Published: Nov 09, 2014, 06:30 AM (IST)
Edited: Nov 08, 2014, 07:34 PM (IST)
A young New Zealand are all set to take on a charged-up Pakistan in the United Arab Emirates. Arunabha Sengupta and Abhishek Mukherjee dissect and discuss while creating an all-time New Zealand XI.
For some mysterious reason New Zealand is almost never considered among the “serious” teams. It may have to do with the fact that they had taken time to get off their mark in Test cricket; or the fact that their men have been more efficient than glamorous; or maybe a lack of consistency over a long period of time.
[read-also]186408,201065[/read-also]
Despite the fact that they have seldom reached the top of the world, New Zealand has had her fair share of champions of the sport. Towering above all of them has been Sir Richard Hadlee, but there is more to New Zealand cricket than the Christchurch Champion. They have produced some of the finest cricketers in history; nearly all of them have been spectacular fielders; and perhaps only South Africa have bettered them in terms of producing quality all-rounders on a consistent basis.
Arunabha Sengupta and Abhishek Mukherjee get together to create an all-time XI for the most dogged Test side — one that has almost always provided a fielder at the most unexpected corner and had more than made up for lack of charisma with dogged determination.
Arunabha Sengupta (AS): New Zealand have been playing Test cricket for ages, and for an enormous proportion of the time as minnows.
Abhishek Mukherjee (AM): Exactly. Unfortunately, their first victory took some time to come.
AS: They have produced a few decent cricketers some very good ones from time to time, but only rarely have they had a champion team.
AM: Poor Bert Sutcliffe never got to play for a winning side.
AS: He was a superb cricketer nevertheless, and can very well be the first name on the list.
AM: You are right, actually, but let us not hurry on it. There are champion batsmen like Martin Crowe and Stephen Fleming, and more.
AS: Sutcliffe should be the first name if we start with openers.
AM: Not so fast! We have several names from Glenn Turner to Mark Richardson, and more.
AS: There have been precious few in the history of New Zealand cricket. Turner and Richardson are the only two who have a 40-plus average other than Sutcliffe.
AM: There is also the small matter of John Wright.
AS: John Wright comes in at 38.11. As opener, Turner made 2,828 at 45.61 and Sutcliffe 1,763 at 45.20, which includes the 80 with seven sixes, one of the bravest innings ever.
AM: That innings, as we know, is a part of cricket folklore. But then, we must consider others. For example, we have Stewie Dempster, their first champion batsman. He averaged over 55 as an opener.
AS: Yes, but from only 14 innings. He had an overall average of 65.72, but 10 Tests make it a rather risky sample
AM: True, that.
AS: However, from 184 First-Class matches — a lot of them in England — he scored over 12,000 runs at nearly 45.
AM: So, are we going to leave out Dempster only on sample size?
AS: Yes, I think for an All-Time XI we should go with men who performed on the greatest stage for a good enough period. That leaves Turner, Sutcliffe, Richardson and Wright.
AM: Wright misses out on numbers.
AS: That he does. Richardson was slow: he had a career strike rate of 37.66. A grafter, if there ever was one.
AM: But we know that this will not be the strongest of line-ups. Perhaps we will need a grafter. But then, again, the side will probably have multiple all-rounders. Also, Turner never had a reputation for being fast, either.
AS: Yes, the estimated strike rate of Turner is 34.
AM: And Turner never had a go at minnows.
AS: Yes, the only possibility was if he played against New Zealand (although he did play two Tests against Sri Lanka). Richardson played seven against Zimbabwe and Bangladesh. Sutcliffe, however, never played against a minnow. He failed dismally in Pakistan, but had a decent to good record everywhere else
AM: But he had an excellent comeback in India after a long hiatus at an age of 42. That was the second phase of his career.
AS: He was also handicapped by the fact that during his career the Australians thought it was beneath their dignity to play against their neighbours. Else, he might have done well in Australia. He also played for 18 years; First-Class cricket for 25 years; and he scores runs everywhere, and with the same brilliance. He has a better record away from home.
AM: Yes, Sutcliffe seems to be surprisingly consistent. I guess it will be a toss-up between Turner and Richardson, then. Turner was, of course, a glutton for runs.
AS: Yes. A hundred First-Class centuries, and all — but he had pathetic records in Australia, England, India, and Pakistan.
AM: He made up with his numbers in West Indies, albeit based on one series, that too against a depleted attack, and on flat tracks.
AS: Yes, that one series in West Indies in 1972 — during the era when West Indies did not win a home series in nine years. Five draws, Lawrence Rowe scoring 214 and 100 not out on debut, Turner and Terry Jarvis batting on and on…
AM: True. Turner scored four double-hundreds on that tour, two of them in Tests.
AS: Most of Turner’s Test success came at home. Richardson , on the other hand, played one series in every country other than New Zealand and Australia. He failed in the two series in Australia.
AM: But he did an excellent job in South Africa, a venue where most top batsmen have failed. Mind you, South Africa won that series 2-0.
AS: True. He averaged more than 46 and played 110 balls per innings; this means he can battle against challenging bowling. He also had three fifties against Muttiah Muralitharan.
AM: If Richardson had failed in Australia, Turner had done worse. Richardson also had a hundred against Anil Kumble and Harbhajan Singh in India, and came out in flying colours in England in 2004 when New Zealand were whitewashed.
AS: Okay. Let us finalise on Sutcliffe and Richardson, then. They are not exactly Matthew Hayden and Justin Langer, but two left-handed openers who can be pretty good.
AM: Turner sits out, then.
OPENERS:
BERT SUTCLIFFE AND MARK RICHARDSON.
AM: Now, the middle-order. Something tells me there will not be many contenders. Martin Donnelly, I presume, will have to sit out because of the sample size.
AS: Yes, only seven Tests. Damn, all these excellent averages of New Zealand come from players who played a handful of Tests. So, contenders (mind you, we are not considering all-rounders yet, and there is a long list to choose from): Martin Crowe, Andrew Jones, Ross Taylor, Stephen Fleming, and John F Reid.
AM: Crowe, Fleming, and Taylor seem to be obvious choices, but let us dig a bit more. There is also the outrageous arrogance of Nathan Astle.
AS: And perhaps the non-wicketkeeping Brendon McCullum?
AM: Indeed, with an average of 41, and the fact that his career is still on the rise.
AS: Jones failed in India, Sri Lanka, and England, so, we can perhaps leave him out — although he did well against Australia.
AM: Since nose is not a criterion, Rutherford misses out as well — but I will make a case for Kane Williamson.
AS: Williamson is another one whose career is on the rise
AM: So we have five contenders.
AS: Taylor should be a clear choice, though he has not done too well in Australia and India.
AM: Taylor scored a brutal hundred at Chinnaswamy.
AS: Yes, but he has done little else.
AM: Still, Crowe, Fleming, Taylor, McCullum, and Williamson are the options.
AM: Let us check the others. Crowe had phenomenal numbers in Australia.
AS: Crowe did well in England and Australia, so there is plenty written about him. We must remember a lot of that was scored against a weak Australian attack.
AM: He did not do brilliantly in India, but made up with his numbers in Pakistan and Sri Lanka.
AS: After 1989, he played just four innings against Australia, and against West Indies in West Indies he scored at 30.85.
AM: Yes, but he did quite well in those four innings in Australia, and scored against all sides at home (including West Indies).
AM: Still, his numbers against WI at home are impressive. And then, there is also the case of Reid.
AS: Yes, he is very much a contender. He has decent numbers everywhere. He did not do too well in three Tests in Australia, but he had a century. He did pretty well in Pakistan as well. So far Taylor, Reid, and Crowe seem to be the best choices.
AM: We still have Fleming.
AS: Fleming was ordinary at home and superb in South Africa. He was exceptional in Sri Lanka, good in West Indies, and mediocre in India and England while pathetic in Australia. Go figure.
AM: The catch about Fleming is, he could handle Murali as well as the South African fast bowlers.
AS: Yes, and I think we can safely say he would be a good captain.
AM: Crowe, too, and we have not got to John R Reid.
AS: Yes, he was a great captain. John R Reid is an automatic choice in my opinion. However, we will consider all-rounders later. That is the strength of New Zealand.
AM: We need to eliminate one of these four. Williamson is also there, as is Baz.
AS: What about having McCullum as keeper? This team needs to bat well down the order.
AM: We need to pick the best wicket-keeper. We will go for specialists.
AS: Which is probably Ian Smith…
AM: I like this new kid, BJ Watling.
AS: Should we leave this undecided and work backwards from the all-rounders and bowlers?
AM: I think that is a good option.
AS: We have Hadlee, Chris Cairns, Daniel Vettori, John R Reid, Shane Bond, and Bruce Taylor.
AM: Hadlee walks in. He is perhaps the only one, in terms of numbers, reputation, or anything else, who walks in.
AS: He also had that rare ability to forge a champion team out of faceless performers. Bond is perhaps the man to open bowling with him. He had an average and strike rate better than Hadlee, but his career was short-lived.
AM: Dayle Hadlee had an exceptional record in the subcontinent, which is commendable, but had an overall ordinary record.
AS: Yes, in 1969 many peculiar things could happen in India. He averaged more than 50 with the ball at home.
AM: Indeed.
AS: I think Hadlee and Bond are fine. Cairns? As a fast bowler and batsman? Of course, there is Taylor — perhaps a better bowler and also handy with the bat.
AM: We are missing John R Reid here.
AS: Reid is the all-rounder who can come in at No. 6…
AM: … who could bowl both seam and spin.
AS: And hit the ball hard
AM: The problem is with the other seamer. Trent Boult and Tim Southee cannot be ignored either, and this discussion would be incomplete without a mention of Jack Cowie, easily New Zealand cricket’s first superstar.
AS: Absolutely; 45 wickets from nine Tests at 21.53 and a strike rate of 45 are phenomenal numbers. He also dismissed Len Hutton for zero and one on debut. But again, it is a case of small sample.
AM: Cowie could have been a legend. Unfortunately, wrong place, wrong time.
AS: And, of course, World War II.
AM: Of course, Vettori does not have a competitor. Stephen Boock is the only other spinner with 50 wickets and a sub-35 average.
AS: Yes, and this NZ team could do with a solid lower order. Vettori fits the bill perfectly. Reid can offer the other variety of spin if required
AM: And Vettori was (is?) a far superior bowler than Boock.
AS: Yes, he was (is), and John Bracewell does not come into the picture. As for the other seamer, I think Taylor outdoes Boult, Dion Nash, Richard Collinge, and Southee.
AM: I think the same, too.
AS: Especially with his success in India, and of course, West Indies. He did not do too badly in Pakistan, and had a good second tour of England.
AM: Yes. Though Dayle Hadlee had done brilliantly in India (as has Southee) Taylor beats them on career numbers. A year or two down the line this side may include the likes of Boult and Southee.
AS: Just to note aside, many of the NZ bowlers are better than anything India has produced … ever.
AM: Absolutely. Take out Kapil Dev, and almost no Indian seamer would fit into a combined India-New Zealand XI.
AS: No place for Chris Cairns, then?
AM: Seems so. As for the wicket-keeper, McCullum is very good, as was Smith, but my vote will go for Watling. Even if we discount his batting numbers (though one must remember he is the one of four men to score 1,000 runs at a 45+ average as ‘keeper; the other three being AB de Villiers, Adam Gilchrist and Andy Flower; he also has excellent numbers in all venues). Watling is an excellent wicket-keeper, nimble-footed, fluent on either side, is very flexible, and is equally comfortable under all conditions.
AS: Yes, Watling seems the most appropriate choice
ALL-ROUNDER:
JOHN R REID.
WICKET-KEEPER:
BJ WATLING.
BOWLERS:
RICHARD HADLEE, SHANE BOND, BRUCE TAYLOR, AND DANIEL VETTORI.
AS: Let us come back to the middle-order batsmen now. As a specialist batsman McCullum averages 41, but he has shown he can hit triple-hundreds.
AM: The average goes up to 48 if we consider only positions three to five — a number matched by only Crowe, Taylor, and the unheralded John F Reid.
AS: Fleming does not match these numbers.
AM: McCullum’s overseas records as a batsman is, however, terrible: a mere 25.
AS: Whereas that is where Fleming scores.
AM: Precisely. So Fleming makes the cut, as does Crowe, with their runs against the toughest attacks.
AS: Yes, so it is basically a toss-up between Taylor and Reid. I will go with Taylor, since he is more aggressive.
AM: But Taylor has poor numbers in Australia and South Africa. This is also an issue for Williamson, who has scored heavily in the weaker nations, but has failed in India, England, and especially in Australia and South Africa (he has not crossed 20 in any of the two countries).
AS: Right.
AM: take the hundred away, and Taylor’s numbers in India do not look good either.
AS: Yes. There is a huge gap between his home away numbers. Reid, however, is consistent. So, let us settle on Fleming, Reid, and Crowe.
AM: Also, JF Reid’s 100:50 conversion rate is outstanding (six hundreds and two fifties). Here’s a catch, though: Reid’s runs have come at No. 3.
AS: And at snail’s pace.
AM: Crowe’s runs have come at No. 4, so there is no clash. The issue is, both Fleming and Reid are No. 3s, while both Crowe and Taylor are No. 4s. McCullum, on the other hand, averages 55 at No. 5 as a pure batsman.
AS: But can we include him by slicing his record (non-wicket-keeper, 10 Tests at No. 5)?
AM: If not, we are with two No. 3s and two No. 4s.
AS: We can perhaps assume the No. 3 will do okay as the No. 5. Generally they do. Take Viv Richards or VVS Laxman.
AM: True, that. We can drop Reid to No. 5, or maybe Taylor — but we had already decided we would pick Reid ahead of Taylor because of overseas numbers.
AS: With his attritional batting, Reid is cushion against a collapse.
AM: And consistency; and conversion; and more.
AS: And two Reids coming one after the other will confuse the opponent, especially if both are John.
AM: True. That was a brilliant point. I had certainly not thought of that.
MIDDLE-ORDER:
STEPHEN FLEMING, MARTIN CROWE, AND JOHN R REID.
AM: The 12th man has to be Chris Cairns.
AS: There are options, but Cairns generally fits all bills, unless we go for Chris Harris for fielding.
AM: If it is about fielding I would rather go with Martin Guptill.
AS: Or an all-round talent like Chris Cairns will do just fine. Let us come to the captain, then.
AM: There are three men who were good leaders — John R Reid, Crowe, and Fleming.
AS: Yes, and they are very difficult to compare, because they dealt with three different teams in three different eras. Reid turned their cricket around, Crowe revolutionised them in the 1990s, while Fleming held them together for long.
AM: Yes. Moreover, both Crowe and Fleming were extremely shrewd while Reid was a giant (not literally) who led with authority. There was also Vettori, who led a side on the decline.
AS: I think the optimal choice is perhaps Fleming, who was a leader first and then came all his other qualities.
AM: Crowe revolutionised cricket in World Cup 1992 (I know this was a different format) with his strategies and led them to a streak that has been rare in New Zealand’s history.
AS: Fleming also has the best win-loss ratio of the three. Crowe had a poor record in Tests as captain.
AM: But that is not a parameter. Reid never had a good win-loss ratio.
AS: True. He led when they were the minnows of world cricket.
AM: Reid as good as taught them to win Tests, leading from the front.
AS: Fleming had the most experience as captain as well — a staggering 80 Tests. Vettori, 32; Reid, 34; and Crowe, just 16. Note that the best win-loss ratio for a New Zealand skipper is held by Geoff Howarth: 11 wins, seven losses, and 12 draws. I guess we can say, “all hail Hadlee…”
AM: Indeed. Hadlee made a world of difference. All Crowe had was Morrison.
AS: Even Jeremy Coney managed a 1.25 win-loss ratio and Wright exactly 1.00, all because of Hadlee. But let us move to the point: I think I will opt for Fleming because the rest have enough in their game to make themselves useful to the fullest.
AM: Makes sense. Anyway, let us consider another parameter — the differences between performances as captain and otherwise. Crowe averages 54; Fleming, 40; Reid, 34 and 32; Vettori, 39 and 33.
AS: So Crowe performs exceptionally with the bat as captain; the other three, commendably. In fact, Vettori has been outstanding as well. But Fleming led 80 of his 111 Tests.
AM: as captain Vettori and Fleming’s batting averages are almost the same.
AS: Yes, they are. Fleming was never quite an exceptional batsman. Fleming actually scores at 40.59 as captain and 38.76 as a player, so not much of a difference. But he led from a very early age. I would back him as a more natural captain.
AM: I guess so. He took over the mantle at a very early age.
AS: Crowe played under Howarth, Coney, Wright and Jeff Crowe before leading himself.
AM: Most importantly, Fleming took over after during Turner’s iron-fist age that ended many a career, what with the Lee Germon fiasco and all. Let us settle on Fleming, then.
AM: The coach…
AS: John Wright, of course.
AM: Of course. And no manager can be better than Walter Hadlee.
AS: Absolutely, especially since John R Reid is in the XI and cannot be the manager.
AM: There was a reason that they call him The Father of New Zealand Cricket.
AS: I feel sorry for Dempster and Cowie, but we cannot help it.
AM: Indeed. The same for Donnelly or even youngsters like Boult and Southee. Who knows, in a few months’ time they may help McCullum lift the World Cup?
AS: So we are done. It will be quite interesting to see how they fare other against all-time XI sides, especially India. I would back them to actually give the Indian ATXI a good run for their money.
AM: Same here, especially if the new ball does a bit.
AS: And quite so in New Zealand. Also, we all know what Hadlee did here in 1988, and Taylor and Reid before him.
FINAL TEAM:
Bert Sutcliffe
Mark Richardson
Stephen Fleming (c)
Martin Crowe
John F Reid
John R Reid
BJ Watling (wk)
Daniel Vettori
Richard Hadlee
Bruce Taylor
Shane Bond
12th man: Chris Cairns
Coach: John Wright
Manager: Walter Hadlee
Complete coverage of Pakistan vs New Zealand 2014
(Arunabha Sengupta is a cricket historian and Chief Cricket Writer at CricketCountry. He writes about the history and the romance of the game, punctuated often by opinions about modern day cricket, while his post-graduate degree in statistics peeps through in occasional analytical pieces. The author of three novels, he can be followed on Twitter here.)
(Abhishek Mukherjee is the Chief Editor and Cricket Historian at CricketCountry. He blogs here and can be followed on Twitter here.)
