New Zealand rise to No. 2 in Test rankings for the first time

@Chris-B Spot on - and that team went on to win in England the next year.

Which brings us to the biggest differentiator between the golden age of the 80's and today (and Fleming's team)

As @rotated mentioned re the turn of the century team the current bunch just haven't had the high profile successes

The team of the mid 80's set all kinds of first - first away win against England and Australia. First series wins against both. Only team to beat the Windies in a series for a decade. Didn't lose a series at home in the 80's. Plus Hadlee setting all sorts of records. Given the abject record we had prior to that it was a remarkable epoch and so always seems just a little bit grander, the performances a little bit better the failures just a little more palatable. Journeymen become collossus' captains masters of strategy and trundlers demon quicks

@dogmeat We went for ages undefeated in series at home.

Of that specific team - I think that was the end of Big Lance - so maybe a later iteration, which presumably had Snedden in was stronger.

A bit earlier, Geoff Howarth and the second coming of Turner were both very good batsmen - well, until Geoff's eyesight went. In the early 80s, he briefly averaged over 40.

@Chris-B I'm less enamoured of the undefeated at home record. As the decade drew to a close koff koff doctored pitches became a thing in order to ensure we didn't lose the record (allegedly)

@dogmeat Yeah - I recall an element of that - but, nonetheless we were good enough not to lose on those doctored pitches - unlike the Young Guns of the 1990s.

@Chris-B said in New Zealand rise to No. 2 in Test rankings for the first time:

@MN5 said in New Zealand rise to No. 2 in Test rankings for the first time:

@Virgil said in New Zealand rise to No. 2 in Test rankings for the first time:

Pretty much highlights how more stable we are compared to other sides.
Australia in disarray the past 12 months and having do without their only 2 world class fluffybunnies I mean batsmen.
England’s top order is a shambles other then Joe Root
South Africa has an aging team and seems to mostly rely on past glories.
Pakistan up and down
Sri Lanka this surprise series win aside have been on a downward slide for a couple years( which you would expect when you loose your greatest players close together)

We have a settled top 7 batting line up with 2 of the best batsmen in our history along with one of our best openers and batting keeper. And now a #5 who is getting better and better.
Throw in a decent bowling attack and it’s pretty much perfect storm for us to be where we are.
Even if the other teams were better off we would definitely would be top 4 or 5 in the world.

Further to this. rose tinted glasses aside what did we have in the 80s ? our GOAT and second best ever batsman, Andrew Jones was a fine player too.....but aside from them none of the rest were much more than a gutsy bunch of honest triers.

I'd say the best team in the '80s pre-dates Andrew Jones...probably pretty close to this one.

View embedded content

That series team were exceptional. I don't recall us owning many teams like that, I remember Coney fighting a lot of rearguard actions though. Those guys can dine out on that one for life, the current team would kill to dominate the aussies in Oz like that

@canefan said in New Zealand rise to No. 2 in Test rankings for the first time:

That series team were exceptional. I don't recall us owning many teams like that, I remember Coney fighting a lot of rearguard actions though. Those guys can dine out on that one for life, the current team would kill to dominate the aussies in Oz like that

You reckon? Taylor led a side (without Vettori) to beat Aussie heads up for the only time in nearly thirty years and gets absolutely no credit for it why would the current team be highly regarded if they did the same?

I'd back the current line up over the 1980s if we look at individuals compared to their opposite numbers, but it's quite close. I think any of the line ups with M Crowe and Wright are fine - trading Edgar and Reid for Franklin and Jones isn't too bad, Coney is underrated, Smith was a top keeper in his time, Hadlee was the best, Bracewell was decent and Chatfield was a top foil for Hadlee.

@Godder said in New Zealand rise to No. 2 in Test rankings for the first time:

I'd back the current line up over the 1980s if we look at individuals compared to their opposite numbers, but it's quite close.

I just have visions of Hadlee tearing through any side, in almost any conditions. He was so good, and wickets win test matches, so it would be all on. I guess I'm saying that any side with Hadlee is a contender

@rotated said in New Zealand rise to No. 2 in Test rankings for the first time:

@canefan said in New Zealand rise to No. 2 in Test rankings for the first time:

That series team were exceptional. I don't recall us owning many teams like that, I remember Coney fighting a lot of rearguard actions though. Those guys can dine out on that one for life, the current team would kill to dominate the aussies in Oz like that

You reckon? Taylor led a side (without Vettori) to beat Aussie heads up for the only time in nearly thirty years and gets absolutely no credit for it why would the current team be highly regarded if they did the same?

Yeah I forgot about that. That game in Tassie was leg-endary

@nzzp yeah but Hadlee was only on the winning side 22 times - only seven times away and only five outside Australasia.

In no way am I attempting to denigrate his achievements or ignore his impact on the NZ side but stats put the lie to he alone making us a contender

BTW, just to turn my own argument on its head; his bowling average in those victories was 13.06 and his batting 30.38 - pretty handy huh?

NZ had only won 7 tests before the first victory involving Hadlee. By the time of his retirement Hadlee had played in 22 of NZ's 29 victories (in, at that time, NZ's 57 years of being a test nation).

Amazing player.

Here is NZ's all time bowling perfromances in test victories:

We'd won 29 times up until his retirement in 1990. We've won 66 more tests in 29 years since (more tests per year, addition of lower ranked teams, plus 2 great NZ eras in this time, plus just less draws)

@Rapido said in New Zealand rise to No. 2 in Test rankings for the first time:

NZ had only won 6 tests before the first victory involving Hadlee. By the time of his retirement Hadlee's had played in 22 of NZ's 28 victories (in, at that time, NZ's 57 years of being a test nation).

Amazing player.

Here is NZ's all time bowling perfromances in test victories:

View embedded content

Hadlee is our Bradman speaking equivalently. You can't make an argument for any other player who even comes close. His wicket per test ratio puts even the Windies to shame however much of that was due to the fact he didn't have another legend at the other end fighting over wickets. Instead he had toilers like L Cairns, Snedden, Chatfield, Bracewell, Morrison etc who admittedly did a top job in most cases.

For completeness. Here;s the NZ batting in test victories.

A surprising takeaway for me is that only 2 of Crowe's 17 test hundreds were in victories. But he still averaged 55.

@Rapido said in New Zealand rise to No. 2 in Test rankings for the first time:

For completeness. Here;s the NZ batting in test victories.

View embedded content

A surprising takeaway for me is that only 2 of Crowe's 17 test hundreds were in victories.

In some sense that comes down to cricket being such an individual sport. To my knowledge Brian Lara still holds the record for the most test losses, does that make him any less great ?

@dogmeat an objective assessment of Mr Fred Goodall might be in order too...

@Chris-B that link took me to a D/N match I went to in 86 at the MCG. One of the more memorable Chatfield 10 overs.

@Rapido said in New Zealand rise to No. 2 in Test rankings for the first time:

Here is NZ's all time bowling perfromances in test victories:

View embedded content

cheers for the link.

It's weird. but I think of Southee as the 'elder statesman' of the bowlers. But he only debuted a year before Boult, adn has only played 4 more tests!

@Siam well combining your and @MN5 post topics. Brian Lara thought it was disgraceful behaviour by the Windies

@MN5 said in New Zealand rise to No. 2 in Test rankings for the first time:

@rotated said in New Zealand rise to No. 2 in Test rankings for the first time:

@Crucial said in New Zealand rise to No. 2 in Test rankings for the first time:

It has that feel of the aussie ice speed skater that won gold when everyone in front of him crashed.

Yeah a little bit. For years I thought even getting top 3 in test cricket would be a massive stretch for NZ, to get 2 is incredible.

This doesn't feel like the best post-Paddles team but with the ascendance of Latham and Nicholls over the past year perhaps this is the most reliable batting line-up 1-7 we've had.

no perhaps about it, luckily the rest make up for CDGH.

We've had better fast bowlers in the past but never a trio as good as the one we have now.

Weak at spin and all rounder, very strong elsewhere.

Imagine how good we'd be with Stokes, provided NZ nightclubs were less fight-y than Bristols.

@TeWaio said in New Zealand rise to No. 2 in Test rankings for the first time:

@MN5 said in New Zealand rise to No. 2 in Test rankings for the first time:

@rotated said in New Zealand rise to No. 2 in Test rankings for the first time:

@Crucial said in New Zealand rise to No. 2 in Test rankings for the first time:

It has that feel of the aussie ice speed skater that won gold when everyone in front of him crashed.

Yeah a little bit. For years I thought even getting top 3 in test cricket would be a massive stretch for NZ, to get 2 is incredible.

This doesn't feel like the best post-Paddles team but with the ascendance of Latham and Nicholls over the past year perhaps this is the most reliable batting line-up 1-7 we've had.

no perhaps about it, luckily the rest make up for CDGH.

We've had better fast bowlers in the past but never a trio as good as the one we have now.

Weak at spin and all rounder, very strong elsewhere.

Imagine how good we'd be with Stokes, provided NZ nightclubs were less fight-y than Bristols.

he's good but really he's just a slightly better bowling Jimmy Neesham really. no where near world class in either discipline.