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

[Hurricane]

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)

Thank you Zinzan

What made Crowe a great was not just his stats but the way he scored runs. His straight drive for example was to die for. Incidentally his straight drive was too good on one instance. Howarth was given a last life and told he had to make runs in the test. Everyone knew this inning was it for him. He started batting with Martin Crowe and there was something just a bit different about howarth in the inning. he was on the front foot more and looking for runs. When he reached 30 something Crowe smashed his signature straight drive right at the bowler the bowler got a touch to it and howarth's resurgence was cut short. Howarth did I think get selected for another tour to the West indies afterwards but he was on borrowed time and although he scored an 80 on tour they dropped him anyway.

Crowe had to be tough mentally to make it. He recounts in his book how Coney welcomed him into the team by saying "You are a threat to me" and then turning away from him.

Crowe always had more time than everyone else and always looked the part of an ATG his average at the time notwithstanding.

 

[Zinzan]

Crowe isn't as big a part of the 85/86 team as Williamson, Taylor or McCullum are in the 14/15 team.

Beg to differ, After Hadlee, Crowe was easily the 2nd biggest reason or 'part' of our teams success as shown by our batting records during that time between Jan 85 & Dec 86.

This current team's success has been much more of a 'team' effort with 5 players in particular (Bmac, Ross,Kane, Tim & Trent) all equally standing-out in the last 2 years.

 

[Hurricane]

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.

You never saw him play at the time...so I am waiving your right to a vote.

 

[Hurricane]

Beg to differ, After Hadlee, Crowe was easily the 2nd biggest reason or 'part' of our teams success as shown by our batting records during that time between Jan 85 & Dec 86.

This current team's success has been much more of a 'team' effort with 5 players in particular (Bmac, Ross,Kane, Tim & Trent) all equally standing-out in the last 2 years.


View attachment 21691

Thank you again

 

[Athlai]

Thank you Zinzan

What made Crowe a great was not just his stats but the way he scored runs. His straight drive for example was to die for. Incidentally his straight drive was too good on one instance. Howarth was given a last life and told he had to make runs in the test. Everyone knew this inning was it for him. He started batting with Martin Crowe and there was something just a bit different about howarth in the inning. he was on the front foot more and looking for runs. When he reached 30 something Crowe smashed his signature straight drive right at the bowler the bowler got a touch to it and howarth's resurgence was cut short. Howarth did I think get selected for another tour to the West indies afterwards but he was on borrowed time and although he scored an 80 on tour they dropped him anyway.

Crowe had to be tough mentally to make it. He recounts in his book how Coney welcomed him into the team by saying "You are a threat to me" and then turning away from him.

Crowe always had more time than everyone else and always looked the part of an ATG his average at the time notwithstanding.

To put the overall argument into perspective, Williamson 2 years ago, looked every bit as classy as he does today. The mentality that he has developed as he has acclimatised to International cricket over the last year or so has contributed greatly into developing that talent into runs on the scorecard. 2-3 years ago he was still scoring superb innings vs. South Africa in Wellington and Sri Lanka in Colombo, but I wouldn't have him near a team of this sort.

Crowe in 85/86 was certainly a good player at the time, but he wasn't the great player he would become for another year or two. I would sooner take the veterans at their own respective peaks.

 

[Zinzan]

Thank you Zinzan

What made Crowe a great was not just his stats but the way he scored runs. His straight drive for example was to die for. Incidentally his straight drive was too good on one instance. Howarth was given a last life and told he had to make runs in the test. Everyone knew this inning was it for him. He started batting with Martin Crowe and there was something just a bit different about howarth in the inning. he was on the front foot more and looking for runs. When he reached 30 something Crowe smashed his signature straight drive right at the bowler the bowler got a touch to it and howarth's resurgence was cut short. Howarth did I think get selected for another tour to the West indies afterwards but he was on borrowed time and although he scored an 80 on tour they dropped him anyway.

Crowe had to be tough mentally to make it. He recounts in his book how Coney welcomed him into the team by saying "You are a threat to me" and then turning away from him.

Crowe always had more time than everyone else and always looked the part of an ATG his average at the time notwithstanding.

Well this is all true, but even putting his princely style aside, he warrants selection purely based on his output and relative contribution to his team.

 

[Athlai]

Beg to differ, After Hadlee, Crowe was easily the 2nd biggest reason or 'part' of our teams success as shown by our batting records during that time between Jan 85 & Dec 86.

This current team's success has been much more of a 'team' effort with 5 players in particular (Bmac, Ross,Kane, Tim & Trent) all equally standing-out in the last 2 years.


View attachment 21691

The team I'm talking about is the one at the end of our own summer. I'm not counting the England series that followed. I don't think anyone really sees Crowe as not being our best batsman against Australia, but when talking about the team that got them there the results that lead up to that series count as well. Crowe was only a year or so away from being our best ever batsman and there were definitely signs in the Australian series of what was to come, but thats also ignoring the form of the players who were at the absolute top of the game I've included ahead of him.

 

[Kippax]

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.

Nah I would've thought England in May is exactly the tour you might browse for an old cigar butt, one that might have a surprising puff left in it. It's time for the Cribbage favourite, the tidy clipper and front-foot puller of Adam Milne's 155kph thunderbolts. Papps.

 

[vandem]

Crowe isn't as big a part of the 85/86 team as Williamson, Taylor or McCullum are in the 14/15 team. ....

!?
Made the major batting contribution in 2 of the 3 wins vs Aust, 188 at Gabba, 71 and 42* at Perth.

 

[Blocky]

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.

Yeah I noticed that to, did some investigation and a change has been made, basically winning the series is akin to winning another match within the series, This must have been a relatively recent change because series results never mattered to the ranking before. The whole reason for the new ranking was that series results had perverted the rankings when you used to get 0 points for a loss, 1 point for a draw and 2 points for a win. Too many 1-0 wins meaning sides were highly ranked.

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.

Crowe was very much on an upwards lift by that stage towards being an ATG after a dreadful start - similar to Kane Williamson.

 

[straw man]

Basking in the warm afterglow of another satisfying series win. Really like how we recovered from a lacklustre first innings and shows how this team does not simply give up when we're in a poor position. I could type a whole lot of lovely adjectives but really, just a very good series for a us.

I thought SL's performance in the second half of the first test and the first half of this one showed they had some fight and team spirit, which matches what I'd expected after they've had few good wins overseas in recent years. However today's collapse seemed a little limp, particularly after Sangakkara was out. They'll have to settle for the consolation prize of being 'good losers', a tag I'm pleased we've left behind for the moment.

 

[Athlai]

!?
Made the major batting contribution in 2 of the 3 wins vs Aust, 188 at Gabba, 71 and 42* at Perth.

And Mark Craig has won 3 Test matches in the last year or so. I still wouldn't exactly say he is a massive part of this team's success. Crowe's 188 is a classic innings and was huge, but the 85/86 team was more than just that series.

I'm not sure the argument that Crowe was the best player in NZ in March 1986 was as straight forward as history makes it seem. Coney was a class act and was at the peak of his game. The players I'm putting ahead of him are also at the peak of their game. McCullum after his 1000+ run year, Astle after his 222. Williamson had a massive 2014 as well and Taylor's 2013 was pretty much another of the greatest ever years for a Kiwi Test batsman.

I'm not saying Crowe wasn't great in 1985/86. I am saying that I value the strength of other ATG NZ players at that point in 85/86, 02/03 or 14/15 as being better than he was at that stage of his career.

 

[Blocky]

It's a great sign when your team can fight back from all but hopeless positions and make a game of it, even greater when your side can capitalise on winning positions so frequently and be almost ruthless in the way they go for victory.

I think at points in time we've had fighters in the side (Vettori at 8 comes to mind) but we've really struggled to consistently put games away that we should've won, even in the era of Cairns, Nash, Bond, etc..

Sri Lanka were just dreadful here and things look dire considering Sanga is on the door of retirement. They'll need a lot out of Herath because for the moment, their pacers just aren't going to make inroads in many conditions consistently.

 

[straw man]

By they way, some highlights available here:
Black Caps beat Sri Lanka convincingly in second test at Basin Reserve | Stuff.co.nz

 

[Athlai]

It's a great sign when your team can fight back from all but hopeless positions and make a game of it, even greater when your side can capitalise on winning positions so frequently and be almost ruthless in the way they go for victory.

I think at points in time we've had fighters in the side (Vettori at 8 comes to mind) but we've really struggled to consistently put games away that we should've won, even in the era of Cairns, Nash, Bond, etc..

Sri Lanka were just dreadful here and things look dire considering Sanga is on the door of retirement. They'll need a lot out of Herath because for the moment, their pacers just aren't going to make inroads in many conditions consistently.

Herath won't be around much longer either.

So Sri Lanka have a few promising but very inexperienced bats, some terrible pacers and their two best players aren't far from retirement. Mathews is really the only ray of hope at the moment. I wouldn't be surprised to see him as the world's best batsman in a year or two.

 

[Blocky]

Herath won't be around much longer either.

So Sri Lanka have a few promising but very inexperienced bats, some terrible pacers and their two best players aren't far from retirement. Mathews is really the only ray of hope at the moment. I wouldn't be surprised to see him as the world's best batsman in a year or two.

It's a shame really, they've been one of the more consistent test squads of the past 15 years on the back of Sanga, Jayawardene, Dilshan, Samaweera, Murali, Herath, Vaas, Jayasuriya. They've just not been able to replace that quality of player consistently enough.

 

[OverratedSanity]

I thought SL were pretty poor overall tbh. Were saved by a knock for the ages by Sanga first innings and then just folded tamely in the second on a surface which was still pretty good. Herath disappointing as well.

 

[Blocky]

I thought SL were pretty poor overall tbh. Were saved by a knock for the ages by Sanga first innings and then just folded tamely in the second on a surface which was still pretty good. Herath disappointing as well.

It was really just a freak innings in the first game that seperated the sides and a freak partnership in the second innings. The bowlers were let down by their fielders after getting into strong positions but the batsmen did OK considering Sanga only played well in one knock. Their batting in the last innings of this game was absolutely dreadful though, gifted so many wickets.

 

[hendrix]

It was really just a freak innings in the first game that seperated the sides and a freak partnership in the second innings. The bowlers were let down by their fielders after getting into strong positions but the batsmen did OK considering Sanga only played well in one knock. Their batting in the last innings of this game was absolutely dreadful though, gifted so many wickets.

those freak innings have been occurring with freaky consistency though. McCullum's knocks are certainly more unexpected than a Sanga double but when you consider that Boult and Southee have largely had his measure in their duels that also must have been somewhat of a freak innings.

 

[Athlai]

It was really just a freak innings in the first game that seperated the sides and a freak partnership in the second innings. The bowlers were let down by their fielders after getting into strong positions but the batsmen did OK considering Sanga only played well in one knock. Their batting in the last innings of this game was absolutely dreadful though, gifted so many wickets.

I'd say both pitches were arguably as important to win the toss on as any from the recent UAE series. They didn't make the most of the conditions on either first morning.