has seen extremes at both ends in his short career and we still can't say what he will achieve in few years time.

At this moment if we remove Steyn from the equation, I would probably rely on the kiwi attack do deliver the goods than the Proteas attack.