***Official**** Sri Lanka in New Zealand 2014/2015

[Athlai]

In terms of respective peaks, two NZ teams were higher than our current ICC Test rating of 99. This could potentially change when the rankings update after the WC or in our future series.

The 2002/2003 team that beat India 2-0 got up to a rating of 103 after that series.

Richardson 1651 @ 47.17
Vincent 558 @ 29.36
Fleming 4295 @ 36.09
McMillan 2619 @ 39.68
Astle 3420 @ 38.00 / 36 W @ 47.52
Styris 206 @ 51.50 / 5 W @ 28.40
Oram 29 @ 14.50 / 11 W @ 11.81
Hart (+) 153 @ 25.50
Vettori 878 @ 16.25 / 139 W @ 33.86
Tuffey 137 @ 10.53 / 45 W @ 25.44
Bond 42 @ 8.40 / 38 W @ 22.39


Intriguingly enough, Cairns didn't really feature in the team at the height of its peak despite being arguably the best Test player we had of that era missing all but 1 game in 2002. His efforts in 2001 (and to a lesser extent Parore and Bell) helped the side get to this position though.

So the team that truly got them there was:

Richardson
Vincent/Bell
Fleming
McMillan
Astle
Styris
Cairns
Hart/Parore (+)
Vettori
Tuffey
Bond

The 1985/86 team also got to 103 after consecutive away and home series wins vs. Australia.

Wright 2444 @ 31.74
Edgar 1866 @ 31.10
Rutherford 127 @ 12.70
Crowe 1601 @ 36.38 / 12 W @ 42.33
Reid 3428 @ 33.38
Coney 2458 @ 39.64 / 27 W @ 32.88
Hadlee 2304 @ 25.60 / 315 W @ 22.63
Smith 788 @ 23.17
Bracewell 327 @ 16.35 / 52 W @ 29.21
Roberston 12 @ 12 / 1 @ 91.00
Chatfield 132 @ 11.00 / 85 W @ 31.12

Jeff Crowe, Geoff Howarth, Stephen Boock and Lance Cairns were all contributors in the recent seasons as well to get them there. I personally seek Jeff Crowe as probably the unsung hero of that particular NZ squad, Howarth without doubt the better batsman, but Crowe senior was definitely providing more to the team then. The team I'd have as getting them there would be...

Wright
Edgar
J Crowe/G Howarth
M Crowe
Reid
Coney
Hadlee
Smith (+)
Bracewell/Boock
Cairns
Chatfield

*averages provided as career up to time of rating

Where would you rate these lots against this team? Overall the squads look they have less holes than our current team does, but I think our current side has an incredibly strong core team. Not exactly Hadlee strong, but great nonetheless.

 

[Zinzan]

Great work ^

 

[Hurricane]

Well done blackcaps.

I echo Hendrix's comments about the declaration and won't repeat them.

So what exactly is this team missing now...before Craig picked up his second wicket I recall thinking - this guy is ten times better than Bruce Martin because he is more accurate. It seems like if you can just ask questions consistently as a spinner that you can induce a mistake.

One of the may things I love about this team is the fielding. It is tempting to replace Ruthers with Guptill just to have another asset in the field.

Arguably this game was won and lost based on fielding.

 

[Athlai]

Won't be after this test. But basically ranking order when teams are level on rating is broken - it should put the team with the most points ahead but at the moment it does them in alphabetical order.

Also after our dicussion on this recently, weirdly it seems the conclusion we came to was wrong. Series result does come into it, they divide the points they work out after the series by the series result.

Why? I have NFI.

 

[Zinzan]

Where would you rate these lots against this team? Overall the squads look they have less holes than our current team does, but I think our current side has an incredibly strong core team. Not exactly Hadlee strong, but great nonetheless.

Really not much between the 3. Suppose one way to do it would be to rate the players (at the respective times) with ratings out of 10 and add them up.

In terms of a combined side of the 3, I'd go;

Wright
Richardson
Williamson
Crowe
Taylor
McCullum (wk)
Cairns
Vettori
Hadlee
Bond
Southee/Boult (coin toss for me atm).

Assuming you allow me to use McCullum as keeper that is

 

[Hurricane]

Where would you rate these lots against this team? Overall the squads look they have less holes than our current team does, but I think our current side has an incredibly strong core team. Not exactly Hadlee strong, but great nonetheless.

The 1980s teams typically had one or two passengers like a Dipak Patel, or a Trevor Franklin or even your man jeff Crowe at times was just along for the ride.

O

 

[SteveNZ]

Well done blackcaps.

I echo Hendrix's comments about the declaration and won't repeat them.

So what exactly is this team missing now...before Craig picked up his second wicket I recall thinking - this guy is ten times better than Bruce Martin because he is more accurate. It seems like if you can just ask questions consistently as a spinner that you can induce a mistake.

One of the may things I love about this team is the fielding. It is tempting to replace Ruthers with Guptill just to have another asset in the field.

Arguably this game was won and lost based on fielding.

Good point - if Trent doesn't take that catch in the first innings to get rid of Sanga they score more runs, we lose more time and declarations have to get funkier, or Kane/BJ have to play differently. Plus we caught outstandingly well throughout and they didn't. The core skills probably weren't too different, really and fielding did the trick as you say.

I'm a Gup fan but the next opening appointment (and I'd like to see one for England, but I'm realistic there has to be a plausible one) has to be one that has cause to be considered a specialist and a long-term option. Gup is neither.

 

[Zinzan]

So my side above has 3 from the 80s, 4 from the early 2000s & 4 from the current.

 

[Athlai]

The 1980s teams typically had one or two passengers like a Dipak Patel, or a Trevor Franklin or even your man jeff Crowe at times was just along for the ride.

O

Yeah but the 85/86 one in particular had Jeff Crowe playing valuable innings for NZ and a handover between two of NZ's finest spinners.

Our current team has a Rutherford shaped hole at the top of the innings and has consistently had a spinner missing. Craig is beginning to turn that around. If Craig can continue what we've seen from him recently and keep his average under 40, then maybe this will be our greatest team ever.

S.O.S for an opener though. YOLO Guptill with a bit of backbone and mental belief could be the downhill skier we need.

 

[Athlai]

Really not much between the 3. Suppose one way to do it would be to rate the players (at the respective times) with ratings out of 10 and add them up.

In terms of a combined side of the 3, I'd go;

Wright
Richardson
Williamson
Crowe
Taylor
McCullum (wk)
Cairns
Vettori
Hadlee
Bond
Southee/Boult (coin toss for me atm).

Assuming you allow me to use McCullum as keeper that is

I definitely wouldn't have Crowe in the side I think. He would prove to be an ATG but at that stage of his career he was not really more valuable than some of those other bats. I also wouldn't give you McCullum to keep

My team would probably be..

Wright
Richardson
Williamson
Taylor
Coney/Astle/McCullum (c) FMD what a difficult one
Cairns
Watling (+)
Hadlee
Vettori
Bond
Boult

Na **** it I'm making a call, McCullum as captain. He is the man I want captaining a strong NZ team.

 

[Hurricane]

Good point - if Trent doesn't take that catch in the first innings to get rid of Sanga they score more runs, we lose more time and declarations have to get funkier, or Kane/BJ have to play differently. Plus we caught outstandingly well throughout and they didn't. The core skills probably weren't too different, really and fielding did the trick as you say.

I'm a Gup fan but the next opening appointment (and I'd like to see one for England, but I'm realistic there has to be a plausible one) has to be one that has cause to be considered a specialist and a long-term option. Gup is neither.

Brownlie then....not sure we have anyone else...

 

[vandem]

In terms of respective peaks, two NZ teams were higher than our current ICC Test rating of 99. This could potentially change when the rankings update after the WC or in our future series.

The 2002/2003 team that beat India 2-0 got up to a rating of 103 after that series.

[...]
So the team that truly got them there was:

Richardson
Vincent/Bell
Fleming
McMillan
Astle
Styris
Cairns
Hart/Parore (+)
Vettori
Tuffey
Bond

[...]

Great analysis.

The 2002/3 team were also helped by the professionalism of Steve Rixon (coach up to 1999) and Dion Nash (played most of the 1998-2000 tests). IIRC Fleming has commented that the 99 series win in Eng was a turning point, in particular the disciplined bowling plans of Nash and Cairns.

 

[Zinzan]

In terms of respective peaks, two NZ teams were higher than our current ICC Test rating of 99. This could potentially change when the rankings update after the WC or in our future series.

The 2002/2003 team that beat India 2-0 got up to a rating of 103 after that series.


The 1985/86 team also got to 103 after consecutive away and home series wins vs. Australia.
s.

Hmm the only strange thing about that is I think the next series after the home win against Australia was an away series in England in 1986, which we won 1-0, so surprised our rating wouldn't have moved even higher then.

 

[Hurricane]

I definitely wouldn't have Crowe in the side I think. He would prove to be an ATG but at that stage of his career he was not really more valuable than some of those other bats. I also wouldn't give you McCullum to keep
.

Sacrilege hand in your passport at once.
From the time of his second coming he was quality (first coming equals the failures against Lillee et al)

 

[Zinzan]

I definitely wouldn't have Crowe in the side I think. He would prove to be an ATG but at that stage of his career he was not really more valuable than some of those other bats. I also wouldn't give you McCullum to keep

My team would probably be..

Wright
Richardson
Williamson
Taylor
Coney/Astle/McCullum (c) FMD what a difficult one
Cairns
Watling (+)
Hadlee
Vettori
Bond
Boult

Na **** it I'm making a call, McCullum as captain. He is the man I want captaining a strong NZ team.

Sacrilege hand in your passport at once.
From the time of his second coming he was quality (first coming equals the failures against Lillee et al)

Agree with Hurricane, the sheer class of his 188 in Australia followed by a courageous 137 in the NZ leg was enough to get Crowe even if his average at that snap was only about 37. Even at that time he was talked about as one of the top 4-5 batsmen in the world (along with Richards, Miandad, Border & Vensarkar)

 

[SteveNZ]

Brownlie then....not sure we have anyone else...

Neither am I, sadly.

Athlai....you went Astle over Crowe?!?!? Surely Ross can bat at 5

 

[BeeGee]

How are we still above SL in the rankings/

Because I comes before S in the alphabet. You're on the same rating.

 

[Zinzan]

Oops, and Gavaskar ^

 

[Athlai]

Sacrilege hand in your passport at once.
From the time of his second coming he was quality (first coming equals the failures against Lillee et al)

Crowe isn't as big a part of the 85/86 team as Williamson, Taylor or McCullum are in the 14/15 team. Yes it was a different era in terms of the ball being supreme over the bat, but it was really 1987 when he destroyed the English domestic season and learned to never stop batting that I think he became his "final" form and our ATG batsman. I recall reading in his autobiography how his Somerset stints changed how he played, but the massive 87 season was so important in him never looking back when it came on to piling on the runs.

He always looked class up that point, much like Kane. But it wasn't until a little while after that he let the rest of the Test cricketing world know it.

 

[Athlai]

Neither am I, sadly.

Athlai....you went Astle over Crowe?!?!? Surely Ross can bat at 5

Strictly from the perspective that the best was yet to come from Crowe. He'd always be there 2nd on the team sheet for any ATG NZ XI from me, but from these respective sides and the player's performances at the time. I'd have Crowe behind Taylor, Astle, McCullum and Coney. Slightly ahead of McMillan and anyone else though.