***Official West Indies in New Zealand***

[Prince EWS]

Would Kyle Mills make an alltime New Zealand ODI XI?

Yes IMO, but I'm biased.

 

[thierry henry]

Would Kyle Mills make an alltime New Zealand ODI XI?

Ewen Chatfield took 140 wickets at 26 with an E/R of 3.6, so he'd probably partner Hadlee with the new ball. Chats was very underrated as an ODI bowler looking at those stats.

*edit* totally forgot Bond, I guess Chats would have to bowl first change

 

[thierry henry]

tbh I think our all-time attack might be Hadlee, Bond, Chatfield, Larsen, Vettori, Cairns? Or do I have to leave one of them out? I haven't even found a place for Harris...

 

[thierry henry]

Astle
McCullum
Fleming (c)
Crowe
Twose
Cairns
Hadlee
Vettori
Larsen
Bond
Chatfield

Probably some controversy about leaving out Harris, although he would be 13th pick for me below Styris.

 

[Athlai]

Astle
McCullum
Fleming (c)
Crowe
Twose
Cairns
Hadlee
Vettori
Larsen
Bond
Chatfield

Probably some controversy about leaving out Harris, although he would be 13th pick for me below Styris.

Reckon Taylor will challenge for a spot in there over Twose eventually maybe even over Fleming.

Otherwise a pretty friggen solid lineup. Larsen and Chatfield are the only real weak links in the bowling lineup and considering how quality they are just means for a pretty ****ing top all time ODI XI. Mills to be a back up seamer and spend most of his time on the bench.

Jeets the perennial number 12 for his fielding. (Though Hamish Marshall could probably get a look in... Oh and Chris Harris)

 

[Prince EWS]

Ewen Chatfield took 140 wickets at 26 with an E/R of 3.6, so he'd probably partner Hadlee with the new ball. Chats was very underrated as an ODI bowler looking at those stats.

*edit* totally forgot Bond, I guess Chats would have to bowl first change

Chatfield played an era when it was much easier to get those kind of figures, though. If you standardise both bowlers across time (and exclude teams currently ranked below #8), you get:

Standardised Records Across Time
Chatfield: 139 wickets @ 26.83 (3.92)
Mills: 106 wickets @ 27.19 (4.38)

Actually, that didn't turn out as well for Mills as I thought it would. Fair call.

 

[thierry henry]

Chatfield played an era when it was much easier to get those kind of figures, though. If you standardise both bowlers across time (and exclude teams currently ranked below #8), you get:

Standardised Records Across Time
Chatfield: 139 wickets @ 26.83 (3.92)
Mills: 106 wickets @ 27.19 (4.38)

Actually, that didn't turn out as well for Mills as I thought it would. Fair call.

I'm aware of that, but 3.6 was still a good E/R back then, I guess it would be equivalent to 4.2 or 4.3 today or something like that.

 

[thierry henry]

Reckon Taylor will challenge for a spot in there over Twose eventually maybe even over Fleming.

Otherwise a pretty friggen solid lineup. Larsen and Chatfield are the only real weak links in the bowling lineup and considering how quality they are just means for a pretty ****ing top all time ODI XI. Mills to be a back up seamer and spend most of his time on the bench.

Jeets the perennial number 12 for his fielding. (Though Hamish Marshall could probably get a look in... Oh and Chris Harris)

Dood, you can't compare Patel to Harris in the field, come on.

Styris was battling with Twose for that spot imo, Taylor has a bit to do yet.

Can't leave out Larsen imo, awesome e/r.

 

[Prince EWS]

I'm aware of that, but 3.6 was still a good E/R back then, I guess it would be equivalent to 4.2 or 4.3 today or something like that.

Yeah, that's basically what my analysis ended up showing. Chatfield's economy rate of 3.6 in the period of 1979-1989 would be the equivalent of having one as low as 4.3 in the period of 2001-2008 and in such a time Mills only managed a tick under 4.6. Averages are pretty similar even when standardised, too, so Chatters wins out on stats.

 

[Athlai]

Dood, you can't compare Patel to Harris in the field, come on.

Styris was battling with Twose for that spot imo, Taylor has a bit to do yet.

Can't leave out Larsen imo, awesome e/r.

I know and it makes me sad.
Reckon when Taylor comes to the peak of his powers (age 28-31) he'll be better.

 

[thierry henry]

I know and it makes me sad.
Reckon when Taylor comes to the peak of his powers (age 28-31) he'll be better.

I hope so. Taylor should end up pretty close to our best ODI bat ever, I hope. Specialist batsmen have been our weak point in ODI history imo, I mean I've picked Fleming mainly for longevity and captaincy, but he wasn't that good.

Even Martin Crowe was imo better at the longer form of the game (his international ODI record is ok but he only has 4 centuries, and his FC record is miles better than his List A record), Nathan Astle was kinda the opposite, his overall record was only ok (and his strike-rate was on the slow side despite a reputation as a hitter) but he scored heaps of centuries.

That's why I always tend to pick Twose in these teams, he was actually an out and out prolific specialist ODI bat for a few years there, a real rarity for us.

 

[Days of Grace]

Chatfield played an era when it was much easier to get those kind of figures, though. If you standardise both bowlers across time (and exclude teams currently ranked below #8), you get:

Standardised Records Across Time
Chatfield: 139 wickets @ 26.83 (3.92)
Mills: 106 wickets @ 27.19 (4.38)

Actually, that didn't turn out as well for Mills as I thought it would. Fair call.

How do you standardise these E/Rs?

Also, I feel Larsen is overrated. The guy had a good E/R of course, but took wickets at a very high S/R. I feel batsmen these days would take to him a lot more.

 

[thierry henry]

How do you standardise these E/Rs?

Also, I feel Larsen is overrated. The guy had a good E/R of course, but took wickets at a very high S/R. I feel batsmen these days would take to him a lot more.

Well, obviously the better the E/R, the worse the S/R in relation to the average- that's the essence of the calculation.

Personally I think S/R is irrelevant in ODIs....I'm only interested in how many runs a bowler concedes per over, and how many he concedes per wicket (average).

Having said that, Larsen obviously has quite a poor average as well....I think I've actually been convinced by Richard that Larsen was an outstanding ODI bowler purely and simply because he had an outstanding economy rate- I think there is a fair bit of force to that argument.

Larsen played throughout the 1990s, which was not a particularly slow scoring era compared to the 00s......much more comparable than, say, the 80s.

 

[Prince EWS]

How do you standardise these E/Rs?

Pretty simple process. The global economy rate for all games between top-8 teams since the beginning of ODIs is 4.48. However, in the year of 2006 (for example), it was 4.86. Hence, any runs conceded by bowlers in 2006 are divided by 1.085 when determining their standardised ER.

 

[Zinzan]

NZ got very lucky today. W.I missed alot of chances, toobad they weren't taken.

Haha, vintage trolling that

West Indies were damn lucky McCullum played a bad shot otherwise the game may have been finished in just 10 overs

 

[Zinzan]

Astle
McCullum
Fleming (c)
Crowe
Twose
Cairns
Hadlee
Vettori
Larsen
Bond
Chatfield

Probably some controversy about leaving out Harris, although he would be 13th pick for me below Styris.

Haha, trust you young fellas to leave out Glenn Turner who averaged 47 with a strike rate of 68 (which was probably equivalent to about 85 in the era he played)

My side would be...

Astle
Turner
Crowe (c)
Twose
C.Cairns
Oram
McCullum
Hadlee
Vettori
Larsen
Bond

Unlucky to miss out ...

Flem, Allott, Pringle, A Jones & Harris

To the poster who asked about Mill's chance of making the all-time XI, he's a fair way off IMO

 

[thierry henry]

Haha, trust you young fellas to leave out Glenn Turner who averaged 47 with a strike rate of 68 (which was probably equivalent to about 85 in the era he played)

My side would be...

Astle
Turner
Crowe (c)
Twose
C.Cairns
Oram
McCullum
Hadlee
Vettori
Larsen
Bond

Unlucky to miss out ...

Flem, Allott, Pringle, A Jones & Harris

To the poster who asked about Mill's chance of making the all-time XI, he's a fair way off IMO

Fair enough on Turner, personally I have trouble picking him when he only played 41 games.

I guess Oram is also a fairish selection...I tend to think of him in terms of unfulfilled batting potential, but when you evaluate his career regarding him as a bowler who bats a bit, his ODI record is pretty good

Allott was only a good ODI bowler for 5 minutes so dunno about him really...Pringle is a good call though...why did he play his last ODI at age 27? Part of the fall-out from the Howarth/Rutherford/marijuana era? In retrospect there should have been more of an outcry about his career being cut short as his ODI record was world class.

 

[Zinzan]

Fair enough on Turner, personally I have trouble picking him when he only played 41 games.

Yeah 41 games is probably only equivalent to 2 years of ODI's these days, but obviously they played very few games most of his career spanning from 1974-1983, so you could hardly hold that against a player

Allott was only a good ODI bowler for 5 minutes so dunno about him really

Everyone thinks Allott was only any good in the '99 WC, but thats not quite true to be fair. He did play some more than decent one-day cricket most of his career. Just happens he was a rubbish test bowler.

...Pringle is a good call though...why did he play his last ODI at age 27? Part of the fall-out from the Howarth/Rutherford/marijuana era? In retrospect there should have been more of an outcry about his career being cut short as his ODI record was world class.

Pretty much bang on the mark on Pringle, was never really looked at again after that '94 'tour of turbulence' . Funnily enough Pringle was boozing all tour and genuinely believed his bowling was better when he was hung-over & if you look at his one-day performances on that tour (while NZ were getting slaughtered) , its hard to argue otherwise.

 

[thierry henry]

Yeah 41 games is probably only equivalent to 2 years of ODI's these days, but obviously they played very few games most of his career spanning from 1974-1983, so you could hardly hold that against a player

I can certainly use it as a reason to not rate him so highly- it's not really a very good sample size to judge him on, especially when you're trying to compare him with Fleming. Anyway, Turner missed a lot of those games because he made himself unavailable.

Everyone thinks Allott was only any good in the '99 WC, but thats not quite true to be fair. He did play some more than decent one-day cricket most of his career. Just happens he was a rubbish test bowler.

He only played 31 games....

Pretty much bang on the mark on Pringle, was never really looked at again after that '94 'tour of turbulence' . Funnily enough Pringle was boozing all tour and genuinely believed his bowling was better when he was hung-over & if you look at his one-day performances on that tour (while NZ were getting slaughtered) , its hard to argue otherwise.

lol

Funnily enough he retired from FC cricket at age 28 and from List A at 30, so maybe he just wasn't that interested in prolonging his career (like a lot of NZ cricketers)

 

[Zinzan]

I can certainly use it as a reason to not rate him so highly- it's not really a very good sample size to judge him on, especially when you're trying to compare him with Fleming. Anyway, Turner missed a lot of those games because he made himself unavailable.

He only played 31 games....

Dat true, 41 & 31 ain't a lot of games, but given they performed well against all opposition in that time warrants consideration for selection. I'd say 30s about the cut-off provided there not mostly played against mud-sides like Zim & Bang

Lets not forget Bondy only played 60 odd games & no-one would dispute his selection for a second.