All-Time NZ ODI Team

1. G.Turner
2. N.Astle
3. A.Jones
4. M.Crowe
5. R.Twose
6. J.Oram
7. B.McCullum
8. G.Larsen
9. K.Mills
10. S.Bond
11. C.Pringle

Cant fault it, apart from the obvious omission of Hadlee for Mills.... which I assume is just you doing your thing

PS anyone who selects Harris is clueless or from Christchurch




Actually wait....I would prob switch Twose for Vettori, or at least have them alternating in the 12 depending on the wicket/opponents

I would leave Twose in there and take out Larsen for Daniel.


Mills

No Vettori, Hadlee or Ian Smith??

Andrew Jones wasn't a particularly good ODI player... never scored a century... Would much rather have Fleming in there...

Not sure about Turner opening in the modern game... I'd rather open with McCullum... possibly drop Turner down the order... Also drop Twose for Cairns, Mills for Hadlee (duh)...

Vetorri could also come in for Larsen, depending on the pitch (Also have doubts how Larsen would go in the modern game... military medium straight bowlers tend to get pounded these days).

Whats all this stuff about "the modern game" Mutant, you can only judge players by how they performed with the challenges set in front of them

Fleming for Jones is arguable, but I dont mind Jones in there cos the line up could use at least one nurdler....and from memory Jones ODI record was actually pretty good. He just wasnt fun to watch

Glenn Turner btw, could adapt to anything. Hes the best batsman we have ever produced, and when he came back to the ODI sqaud from exile (THANKS Mr W Hadlee)....he was awesome

Leaving out Larsen is crazy talk, he was actually a very clever bowler

Nacoa dont even think about mentioning Harris

Don't rely on memory, his record is just not great:

http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/newzealand/content/player/37491.html

(Not even a List A century! Striking at 57, that was rubbish even in the 90s)

I think if you think about these things too much, they get a bit stupid, because they're obviously academic... but you'd have to say, that batting has improved (and changed) massively in the 30-40 years ODI cricket has been around... sure, the rules have been changed in favour of the batsmen, but there's also been a lot of psychological barriers broken, i.e. players have figured out how to take calculated risks a lot more, which pay off more reliably.

So Larsen may have been good at the time, but if batting has improved, maybe he wouldn't have been as good today (and bowlers who get a higher RPO are actually better than him, because they're facing better batting techniques). Or maybe he would've adapted and been even more valuable. Who knows? You just can't make those comparisons reasonably.

(Don't think I'm knocking Larsen, he was a great player)

arrrrrgh, errrrm...

you're a c*nt

He should be in for Mills though, how many times did his bowling and or batting save us in games. You are being one eyed yourself not to pick that.

Also agree on Turner being there, and I would swap Fleming for Jones, even though his avg is better than Fleming, Flemings strikerate is better. I would have him there as Captain for his one day tactics as well.

http://stats.cricinfo.com/statsguru/engine/stats/index.html?class=2;orderby=batting_average;team=5;template=results;type=batting

If Bonds injured, I would have Allott in there too

If you take Twose out, you get a bit of a tail.


*makes the big call*

I reckon swap Pringle for Hadlee, Jones for Fleming and Larson for Vettori.

ok I will mayeb back down a little on the Jones thing, swapping him for Fleming also gives us another left hander. Still thinks its close though, he didnt score a century but he did get a great deal of 50's

I refuse to believe we can not select Larsen or Pringle though, didnt Larsen have a RPO lower than 4? Cant be too many other bowlers below 4 in any era.

Larsen = 2nd bowler off the rank behind Hadlee

Wright
Turner
Astle
Crowe
Fleming
Chris Cairns
Hadlee
Vettori
Smith
Bond
Chatfield

Chris Cairns? You have to be fucken kidding me.

Most overrated player in the history of cricket.

Stop fucking all choosing modern players

guess what? NZ was better at ODIs in the 80s than we are now

Andrew Jones scored 50s in six consecutive ODIs at one stage

Yeah a t a strike rate of less than 60 in ODI's

But in those days...that wasnt actually all that hideous...especially for the designated achor that AJ was

Remember that 220 was once considered a highy competative total and 300 balls x .60 = 180...not bad from a solid anchor


Jones however WAS the type of player who probably wouldnt have been able to adjust

I don't actually know what his SR was but what I do remember him for is being a slow as mother fucken batter. Did he EVER hit a 6?

Prob not...he WAS really boring to watch. I particulary remember watching him a few times getting bogged down terribly when his timing was out. block block block then FINALLY gets one in his slot.... and hits it straight to cover. gah


Someone send out Parore to run him out@!

Exactly.

Judge them on their era.

It's funny how Q can say "look at hsi strike rate" but when I bring up Lohmann and Barnes and their averages people go "different era, you can't compare"

don't know what you guys have against Cairns... he had some periods where he was average, but he was a geninue matchwinner, something we've almost never had for NZ.

Typical NZ "good" player: does really well against minnows, holds his own against the big teams, then a crunch game comes along and he plays like a school girl.

Cairns could at least win us those crunch games.

this thread = semi-fail.

Great idea, but poorly executed. What needs to be done is a set of parameters set out and then stuck to. Otherwise you're comparing apples with oranges.

Surprised there's only been one very brief mention of Allott, sure his career was short but in his prime he was deadly. Him and Bond opening the bowling would be fearsome.

Not sure why every hates on Harris so much, he had the economy of Larsen and was a match winning batsman. Perhaps in an all time team there shouldn't be a need for someone to fulfil his batting role - seeing us home to a respectable total after a collapse, but his value of adding a quick fire 50 after a good start can't be denied. Not to mention he is twice the fielder of any player mentioned in this thread.

"the greatest ODI players of NZ history, measured against the era in which they played"

Pretty easy.

And my XI stands as the best exemplar of that

Harris was awesome. He became a bit of a liability at the end when he could no longer be counted on for some solid runs in the tail, but overall, he was an extremely valuable player throughout his career. He had a knack of getting wickets through the the middle that the premier bowlers couldn't get out; and his fielding provided inspiration that we needed when we got bogged down.

Yeah Harry was a great player for a few years but then both his batting and his bowling got worked out and that blunted his effectiveness

His golden run also coincided with one of our "zomg yet another epic NZ top order batting collapse" eras.... so he came across as a hero much of the time which made his star shine brighter then I personally think it was

Plus INZY ripped him apart in THAT semi final