New Zealand odi team of the 90s, should've been world beators?

[Flem274*]

Averages look worse than they were due to inflation since 2007 WC, but no they were mid-table. The Bond era side had them comfortably covered and they in turn don't stack up against 2015 - 2019.

 

[ashley bach]

Yeah with super-stars like Matt Horne they should of done so much better.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Our team of the decade

ODIs played in the decade, years played in the 90s, batting and bowling averages in the 90s (although e/r would be better for Larsen & Harris)

Astle (96) 95-99, 33.5 & 34
Fleming (114) 94-99, 31
Crowe (61) 90-95, 45
Rutherford (87) 90-95, 31.6
Twose (50) 95-99, 35.9
Cairns (115) 91-99, 27.7 & 34.4
Harris (141) 90-99, 31.1 & 34.7
Parore (128) 92-99, 28.7 (played a lot as a specialist no 3)
Larsen (121) 90-99, 14.6 & 35.4 (terrible stats but easily our best bowler)
Pringle (64) 90-95, 23.87
Morrison* (82) 90-96, 27.36

* Allott only played 22 ODIs but was a star of the 99 CWC.

Patel, Greatbatch, and Jones are the unluckiest to miss out.

 

[Jumno]

McMillan may have been in the side as he was a useful slow bowler.

Cairns averaging 29 at number six is about par tbh.

I remember his knock in Aus, hit four sixes, his hundred in the icc knock out 2000 trophy final.

Astle, Harris, McMillan would also bowl.

 

[jcas0167]

The players named on the face of it look like core NZ players from the late 90s (though a few early-90s mixed in), but while some were actually good ODI players - Astle, Twose, Fleming, Cairns, Harris, Larson - some very much were not.

Spearman has been mentioned, while other openers Horne and Young were passable at best. Nash and Doull both averaged over 40 in brief ODI careers; they were both more test bowlers. Parore only averaged 25.6 with the bat. Allott was great for a very brief period only.

The point I'm really dying to get to though, is that McMillan sucked at ODIs. Oh man, he was godawful. This was my core early 2000s cricketing bugbear. Somehow it escaped everyone's notice at the time, they looked at the NZ side, saw McMillan among a bunch of other Cantabrians and assumed he belonged. He did not.
His ODI batting record to the end of 2000 was 71 matches, 1425 runs @ 22.6
Those are Khaled Mashud levels. In a key middle order spot.

Will pause briefly to acknowledge McMillan was a better test than ODI batsman, that he was only 23 in the 99 World Cup (scored 153 @ 17), he surely should not have been a fixture in the side from such a young age, and I don't mind him now as a relaxed vibes-type commentator.

But I can still barely believe he was an automatic pick in the NZ ODI team from 1997 to 2007. And then ironically, retired in 2007 at age 30 when he was playing the best ODI cricket he ever had, to go play in the ICL. ODI career tally of 197 matches, 4707 runs @ 28.2 - can adjust for eras all we want but that is not good. Was a good example of the fallacy that hitting the ball hard to the boundary makes you a good ODI player, even if you can't find gaps in the infield or rotate the strike.

Overall the late 90s team was good, though with a few too many weak links. I'd say they performed at about their level.

My recollection was Parore was good in ODI's until around 99 onwards when sides figured out not to bowl spin to him. As another post says his average in the 90's was ~28 (same as Mark Boucher) although I was surprised to see his overall average of 25.6 is still higher than most 90's keepers aside from Gilchrist & Flower. Ian Healy ~21, Moin Khan ~23, Mongia ~20, Dave Richarson ~19, 96 WC star Romesh Kaluwitharana ~22, Jack Russell ~17.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

My recollection was Parore was good in ODI's until around 99 onwards when sides figured out not to bowl spin to him. As another post says his average in the 90's was ~28 (same as Mark Boucher) although I was surprised to see his overall average of 25.6 is still higher than most 90's keepers aside from Gilchrist & Flower. Ian Healy ~21, Moin Khan ~23, Mongia ~20, Dave Richarson ~19, 96 WC star Romesh Kaluwitharana ~22, Jack Russell ~17.

Hashan Tilleratne and Alec Stewart were also higher, while Dravid was much higher (average of 60 but from only 6 ODIs as keeper). Meanwhile Smith averaged 19.7 in the 90s but his strike rate was 120!

 

[Starfighter]

Now I know the OP is posting these threads just to get a rise out of people.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

90s/00s NZ top order bats were peak comedy

Absolute hacks batting top 3 and then bowling all-rounders doing the the engine room job at 7-9

Astle was definitely far better than a hack. Was also a pretty good 6th bowler.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Astle was definitely far better than a hack. Was also a pretty good 6th bowler.

I was pivoting to more about the Test side with that comment

In ODIs Astle & Fleming were decent top-order players

Even then though the engine room of Oram/Styris/Harris/Cairns, even Vettori was their strength

 

[Fuller Pilch]

I was pivoting to more about the Test side with that comment

In ODIs Astle & Fleming were decent top-order players

Even then though the engine room of Oram/Styris/Harris/Cairns, even Vettori was their strength

Fair enough.

Mark Richardson was a quality test bat (would've walked into every test team except Aus & SA) but everyone else was poor.

Fleming was okay at ODIs but clearly worse than those who followed him (Taylor, Guptill, Ryder, and Williamson).

 

[Prince EWS]

Yeah with super-stars like Matt Horne they should of done so much better.

I feel like there are heaps of posts devoted to Horne and Spearman when Fleming and Astle opened together anyway?

So yeah that opens up some pleb batting 6/7 or something but that's far less dire than having such a **** opener.

 

[Jumno]

Now I know the OP is posting these threads just to get a rise out of people.

100 per cent it's not to get a rise out of people.

I feel the topics are for genuine discussion, debate.

The Kallis Vs Flintoff comparison is genuine. That thread is not to get a rise out of people.

I genuinely felt that NZ had a good odi team in the 90s.

 

[Socerer 01]

100 per cent it's not to get a rise out of people.

I feel the topics are for genuine discussion, debate.

The Kallis Vs Flintoff comparison is genuine. That thread is not to get a rise out of people.

I genuinely felt that NZ had a good odi team in the 90s.

on what basis

im not asking this offensively, im curious

 

[TheJediBrah]

I genuinely felt that NZ had a good odi team in the 90s.

There's no way you listed those names and actually thought that, especially when you compare it to the sides Aus, SA, Pak, India and SL were putting out

 

[Starfighter]

100 per cent it's not to get a rise out of people.

I feel the topics are for genuine discussion, debate.

The Kallis Vs Flintoff comparison is genuine. That thread is not to get a rise out of people.

I genuinely felt that NZ had a good odi team in the 90s.

That team has Spearman, who was horrible and Nash and Doull, who were poor in the ODIs, and is otherwise lacking any of the brilliance a 'world beating side' needs, even if they were all fit at one time (which they usually weren't) and their peaks overlapped (which they didn't).

So combined with your other threads I can conclude that you're either posting to get a rise out of people, or you're just dumb. Take your pick.

 

[SteveNZ]

That team has Spearman, who was horrible and Nash and Doull, who were poor in the ODIs, and is otherwise lacking any of the brilliance a 'world beating side' needs, even if they were all fit at one time (which they usually weren't) and their peaks overlapped (which they didn't).

So combined with your other threads I can conclude that you're either posting to get a rise out of people, or you're just dumb. Take your pick.

Or it's his opinion. I don't think there's any need to be rude about it.

 

[Jumno]

That team has Spearman, who was horrible and Nash and Doull, who were poor in the ODIs, and is otherwise lacking any of the brilliance a 'world beating side' needs, even if they were all fit at one time (which they usually weren't) and their peaks overlapped (which they didn't).

So combined with your other threads I can conclude that you're either posting to get a rise out of people, or you're just dumb. Take your pick.

No need to be like that.

Yes, I maybe off about NZ being world beators, however I felt they did indeed bat deep and had bowling depth in odis.

I don't think I'm doing anything wrong, the Tendulkar thread about him performing under pressure, their was actually a debate back in the day about this and I think Tendulkar is one the greatest ever batsman.

Just like the comparison threads, I believe their is a genuine topic.

 

[Immenso]

We did not have a particularly good ODI team in the 90s.

We had a conditions-dependent, one-trick-pony, team. For most of it.

The uplift even to 1999 and the early 2000s when (the glimpse of) Allott and then Bond showed how much more dangerous they could be with more than one way to win a game.

 

[Starfighter]

No need to be like that.

Yes, I maybe off about NZ being world beators, however I felt they did indeed bat deep and had bowling depth in odis.

I don't think I'm doing anything wrong, the Tendulkar thread about him performing under pressure, their was actually a debate back in the day about this and I think Tendulkar is one the greatest ever batsman.

Just like the comparison threads, I believe their is a genuine topic.

I will 'be like that'. If you had modicum of cricket sense you couldn't honestly look at that team, who were mostly poor to no better than decent, and think 'that's a world beating team'.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Or it's his opinion. I don't think there's any need to be rude about it.

Starfighter? Rude? No way