• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

The Sol Bar: New Zealand Cricket Randomness

Jord

U19 Vice-Captain
Talkback's interesting, most people trying to place Baz in terms of where he sits in NZ Cricketing History. A guy made a great point that I didn't realise, John Wright has a lower average than Baz. Another guy said that Wright batted in a different era, had to open the batting, etcetera but I think had Baz done nothing except open the batting for NZ for his entire career (no wicket keeping, and not batting every position in the order from 1 till 8) he'd have done a lot more than he has with his test stuff.

Where do you guys place Baz? I'd say he's probably in our Top 10 bats, definitely our best keeper batsman and possibly alongside Crowe our best captain.
 

Hurricane

Hall of Fame Member
Talkback's interesting, most people trying to place Baz in terms of where he sits in NZ Cricketing History. A guy made a great point that I didn't realise, John Wright has a lower average than Baz. Another guy said that Wright batted in a different era, had to open the batting, etcetera but I think had Baz done nothing except open the batting for NZ for his entire career (no wicket keeping, and not batting every position in the order from 1 till 8) he'd have done a lot more than he has with his test stuff.

Where do you guys place Baz? I'd say he's probably in our Top 10 bats, definitely our best keeper batsman and possibly alongside Crowe our best captain.
No not in my top ten test bats,

They are, off the top of my head,

1 Crowe
2 Turner
3 Sutcliffe
4 KW
5 Ross
6 Richardson
7 Wright
8 Edgar
9 The younger John Reid
10 Fleming

(No room for Donnelly)

ODI Captains

1) Baz
2) Crowe
3) Howarth
4) Daylight

Dishonourable mention to Fleming for throwing a game.

Test Match Captains

1) Fleming
2) Coney
Daylight

Baz not in top ten for the long form. Tests were his weaker format despite being a very fine limited overs captain (the best NZ ODI captain I have seen).
 
Last edited:

Jord

U19 Vice-Captain
Interesting views; I think Fleming had more strike power in his side during his greatest wins, I think McCullum has done more with less in the test arena. Fleming's best periods coincided with having Vettori, Cairns, Nash, Doull, Bond as a bowling attack and while you would definitely argue Taylor and Kane are two of the best NZ have had and better than anyone in Fleming's side batting wise, Fleming's side had more batting depth in Astle, Cairns, McMillan, Parore, Fleming, Richardson, Vettori and at the tail end, Taylor.

I'd say Fleming is the better captain, but not by much. McCullum may have been restless in Test cricket, but I think given the side that Fleming had, particularly with Vettori, he would've got better results than Fleming did.

Batting wise; Edgar? Really? I'd not have him in my Top 10. I'd probably have very similar to you with exception of including Baz at 10, Fleming ahead of Wright and not having Edgar in the 10. McCullum as a test bat only averages over 40, has NZ's highest score and had to bat in every position from 1 till 8. It's why I also rate Fleming ahead of Wright, Fleming was really a #4 batsman but pushed himself to opening and #3 in absence of anyone else.
 

HeathDavisSpeed

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I wouldn't have McCullum anywhere near my top 10 NZ batsmen.

Might have a couple of the top 10 iconic Test innings, mind.
 

Jord

U19 Vice-Captain
It's not that I think he's a great batsman, it's more an indictment that we really don't have anyone else to put ahead of him. The Top 5 picks itself; the bottom 5, some would argue Richardson's conversion rate counts against him, some would argue the same for Fleming, most will argue that McCullum wasn't consistent enough and didn't score enough runs for the amount of cricket he played, but I think that's unfair considering his keeping time.
 

HeathDavisSpeed

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
McCullum played with modern bats. I don't believe he would have been as successful in an earlier era, and to some extent his earlier batting efforts reflect that.
 

Jord

U19 Vice-Captain
McCullum played with modern bats. I don't believe he would have been as successful in an earlier era, and to some extent his earlier batting efforts reflect that.
Bit of a cop out, considering we're rating Taylor and Williamson highly; and for the most part of his batting only career, McCullum has been keeping pace with Taylor.
 

HeathDavisSpeed

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Bit of a cop out, considering we're rating Taylor and Williamson highly; and for the most part of his batting only career, McCullum has been keeping pace with Taylor.
Not a cop out at all. Williamson is a completely different kettle of fish - I don't see him landing lusty blows into the stands which probably would have ended up half way between the circle and boundary in the mid-90s.

I mean, if you rate McCullum in the top 10 NZ bats of all time, then fine. That's your prerogative. I just can't see how he can be rated ahead of guys like Sutcliffe, Donnelly, Dempster let alone the more recent guys in Hurricane's list. I'd still rate Coney, Howarth, Ryder and a few others ahead of McCullum as Test batsmen, which after all, was the question.
 

Jord

U19 Vice-Captain
I don't feel Ryder played enough test cricket to be assessed; Dempster and Donnelly also just didn't play enough tests to be considered. I also feel you have to disregard almost every batting statistic to put Coney and Howarth ahead of McCullum. He scored more centuries, had a higher average, had more winning innings (6 centuries in NZ victories) and has the highest score ever by an NZ batsman.

As batsman only, he averages 41.9; as captain and batsman he averages 43, at a time where most of his contemporaries not named Taylor or Williamson are averaging the usual mid to late thirties that good NZ batsmen tend to average. Average isn't everything but I think when you stack up the importance of some of his innings, and again the fact that he's batted all around the order including 25 times opening the batting, he's being very poorly treated by talkback for what he did manage to achieve, even if there is reason to believe he underachieved based on his ridiculous hitting talent.
 

Hurricane

Hall of Fame Member
I don't feel Ryder played enough test cricket to be assessed; Dempster and Donnelly also just didn't play enough tests to be considered. I also feel you have to disregard almost every batting statistic to put Coney and Howarth ahead of McCullum. He scored more centuries, had a higher average, had more winning innings (6 centuries in NZ victories) and has the highest score ever by an NZ batsman.

As batsman only, he averages 41.9; as captain and batsman he averages 43, at a time where most of his contemporaries not named Taylor or Williamson are averaging the usual mid to late thirties that good NZ batsmen tend to average. Average isn't everything but I think when you stack up the importance of some of his innings, and again the fact that he's batted all around the order including 25 times opening the batting, he's being very poorly treated by talkback for what he did manage to achieve, even if there is reason to believe he underachieved based on his ridiculous hitting talent.
I think Brendon is more talented than Coney, but Coney was more consistent. The word consistent and McCullum should not even go in the same sentence. Also using some clever cherry picking (I think if you only look at Coney in New Zealand in his last 5 years) Coney averages over 50 over that data set.

Brendon goes MIA too often. E.g. like the last test. E.g. like the series that just finished in australia e.g. like on the previous tour to england (not the last tour but the one before it) we needed 300 and change to win the test and he flumped.

I don't think he needs to be recognised as an ATG in all three forms of the game.

He is without question in the top 3 players ever in the history of the game to play T20. Forget comparing him to his NZ compatriots. In T20 he is royalty.

I also gave him great props for his ODI captaincy. He got us to a world cup final. I didn't see anybody else doing that.

Finally - some of his test match innings were very good. E.g. his 300 is a contender for the greatest inning by a New Zealander. However other innings were purely him biffing it around. E.g. his 190 vs Sri Lanka, and his double in the UAE. I don't give much credit to Sehwag's innings and I don't, as a purist, value those particular baz knocks as being "test" innings.
 
Last edited:

Kirkut

International Regular
Kane Williamson is awesome. Plays supreme straight drives, on par with Tendulkar and Ponting in that shot.
 

Jord

U19 Vice-Captain
Ah Cricket forums, it's a perverse Godwins law, but instead of Hitler being referenced it's usually Tendulkar.
 

Kirkut

International Regular
Ah Cricket forums, it's a perverse Godwins law, but instead of Hitler being referenced it's usually Tendulkar.
Cricketweb is different, here Hobbs, Miller, Grace, Trumper and Bradman enjoy the same/better status.
 

HeathDavisSpeed

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I don't feel Ryder played enough test cricket to be assessed; Dempster and Donnelly also just didn't play enough tests to be considered. I also feel you have to disregard almost every batting statistic to put Coney and Howarth ahead of McCullum. He scored more centuries, had a higher average, had more winning innings (6 centuries in NZ victories) and has the highest score ever by an NZ batsman.
I completely disagree. Add into the mix that McCullum has a parlous record against the two best teams of his era (Australia, South Africa) and made hay against the poor teams which guys like Coney and Howarth didn't get to play against. You really have to be only interested in looking at raw stats and ignoring the wider context to think McCullum was a better batsman than them.
 

Dan

Hall of Fame Member
To derail you from all of this discussion about the merits of McBaz the specialist batsman, here's Peter Fulton talking about ****:

“Those last two games were pretty cool. I was not-out at the end of the Eden Park game, and that game at Hamilton was just crazy. It was one of the first times in world cricket, really, that teams started to think 350 wasn’t unobtainable – because we’d done it before, even though we were in it a bit, we just thought we’d have a crack.


“I remember talking with Craig McMillan when we were out there, and we both just said ‘we’ve won the series, let’s just have a crack. If we get out at least it’s an early finish’. As they say the rest is history, Craig played an amazing knock, so did Brendon, and it’s something I’ll always remember.”


Fulton’s 51 was outshone by McMillan’s astounding hundred, and McCullum’s heroics finishing the innings, but all three were necessary for the team success. And a whitewash over Australia – over Australia! What a team success it was.

It got Fulton in the World Cup squad, but not the first choice XI. It took an injury to Lou Vincent for Fulton to worm his way into the team. He certainly proved himself – he averaged nearly 40, made two fifties, and was the only man of note as the team crumbled in the semi-final.

“I broke a finger in one of the warm-up games, and before that it probably would have been touch-and-go over whether I’d get in the team for the first few games. That broken finger probably made the decision easier to leave me out. But luckily for me, and unluckily for Lou, he broke his arm and I got another opportunity.


“A lot of people didn’t enjoy that World Cup, because it was spread out over such a long period of time with a lot of time between games. But I loved it. It was my first time in the West Indies, in a World Cup, and I had a bit of success. Up until the World Cup last season, that was probably the World Cup where we should have made the final. We had Sri Lanka on the ropes a bit, and let them off the hook, and then a middle-order collapse ended our hopes unfortunately.”


The following year, 2008, saw Fulton enter the Test fray again. He toured England, without managing a Test berth, then played a handful of matches against Bangladesh, Australia and Pakistan over 2008 and ’09.

Although he failed to get past 36, it would be easy for Fulton to be disappointed that he never got a decent run in the side, but he puts that blame squarely on himself.

“That period I got a few opportunities, and just didn’t take them, really. Anyone who gets left out would like a few more games, a few more chances to prove themselves, but I had plenty of opportunities when I look back and wasn’t good enough at the time to take them. If you get opportunities and don’t take them, you’ve only got yourself to look at, I guess.”​
https://mindthewindows.com/2016/02/20/peter-fulton-i-loved-every-minute/
#ShamelessPlug
 
Last edited:

Jord

U19 Vice-Captain
Another "only McCullum could play that" innings to add to the argument. If you don't rank this guy in the Top 10, that's up to you, but I think you're penalising him on what you think he could do, rather than what he did do and how that rates against others.
 

HeathDavisSpeed

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
And you're crediting him for innings which would not have been possible in the past. You're ranking the ability of past players on the realities of today, and that's not a fair or reasonable comparison.
 

Flem274*

123/5
If you want consistent 50s Coney's your guy. If you want a big contribution, it's McCullum.

*sigh* at the modern bats thing. If Coney, Howarth, Edgar and the other low 30s merchants had modern bats don't you think the power game would be more important to them? Conversely, McCullum made his name in ODIs not as a biffer but as a guy able to strike at 100 at #7 pinching quick runs. If he had an older bat, I'd expect him to just pinch more singles.

That's something that saddens me a little actually, that he biffs now but doesn't sneak as many singles in his old age.
 

Jord

U19 Vice-Captain
And you're crediting him for innings which would not have been possible in the past. You're ranking the ability of past players on the realities of today, and that's not a fair or reasonable comparison.
Viv Richards played these types of innings in the past, and hit several 100 metre sixes. The difference in the bats today is that you don't just have to hit the middle to carry the boundary, but also edges fly further and as I've pointed out previously, averages haven't climbed massively outside of India and Australia ( road central )

Scoring runs in NZ, England and South Africa is still hard cricket.

I think if you compare McCullum against contempories and other players that are currently going in world cricket, only really Warner can be as destructive, and based on his last stanza as captain and batsman, he's up there with Ross Taylor who you put as #5. Arguably he's played more important and tougher innings than Taylor too.
 

Jord

U19 Vice-Captain
Also, it's far too easy to say "Well it's only possible because of modern bats" but why then does he hold so many fastest scoring records across almost every format? If you don't see him as an exceptional attacking batsman even in todays era of attacking batsmen then I think you're not in a great position to rate him.

Should the bowlers do the job here, his innings single handedly gave us something that should put us ahead in the match.
 

Top