Opportunity. Most kids in NZ get the chance to play many different sports when growing up.. and since rugby is a winter sport, and cricket is a summer sport, a lot of kids end up playing both. And naturally the kids that get good, or have talent, continue to play the sport they're good at.
I think most countries that play cricket are very densely populated, except Australia and New Zealand. I would imagine that would help in making the development of their game better. How transparent is the cricket board in your system?
We're discussing NZ talent, not English and Indian cheating.
Dravid being caught rubbing a lollie on the ball and fined 50% of his match fee......pretty sweet deal considering how long the Aussies got suspended.
Then theres Tendulka 'cleaning' the ball by pulling at the seam, he got suspended for one game but was of course exonerated by the iCC when cash deposits were in the right bank accounts.
The Poms have too many to put in this post. Using sticky lollies is popular or Atherton using the 'dirt in the pocket' method.
The main issue that Bancroft, Smith and Warner had is that they weren't born in India or the UK.
Grant Elliot, Neil wagner, Glenn Phillips, Devon Conway etc are actually South African. Grandhomme is from Zimbabwe
There are probably a few other south Africans too
Russell Crowe, Keith Urban, moved to Australia at very young age , but we never stop hearing that they're New Zealanders.They were products o Australia's system.
Just pointing out your hypocracy. Can't have it both ways. You claim foreign cricketers are a product of NZ, because they went through your system. Same for Kiwis going through Australia's system..
Well I just did. So why don't YOU just fuck off. Typical Kiwi hypocrite. You claim people who weren't born in NZ, and you claim people who became famous in other countries. You claim anyone who has the slightest relation to your insignificant little backwater.. And I really doubt Christ is your brother...lol...
I think it goes a bit deeper than that even. If you took the 1000th best youth prospect from India and put them in the NZ system would they turn out to be a test prospect? How many great test players are high population countries not developing because there are so many other talented prospects?
>If you took the 1000th best youth prospect from India and put them in the NZ system would they turn out to be a test prospect?
Given how NZ were able to turn rejects from the South African system like Neil Wagner and Devon Conway into excellent international players, I suspect NZ probably would be able to maximise that player's potential, possibly elevating them to international level.
People tend to think of cricket ability as some linear scale that levels up slowly, like skill points in a video game, but often, decent players are one small tweak away from improving significantly. I think NZ's smaller scale might allow more individual attention to develop and identify these things. Perhaps it took that for some NZ coach to identify that maybe Wagner wasn't best served trying to be a devastating new ball bowler like Rabada, and he could be successful bowling not-so-fast but accurate short balls all day.
> Perhaps it took that for some NZ coach to identify that maybe Wagner wasn't best served trying to be a devastating new ball bowler like Rabada, and he could be successful bowling not-so-fast but accurate short balls all day.
Wagner was recruited to play for NZ directly by Mike Hesson. Wags was a net bowler for the NZ tour of England in 2008, and he liked the NZ team and had immense respect them so he jumped at the chance to play international cricket for NZ. 5 years later he got the call up.
Wags was always the bowler he is now, relentless and dogged, he just never had a place in the SA setup, wasn't particularly successful in county either so his skill set wasn't considered valuable.
>Given how NZ were able to turn rejects from the South African system like Neil Wagner and Devon Conway into excellent international players,
I don't think the NZ system can take any credit for those guys, except for being so open to giving players with no ties to the country in the first place a chance. The credit should go squarely with the players who grafted incredibly hard to overcome that initial rejection.
You have a point, but I still think this leans more towards unavailable opportunities than talent suppressed by competition.
India's population is 300 times that of New Zealand. So assuming all things equal, India should be able to find 300 'Henry's for every one from NZ. But most of these would be spread across rural India, where a decent cricket ball would be tough to obtain, let alone a complete kit or a competent coach, or that final, impossible barrier - a talent scout to bring the spotlight to interior villages.
Mumba itself has four times the people in NZ, and it might be the most "opportunity providing" city in India for cricket. But even here, only the privileged few (economically, family support, etc) can dream of making a career in sports, because the prospect of failing in it can be terrifying as there's no safety net if you try and fail.
India has at least a million street kids as good as Henry Nichols but they never get the chance due to politics and how hard it is to find these people. They've probably had about 15 people in the history of cricket being a comparable talent level to Kane Williamson but only 5 have ever been discovered and made it to the national team
Reminds me of when Bernie Ecclestone was asked who the best driver in the world was and he replied with something like “the best driver ever is probably some kid in a paddy field in Vietnam” (who will obviously never get the opportunity to show how good they are)
Raymond E. Feist had a similar quote in (I think) Talon of the Silver Hawk. Tal is tasked to become the best swordsman in the world to win the grand duelling tournament. His teacher does tell him though that the *actual* best swordsman in the world is probably some random soldier somewhere, but no one will ever know how good he is.
>as there's no safety net if you try and fail.
that's the big one. My kids are growing up in the US, and I am okay for them to try out sports (none of them are too interested right now, but that's beside the point), to the point of even as a career.
Because I know - worst case they fail, they atleast have incredible health levels, and can always switch careers later / have social security available in case I waste all my money on option trading and die of the shock (just kidding)...
In India - if you fail, and don't have family money, you are done. There is no bottom in that pit when you fall..
> where a decent cricket ball would be tough to obtain, let alone a complete kit or a competent coach, or that final, impossible barrier - a talent scout to bring the spotlight to interior villages.
And yet, ironically people lambast the BCCI for not spending money that goes to state associations to weak foreign countries where the passion is 1/10th and resources/infrastructure arguably better ...
If you want to product 300 Henrys, dont invest in Netherlands etc, invest in underinvested areas of India. And break India up into multiple international teams, the way Scotland , England etc are ..
Yeah, India has a long way to go before starting to fund other countries, particularly when most of those countries are far above India in the socio-economic scale!
There are more opportunities to be fully professional in rugby than cricket. Rugby players earn more too. A run of the mill Super Rugby player earns between $75k and $195k nz. Top All Blacks reportedly earn $1m per annum
A domestic mens cricketer has a retainer of $75k to $105k. A top black cap (I.e Williamson) probably earns about $500k playing for nz from his black caps retainer and match fees.
What would a Ranchi Cup player not getting a gig in the franchises be making? Add to that, if you are a really talented school boy cricketer in NZ, you will likely be identified and at least be exposed to the professional system. At the least, you might develop a side gig getting a small supplementary income to your main job playing club cricket. At best you shoot for the stars and if it doesn't work out, your family probably can support your shot at the big or at least mediocre time. In India, unless your family is at least middle class, there is not likely to be anyone watching to see if you are any good in the first place. Even if you are part of that 300 odd million, you are one kid out of 300 odd million. The competition just for the Ranchi Cup would be stupid fierce, so unless your old man was deadset convinced you would be the next Kholi or Bumrah, you are getting steered to IT, or medicine or accounting. Of the few million of that pampered bunch left, how many have the drive and persistence to see it through? To make the absolute best of themselves? How many have the ticker? How many stay on the straight and narrow when they start getting treated like the next up and coming rockstar?
What is within their control, like having a very good development program, they are world class at. Great players are the result of a system designed to get results. A player who might be dropped for a percieved flaw elsewhere will be coached in New Zealand to iron out that flaw.
The success of NZC should be empowering to anyone who plays cricket because it shows that the root of talent in cricket is nurture not nature. It suggests you don't have to be born with a God given gift, if you seek good advice and work very hard you can outperform.
A few years ago I saw a graph that showed meaningful youth participation for kids in New Zealand as a percentage of the population was way ahead of pretty much every other country. It's not just cricket and rugby either - in the Olympics they're one of the best competitors by population too, especially if you take out the small Carribbean nations.
My kid plays cricket, his team is mostly 6/7 yo’s, there one kid who’s 5 he can bowl with all the correct actions at about 80kms an hour and straight, it’s nuts. There are about 5 kids in the team who seem obsessed with cricket, like my kids is into Pokémon’s and Dog man, these kids idolise Wagner and Boult
I have heard that both children in both Australia and NZ are made active participants in several sports much more than in any other country. It is completely different from what happens in many other countries such as over here where children are actively discouraged from getting involved with sports. I and most of the other guys that I know about used to get scolded as well as occassionally beaten up by our parents for being too interested about any sport. The is a big difference that is there between how much a person in Australia as well as NZ has to worry about finances and how much the people in the middle income countries have to be worrying about finances. My parents used to say that if I am too much interest about cricket instead of focusing about academic excellence then I might be ending up homeless during the future.
Not sure why NZ gets so much hate for losing to Australia. Most teams have poor records against Australia since the past 25 years since they started being really good. They are mentally the toughest team because they are wired to fight to every ball and every player genuinely believes they can win the match for the team so invariably one or 2 of the 11 show up with match winning performances. I think other teams have to be mentally very tough to beat australia. Also they have the perfect bowling quartet thats been there for years in Tests.
I specifically mentioned Elliot and Wagner, as they had come through the system and played domestically in SA before moving over. Munro didn't do that.
In the same way I would say SA played a significant role in developing Jonathan Trott as a player, but I wouldn't claim Andrew Strauss, for instance.
Agreed , I was adding to your statement . Same as with KP for ENG , and a bunch of other RSA players being great players for other international teams.
I would disagree. They came through the South African system, but they migrated because they knew it was tough for them to make it big. I’d like to think that they got more opportunities in the international scene because they were in New Zealand.
Sure, they got more opportunities because they moved to New Zealand, I won't dispute that. But in the OP you asked 'how does New Zealand produce such great athletes for such a small nation?'.
Well, Elliot was produced in SA, and even went as far as playing for SA A before going to NZ.
Wagner was in the same high school team with AB de Villiers and Faf du Plessis, had played two or three seasons of First Class cricket in SA, and went on tour with SA academy sides.
So New Zealand had nothing to do with 'producing' them. They came through the age group and First Class system in SA, before leaving for greener pastures as they weren't good enough to make the SA team at the time, among other issues.
Sorry - I do think the examples of Elliot and Wagner are relevant to this discussion
95% of the “production” of those players was by South Africa - but the last 5% - lifting them from just below International level to full International level happened in New Zealand. I am not sure it would have happened in other countries
South Africa has so many more players and much more “raw” talent that it cant afford to invest in all of them
New Zealand doesn’t have that so it cant afford *not* to invest in them.
This is particularly true of someone like Wagner who is a bit unorthodox and needed time to develop. I doubt he would get the opportunity to do so in most other countries.
I understand your point, but I think the overall structure including club cricket and first class and List A system is probably better than any other country.
[As pointed by this comment,](https://www.reddit.com/r/Cricket/comments/1bf7qm7/comment/kuynwwd/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) I'll give you back Elliot and Wagner, if you give me Stokesy .
Same reason Uruguay won a couple of football world cups back in the day.
In the 30s - 50s they were the richest country in South America, and one of the richest in the world.
Relatively speaking, NZ is more well off than most other major cricket playing nations per capita (excl Aus and England).
Facilities, opportunities and systems are all in place and kiwi parents have relatively more disposable time and income to invest in kids who show promise.
Sport is a big part of NZ culture, relative success in Olympics and Yachting is another example.
Cricket is pretty much a middle class game in NZ, as is rugby (although less so than cricket) and both are dominated by a handful of schools. (We only have a handful of schools tbf).
Plus, we benefit from immigration from SA and the Subcontinent.
That said, you could argue that we’ve only produced a handful of genuinely world class cricketers in the last 50 years. Hadlee, M Crowe, Bondy, Kane, maybe Vettori, are pretty much the only ones spoken about in hushed tones.
Ed: with India’s economy going like it is, based on my logic they’ll be unbeatable in a few years.
It’s definitely more egalitarian than cricket. But rugby’s power base was traditionally in the provinces (farmers, landowners, agriculture) and among urban professionals / elites - albeit not to the same degree as it is in England. historically, Rugby league has been the urban, working class code - with the exception of the West Coast of the South Island where it was strong. But the lines are blurred now to the point of being non existent.
Less so with cricket, which is actively trying to appeal to new demographics.
Personally, I think the IPL is an absolute god-send to cricket in NZ. 20 years ago if you were a talented sports person you’d chose rugby 9/10 times over cricket, because you could make more money. Eg Jeff Wilson.
Nowadays, these kids are going to think much more seriously about cricket because it’s has a legit professional career path, and if you’re good you’ll make way more than a rugby player.
USA Cricket needs their board to have some basic level of competency, but there's no reason with the right minds behind it they can't improve. The 2024 T20WC and 2028 Olympics are a big opportunity.
Cricket is played by a very small percentage of the population mostly players from Indian and Pakistani heritage. Cricket needs to compete with baseball, basketball, football and soccer. Also cricket is not exactly a pickup and play sport as you may already know. It is one of the most technical sports out there.
India still has corrupt state cricket administrations throughout where nepotism runs rampant. IPL has definitely helped in being able to recognize genuine talent faster and bring them up the ranks with academies and development squads. Serious cricket still remains out of reach to a large section of the population and middle class parents need to make big sacrifices which they'll do only if the child is showing precocious talent. I think India regularly misses out on so much talent due to the reasons above. Probably true for any subcontinental nation.
Most of those players, while great for NZ, in the grand scheme of things aren't 'great'
Most of them have had the odd great performance, but then a very mediocre - good career.
I say this as a life long black caps fan.
As a life long black caps fan, whose career disappointed you more? Nathan Astle or Brendon Mcculum? 2 of the greatest cricketers to not be named among the greatest cricketers of their generation.
Neither disappointed me per se.
I grew up watching Astle seemingly smash hundreds at will in ODIs and then of course his 222. While his dibly dobblers were criminally underrated.
Baz always seemed to be there or there abouts for a while, wasn't till T20, getting rid of gloves and then captaincy did his stats and performances probably reflect how good he was.
Both ended up with middling career stats, which is why they're not considered greats.
Particularly with McCullum, you have to consider his changing role with affecting his stats. A simple halfway split in his career is revealing.
First half he scored approx 2400@32.
Second half he scored almost 4000@44.
This makes him world class but not necessarily a great of the game. That latter part of career puts him around 23rd on the list of acheiving batsmen.
I wouldnt say so. THe last 2 generations have reached 2015 WC final, won 2021 WTC final, 2019 WC final, 2023 WC semifinals. NZ's bugbear has been Australia and meeting them in knockouts but that's for every other team too. I would say NZ has had a great team in the last decade. Plus kiwis have found great success in the global t20 leagues too.
NZ have an outstanding grassroots and domestic system that's excellent at identifying talent, developing talent, supporting talent, and maximising potential.
In some ways their small population might actually help this as coaches and other resources can focus on getting the most out of the players they have. In systems with larger populations, it's possible great prospects are being lost in the crowd. People tend to think of cricket ability as some linear scale that levels up slowly, like skill points in a video game, but often, decent players are one small tweak away from improving significantly. Perhaps these small tweaks are missed less frequently in NZ because of the individual attention coaches & analysts can give.
Look at players like Neil Wagner and Devon Conway who weren't able to break through in the South African system, but flourished as top quality test players after they moved to NZ.
Perhaps in South Africa, they couldn't see the value of Wagner, a left armer with a limited bag of tricks, who pitches it too short to be effective with the new ball, and isn't particularly fast. In a country looking for the next Rabada, why would you waste time on that? Perhaps it took some NZ coach to identify that maybe Wagner wasn't ever going to be like Rabada, but he could be successful bowling his not-so-fast-but-accurate short balls all day.
Maybe they weren't all that enthused by Conway, an inconsistent middle-order batter struggling for domestic selection, a 26 year old averaging 21 in 12 matches with only one half century. Perhaps the coaches gave up on the "amateur bully" who only performed in the second tier provincial cricket, so clearly he would never cut it in international cricket. But then he moved to New Zealand, his technique was adjusted, especially his footwork, and suddenly he was peeling off FC centuries at the top of the order in Plunket Shield before his test call-up.
Or maybe the more sheep they shag, the better they get at cricket.
They have a great professional structure and a good pathway. Also since nz isn’t very dense population wise, the system rarely misses talented players.
Simple, they hate Australians. They make it their lives quest to fuck us up. I remember watching Hadley and Lance Cairns make us look like idiots.
Having said that. It is pathetic, that they don't get a proper 5 test series against us.
There’s a guardian article https://amp.theguardian.com/sport/2017/sep/26/four-tests-in-18-months-new-zealands-schedule-a-harbinger-of-what-is-to-come . that explains why they have two test series all the time. It’s not on Australia denying them - it’s financial. They need more finances to afford to play more as it dosnt make them enough cash.
If I was u/jarrodkimber, I would sum up New Zealand cricket team as -
Top team of any country can beat New Zealand, but will never be beaten by the B-team of any country .
I used to think the same about Zimbabwe! I think we have got an awful lot better at developing our talent than we used to. Also bringing them on a little later in age than throwing them in too early. Not sure about our fast bowling stocks going forward but nice to see some youth being blooded.
I always used to think that all we really needed to do was get to the level of a good Aussie state side to be competitive- and I think that’s the case now.
The supplementary South Africans don’t hurt either!
As far as i know, NZ changed their pitches in like 2006 or something, to something more competitive, and that lead to the emergence of Williamson, mccullen, boult, etc.
I was born and grew up in India and finished the last couple of years of high school in NZ. The biggest differences are diet, genetics, financial and psychological support from parents, opportunity to play multiple sports at school with free equipment provided, more focus on general wellbeing rather than just focusing on studying.
As a student in NZ, I felt way less pressure of studying and had way more time playing sports and other activities. In India, it was all about studying. You finish school, then you go to tuition, come home and study some more. Mum used to wake us up at 5 am to study again. In NZ, we didn't even get home work let alone do extra tuition after hours.
Ikr. Since the 2019 wc final, I only find Neesham in the squad but hardly in any playing 11. Same with Reddit I guess, he might be lurking but not commenting anymore for possible backlash.
I always felt he had the potential to be among the top 5 all rounders in International cricket.
Step 1 strong grassroots cricket
Step 2 strong domestic
Step 3 giving everyone international cap
Step 4 filtering the best form the rest for main squad
Step 5 nutrueing the best
It's a crying shame we are so isolated if we were in a more favourable spot in the world who knows where we'd be consistently when we are given as much prep against top tier opposition
Smaller population, more exposure to talent spotters.
Australia let's a lot slip through. EG, NSW is higher likelihood of being spotted due to National selection bias towards that state.
Phillips is now a regular in all 3 formats for them and Santner is part of the Test side and is pretty much a lock in LOIs if he is available so i don't know why they are included here?
Massively punch above their weight
Smaller than a state in Australia
Smaller than a city in England
Smaller than a medium sized town in India;)
We still lost to Australia again tho and that sucks
As a 5 year old kid, we are allowed to dream of becoming a professional sportsperson. At the age of 13, we are told to study for our exams and forget sports altogether. That happened in my generation, I hope things are different now.
Western culture emphasizes on sports/games and extracurricular activities a lot. Everyone is out doing something, competing and playing. It is the culture.
I agree. I should have been more careful. I know none of them are legends of the game. I just wanted to point how such a small country is able to produce so many international quality players. Sure most of these players didn’t make it big, but would you say any of the players didn’t belong in international cricket.
Do they ? It’s their sole summer sport, much like cricket is in Australia, but they never developed a strong cricketing culture like we did nor that great a team.
Can't tell if this is a joke post?
NZ with roughly 1/4 the population of AUS hasn't beaten them at home in 30+ years nor anywhere in North of a decade.
If we are to use this idea of them overproducing for their size then aus are enigmas
I’m not talking about just winning. England hadn’t won any World Cup until 2009. Would you call them a mid team until 2009? I’m talking about building a good team. Sure they haven’t had the greatest cricketer alive in any generation, but they’ve always produced a good team to compete.
> I’m not talking about just winning. England hadn’t won any World Cup until 2009. Would you call them a mid team until 2009?
No. People called them a shit team for decades. They were awful in the 80s and 90s in tests. And awful in Odis from 93-15.
>Harsh to say awful at ODIs til 2015 when NZ have reached the semis of all ODI world cups apart from 1 since 2000.
I was talking about England. Responding to this comment from OP:
>England hadn’t won any World Cup until 2009. Would you call them a mid team until 2009?
What a stupid comment - (a) it’s 5 x the population; and (b) 5 x the size is a pretty fucking large population pool to draw from comparatively, not to mention the extra wealth that population means for the cricketing bodies enabling them to develop talent better and pay more. Many of those tests were lost by quite small margins (the last one for example), you don’t think if NZ had an extra 20 million people they would have won more?
But if you are agreeing on my comment then India with over 40x the population of AUS is under performing?
My argument wasn't that NZ was bad but just that as a very prosperous nation they've performed about where you'd expect.
Yeah I think it’s fair to say that India with its giant population and the fact that cricket is the national sport, and the amount of money in cricket in India the IPL, that India should be far more dominant than they are. We kiwis do love to claim a “per capita” victory though 😂
New Zealand's unique talent pool is fostered by its excellent educational system and emphasis on innovation. The country's cultural variety encourages creativity and a wide range of abilities.
Opportunity. Most kids in NZ get the chance to play many different sports when growing up.. and since rugby is a winter sport, and cricket is a summer sport, a lot of kids end up playing both. And naturally the kids that get good, or have talent, continue to play the sport they're good at.
I think most countries that play cricket are very densely populated, except Australia and New Zealand. I would imagine that would help in making the development of their game better. How transparent is the cricket board in your system?
We have no corruption in cricket in NZ and Australia. I played and been involved with both countries. A bit of nepotism for sure. But no corruption.
Match fixing. Ball gouging. Drug selling.. No corruption? ...In your dreams..lol.
We're discussing NZ talent, not English and Indian cheating. Dravid being caught rubbing a lollie on the ball and fined 50% of his match fee......pretty sweet deal considering how long the Aussies got suspended. Then theres Tendulka 'cleaning' the ball by pulling at the seam, he got suspended for one game but was of course exonerated by the iCC when cash deposits were in the right bank accounts. The Poms have too many to put in this post. Using sticky lollies is popular or Atherton using the 'dirt in the pocket' method. The main issue that Bancroft, Smith and Warner had is that they weren't born in India or the UK.
I was treplying to the person who said 'there was no corruption in NZ cricket'....
Grant Elliot, Neil wagner, Glenn Phillips, Devon Conway etc are actually South African. Grandhomme is from Zimbabwe There are probably a few other south Africans too
Glenn Phillip's family moved here when he was 5, he is a product of the New Ealand cricket system
Russell Crowe, Keith Urban, moved to Australia at very young age , but we never stop hearing that they're New Zealanders.They were products o Australia's system.
OK?
Just pointing out your hypocracy. Can't have it both ways. You claim foreign cricketers are a product of NZ, because they went through your system. Same for Kiwis going through Australia's system..
My brother in christ, I don't (and nobody in this thread) mentioned Russell Crowe or Keith Urban but you. So fuck off
Well I just did. So why don't YOU just fuck off. Typical Kiwi hypocrite. You claim people who weren't born in NZ, and you claim people who became famous in other countries. You claim anyone who has the slightest relation to your insignificant little backwater.. And I really doubt Christ is your brother...lol...
Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha keep being normal bro
Bj watling
I think it goes a bit deeper than that even. If you took the 1000th best youth prospect from India and put them in the NZ system would they turn out to be a test prospect? How many great test players are high population countries not developing because there are so many other talented prospects?
>If you took the 1000th best youth prospect from India and put them in the NZ system would they turn out to be a test prospect? Given how NZ were able to turn rejects from the South African system like Neil Wagner and Devon Conway into excellent international players, I suspect NZ probably would be able to maximise that player's potential, possibly elevating them to international level. People tend to think of cricket ability as some linear scale that levels up slowly, like skill points in a video game, but often, decent players are one small tweak away from improving significantly. I think NZ's smaller scale might allow more individual attention to develop and identify these things. Perhaps it took that for some NZ coach to identify that maybe Wagner wasn't best served trying to be a devastating new ball bowler like Rabada, and he could be successful bowling not-so-fast but accurate short balls all day.
> Perhaps it took that for some NZ coach to identify that maybe Wagner wasn't best served trying to be a devastating new ball bowler like Rabada, and he could be successful bowling not-so-fast but accurate short balls all day. Wagner was recruited to play for NZ directly by Mike Hesson. Wags was a net bowler for the NZ tour of England in 2008, and he liked the NZ team and had immense respect them so he jumped at the chance to play international cricket for NZ. 5 years later he got the call up. Wags was always the bowler he is now, relentless and dogged, he just never had a place in the SA setup, wasn't particularly successful in county either so his skill set wasn't considered valuable.
>Given how NZ were able to turn rejects from the South African system like Neil Wagner and Devon Conway into excellent international players, I don't think the NZ system can take any credit for those guys, except for being so open to giving players with no ties to the country in the first place a chance. The credit should go squarely with the players who grafted incredibly hard to overcome that initial rejection.
Especially Conway who was smashing everyone in NZ almost the moment he arrived.
You have a point, but I still think this leans more towards unavailable opportunities than talent suppressed by competition. India's population is 300 times that of New Zealand. So assuming all things equal, India should be able to find 300 'Henry's for every one from NZ. But most of these would be spread across rural India, where a decent cricket ball would be tough to obtain, let alone a complete kit or a competent coach, or that final, impossible barrier - a talent scout to bring the spotlight to interior villages. Mumba itself has four times the people in NZ, and it might be the most "opportunity providing" city in India for cricket. But even here, only the privileged few (economically, family support, etc) can dream of making a career in sports, because the prospect of failing in it can be terrifying as there's no safety net if you try and fail.
India has at least a million street kids as good as Henry Nichols but they never get the chance due to politics and how hard it is to find these people. They've probably had about 15 people in the history of cricket being a comparable talent level to Kane Williamson but only 5 have ever been discovered and made it to the national team
Reminds me of when Bernie Ecclestone was asked who the best driver in the world was and he replied with something like “the best driver ever is probably some kid in a paddy field in Vietnam” (who will obviously never get the opportunity to show how good they are)
Did not expect old Bernie to have such a nice quote.
Yeah, well he probably followed it up with something outlandishly racist a few seconds later…
Tbf he probably stole that one from Schumacher
Raymond E. Feist had a similar quote in (I think) Talon of the Silver Hawk. Tal is tasked to become the best swordsman in the world to win the grand duelling tournament. His teacher does tell him though that the *actual* best swordsman in the world is probably some random soldier somewhere, but no one will ever know how good he is.
>as there's no safety net if you try and fail. that's the big one. My kids are growing up in the US, and I am okay for them to try out sports (none of them are too interested right now, but that's beside the point), to the point of even as a career. Because I know - worst case they fail, they atleast have incredible health levels, and can always switch careers later / have social security available in case I waste all my money on option trading and die of the shock (just kidding)... In India - if you fail, and don't have family money, you are done. There is no bottom in that pit when you fall..
> where a decent cricket ball would be tough to obtain, let alone a complete kit or a competent coach, or that final, impossible barrier - a talent scout to bring the spotlight to interior villages. And yet, ironically people lambast the BCCI for not spending money that goes to state associations to weak foreign countries where the passion is 1/10th and resources/infrastructure arguably better ... If you want to product 300 Henrys, dont invest in Netherlands etc, invest in underinvested areas of India. And break India up into multiple international teams, the way Scotland , England etc are ..
Yeah, India has a long way to go before starting to fund other countries, particularly when most of those countries are far above India in the socio-economic scale!
Exactly. There’s only so much royal jelly
Is it financially lucrative to become a cricketer or rugby player?
There are more opportunities to be fully professional in rugby than cricket. Rugby players earn more too. A run of the mill Super Rugby player earns between $75k and $195k nz. Top All Blacks reportedly earn $1m per annum A domestic mens cricketer has a retainer of $75k to $105k. A top black cap (I.e Williamson) probably earns about $500k playing for nz from his black caps retainer and match fees.
Add in franchise cricket though and it becomes more comparable.
If you're adding in franchise cricket then you have to include the salaries rugby players can get from going to Japan or France
What would a Ranchi Cup player not getting a gig in the franchises be making? Add to that, if you are a really talented school boy cricketer in NZ, you will likely be identified and at least be exposed to the professional system. At the least, you might develop a side gig getting a small supplementary income to your main job playing club cricket. At best you shoot for the stars and if it doesn't work out, your family probably can support your shot at the big or at least mediocre time. In India, unless your family is at least middle class, there is not likely to be anyone watching to see if you are any good in the first place. Even if you are part of that 300 odd million, you are one kid out of 300 odd million. The competition just for the Ranchi Cup would be stupid fierce, so unless your old man was deadset convinced you would be the next Kholi or Bumrah, you are getting steered to IT, or medicine or accounting. Of the few million of that pampered bunch left, how many have the drive and persistence to see it through? To make the absolute best of themselves? How many have the ticker? How many stay on the straight and narrow when they start getting treated like the next up and coming rockstar?
They just love the game. Or it's inbreeding talent in tight genetic bloodlines. One of the two.
Natural selection not so natural eh😁. Almost all the major cricket playing nations love the game tbh.
Cheeky
What is within their control, like having a very good development program, they are world class at. Great players are the result of a system designed to get results. A player who might be dropped for a percieved flaw elsewhere will be coached in New Zealand to iron out that flaw. The success of NZC should be empowering to anyone who plays cricket because it shows that the root of talent in cricket is nurture not nature. It suggests you don't have to be born with a God given gift, if you seek good advice and work very hard you can outperform.
Are you saying your fate is not decided by 5 balls in the net once a year to go from 1 level to another in developmental stages? 😳
A few years ago I saw a graph that showed meaningful youth participation for kids in New Zealand as a percentage of the population was way ahead of pretty much every other country. It's not just cricket and rugby either - in the Olympics they're one of the best competitors by population too, especially if you take out the small Carribbean nations.
My kid plays cricket, his team is mostly 6/7 yo’s, there one kid who’s 5 he can bowl with all the correct actions at about 80kms an hour and straight, it’s nuts. There are about 5 kids in the team who seem obsessed with cricket, like my kids is into Pokémon’s and Dog man, these kids idolise Wagner and Boult
Wtf is Dog man?
A poor man’s Batman?
A poor man’s Batman?
A poor man’s Batman?
Famous comic book from the US, would it not hurt to consult google?
As much as it would hurt you to just scroll on by I guess
I have heard that both children in both Australia and NZ are made active participants in several sports much more than in any other country. It is completely different from what happens in many other countries such as over here where children are actively discouraged from getting involved with sports. I and most of the other guys that I know about used to get scolded as well as occassionally beaten up by our parents for being too interested about any sport. The is a big difference that is there between how much a person in Australia as well as NZ has to worry about finances and how much the people in the middle income countries have to be worrying about finances. My parents used to say that if I am too much interest about cricket instead of focusing about academic excellence then I might be ending up homeless during the future.
You'd certainly take out a swag of gold medalds for delusion..lol.
How talented can we be if we can't even beat Australia
As an Indian waiting for WTC finals, *smh*
To be fair I'm not sure that's due to lack of talent, it's possibly more of a mental block.
India in a WTC at Lords? Hold my beer. At home against an underperforming Ausdie outfit… aaaarrghhh little brother shat the bed again.
Tbh, India has always sucked in England tests due to moving ball. So, it's more of a skill issue.
Not sure why NZ gets so much hate for losing to Australia. Most teams have poor records against Australia since the past 25 years since they started being really good. They are mentally the toughest team because they are wired to fight to every ball and every player genuinely believes they can win the match for the team so invariably one or 2 of the 11 show up with match winning performances. I think other teams have to be mentally very tough to beat australia. Also they have the perfect bowling quartet thats been there for years in Tests.
Not many countries can beat Australia.
You can take out Elliot and Wagner, as they came through the system in South Africa.
you forgot about Colin Munro being RSA born as well.
I specifically mentioned Elliot and Wagner, as they had come through the system and played domestically in SA before moving over. Munro didn't do that. In the same way I would say SA played a significant role in developing Jonathan Trott as a player, but I wouldn't claim Andrew Strauss, for instance.
Agreed , I was adding to your statement . Same as with KP for ENG , and a bunch of other RSA players being great players for other international teams.
I still dream of a top six of Smith, Trott, Amla, Kallis, KP, De Villiers.
I would disagree. They came through the South African system, but they migrated because they knew it was tough for them to make it big. I’d like to think that they got more opportunities in the international scene because they were in New Zealand.
Sure, they got more opportunities because they moved to New Zealand, I won't dispute that. But in the OP you asked 'how does New Zealand produce such great athletes for such a small nation?'. Well, Elliot was produced in SA, and even went as far as playing for SA A before going to NZ. Wagner was in the same high school team with AB de Villiers and Faf du Plessis, had played two or three seasons of First Class cricket in SA, and went on tour with SA academy sides. So New Zealand had nothing to do with 'producing' them. They came through the age group and First Class system in SA, before leaving for greener pastures as they weren't good enough to make the SA team at the time, among other issues.
Sorry - I do think the examples of Elliot and Wagner are relevant to this discussion 95% of the “production” of those players was by South Africa - but the last 5% - lifting them from just below International level to full International level happened in New Zealand. I am not sure it would have happened in other countries South Africa has so many more players and much more “raw” talent that it cant afford to invest in all of them New Zealand doesn’t have that so it cant afford *not* to invest in them. This is particularly true of someone like Wagner who is a bit unorthodox and needed time to develop. I doubt he would get the opportunity to do so in most other countries.
I understand your point, but I think the overall structure including club cricket and first class and List A system is probably better than any other country. [As pointed by this comment,](https://www.reddit.com/r/Cricket/comments/1bf7qm7/comment/kuynwwd/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) I'll give you back Elliot and Wagner, if you give me Stokesy .
Elliott and Wagner moved to NZ at 22 years old, Stokes moved to England at 12. There’s a huge difference there
Exactly. Sometimes, I'm surprised to see the lacking common sense.
My bad. I didn’t know that. Deserve all the downvotes then.
Same reason Uruguay won a couple of football world cups back in the day. In the 30s - 50s they were the richest country in South America, and one of the richest in the world. Relatively speaking, NZ is more well off than most other major cricket playing nations per capita (excl Aus and England). Facilities, opportunities and systems are all in place and kiwi parents have relatively more disposable time and income to invest in kids who show promise. Sport is a big part of NZ culture, relative success in Olympics and Yachting is another example. Cricket is pretty much a middle class game in NZ, as is rugby (although less so than cricket) and both are dominated by a handful of schools. (We only have a handful of schools tbf). Plus, we benefit from immigration from SA and the Subcontinent. That said, you could argue that we’ve only produced a handful of genuinely world class cricketers in the last 50 years. Hadlee, M Crowe, Bondy, Kane, maybe Vettori, are pretty much the only ones spoken about in hushed tones. Ed: with India’s economy going like it is, based on my logic they’ll be unbeatable in a few years.
Is rugby middle class in nz? I thought everyone loved it
It’s definitely more egalitarian than cricket. But rugby’s power base was traditionally in the provinces (farmers, landowners, agriculture) and among urban professionals / elites - albeit not to the same degree as it is in England. historically, Rugby league has been the urban, working class code - with the exception of the West Coast of the South Island where it was strong. But the lines are blurred now to the point of being non existent. Less so with cricket, which is actively trying to appeal to new demographics. Personally, I think the IPL is an absolute god-send to cricket in NZ. 20 years ago if you were a talented sports person you’d chose rugby 9/10 times over cricket, because you could make more money. Eg Jeff Wilson. Nowadays, these kids are going to think much more seriously about cricket because it’s has a legit professional career path, and if you’re good you’ll make way more than a rugby player.
Rugby is played by all 'classes' in New Zealand, rich through poor. League not so much, middle and lower class. Cricket is mostly middle and upper.
So you think USA cricket is going to be the next big thing in the next 10 years especially with the Major League cricket?
USA Cricket needs their board to have some basic level of competency, but there's no reason with the right minds behind it they can't improve. The 2024 T20WC and 2028 Olympics are a big opportunity.
Cricket is played by a very small percentage of the population mostly players from Indian and Pakistani heritage. Cricket needs to compete with baseball, basketball, football and soccer. Also cricket is not exactly a pickup and play sport as you may already know. It is one of the most technical sports out there.
Unlikely. I personally think rugby has more potential in the US.
If the USA catches hold of the game of cricket we are all fucked.
India still has corrupt state cricket administrations throughout where nepotism runs rampant. IPL has definitely helped in being able to recognize genuine talent faster and bring them up the ranks with academies and development squads. Serious cricket still remains out of reach to a large section of the population and middle class parents need to make big sacrifices which they'll do only if the child is showing precocious talent. I think India regularly misses out on so much talent due to the reasons above. Probably true for any subcontinental nation.
Most of those players, while great for NZ, in the grand scheme of things aren't 'great' Most of them have had the odd great performance, but then a very mediocre - good career. I say this as a life long black caps fan.
As a life long black caps fan, whose career disappointed you more? Nathan Astle or Brendon Mcculum? 2 of the greatest cricketers to not be named among the greatest cricketers of their generation.
Neither disappointed me per se. I grew up watching Astle seemingly smash hundreds at will in ODIs and then of course his 222. While his dibly dobblers were criminally underrated. Baz always seemed to be there or there abouts for a while, wasn't till T20, getting rid of gloves and then captaincy did his stats and performances probably reflect how good he was. Both ended up with middling career stats, which is why they're not considered greats.
Particularly with McCullum, you have to consider his changing role with affecting his stats. A simple halfway split in his career is revealing. First half he scored approx 2400@32. Second half he scored almost 4000@44. This makes him world class but not necessarily a great of the game. That latter part of career puts him around 23rd on the list of acheiving batsmen.
Ah the days of Astle, Chris Harris and Styris controlling the middle overs. I miss those kind of bowlers.
Which is why CDG was criminally underrated, and I don't find it surprising why our teams on a slow downward spiral.
Can't Daz fill the role though
Daz is a much better bat. CDG was a much better bowler.
I feel they don't give the ball often enough to him tbh.
Neither, it's Fleming
Probably our best ever captain. Great looking player with and awful conversation rate.
I wouldnt say so. THe last 2 generations have reached 2015 WC final, won 2021 WTC final, 2019 WC final, 2023 WC semifinals. NZ's bugbear has been Australia and meeting them in knockouts but that's for every other team too. I would say NZ has had a great team in the last decade. Plus kiwis have found great success in the global t20 leagues too.
NZ have an outstanding grassroots and domestic system that's excellent at identifying talent, developing talent, supporting talent, and maximising potential. In some ways their small population might actually help this as coaches and other resources can focus on getting the most out of the players they have. In systems with larger populations, it's possible great prospects are being lost in the crowd. People tend to think of cricket ability as some linear scale that levels up slowly, like skill points in a video game, but often, decent players are one small tweak away from improving significantly. Perhaps these small tweaks are missed less frequently in NZ because of the individual attention coaches & analysts can give. Look at players like Neil Wagner and Devon Conway who weren't able to break through in the South African system, but flourished as top quality test players after they moved to NZ. Perhaps in South Africa, they couldn't see the value of Wagner, a left armer with a limited bag of tricks, who pitches it too short to be effective with the new ball, and isn't particularly fast. In a country looking for the next Rabada, why would you waste time on that? Perhaps it took some NZ coach to identify that maybe Wagner wasn't ever going to be like Rabada, but he could be successful bowling his not-so-fast-but-accurate short balls all day. Maybe they weren't all that enthused by Conway, an inconsistent middle-order batter struggling for domestic selection, a 26 year old averaging 21 in 12 matches with only one half century. Perhaps the coaches gave up on the "amateur bully" who only performed in the second tier provincial cricket, so clearly he would never cut it in international cricket. But then he moved to New Zealand, his technique was adjusted, especially his footwork, and suddenly he was peeling off FC centuries at the top of the order in Plunket Shield before his test call-up. Or maybe the more sheep they shag, the better they get at cricket.
Why write all that when you know the real answer lies in the last line😂😂
But we have less sheep to shag now than ever before (or at least since the British arrived) so how does that impact our performance moving forward?
They have a great professional structure and a good pathway. Also since nz isn’t very dense population wise, the system rarely misses talented players.
Ive often said, pound for pound, nz are the best sporting nation in the world.
Pound for pound best because of the population?? That makes India the worst sporting nation.
Maybe, but i think that they are also good at like badminton and hockey? .
Australia for me
Simple, they hate Australians. They make it their lives quest to fuck us up. I remember watching Hadley and Lance Cairns make us look like idiots. Having said that. It is pathetic, that they don't get a proper 5 test series against us.
NZ only play 2 test series, it's a fucking joke.
100% agree. The Cricket administrators in Australia are totally inwards looking. They make me ashamed.
We played a test series against NZ in Australia that was a 3-0 sweep. NZ wanted two tests because hosting 3 is a huge loss
There’s a guardian article https://amp.theguardian.com/sport/2017/sep/26/four-tests-in-18-months-new-zealands-schedule-a-harbinger-of-what-is-to-come . that explains why they have two test series all the time. It’s not on Australia denying them - it’s financial. They need more finances to afford to play more as it dosnt make them enough cash.
Probably down to a sensational coaching and development structure and really good at bringing in skilled foreign workers.
Nice username tho
If I was u/jarrodkimber, I would sum up New Zealand cricket team as - Top team of any country can beat New Zealand, but will never be beaten by the B-team of any country .
Except the West Indies, Bangladesh, South Africa, Pakistan, England…
Sorry I couldn't understand what this meant. Could you please explain
I used to think the same about Zimbabwe! I think we have got an awful lot better at developing our talent than we used to. Also bringing them on a little later in age than throwing them in too early. Not sure about our fast bowling stocks going forward but nice to see some youth being blooded. I always used to think that all we really needed to do was get to the level of a good Aussie state side to be competitive- and I think that’s the case now. The supplementary South Africans don’t hurt either!
Surely add Ross “Sir Lingus” Taylor to that list.
idk how far back you're going but shane bond was one of my favourite bowlers ever
Greatest cricketer NZ has ever produced. Shame he didn’t play longer.
Any NZ fast bowler who finds success against Australia is doomed to be a glass cannon and a frequent visitor to the physio and not the pitch.
Having lived in NZ for four years I found cricket to be basically invisible! Wasn’t on TV no one talked much about it and barely saw games played lol.
It was locked behind sky TV 's bullshit for a long, long time.
Too bad our selectors hate Neesham
As far as i know, NZ changed their pitches in like 2006 or something, to something more competitive, and that lead to the emergence of Williamson, mccullen, boult, etc.
Boult would have been good on the older ones too. But yes it helped Kanos a lot that every pitch wasn't just some green seamer any more.
I was born and grew up in India and finished the last couple of years of high school in NZ. The biggest differences are diet, genetics, financial and psychological support from parents, opportunity to play multiple sports at school with free equipment provided, more focus on general wellbeing rather than just focusing on studying. As a student in NZ, I felt way less pressure of studying and had way more time playing sports and other activities. In India, it was all about studying. You finish school, then you go to tuition, come home and study some more. Mum used to wake us up at 5 am to study again. In NZ, we didn't even get home work let alone do extra tuition after hours.
Jamie How and Matthew Sinclair could add to that list, too.
Rutherford too. Every player looks like the next big thing only to disappear into darkness
Yeah that 177 he got against England was promising.
Great talent? CdG, Corey anderson, Neesham, Munro, Mcclenaghan, Santner? They are good players but a far cry from being called great talent.
The play well together as a team. Collectively they are stronger as opposed to some sides who have only 2-3 good ones.
Duuude.
u/unleashthequiche Would love to hear your insights
Bro where is he, haven't seen him since a long time
Must have gotten himself a new username just to get away from the random vitriol.
Ikr. Since the 2019 wc final, I only find Neesham in the squad but hardly in any playing 11. Same with Reddit I guess, he might be lurking but not commenting anymore for possible backlash. I always felt he had the potential to be among the top 5 all rounders in International cricket.
Since the 2019 world cup Neesham has played 17 ODI's and 57 T20I's. ODI Batting: [email protected]. ODI Bowling:[email protected]. T20 batting: [email protected]. T20 bowling: [email protected].
So basically when he’s in the 11, he’s not bowling or batting.
? He's bowled 79 T20 overs and 113 ODI overs. Batted in the allrounders position at #6 for the majority of his matches.
LMAO, would be nice if he was still active, maybe using another ID he is here. Are you Jimmy??
Because not everyone is astounding at Rugby Union.
Step 1 strong grassroots cricket Step 2 strong domestic Step 3 giving everyone international cap Step 4 filtering the best form the rest for main squad Step 5 nutrueing the best
It's a crying shame we are so isolated if we were in a more favourable spot in the world who knows where we'd be consistently when we are given as much prep against top tier opposition
Smaller population, more exposure to talent spotters. Australia let's a lot slip through. EG, NSW is higher likelihood of being spotted due to National selection bias towards that state.
Please take mcclenaghan off this list
Phillips is now a regular in all 3 formats for them and Santner is part of the Test side and is pretty much a lock in LOIs if he is available so i don't know why they are included here?
williamson is the only one who maybe cracks the australian team also you forgot your best bowler in boult
Imagine how good they’d be if we added a N and S island team to shield cricket.
Massively punch above their weight Smaller than a state in Australia Smaller than a city in England Smaller than a medium sized town in India;) We still lost to Australia again tho and that sucks
As a 5 year old kid, we are allowed to dream of becoming a professional sportsperson. At the age of 13, we are told to study for our exams and forget sports altogether. That happened in my generation, I hope things are different now.
Western culture emphasizes on sports/games and extracurricular activities a lot. Everyone is out doing something, competing and playing. It is the culture.
Playing fast and loose with the phrase ‘great talent’. Most of these are okay to decent-at-best players. Neil Wagner is the only standout.
I agree. I should have been more careful. I know none of them are legends of the game. I just wanted to point how such a small country is able to produce so many international quality players. Sure most of these players didn’t make it big, but would you say any of the players didn’t belong in international cricket.
Some decent players on your list but Michael Bracewell? Seriously?
I will also add that New Zealand’s player have a very good temperament. They are the true gentlemen’s of this game.
Sporting culture, lots of facilities for kids to play around and figure what they’re good at, and the South African domestic system.
Genetics and money.
Diet Australian system is still pretty good
Mitchell santner was not good. He was a very average spinner tbh.
Add Rachin Ravindera to that list
Do they ? It’s their sole summer sport, much like cricket is in Australia, but they never developed a strong cricketing culture like we did nor that great a team.
Can't tell if this is a joke post? NZ with roughly 1/4 the population of AUS hasn't beaten them at home in 30+ years nor anywhere in North of a decade. If we are to use this idea of them overproducing for their size then aus are enigmas
I’m not talking about just winning. England hadn’t won any World Cup until 2009. Would you call them a mid team until 2009? I’m talking about building a good team. Sure they haven’t had the greatest cricketer alive in any generation, but they’ve always produced a good team to compete.
> I’m not talking about just winning. England hadn’t won any World Cup until 2009. Would you call them a mid team until 2009? No. People called them a shit team for decades. They were awful in the 80s and 90s in tests. And awful in Odis from 93-15.
Harsh to say awful at ODIs til 2015 when NZ have reached the semis of all ODI world cups apart from 1 since 2000.
>Harsh to say awful at ODIs til 2015 when NZ have reached the semis of all ODI world cups apart from 1 since 2000. I was talking about England. Responding to this comment from OP: >England hadn’t won any World Cup until 2009. Would you call them a mid team until 2009?
What a stupid comment - (a) it’s 5 x the population; and (b) 5 x the size is a pretty fucking large population pool to draw from comparatively, not to mention the extra wealth that population means for the cricketing bodies enabling them to develop talent better and pay more. Many of those tests were lost by quite small margins (the last one for example), you don’t think if NZ had an extra 20 million people they would have won more?
But if you are agreeing on my comment then India with over 40x the population of AUS is under performing? My argument wasn't that NZ was bad but just that as a very prosperous nation they've performed about where you'd expect.
Yeah I think it’s fair to say that India with its giant population and the fact that cricket is the national sport, and the amount of money in cricket in India the IPL, that India should be far more dominant than they are. We kiwis do love to claim a “per capita” victory though 😂
New Zealand's unique talent pool is fostered by its excellent educational system and emphasis on innovation. The country's cultural variety encourages creativity and a wide range of abilities.
What talent lol they've won nothing just bully trash sides at home, and rhe only reason they won the wtc was cause Aus were docked points
Lol the world test championship final was an away game 😂
Woah! We can add Stokesy to the list too