The Best of The Rest - NZ, WI, Pak, Bang in tests

[Jezroy]

The West Indies lineup at full strength would IMO be the best of the lot if they played every game - not by a lot - but by enough. However they have very little depth in their fast bowling ranks and, crucially, have a ridiculously injury-prone attack .

True. If West Indies line up looked like this

Gayle
Barath (potentially)
Sarwan
Chanderpaul
Nash
Bravo
Ramdin
Taylor
Benn
Roach
Edwards (hardly ever plays)

You would think that they would do quite well - but even when this side (or similar - I doubt this side have played together) has played in the last 2 years or so, they still don't seem to bring it all together and are just as prone to collapses as NZ and Pakistan are - this is despite the fact that on paper they are the better batting team. And once they have to turn to any of their fast bowling back up, they struggle more than I think NZ and Pakistan do. And because they have had trouble getting this team on the pitch (ie. they can't), you can only really go on the record they have had over the last 2 years or so, which apart from a series win against England, is not miles better than NZ's or Pakistans.

 

[WindieWeathers]

The West Indies lineup at full strength would IMO be the best of the lot if they played every game - not by a lot - but by enough. However they have very little depth in their fast bowling ranks and, crucially, have a ridiculously injury-prone attack. It's extremely rare for Edwards to be fit while Taylor isn't much better and Roach too has shown signs of lacking the requisite fitness for the daily grind of Test cricket. As such, their backup bowlers become a lot more relevant than those of Pakistan and New Zealand and unfortunately they immediately start turning to Rampaul, Pascal, Sammy, Bess etc who are so far from Test standard opening bowlers that it isn't funny. West Indies at full strength is a purely hypothetical entity and the true crux of the team is one that contains Ravi Rampaul for most of his appearances and sometimes bowlers even worse than he. West Indies have a decent team in theory but it never eventuates and the depth in the areas in need is very poor so they'll struggle a bit unless they can improve the fitness of their bowlers or Russell can replicate what he's been doing for the A team of late for the senior side.

And

True. If West Indies line up looked like this

Gayle
Barath (potentially)
Sarwan
Chanderpaul
Nash
Bravo
Ramdin
Taylor
Benn
Roach
Edwards (hardly ever plays)

You would think that they would do quite well -

Thanks lads for seeing the bigger picture and debating the issue in a calm manner, i totally agree with those comments and it's pretty much what i've been saying all along, people have differing opinions and that's fine but i'm the one who's been hounded with abuse and called "biased", when that happens that's when things turn ugly, to me being "biased" is someone who rates their team above every other side regadless of the results and performances, i know full well we aren't on the same level as SA, Ind, Eng, Aus and probably SL right now, but i just don't believe Pak has done enough to be rated higher than us,

Concerning the injuries, Edwards won't be back until next year probably, Sarwan, Barath and Roach are all fit and playing in the Caribbean T20 cup, Taylor has taken longer to recover but he's sure to be back for when we go to SL in November, Gibbo is keeping a close eye on Russell apparently so he could very well be the one who steps up, i believe he's an exciting prospect with both bat and ball and would certainly make our tail a lot stronger, Marlon Samuels has also returned to good form for Jamaica so Nash is gonna have a fight on his hands to retain his place i think, and i also believe Ramdin's position in the side is in doubt to be honest.

 

[Jezroy]

I know full well we aren't on the same level as SA, Ind, Eng, Aus and probably SL right now, but i just don't believe Pak has done enough to be rated higher than us,

I do believe Pakistan have done enough to be rated ahead of the WI at the moment. I think that even though WI have a heap of off field dramas - but they are nothing to what Pakistan have. And since that 1-0 England result, it is clear to me that the drawn series against NZ and Aus better results than what the West Indies have achieved. I think that even though NZ have a weaker side at the moment, beating them at home is still not as easy as you would think. Pakistan are mercurial - if they play strong enough for even 70 percent of the game, they will come close to winning it.

Concerning the injuries, Edwards won't be back until next year probably, Sarwan, Barath and Roach are all fit and playing in the Caribbean T20 cup, Taylor has taken longer to recover but he's sure to be back for when we go to SL in November, Gibbo is keeping a close eye on Russell apparently so he could very well be the one who steps up, i believe he's an exciting prospect with both bat and ball and would certainly make our tail a lot stronger, Marlon Samuels has also returned to good form for Jamaica so Nash is gonna have a fight on his hands to retain his place i think, and i also believe Ramdin's position in the side is in doubt to be honest.

I know the WI have had issues with injuries, but NZ and Pak have both had their fair share of problems due to injuries and retirements. For NZ to lose Bond, O'Brien, Oram, Styris, and Fleming in quick succession, as well as not long before that Cairns, Astle, Richardson, McMillan - that's pretty much a test team right there - if you add Vettori and McCullum (the keeper) to that team - it is SO much stronger than what we are working with now. Pakistan on the other hand seem to have got their bowling together quite nicely, but when you take Younis and Yousuf out of the line up, you lose so so much. Which is why - when injuries and retirements are so much part of cricket at the moment - you need to look at results. And I just think that looking at results (even acknowledging the 1-0 WI vs ENG), that Pak are slightly ahead, of NZ and WI (about the same), followed a way back by Bangldesh.

 

[Howsie]

The New Zealand test team is a complete shambles at the moment, I really think some people are underestimating how bad they've become in just a short period of time.

 

[Flem274*]

Yes and no. We have the Taylor-Ryder-Vettori core, and the top three have been an issue even when Richardson and Fleming were around and we still had opener slot two as a revolving door.

And with Taylor and Vettori, our batting is equal to if not better than Pakistan (though behind the West Indies courtesy of Chanderpaul). McCullum scored runs down the order last year as well and we have Ryder to return.

I would put forward Williamson as a 90% certainty of being at least good but then I'd be sounding like someone else in this thread.

Our bowling however, has been ripped to shreds. Bond was hardly there anyway but O'Brien's gone, pre-2007 Franklin's pretty much gone, Tuffey's comeback is uncertain, and Martin has gotten old and declined massively.

Really, if we dropped Martin (and he must be close) then our two spearheads would likely be an improving young swing bowler and an uncapped left arm fast bowler. Southee and McKay have it in them to be very good, but honestly, the only reason Martin isn't gone is because they would then be leading the attack.

So yeah, ironically the batting is more certain than the bowling, even if it starts at number four. Hopefully that changes and McCullum's shift up is a success.

 

[Athlai]

Batting is the best since we had Fleming and Astle in the team IMO. Bowling worse than I ever remember.

 

[Hurricane]

New Zealand don't have don't have the unusual problems the other two teams have but they do have the one thing that has held cricket teams back since the birth of the game - substandard players. In the past I haven't subscribed to the whole "New Zealanders are untalented and get by on team morale, good coaching etc etc" line of thinking but in comparing them to West Indies and Pakistan at the current time I actually do think there's some truth in that stereotype for once. The top order is frankly terrible at the moment and I don't think you could conclusively say they had a better batting lineup than Pakistan now that Hopkins has a play as well, and their bowling lineup certainly isn't as good. However, they are a lot more professional and consistent in their cricket and they have more bottle for the close ones than Pakistan (not saying they aren't prone to the odd second innings collapse themselves, mind..), and with Bond and Oram now retired they don't have any persistent injury problems they need ready backups for at all times (other than perhaps Ryder's groin which is becoming a problem).

.

Not really much to argue with here. In the Australia series I was expecting runs out of Taylor, Vettori, and McCullum. The rest of the batsman are not test match quality at this stage of their careers.

When we last played WI they had some sub standard players as well which is why it made for a close series. Xavier Marshall etc...

The fact that WI lost that first test against Aussie so convincingly does give me some belief that it would still be a close game against New Zealand. It would be very helpful to NZs cause to have Ryder in the line up for that series.

I wouldn't mind having 4 game test series against WI and Pak when we play them. The top teams have 4 or 5 games against each other. Don't see why the bottom teams can't have a longer go against each other. The Pak / NZ series was killer.

 

[Flem274*]

Batting is the best since we had Fleming and Astle in the team IMO. Bowling worse than I ever remember.

Hmm tbh...

Richardson
Vincent
Fleming
Styris
Astle
McMillan/Oram
McCullum
Vettori

is a lot better than:

Watling
McIntosh
McCullum
Taylor
Ryder
Williamson
Vettori
Hopkins

Granted, Taylor, Ryder and Vettori are outstanding but you can scythe through that top three pretty quickly if they have a particularly ****e day.

The first batting order is more rounded and more experienced and the 2000s Fleming, Richardson, Astle, Styris and Oram were immense back in the day before they either lost it or got pissed with the coach.

 

[Athlai]

Hmm tbh...

Richardson
Vincent
Fleming
Styris
Astle
McMillan/Oram
McCullum
Vettori

is a lot better than:

Watling
McIntosh
McCullum
Taylor
Ryder
Williamson
Vettori
Hopkins

Granted, Taylor, Ryder and Vettori are outstanding but you can scythe through that top three pretty quickly if they have a particularly ****e day.

The first batting order is more rounded and more experienced and the 2000s Fleming, Richardson, Astle, Styris and Oram were immense back in the day before they either lost it or got pissed with the coach.

Best since, not better than.

 

[Hurricane]

Batting is the best since we had Fleming and Astle in the team IMO.

Please back this up....

Don't see Mcintosh/watling/sinclair/guptil as superior to Redmond/How/Flynn/franklin/

Unless you want to say that Mac's avg of 28 (last two years) is better than How averaging 16.
Which it is - but to me both are sub standard. So is not much of an upgrade.

The only way you can make a case for improvement is if you like the style and potential of our new guys more. Either that or you are counting Ryder as a recent addition.

Anyways please elaborate on your point.

 

[Athlai]

Please back this up....

Don't see Mcintosh/watling/sinclair/guptil as superior to Redmond/How/Flynn/franklin/

Unless you want to say that Mac's avg of 28 (last two years) is better than How averaging 16.
Which it is - but to me both are sub standard. So is not much of an upgrade.

The only way you can make a case for improvement is if you like the style and potential of our new guys more. Either that or you are counting Ryder as a recent addition.

Anyways please elaborate on your point.

Course I'm counting Ryder and Taylor is now a far better batsman, so is Vettori. McCullum will be moving down to take over from Sinclair and we get Hopkins who will be likely better than most of the likes of Redmond, How, Flynn and Franklin.

McIntosh (best opener since Richardson, true story)
Watling (potential)
McCullum (potential, we haven't had a solid number 3 for a good long while)
Taylor - gun
Ryder - gun when fit and he will be this summer.... at some stage. Managed to get his elbow injured
Williamson/Guptill - Guppy isn't the worst backup if Williamson doesn't live up to his potential
Vettori - gun

We've had 3 Test batsman averaging over 50 in the last year or two. Taylor keeps scoring more runs a season than Fleming ever did as well.

 

[_Ed_]

Ryder - gun when fit and he will be this summer.... at some stage.

I'm not convinced. The natural pessimism instilled in every NZ fan has taken a firm hold.

 

[Zinzan]

Course I'm counting Ryder and Taylor is now a far better batsman, so is Vettori. McCullum will be moving down to take over from Sinclair and we get Hopkins who will be likely better than most of the likes of Redmond, How, Flynn and Franklin.

McIntosh (best opener since Richardson, true story)
Watling (potential)
McCullum (potential, we haven't had a solid number 3 for a good long while)
Taylor - gun
Ryder - gun when fit and he will be this summer.... at some stage. Managed to get his elbow injured
Williamson/Guptill - Guppy isn't the worst backup if Williamson doesn't live up to his potential
Vettori - gun

We've had 3 Test batsman averaging over 50 in the last year or two. Taylor keeps scoring more runs a season than Fleming ever did as well.

You're certainly more convinced of McIntosh than I. Still unfit to clean Richardson's boots IMO, struggles with the short-ball & seems to have an extraordinary propensity to completely misjudge the odd delivery out of nowhere causing him to fall-over at the crease & to be bowled or out LBW. Has major technical deficiencies to over-come before deserving mention in the same breath as MR

The rest of the batting is reasonable, especially the middle order, and I think you'll find either Reece Young or that South African WK from Canterbury (name's escaped me) will be picked ahead of Hopkins in Test matches. I'm actually contemplating whether or not Watling has the potential to be converted into a specialist keeper. Good way for him to cement his spot for the next 10 years if he did have the goods.

 

[Athlai]

Yeah being the best opener since Richardson isn't the hugest accolade though if you consider how dire they all have been. Still only a 30-35 average kind of guy while Richardson was a good 10 runs better per innings.

Oh jeez I had totally forgotten Watling had keeping skills. Wonder if he'll turn that way if he gets displaced by someone.

 

[Howsie]

Yes and no. We have the Taylor-Ryder-Vettori core, and the top three have been an issue even when Richardson and Fleming were around and we still had opener slot two as a revolving door.

And with Taylor and Vettori, our batting is equal to if not better than Pakistan (though behind the West Indies courtesy of Chanderpaul). McCullum scored runs down the order last year as well and we have Ryder to return.

I would put forward Williamson as a 90% certainty of being at least good but then I'd be sounding like someone else in this thread.

Our bowling however, has been ripped to shreds. Bond was hardly there anyway but O'Brien's gone, pre-2007 Franklin's pretty much gone, Tuffey's comeback is uncertain, and Martin has gotten old and declined massively.

Really, if we dropped Martin (and he must be close) then our two spearheads would likely be an improving young swing bowler and an uncapped left arm fast bowler. Southee and McKay have it in them to be very good, but honestly, the only reason Martin isn't gone is because they would then be leading the attack.

So yeah, ironically the batting is more certain than the bowling, even if it starts at number four. Hopefully that changes and McCullum's shift up is a success.

If, and this is a big if Brendon McCullum can somehow replicate what he's done during the last 12 or so months and average somewhere in the 40's at the top of the order, either opening or at three it doesn't matter then the team goes a long way to looking settled. As soon as this New Zealand team finds someone who can be as consistant as Taylor/Ryder/Vettori are then it all of a sudden becomes a much better team, as we've found during the last 2-3 years a team will go nowhere when the top three all struggle to average 30.

The middle order is strong, Taylor, Ryder and Vettori are all 50 plus average batsmen right now, Williamson is an unknown quantity at the international level but I'm quitely confindent he'll make the step up right away.

The bowling on the other hand, well to put it bluntly it's crap. Chirs Martin is probably close to the biggest joke going around international cricket at the moment, Darryl Tuffey's lucky he has some batting ability, Brent Arnel is a fantastic domestic bowler but unless he has two strike bowlers to follow he might struggle in international cricket, especially on some of the really flat wickets. Tim Southee is still learning what he takes to be a successful test bowler although having a captain that has zero faith in your ability doesn't help one would think. Andy McKay looks nice with his 140k type pace and his abiltiy to swing the ball, but given that he's never dominated domestic cricket in New Zealand and that he has a tendency to bowl a lot of loose deliveries one wonders if he is indeed the saviour of New Zealand fast bowling.

 

[Prince EWS]

Listing players as having potential to justify the current batting lineup being better than those gone by is a bit of a fallacy because at the time Flynn, How, Elliott, Ingram, Papps, Franklin etc etc were all seen as having the same and I'm yet to be convinced that the replacements are actually any better. The only exception is Williamson because he really does have more potential than the others ever had and that's obvious.

I don't think I rate the current batting lineup better than:

McIntosh
Guptill
Flynn
Taylor
Ryder
Oram
McCullum
Vettori

... and UIMM that actually did happen.

 

[Zinzan]

Oh jeez I had totally forgotten Watling had keeping skills. Wonder if he'll turn that way if he gets displaced by someone.

Would certainly give us more options and possibly allow both Williamson & Guptill to play in the middle-order, of course we're yet to know if he's potentially good enough with the gloves

Yeah being the best opener since Richardson isn't the hugest accolade though if you consider how dire they all have been. Still only a 30-35 average kind of guy while Richardson was a good 10 runs better per innings.

He actually averages 29.69, so 15 behind & not clearly any better than the likes of Papps or How. Besides, I'm more concerned with his obvious technical & mental flaws that I alluded to above than his average at this early stage of his career.

 

[Zinzan]

Listing players as having potential to justify the current batting lineup being better than those gone by is a bit of a fallacy because at the time Flynn, How, Elliott, Ingram, Papps, Franklin etc etc were all seen as having the same and I'm yet to be convinced that the replacements are actually any better. The only exception is Williamson because he really does have more potential than the others ever had and that's obvious.

I don't think I rate the current batting lineup better than:

McIntosh
Guptill
Flynn
Taylor
Ryder
Oram
McCullum
Vettori

... and UIMM that actually did happen.

Agreed, effectively 6 one way 1/2 a doz the other, with Oram being the noticeable loss in the middle/lower order.

 

[Athlai]

The difference in the batting lineups are that Taylor has only gotten better and Vettori has went from strength to strength.

Oram also was well past it. That was a pretty good batting lineup though, I was more or less comparing how it was immediately pre Guppyish time.

 

[Howsie]

Listing players as having potential to justify the current batting lineup being better than those gone by is a bit of a fallacy because at the time Flynn, How, Elliott, Ingram, Papps, Franklin etc etc were all seen as having the same and I'm yet to be convinced that the replacements are actually any better. The only exception is Williamson because he really does have more potential than the others ever had and that's obvious.

If anything they're worse, at least the guys you named had half decent to decent first-class records.