NZ- gutsy overachievers, gormless underachievers, or just kinda average?

[Sir Redman]

The popular perception of NZ cricket is we are a hard working bunch who have a few stars but achieve our good results with great teamwork.

I know, and it's a decade old myth perpetuatued by people who take no interest in New Zealand cricket. They just assume that because we always used to have half a dozen Rod Lathams or Blair Hartlands in the team that must still be the case.

I'm not quite sure why its seen as a negative that we're "hard working" and have "good teamwork" either.

 

[Richard]

He's simply a relic of a bygone age - your archetypal arrogant, patronising British colonial. He's convinced of the superiority of his own kind, and he gets angry and bitter because reality upsets his world view. Thank goodness most modern Brits have 21st century attitudes.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Exceedingly well put, TBH. And I hope I don't get a ticking-off just for responding to someone else's post.

Scaly's that old then, is he?

Wouldn't be surprised. Mind you, he could have been listening to way too many of his Great-grandpappy's Boer War stories as a child.

From memory he's about 25. The Gread-grandad connection is the most likely IMO - it's how most of these types come about.

I have'nt read much of Scaly's posts so I can't comment but theres only one member I've had a problem with so far.

Haha. Your time will come - all the long-term Kiwis on this board think this way.

 

[Swervy]

New Zealand = France then?

I'd love to know what SP has against the country?

well I dont know what his views of about France, but to be fair, I have only seen Scaly be critical of the NZ cricket team, not really the country. He has his opinion, other people have other opinions, simple as really

 

[Swervy]

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Exceedingly well put, TBH. And I hope I don't get a ticking-off just for responding to someone else's post.


From memory he's about 25. The Gread-grandad connection is the most likely IMO - it's how most of these types come about.

Haha. Your time will come - all the long-term Kiwis on this board think this way.

talk about stirring up the crap Richard, bloody hell man

 

[Richard]

You're not one to preach on that, I'm afraid. There's nothing I did there that you - and most others, indeed - have never done.

 

[Swervy]

You're not one to preach on that, I'm afraid. There's nothing I did there that you - and most others, indeed - have never done.

care to back that up?

 

[tooextracool]

See, I think the ability to play the right shot (which Richardson was far, far better at than McMillan ever has been) is a talent more than most realise.

Number of strokes is not important if you know the right time to use them. Graham Gooch put it best "I scored 50,000 runs with four shots, twice as many as I would with eight". Yet Gooch was, IMO, a massively talented player. But his talent was shot-selection, not range of shots.

Shot selection IMO is not a 'talent', its a 'skill'. You arent born with good shot selection, you get it after practicing hard and over time.

 

[Flem274*]

Shot selection IMO is not a 'talent', its a 'skill'. You arent born with good shot selection, you get it after practicing hard and over time.

Agreed. Richardson should teach certain players in our team all about shot selection, because they obviously don't know what shot to play.

 

[Richard]

Shot selection IMO is not a 'talent', its a 'skill'. You arent born with good shot selection, you get it after practicing hard and over time.

Haha, what on Earth is the difference between skill and talent? They're exactly the same thing.

Shot-selection, like the eye, like technique, like every single other thing about batting, is a talent that can, with practice, be honed.

 

[Richard]

Agreed. Richardson should teach certain players in our team all about shot selection, because they obviously don't know what shot to play.

I'd argue that with a few players (McMillan, for instance) it's more a case of caring more about playing shots than scoring runs.

 

[tooextracool]

Haha, what on Earth is the difference between skill and talent? They're exactly the same thing.

Shot-selection, like the eye, like technique, like every single other thing about batting, is a talent that can, with practice, be honed.

Talent is something that you are born with, such as having a good eye, getting bounce out of a wicket when you bowl etc. You either have it or you dont.

Shot selection, being able to bowl an outswinger etc are skills that you learn over the years by practice and from other people. As far as I'm concerned there are things you can always improve on.

 

[ohtani's jacket]

What was that bit about New Zealanders not having the opportunity to pick up a real cricket bat? It's not that bad. Most kids play backyard cricket or cricket in PE. There's just not a lot of them playing school or club cricket, compared to the numbers that play rugby or football.

 

[pup11]

I am really impressed with the way NZ play their odi cricket, they don't have too many huge superstars in their side but they still gel together as a team and they have performed consistently like that over a long period of time.



I think the Black Caps aren't the most talented team going around but they more than make up for that with their work-ethics and grit.


But they seriously need to have a look at their test cricket.

 

[Perm]

But they seriously need to have a look at their test cricket.

They need to play Test cricket before they can improve.

 

[Flem274*]

They need to play Test cricket before they can improve.

very true.

 

[The Big Cheese]

very true.

Extremely True. So true it makes me angry!

 

[pup11]

Look i can't understand this at all, is the NZ cricket board just not interested in test cricket or are the other countries not interested enough to play test series against NZ more often then they do.

 

[vic_orthdox]

A few years ago, I would have said NZ are over-achievers, but the way the game is going today, I think they are where they should be, given their talent.


That is because I think today, the game has become more about fitness and planning than what it was earlier. So, I think NZ are a side who can make up for lack of natural, God-given (and just for Richard), stroke making talent through their physical fitness and attention to detail and stuff. I think given that the game goes along this road for a few more years, New Zealand have as good a chance as anyone to be one of the top sides in world cricket, at least in ODIs. Obviously, with better batsmen coming through, the same COULD happen in tests. In fact, I think they will become a better test side just by playing more test cricket.

TBH, during the period where you believe they were "over-achievers", New Zealand were just doing the fitness and team planning better than most, and were ahead of the pack in that regard. New Zealand do the little things better than most teams.

And while their bowlers may not always be the most threatening (aside from Bond, obviously), they are usually adept and accurate enough to execute plans.

 

[Scaly piscine]

He's simply a relic of a bygone age - your archetypal arrogant, patronising British colonial. He's convinced of the superiority of his own kind, and he gets angry and bitter because reality upsets his world view. Thank goodness most modern Brits have 21st century attitudes.

No, I'm convinced of the superiority of me. I'm just too damn good...

 

[Dick Rockett]

I know, and it's a decade old myth perpetuatued by people who take no interest in New Zealand cricket. They just assume that because we always used to have half a dozen Rod Lathams or Blair Hartlands in the team that must still be the case.

...or that all our pitches are seaming green-tops, or that our bowlers are all military medium pace...