The Lost New Zealand team under Stephen Fleming

[aussie]

Looking back at NZ's rise a test team under McCullum ever since the were bowled out for 45 in South Africa 2013 to be on the cusp of being world champions this year and also on the verge of beating Australia for the first time since 1985/86 in the upcoming two test series - my wind has wondered back the NZ team of the late 1990s/early 2000s.

Under Stephen Fleming that won in England 99, a famous draw in AUS 2001/02 and secured their only ICC tournament win in 2000 Champions Trophy.

I see a lot of similarities with the current NZ set-up to that lost team who were so ravaged by injuries at times it was cringe-worthy. Bond, Allot, Doull, Nash, O'Connor, Butler - talented bowlers who injuries killed their careers. So as a global cricket fan its kind of great to see the current crop of NZ fast men especially stay fit and full-fill their potential.

When I see Boult star these days one can only remember Allot & think what if. After his 1999 WC efforts he was set for greatness & in partnership with Bond that could have been a lethal new-ball duo in the early 2000s - just as good if not better than Boult/Southee.

O'Connor was also very impressive - never forget his spell vs AUS @ Hamilton 2000 - had so much to offer as bowler, certainly better than Neil Wagner.

Ian Butler also was a bit of tear-away when he debut vs ENG 2002, not fast as Milne but he definitely was 90mph, but so much injuries turned him into a medium pacer and he faded away.

Spinners Vettori/Wiseman whenever they were used together in the right conditions edge above Craig/Sodhi

Cairns/Oram as all-rounders was a sad case. Cairns we still saw enough of him to know his all-rounder worth - but injuries messed up Oram who i thought had a lot more to offer, especially after his 100 vs AUS @ Gabba 04.

So when i see the emergence of Anderson/Neesham the de ja vu is stark. Hopefully these two have longer test careers despite showing some concerning signs of the NZ injury bug.

Lastly McCullum, everyone rightfully praises his captaincy to the max, but Fleming was just as good & he IMO was the best tactical captain since 1990 after Mark Taylor. Thus if he could have had this team together he could have certainly built on what accomplished from 99-2001 & possibly NZ would have been the Australia glory era team biggest challengers. The S Africa team that was spanked in 6 unofficial world championship tests in 2001/02 was a unfortunate miss-match.

Richardson
Fleming (c)
Styris
Astle
McMillan
McCullum/Parore
Cairns
Oram
Vettori
Bond
Allot

 

[GGG]

Allott was a white ball bowler, was pretty toothless in the tests I watched him play. O'Connor was just one in a long line of medium fast swing bowlers that if the conditions are right they looked a million dollars, not sure if I would have him over Wagner in most situations but who knows what he could have achieved at international level if he decided not to pack it in.

 

[aussie]

Allott was a white ball bowler, was pretty toothless in the tests I watched him play. O'Connor was just one in a long line of medium fast swing bowlers that if the conditions are right they looked a million dollars, not sure if I would have him over Wagner in most situations but who knows what he could have achieved at international level if he decided not to pack it in.

Regarding Allott that's why I say after 99 World Cup which was the high point of his career, injuries prevented him from attempting to translate that white ball form into tests.

He played 8 of his 10 tests up until the 99 WC & he was definitely showing signs during the 2 99 series tests in ENG that he was making the transition.

 

[Athlai]

I see what you mean about Boult reminding you of Allott. Sometimes i watch the grass grow and it reminds me of Allott too.

 

[Moss]

Replace Allott with Dion Nash, and Styris/Oram with a serviceable opener (Horne/Vincent/), and yes you have the strongest possible side on paper from the Fleming era.

 

[SteveNZ]

I'm an unashamed Baz man, but I can't see too much logic for Fleming>McCullum or even Fleming=McCullum

Baz's batting average as captain is 7 runs ahead (47.7) of Fleming's for a start. In 24 Tests he's 3 centuries (with 5) behind Fleming, who captained 80. To me that absolutely forms part of the argument.

I don't know how to filter captaincy record so someone else will need to do that for me, but I'd be pretty certain Brendon's winning record is better. And both inherited a rabble with fractures all over the place and instability at coaching/Board and any other level.

Fleming was also given a hell of a lot more time to grow into the role. Brendon's only been in the job for three years, and should have been afforded the three years before that.

Interestingly, their respective piece de resistence(s) are both not victories. Fleming's is widely seen as the 2001 drawn series v Australia and the VB Series, while Brendon's would be the World Cup.

Very different styles I know but Brendon gets the nod for me.

 

[RxGM]

I don't know how to filter captaincy record so someone else will need to do that for me, but I'd be pretty certain Brendon's winning record is better.
.

Here you go sir

Cricket Records | Records | New Zealand | Test matches | List of captains | ESPN Cricinfo

Yes Brendon's is better.

Fleming was also given a hell of a lot more time to grow into the role. Brendon's only been in the job for three years, and should have been afforded the three years before that.

Disagree that this holds much weight i think we can all agree that Fleming was not ready to be captain (which caused his batting to suffer), baz had been in the senior leadership team for 7 years pre-taking over as test captain. If Brendan needed growth time at the age of 32 he was the wrong choice for captain.

 

[straw man]

Being a small country NZ's cricket side is always likely to ebb and flow - like aussie says we have a good crop now (and a few more coming through) and we also had a good crop either side of 2000 for a while, that didn't quite achieve the results it otherwise might have. At other times, say 2008 onwards, perhaps we were at a natural low ebb though mismanagement and the flow-on effects of those past injuries were still hurting too.

NZ did regularly manage to assemble reasonable batting lineups from the test-quality batsmen named (Richardson, Fleming, Styris, Astle, McMillan, McCullum/Parore, Cairns, Oram and a few others that contributed at times) from say 99 through to the mid 2000s. However fit bowling attacks consisting of Nash, Doull, Bond, Cairns, Oram, O'Connor, Allott, Vettori, early Franklin, Butler (and a couple of others that were injury-ruined before they even played a test) only looked any good on paper - it basically never happened and we ended up with Chris Martin doing a serviceable job as last man standing for much of the last decade. Of course you wouldn't expect all those listed to develop into brilliant bowlers but you usually wouldn't expect only 1 or 2 from 10 to survive career-ending injuries either.

So the Fleming team did about as well as could be expected given the lack of bowling firepower available, aside from a few notable disappointments e.g. the 2004 tour of England where even though our bowling was injury-racked and the side was worse than it looks on paper, we shouldn't have lost 3-0. The other one was letting South Africa level the 2004 series at home 1-1.

While there are parallels, I think we're all much more hopeful about injuries with the current side. Obviously we're not ruining promising fast bowlers by getting them to train on concrete any more, but also general training, fitness and professionalism has improved (or so is the popular belief anyway). There are a couple of injury battles we might not win (Anderson bowling, Bevan Small, sceptical about Milne surviving tests) but aside from those most of the promising bowlers are getting into their mid-20s now where injury risk reduces.

 

[aussie]

Replace Allott with Dion Nash, and Styris/Oram with a serviceable opener (Horne/Vincent/), and yes you have the strongest possible side on paper from the Fleming era.

Nah one of the big problems NZ had during that period was a lack of steady opener partner for Richardson during the Fleming era, whether it was Horne/Vincent/Spearman/Bell/Papps. Curiously it was another interesting similarity with NZ test team recently under McCullum who were struggling for a opening pair until Latham emerged and Guptil now starting to replicate his ODI/T20 form for tests.

Regarding Nash although he had his injury problems too, we saw enough of him when fit to suggest he was solid bowler. Allot was the one as I mentioned above who potentially had the ability to be world-class post World Cup 99, if injuries didn't take over.

Styris was the next best middle-order bat outside the Fleming/Astle/McMillan trio, so he is deserves to be be in XI.

 

[aussie]

Being a small country NZ's cricket side is always likely to ebb and flow - like aussie says we have a good crop now (and a few more coming through) and we also had a good crop either side of 2000 for a while, that didn't quite achieve the results it otherwise might have. At other times, say 2008 onwards, perhaps we were at a natural low ebb though mismanagement and the flow-on effects of those past injuries were still hurting too.

NZ did regularly manage to assemble reasonable batting lineups from the test-quality batsmen named (Richardson, Fleming, Styris, Astle, McMillan, McCullum/Parore, Cairns, Oram and a few others that contributed at times) from say 99 through to the mid 2000s. However fit bowling attacks consisting of Nash, Doull, Bond, Cairns, Oram, O'Connor, Allott, Vettori, early Franklin, Butler (and a couple of others that were injury-ruined before they even played a test) only looked any good on paper - it basically never happened and we ended up with Chris Martin doing a serviceable job as last man standing for much of the last decade. Of course you wouldn't expect all those listed to develop into brilliant bowlers but you usually wouldn't expect only 1 or 2 from 10 to survive career-ending injuries either.

So the Fleming team did about as well as could be expected given the lack of bowling firepower available, aside from a few notable disappointments e.g. the 2004 tour of England where even though our bowling was injury-racked and the side was worse than it looks on paper, we shouldn't have lost 3-0. The other one was letting South Africa level the 2004 series at home 1-1.

While there are parallels, I think we're all much more hopeful about injuries with the current side. Obviously we're not ruining promising fast bowlers by getting them to train on concrete any more, but also general training, fitness and professionalism has improved (or so is the popular belief anyway). There are a couple of injury battles we might not win (Anderson bowling, Bevan Small, sceptical about Milne surviving tests) but aside from those most of the promising bowlers are getting into their mid-20s now where injury risk reduces.

Yea ha thankfully that has stopped. Back in the days when all those fast bowlers kept injured over and over and some NZ posters in the past highlighted that they trained on concrete I was flabbergasted that they were doing it.

It was like if you are a track athlete expected to run on synthetic track but train on grass.

 

[jcas0167]

Yea ha thankfully that has stopped. Back in the days when all those fast bowlers kept injured over and over and some NZ posters in the past highlighted that they trained on concrete I was flabbergasted that they were doing it.

It was like if you are a track athlete expected to run on synthetic track but train on grass.

Iain O'Brien also highlighted problems with re-modeling the actions of some bowlers coming through at the time. Martin Crowe also was critical of the impact of bio-mechanics on emerging batsmen from the late 90's to mid 2000's.

The "academy action" was implemented for all the right reasons. The statistics and the proof were there to back this programme. ..

There will be a phase where the body can absorb big changes and things can go along smoothly. Just ask three bowlers who could and should have gone on to more - Richard Sherlock, Te Ahu Davis and Taraia Robin. All remodelled by the academy, all had success, and then all came down with similar injuries within a year of each other. Three bowlers who were naturally quick, and whom New Zealand have missed out on.

It now seems that the decision, at 25, after my first season of first-class cricket, to turn down an opportunity to go to the academy was one of the better ones I have made. My action is my action. My coach was always tweaking it, I was always tweaking it, and all bowlers will make tweaks as the days, and years, go by. Tweaks are fine. Tweaks can lead to changes, but by making tweaks it is a slowly, slowly approach. The body can then adapt and become used to the new movements. Too big a change or too much time off leaves the foundations weaker and opens the door for injury.

Iain O'Brien: New Zealand's young attack a product of injury crisis | Cricket | ESPN Cricinfo

Greg Loveridge was also quite a promising leg-spinner who made his test debut in the same game as Geoff Allott, but was injured before he got to bowl a ball. His action got re-modelled. Things have turned out pretty well for him though - he's now on the rich list From this article he reminds me a bit of David Kirk, someone who may well have gone overseas to pursue academic study in any case.

And that was that. Loveridge's Test career was over, although he didn't know it at the time. He had done enough to be chosen for Test cricket at 20, and might reasonably have expected another opportunity would turn up down the track. But then he was sent to New Zealand's cricket academy. Many players, Loveridge says, were "mucked up" by the academy, and he was the poster child for it.

"I played Test cricket at 20 by bowling the way I bowled," he says. "I bowled quite quick legspin and turned it. But I had a high action. They sent me over to see Terry Jenner, and Jenner said you've got to bowl like Shane Warne or nothing. Essentially it destroyed me.

"At the time I didn't know enough to turn around and say, 'Look, get stuffed.' I just thought it would make me better. As it happened, by the end of the year I was having the ridiculous situation of bowling my own action at night at the cricket academy and during the day bowling their action."..

"The guys at Cambridge, one of the great joys was, they were blokes, they would enjoy talking about things blokes like talking about, they liked sport, but they also read books and they were interested in politics, they wanted to go travelling places. It's a very big difference. It was an amazing environment.

 

[aussie]

Iain O'Brien also highlighted problems with re-modeling the actions of some bowlers coming through at the time. Martin Crowe also was critical of the impact of bio-mechanics on emerging batsmen from the late 90's to mid 2000's.



Iain O'Brien: New Zealand's young attack a product of injury crisis | Cricket | ESPN Cricinfo

Greg Loveridge was also quite a promising leg-spinner who made his test debut in the same game as Geoff Allott, but was injured before he got to bowl a ball. His action got re-modelled. Things have turned out pretty well for him though - he's now on the rich list From this article he reminds me a bit of David Kirk, someone who may well have gone overseas to pursue academic study in any case.

Shocking and fascinating.

 

[aussie]

This is slightly off-topic, but looking at the current NZ team as the continue to build with the possibility beating in AUS home/away & also winning away to S Africa/IND 2015/16 once the nucleus of this team stays together for the next 15 months - this statement from ICC last year when the shameful "Big 3" takeover occurred remains disturbing:

Large gaps in New Zealand's FTP schedule | Cricket | ESPN Cricinfo

"The imbalance may stem from New Zealand's commercial position in world cricket. While the Big Three nations can MAKE MONEY from almost any tour, home Tests with New Zealand are not lucrative propositions for teams like Sri Lanka, Pakistan, West Indies and South Africa. As such, New Zealand appear in most need of assistance from the "Test Cricket Fund" promised by the revamped ICC in February. However, the setting up of this "Fund" had not been a significant point of discussion during the recent ICC meeting in Melbourne, according to one director in attendance."

 

[Howsie]

I don't know why, but it says a lot that even during this period of time Australia would rather have the West Indies tour over the Christmas period than New Zealand. I mean if New Zealand can't even get that period over the Windies it kinda shows just how lowly rated they are on the global scale.

Heck they don't tour England again until Williamson turns 40.

 

[aussie]

I don't know why, but it says a lot that even during this period of time Australia would rather have the West Indies tour over the Christmas period than New Zealand. I mean if New Zealand can't even get that period over the Windies it kinda shows just how lowly rated they are on the global scale.

Heck they don't tour England again until Williamson turns 40.

Yes I'm amazed at that decision by AUS still - one of the many illogical things about the administration of world cricket.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Looking back at NZ's rise a test team under McCullum ever since the were bowled out for 45 in South Africa 2013 to be on the cusp of being world champions this year and also on the verge of beating Australia for the first time since 1985/86 in the upcoming two test series

lol the tour hasn't even started

 

[mr_mister]

The batting lineup just screams B+ players. Astle, Fleming, McMillian, Twose, they were all just biting at the heels of the truly great batsmen floating around at the time

 

[Dan]

Pretty sure it was set years in advance tbf, before NZ started their upswing.

 

[marc71178]

Pretty sure it was set years in advance tbf, before NZ started their upswing.

Shhh Dan, don't let the facts ruin a good conspiracy theory.

 

[Pratters]

The New Zealand team under Stephen Fleming wasn't lost. They did really well. Played out of their skins and did their country proud.