I think Athlai 's period was 91 to 95. NZ certainly overlapped enough with that period. But, The 5 year nadir for nz would have actually been from the bomb blast in SL in late 92 until 97.Tail end of that period. Plus, I used to see him when he served pints to me at my local a decade ago so I feel a little sympathetic towards him.
Cmon, Blair Hartland was way worse than Blair Pocock. Dude averaged 26 in first class! At least Pocock grazed 30.I'm just thinking of a composite test XI of our worst around that time:
Pocock
Darrin Murray
Rutherford
Greatbatch (unfair but we didn't try many other batsmen).
Chris Harris
Vaughan
Blain
Mark Priest
Davis/Su'a (take your pick)
Owens
de Groen
Always thought he was a decent quality player who was unlucky not to play more. Definitely not rated very highly by anyone these days. Would have taken him ahead of a lot of the plodders we played in back then though.OK he did and his stats are way better than I thought.
Yeah, happy with Latham slotting in. I also considered Shane Thomson for the 6 spot, but he was blighted by injury and I will always appreciate his 120* v Pakistan (even if there are massive clouds over that result).I think Athlai 's period was 91 to 95. NZ certainly overlapped enough with that period. But, The 5 year nadir for nz would have actually been from the bomb blast in SL in late 92 until 97.
In your team. Haslam over Priest. My impression was Priest was unlucky, but that may have been because he told us that .. certainly not a 'Crowe' guy.
Rod Latham over Rutherford, Gratbatch stays in.
Hartland over Pocock.
Test version Chris Pringle over Su'a.
Blain is the glaring omission. As in he was actually good. Replace him with Parore IMO in the only position with not much /no competition for spots in this 11.
Never mention the Pakistan game to Bryan 'Barry' Young, and that it could have been dirty. You will either lose an hour of your life with the description of how it couldn't possibly have been a fix, or something more aggressive dependent on mood.Yeah, happy with Latham slotting in. I also considered Shane Thomson for the 6 spot, but he was blighted by injury and I will always appreciate his 120* v Pakistan (even if there are massive clouds over that result).
Blain was good, but to be fair, didn't he come in off the back of Parore getting injured in the nets (and then successfully held him off for a season or two)? No other keepers played a test in that time, I think (Young obviously a former gloveman).
Absolutely fair call on Haslam (having just checked his record). I
Tbh, was there anything behind the rumours about that game besides the unlikeness of NZ chasing down 300 to win v Wasim and Waqar and the “Well it’s Pakistan, so you know it’s dodgy” attitude? Because I watched the highlights of that game recently and Pakistan’s cricketers (Wasim in particular) did not look particularly happy about the way that game went.Never mention the Pakistan game to Bryan 'Barry' Young, and that it could have been dirty. You will either lose an hour of your life with the description of how it couldn't possibly have been a fix, or something more aggressive dependent on mood.
Big Daddy's coming for you Steve.
Not bad.Nah, we have the Rachin kid. In ten years he'll be like Sachin.
It's interesting, on the radio today Grant Elliot talked about the duck that Kane got on his debut and said that it didn't affect him one bit. Just trusted in his process and got straight back into the nets the next day.All I know right now with certainty is that he is nervous and possibly overawed by the occasion.
Three years later … almost there!Big Daddy's coming for you Steve.
This thread is so ****ing good.Barath definitely, now this kid is truly impressive.