All this talk about NZ's best chance

[Dick Rockett]

Yeah, but in '92 we had a crap team. Getting to the semis was way further than anyone expected us to. We are a much better side now, higher rated, better players, better team, higher expectations.

 

[Fiery]

Yeah, but in '92 we had a crap team. Getting to the semis was way further than anyone expected us to. We are a much better side now, higher rated, better players, better team, higher expectations.

It was actually a pretty good squad:

Martin Crowe (C),
John Wright
Chris Cairns
Mark Greatbatch
Chris Harris
Andrew Jones
Gavin Larsen
Danny Morrison
Dipak Patel
Ken Rutherford
Ian Smith
Wille Watson

All good players.
Even chunky Rod Latham played a few good innings. It was only because we had a poor series leading into the cup against England that people wrote them off

 

[meatspx]

You forgot Murphy Sua!!!
NZ's greatest fast bowler of the 1990's

 

[ohtani's jacket]

Latham cried like a man when we lost.

 

[Fiery]

You forgot Murphy Sua!!!
NZ's greatest fast bowler of the 1990's

He didn't play any games

 

[Dick Rockett]

It was actually a pretty good squad:

Martin Crowe (C),
John Wright
Chris Cairns
Mark Greatbatch
Chris Harris
Andrew Jones
Gavin Larsen
Danny Morrison
Dipak Patel
Ken Rutherford
Ian Smith
Wille Watson

All good players.
Even chunky Rod Latham played a few good innings. It was only because we had a poor series leading into the cup against England that people wrote them off

Nah, I disagree.

Aside from Crowe and Jones, the batting was ordinary, Ian Smith and John Wright were at the end of their careers, Cairns' and Harris' best days were way in front of them, and Greatbatch and Patel were only ever outstanding during that tournament. Rutherford was always rubbish, and Latham only passed 50 once in his ODI career. We punched way above our weight in that tournament.

Our success was mostly due to very clever planning, innovative tactics, and employing slow-ish bowlers on our own slow, low pitches.

 

[Fiery]

Nah, I disagree.

Aside from Crowe and Jones, the batting was ordinary, Ian Smith and John Wright were at the end of their careers, Cairns' and Harris' best days were way in front of them, and Greatbatch and Patel were only ever outstanding during that tournament. Rutherford was always rubbish, and Latham only passed 50 once in his ODI career. We punched way above our weight in that tournament.

Our success was mostly due to very clever planning, innovative tactics, and employing slow-ish bowlers on our own slow, low pitches.

OK, we'll agree to disagree. Rutherford wasn't "always" rubbish

 

[Prince EWS]

Nah, I disagree.

Aside from Crowe and Jones, the batting was ordinary, Ian Smith and John Wright were at the end of their careers, Cairns' and Harris' best days were way in front of them, and Greatbatch and Patel were only ever outstanding during that tournament. Rutherford was always rubbish, and Latham only passed 50 once in his ODI career. We punched way above our weight in that tournament.

Our success was mostly due to very clever planning, innovative tactics, and employing slow-ish bowlers on our own slow, low pitches.

Really though, if you look at the overall career records for this year's team, they are pretty ordinary as well, excepting Taylor, Bond and Vettori.

Fleming 32.35
Fulton 34.48
Marshall 29.69
Taylor 40.23
Styris 30.70, 32.62 (4.72)
McMillan 28.34, 36.23 (5.48)
Oram 23.17, 30.81 (4.52)
McCullum 23.53
Vettori 15.11, 33.00 (4.22)
Franklin 14.75, 37.77 (5.10)
Bond 15.23, 19.25 (4.27)
Patel 5.50, 29.67 (5.06)
Mason 11.00, 35.04 (5.11)

Again, you've relied more on using the conditions well, good tactics and a professional approach. The records of the players will probably stand up pretty similarly against each other, bond excluded.

 

[Athlai]

Just for some perspective let me throw in this world cups averages and such...
(not an accurate representation of their skill, but reliable enough when it comes to their current form)

Fleming 44.5
Fulton 23.5
Marshall 15
Taylor 42.5
Styris 129 20.25 (3.52)
McMillan 47 - (4.62)
Oram 101 23.25 (3.58)
McCullum 58 (9 catches)
Vettori - 24.25 (4.97)
Franklin - 23.00 (4.76)
Bond - 11.5 (2.59)
Patel - 22.33 (3.87)
Mason - 34.33 (4.48)

Styris personally I feel has been playing out of his skin.
Bond has been a destroyer of worlds.
Oram has been destructive with the bat and looked dangerous with the ball.
Vettori bowled offensively and came off with a lot of wickets.
Patel has also looked very good.

And to see Fleming in form is a thing that can be savoured.

 

[Fiery]

Very funny avatar

 

[Poker Boy]

The one difference I reckon between this NZ team and 1992 is they have two world class bowlers (Bond and Vettori) so if Fleming needs a wicket he can just bring one of them on (as happened with Bond yesterday). If NZ can get an opening partnership against anyone other than Canada they might have a chance. I reckon they compete as well as anyone against the Aussies when Bond is fit. When he is not, they get slaughtered (0-5 at home in 2005 a good example) NZ and SL might be the two with the best chance of stopping Australia but it has to be in the SF or F - the cream generally rises to the top in a league format (the Aussies are dead certs to top Super 8s always thought so) but in a one-off game anything can happen...get the top three out cheaply (Bond and Malinga could) then see what happens..

 

[_Ed_]

get the top three out cheaply (Bond and Malinga could) then see what happens..

Ntini could for SA too.

 

[Richard]

Yeah, the opening thing for NZ has been a big thing for some time now. Even when Astle was around, there was no other specialist opener.

Just imagine how good NZ might have been these last 4 years had Fleming been able to bat in his best position at three or four.

 

[Evermind]

I just don't think WI or SA have the unpredictability in bowling to rip through the Aussie top order. Bond, Malinga and Murali do. So here's to hoping Aus face them in the semis and the finals.

 

[Richard]

Unpredictability is not the remotest of neccessities to rip through an order.

 

[Isolator]

I've had the feeling that Bond hasn't been all that great at destroying the top order recently. I can remember him bowling some excellent spells, in which he could have easily had a few wickets, but coming away with nothing and taking wickets later on instead. I checked the stats: out of the 28 wickets he's taken in his last 15 matches, only 7 have been in the top 3 in the batting order.

Not attacking him or anything, but he hasn't been doing the top-order-destruction job much recently. He has kept things quite tight though.

 

[Isolator]

Now take Kyle Mills's last 15 matches: 26 wickets, out of which 14 have come from the top 3 in the batting order.

 

[thierry henry]

We'd be a lot better if we had Mills.

 

[Fiery]

We'd be a lot better if we had Mills.

if/but...but/if Mills talk is pointless

 

[Perm]

We'd be a lot better if we had Mills.

Just like Australia would be a lot better if they had Lee, and England would be a lot better if they had Trescothick. But all these players are missing, so we have to deal with it and stop bringing it up all the time.