NZ- gutsy overachievers, gormless underachievers, or just kinda average?

[Sir Redman]

With regard to population and player numbers, we're massive overachievers. There's only 4 million people in New Zealand, and as a result our player numbers are a tiny fraction of those of all the other test-playing nations. Obviously, more player numbers -> more competition for places in rep teams -> players have to be a lot better, so we're at a big disadvantage there.

In terms of talent, its a myth that New Zealand cricketers are lacking compared to other countries. 10+ years ago , when we had tremendous athletes like Rod Latham and Murphy Sua running around for us, that may have been the case, but these days at the top level we're just as talented as the other countries. So in test cricket I think we've underachieved in the last few years. Probably because we never play it. Hopefully now the WC is over we can concentrate on proper cricket. *stares towards the horizon with wishful look in eyes*

 

[_Ed_]

Silverferns seem to go alright.

They're fantastic, but they aren't given as much credit here in NZ as they deserve.

 

[Flem274*]

They're fantastic, but they aren't given as much credit here in NZ as they deserve.

Because everyones too busy watching the rugby

 

[Craig]

The bowlers and all rounders have had a fair share of injuries, but that doesnt explain why NZ have barely produced any world class batsmen in the last decade. Mark Richardson is the only one i can think of who was closest to being world class since Martin Crowe.

I think IMO Stephen Fleming is the New Zealand version of Michael Atherton, who clearly in my own opinion has talent and class when he has been in pretty good form (so elegent when in good nick) but I think technically and mentally has held him back from being a top class player. By rights if you take the bad calls or the totally unplayable balls or the not outs he should have more Test centuries then Martin Crowe. But he doesn't and therefore he can only be counted as a 'good' player. Craig McMillan is in the same boat as well. Mathew Sinclair was one I got wrong on, I thought he could of gone onto achieve a lot more, but inconsistentcy and beinbg screwed around more times then your average female pornstar his career hasn't been so successful (IIRC it is well over 6 years since his last Test ton).

Ross Taylor potentially has shown he has got talent, but clearly still has lots to learn and would benefit from a proper stint in County Cricket.

 

[Richard]

In terms of converting talent into actual performances, NZ certainly have overachieved, yeah. Mark Richardson for example had bugger all talent - he was just a good student of the game who thought about his cricket and ended up being a gun test opener by basing him game around simplifying the technicalities of cricket. Someone like Chris Harris who clearly has very little bowling talent at all who turned out to be a very, very good ODI bowler.

So yeah, overachieved in that aspect.

I think that's just a slightly cynical definition of talent, TBH. So often talent is perceived simply as hitting lots of boundaries and bowling quickly, or some other simplistic thing like that.

For me, talent is a much more wide-ranging thing. I don't think Richardson's ability to bat for an eternity (on a flat pitch ), for instance, was completely unrelated to talent. If all it took to do that was hard work, everyone who wanted to would be able to.

And same with Harris on the bowling front - his lines and lengths were actually for the most part very good, and he backed that up by working on his variations. I'd say that Harris was a far more talented bowler than, say, Ian Butler, though on most people's definition of talent that'd just not register.

 

[Richard]

Anyway, in reply to Martin's original question... as he pointed-out to me on MSN the other day, NZ do remarkably well considering virtually no-one plays. I think he said it was something like Auckland (First-Class team) is reprisented by 12 clubs. Whereas over here, Devon (not even a First-Class county) must have 50 or 60 clubs at the very least. Then you think about how many there are in ye olde cricketing counties like Kent and Yorkshire.

 

[Prince EWS]

I think that's just a slightly cynical definition of talent, TBH. So often talent is perceived simply as hitting lots of boundaries and bowling quickly, or some other simplistic thing like that.

For me, talent is a much more wide-ranging thing. I don't think Richardson's ability to bat for an eternity (on a flat pitch ), for instance, was completely unrelated to talent. If all it took to do that was hard work, everyone who wanted to would be able to.

And same with Harris on the bowling front - his lines and lengths were actually for the most part very good, and he backed that up by working on his variations. I'd say that Harris was a far more talented bowler than, say, Ian Butler, though on most people's definition of talent that'd just not register.

For me, talent is something that is naturally present, rather than learned and built up. Richardson, IMO, seemed a batsman who had very much studied the game in order to make himself what he was. Obviously he possessed a lot more batting talent than your average Joe or he wouldn't be able to bat at test level at all, but in comparison to other test batsmen of his record, his talent was minimal.

And while hard work is something anyone can do, it's equally something that few people actually bother with.

 

[Richard]

Not sure, TBH, I barely net myself so I don't see how much our guys put in.

I still think Richardson was more talented than, say, Craig McMillan.

 

[Prince EWS]

So do I, but I was hesitant to put McMillan in as my example because he wasn't very successful anyway.

 

[Richard]

His Test record's pretty damn good (even if it is one of a somewhat flat-track bully on closer inspection) and he strikes me as one who'd be automatically classified as "talented" because he's a strokeplayer.

 

[Poker Boy]

Considering their population and resources, there is no doubt NZ overachieve - especially in ODIs (In the last five WCs they have got to more SFs than the far bigger India) - so if we say NZ underachieve what do we call India? NZ seem to be to be good at making use of what they have, rather than moaning about what they do not have. Just think - their population is similar to Jamaica and THEY are not an independent Test nation (and they aren't rugby mad either!)

 

[Richard]

Don't forget, the problem NZ have (hardly anyone plays) is actually shared in India. Most of the population never have the chance to pick-up a proper cricket-bat, never mind play an organised game.

 

[Scaly piscine]

What exactly *have* NZ achieved? So they can't have overachieved. They don't have any real talent apart from the occasional one-off and that's what you'd expect from such a small country.

 

[tooextracool]

What exactly *have* NZ achieved? So they can't have overachieved. They don't have any real talent apart from the occasional one-off and that's what you'd expect from such a small country.

For a start they've achieved far more than England have in ODI cricket by actually managing to win a major trophy. 3 wc semi finals out of the last 5(should have been 4 had they not forfeited games in 2003) is far more consistent than any other side bar Australia.

 

[Richard]

No, England beat Australia in a few fairly inconsequential tournaments so therefore they have achieved more than New Zealand and are always and always will be a better side.

(Please note - this is NOT my view, the above sentence is an ironic one)

 

[Fiery]

I still think Richardson was more talented than, say, Craig McMillan.

How can you say this? Richardson had 3 shots and his test record was borne of hard graft and hours and hours of leaving balls in the nets McMillan has more talent in his little finger than Rigor but just hasn't used it well.

 

[Fiery]

What exactly *have* NZ achieved? So they can't have overachieved. They don't have any real talent apart from the occasional one-off and that's what you'd expect from such a small country.

In ODIs? Champions Trophy 2000 and....well....Champions Trophy 2000. (1 more than England have won)

 

[Richard]

How can you say this? Richardson had 3 shots and his test record was borne of hard graft and hours and hours of leaving balls in the nets McMillan has more talent in his little finger than Rigor but just hasn't used it well.

See, I think the ability to play the right shot (which Richardson was far, far better at than McMillan ever has been) is a talent more than most realise.

Number of strokes is not important if you know the right time to use them. Graham Gooch put it best "I scored 50,000 runs with four shots, twice as many as I would with eight". Yet Gooch was, IMO, a massively talented player. But his talent was shot-selection, not range of shots.

 

[Fiery]

See, I think the ability to play the right shot (which Richardson was far, far better at than McMillan ever has been) is a talent more than most realise.

Number of strokes is not important if you know the right time to use them. Graham Gooch put it best "I scored 50,000 runs with four shots, twice as many as I would with eight". Yet Gooch was, IMO, a massively talented player. But his talent was shot-selection, not range of shots.

Just means you have a different definition of talent to most people Richard

 

[Richard]

Well, umm... yes. I think many people have a rather stiff, unimaginative definition of cricketing talent, TBH.