***Official*** New Zealand in the West Indies 2014

[Bahnz]

They may not have the ultimate series results yet, but on paper, this team is probably the best New Zealand has ever put on the park.

Wasn't it you who said six months ago that this team would never win a test against top 8 opposition?

Anyway, the current side would get blown off the park by this mob:

http://www.espncricinfo.com/columns/engine/match/63423.html

 

[ohnoitsyou]

The team we drew with was nowhere near the ATG side Flem was up against.

Completely forgot the Aussie team we beat was a relative minnow tbh

 

[NZTailender]

I had forgotten this team. Early Bond whose bowling average for the series was astronomical but then turned it around massively in the ODI series that followed.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63955.html

 

[hendrix]

I dunno
2nd Test: Zimbabwe v New Zealand at Bulawayo, Aug 15-17, 2005 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

I mean, the Marshall's are obviously dirt but then the current side has Fulton and Sodhi (though he did pick up important wickets; H Marshall's Test average is 38...)

Fuark.

Styris at 6
McCullum 7
Vettori 8
Franklin 9

bowling attack Bond, Martin, Franklin, Vettori, Styris.

 

[ohnoitsyou]

I'm sure PEWS would prefer this team: 2nd Test: New Zealand v Sri Lanka at Wellington, Dec 15-18, 2006 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

Bowling attacks have greater depth, but our middle order is much stronger now. Oram, Vettori, Franklin is a hex tail though

 

[ohnoitsyou]

I had forgotten this team. Early Bond whose bowling average for the series was astronomical but then turned it around massively in the ODI series that followed.

3rd Test: Australia v New Zealand at Perth, Nov 30-Dec 4, 2001 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

Thats definitely the team to beat. We need Latham to come good, Williamson to continue to improve and a better third seamer to have a chance of topping that side.

 

[Flem274*]

That was the thing with Fleming's sides - you couldn't bowl them out. We had a very fortuitous run of having our best bowlers often be very capable batsmen, and the top six in their primes had career averages over 40 (Richardson ended with his still over, Astle did but lost it, Styris did but lost it, same with McMillan, Oram had a huge average for a bit iirc), or were doing Southee's to their career averages so they didn't reflect their real aptitude with the bat (Fleming, Cairns and then later on Vettori).

In those days we could turn 150/5 into 350-400 because Chris Cairns would only just be arriving at the wicket and we had a stack of bowling allrounders like Vettori, Franklin and Nash still in the shed.

If we had been able to keep bowlers on the park we would have won a lot more series than we did back then.

 

[hendrix]

Core of the team= players who were regularly part of the team who were consistent performers.

there was Fleming, Cairns, Vettori and Parore.

then:
Fleming, Vettori, Astle, McCullum

then:
Vettori, McCullum, Martin

Now:
Southee, Boult, Watling, Taylor, Williamson, McCullum.

 

[Teja.]

Wasn't NZ's most successful phase by far in the 1980s? Wonder how the best side from then would like in comparison to Fleming's early 00s side.

 

[Flem274*]

Franklin once had 79 @ 27. You missed Styris, Nash and Doull as well.

 

[straw man]

If Southee and Boult continue exactly as they are currently, Wagner or someone else provides good support and Craig or 4th seamer chips in, with Williamson's spin too, then yeah I think I could call that our best ever attack. The sad truth is we've never before had more than one top class bowler in a side at once, and Southee+Boult together bowling this well is going to be worth more than Hadlee or Bond operating as the lone star.

We're a fair way from our best batting side ever though - early 00s better and presumably some of those 80s batting sides with Wright, Crowe, Coney, Smith were too. Our current openers ffs. And please don't declare Latham the saviour after one match. We can discuss this again when we have openers that are proven to be not terrible. Still question marks over our number 6 too, though if we can somehow squeeze both Anderson and Neesham into our 6-8 that could become a strength.

 

[Flem274*]

Dare I say it, sometimes the 80s side gets overrated. The one above has Ken Rutherford at three...

Did we ever field a middle order of Jones, Crowe, Reid, Coney?

 

[Athlai]

Hadlee + Chatfield at their best are better than Southee + Boult at this moment IMO.

In a year though?

Who knows.

 

[Blocky]

The best team we ever put on the park was around the Doull, Nash, Cairns and young Vettori period, backed up by Parore, McMillan, Astle, Fleming, Horne and Richardson.

It's actually a shame that we never got the years out of Doull, Nash and Cairns that we should've, because I think we'd have been a Top 3 side for a number of years if we put out a team resembling this.

1. Richardson
2. Horne
3. Fleming
4. McMillan
5. Astle
6. Cairns
7. Parore
8. Vettori
9. Nash
10. Doull
11. Bond

That could have very easily been our team from about 2002 - 2006 if we'd got normal longevity out of our players, batting right down to Doull and arguably even Bond - with a four prong seam attack, a spinner who at that time was getting swerve, dip and spin and a batting order that had a touch of consistency about it.

If you're thinking ATG NZ side - I think you'll see Southee and Williamson affirm their names next to Taylor of this generation in the next few years, as well as Watling.. I still think it's not too late for McCullum to enter himself as a batsman.

I think by the end of McCullum's career, our ATG team will be something like

1. Richardson
2. Sutcliffe
3. Williamson
4. Crowe
5. Taylor
6. Cairns
7. McCullum / Watling
8. Vettori
9. Hadlee
10. Southee
11. Bond

 

[Days of Grace]

Dare I say it, sometimes the 80s side gets overrated. The one above has Ken Rutherford at three...

Did we ever field a middle order of Jones, Crowe, Reid, Coney?

By the time Jones came in, Coney had retired.

The batting lineups post 1986/87 were not that flash. Dipak Patel and Evan Gray were at 6 and 7 in Australia in 1987/88.

 

[Flem274*]

Hadlee + Chatfield at their best are better than Southee + Boult at this moment IMO.

In a year though?

Who knows.

You think Chats is a better bowler than Chris Cairns though so your opinion doesn't count.

 

[Teja.]

The sad truth is we've never before had more than one top class bowler in a side at once, and Southee+Boult together bowling this well is going to be worth more than Hadlee or Bond operating as the lone star.

I reckon both Southee and Boult are higher quality bowlers than Chatfield even at this stage but he was a pretty decent support bowler for Hadlee who at his peak had an insane output per match.

I agree they're already an amazing bowling pair though, not even a question of potential anymore.

 

[Athlai]

Some of the mid 80s linesups are gun.

Edgar/Rutherford
Wright
Reid
Crowe
Coney

+ Ian Smith, Hadlee and Chats

I'm sure we can find a lineup of that with a few decent guys in the vacant spots.

 

[Flem274*]

By the time Jones came in, Coney had retired.

The batting lineups post 1986/87 were not that flash. Dipak Patel and Evan Gray were at 6 and 7 in Australia in 1987/88.

I was looking at Watling's cricinfo profile today and I've found a real dolly of a ND batting line up, which was also Watling's FC debut.

Northern Districts v Auckland at Hamilton, Dec 6-8, 2004 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

James Marshall*
Nick Horsley
Mark Orchard
Matthew Hart
Llorne Howell
Grant Robinson
Joseph Yovich
BJ Watling (wk)
Ryan Shutte
Daryl Tuffey
Graeme Aldridge

Hart at 4??? What?

 

[Mike5181]

I dunno
2nd Test: Zimbabwe v New Zealand at Bulawayo, Aug 15-17, 2005 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

I mean, the Marshall's are obviously dirt but then the current side has Fulton and Sodhi (though he did pick up important wickets; H Marshall's Test average is 38...)

3rd Test: Australia v New Zealand at Perth, Nov 30-Dec 4, 2001 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63967.html