6* Times

[smash84]

NZ looking dangerous tbh. They have given a real beating to both the group toppers. Not looking forward to facing them in the final (IIIIFFFF we beat India) after what they did to us in the last 5 overs of the innings.

 

[smash84]

btw is this NZ side better than the one in 1992?

 

[Flem274*]

btw is this NZ side better than the one in 1992?

I was all of one year old but looking at the players involved I'd say the bowling yes. The bowling attack in 1992 looks pretty one dimensional. Mills, Southee, Oram, Vettori, McCullum is better on paper to me.

The batting, well...Crowe

 

[smash84]

I was all of one year old but looking at the players involved I'd say the bowling yes. The bowling attack in 1992 looks pretty one dimensional. Mills, Southee, Oram, Vettori, McCullum is better on paper to me.

The batting, well...Crowe

that is what i thought too........

Crowe looked so regal while batting for NZ and leading from the front.............the NZ side of 1992 is one of my favorite WC sides of all time

 

[Xuhaib]

I was all of one year old but looking at the players involved I'd say the bowling yes. The bowling attack in 1992 looks pretty one dimensional. Mills, Southee, Oram, Vettori, McCullum is better on paper to me.

The batting, well...Crowe

was an awesome attack for those conditions though would have been thumped in the final had they made it.

 

[Sanz]

btw is this NZ side better than the one in 1992?

No. That NZ batting line up was very good. Crowe, Jones, Rutherford,Harris,Wright Greatbatch, Cairns

Bowling was equal.

 

[slugger]

the 92 side was beaten soundly prior to the cup, I think it was england they were not expected to do well at all in the wc, we know how that turned out, that team and this current teams cup build up is somewhat similar.

 

[BeeGee]

No. That NZ batting line up was very good. Crowe, Jones, Rutherford,Harris,Wright Greatbatch, Cairns

Bowling was equal.

Hardly. Crowe was a legend, but the rest that you list were pretty ordinary ODI batsmen. Let's look at their ODI stats, shall we?

Jones - Av 35, SR 57
Rutherford - Av 29, SR 64
Harris - Av 29, SR 66
Wright - Av 26, SR 57
Greatbatch - Av 28, SR 71
Cairns - Av 29, SR 84

Jones is the only batsman with an average above 30.
Now lets compare those six to the current NZ top six:

McCullum - Av 28, SR 88
Guptill - Av 35, SR 80
Ryder - Av 36, SR 92
Taylor - Av 36, SR 81
Styris - Av 32, SR 79
Williamson - Av 30, SR 66

Only McCullum has an average below 30.

 

[slugger]

Hardly. Crowe was a legend, but the rest that you list were pretty ordinary ODI batsmen. Let's look at their ODI stats, shall we?

Jones - Av 35, SR 57
Rutherford - Av 29, SR 64
Harris - Av 29, SR 66
Wright - Av 26, SR 57
Greatbatch - Av 28, SR 71
Cairns - Av 29, SR 84

Jones is the only batsman with an average above 30.
Now lets compare those six to the current NZ top six:

McCullum - Av 28, SR 88
Guptill - Av 35, SR 80
Ryder - Av 36, SR 92
Taylor - Av 36, SR 81
Styris - Av 32, SR 79
Williamson - Av 30, SR 66

Only McCullum has an average below 30.

the late 80's and 90's didnt involve as many minnnows and certainly no bangladesh and played a lot fewer matches. its an unfair comparison.

 

[slugger]

2 times, no?

i liked it, little bit of cindy lauper ish about her.

 

[Flem274*]

No. That NZ batting line up was very good. Crowe, Jones, Rutherford,Harris,Wright Greatbatch, Cairns

Bowling was equal.

Kyle Mills and Daniel Vettori alone put this bowling unit quite far ahead of the 1992 one, unless we actually had the best ODI bowler in the world in 1992 partnered by a world class seamer?

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

99 > 92 imo.

 

[BeeGee]

the late 80's and 90's didnt involve as many minnnows and certainly no bangladesh and played a lot fewer matches. its an unfair comparison.

Interesting theory. If that's the case then you would expect an increase in the batting averages of other teams as well. So let's take a look at a couple of other teams:

Pakistan
92
Aamer Sohail - Av 31, SR 65
Ramiz Raja - Av 32, SR 63
Imran Khan - Av 33, SR 72
Javed Miandad - Av 41, SR 67
Saleem Malik - Av 32, SR 76
Inzamam-ul-Haq - Av 39, SR 74

99
Kamran Akmal - Av 27, SR 84
Mohammad Hafeez - Av 23, SR 65
Asad Shafiq - Av 30, SR 69
Younis Khan - Av 32, SR 75
Misbah-ul-Haq - Av 40, SR 78
Umar Akmal - Av 36, SR 84


England
92
Graham Gooch - Av 36, SR 61
Ian Botham - Av 23, SR 79
Alec Stewart - Av 31, SR 68
Graeme Hick - Av 37, SR 74
Neil Fairbrother - Av 39, SR 72
Allan Lamb - Av 39, SR 75

99
Andrew Strauss - Av 35, SR 80
Ian Bell - Av 35, SR 72
Jonathan Trott - Av 55, SR 72
Ravi Bopara - Av 29, SR 72
Eoin Morgan - Av 38, SR 81
Matt Prior - Av 24, SR 76

I don't see a significant difference either way. Certainly not as obvious as the NZ comparison.

 

[slugger]

buggar !! check mate .. damn stats.

 

[BeeGee]

buggar !! check mate .. damn stats.

No worries mate.
You can use stats to prove anything, 84.3% of people know that.

 

[Hurricane]

Edit - be right back with the stats

OK for the top 5 batting positions from 1988-1992 the average was 32.6
For the top 5 batting positions for the 5 years ending 2010 the average was only 33.3

 

[smash84]

I think ODI averages have not changed too much over the periods however SR must be quite different. Also the difference in the average runs scored by teams may have certainly gone up because the teams bat very deep nowadays. Very few genuine tail-enders these days compared to the 80s and early 90s

 

[vcs]

There is no question that the best batsmen average more nowadays.. check out the averages of the likes of Watson, Dilshan, Amla, AB, Trott etc. in the last few years in ODI cricket. India and Pakistan pretty much play all their home ODIs on roads. The better bats and the advent of batting powerplays have led to plenty of ridiculous ODI innings as I pointed out in this thread. We certainly didn't see them on such a regular basis in the '90s. In '92, 250 was well above a par score.

 

[smash84]

There is no question that the best batsmen average more nowadays.. check out the averages of the likes of Watson, Dilshan, Amla, AB, Trott etc. in the last few years in ODI cricket. India and Pakistan pretty much play all their home ODIs on roads. The better bats and the advent of batting powerplays have led to plenty of ridiculous ODI innings as I pointed out in this thread. We certainly didn't see them on such a regular basis in the '90s. In '92, 250 was well above a par score.

I am thinking that there wouldn't be too more than 1-2 run difference between ODI averages of early 90s top order batsmen and now. The SR I believe would be more now and that the teams bat much deeper hence the higher scores. Is this hypothesis correct?

 

[irottev]

SL IMO will be the toughest game. I think facing SL at home is harder than India at home. On paper I think we'll struggle more with SL's bowling and more with India's batting. Overall probably the edge to SL. As for Pakistan, they'd be the easier of the 3 - we've already beaten them once and know we can again.

I think if Murli is out it gives us a lot of confidance. We usually destroys us.