You have to give the England cricketers full credit, they do have faith in themselves
Lynn McConnell18-Feb-2002You have to give the England cricketers full credit, they do have faith in themselves.But Andrew Caddick is testing the limits in his Independent On Sunday column this weekend. He said: “On paper, player for player, we are a better side. We have better individual players. We have allowed them to beat us.”Now, New Zealanders by their very nature are reasonable people. Caddick should know this, he lived here for long enough.And perhaps he is using his column as a vehicle to gee up his lads. So you have to take that into account.But really, it is time to acknowledge that when it comes to performing, New Zealand is doing it more than a little better at the moment.England talk a good game but when it comes to walking it, it’s a little different in reality.And when claiming that England are a better side, he needs to recall just who won the last Test series between the two sides.New Zealand.By a margin of 2-1 which had they not let the first Test out of their grasp could just as easily have been 3-0.And when the teams last met in a one-day series back in 1996/97, a much stronger England team than this one in New Zealand at the moment, were held to a drawn series by a young New Zealand side.On paper it is possible to claim a lot of things. And if you do try hard enough you could believe that England “player for player” is the better side. It could also be easy to claim that England possesses “better individual players”.But how do you measure that?By performance on the field in One-Day Internationals?By performance in international cricket overall?By performances in first-class cricket – county play for England, State Championship play in New Zealand?As we’re playing ODIs at the moment, let’s get down to some brass tacks.Based on the last teams to play in Wellington, here are some comparisons.NATHAN ASTLE v NICK KNIGHTKnight has 2731 runs from 73 ODIs at a strike rate of 70.45. Four centuries and 19 half centuries.Astle has 4857 from 147 ODIs at a strike rate of 72.52, with 11 centuries and 29 half centuries. Astle also has 89 wickets with an economy rate of 4.61.Astle wins. Not only does he score with the higher strike rate, he also takes wickets.CHRIS NEVIN v MARCUS TRESCOTHICKTrescothick has 1202 runs in 34 games at a strike rate of 83.64. Is a part-time wicket-keeper.Nevin has 367 runs in 15 games. His strike rate is 87.17. Full-time wicket-keeper.A tie.STEPHEN FLEMING v NASSER HUSSAINHussain in 62 games has 1619 runs at a strike rate of 66.46, no centuries and 11 50s.Fleming in 167 games has 4524 runs at a strike rate of 69.67, three centuries and 29 50s.Fleming wins.CRAIG McMILLAN v GRAHAM THORPEMcMillan in 106 games has 2450 runs at a strike rate of 72.18, one century and 13 50s. He’s taken 36 wickets with an economy rate of 5.24.Thorpe in 76 games has 2215 runs at a strike rate of 70.36, four centuries and 23 50s.On strike rate McMillan leads but Thorpe has greater consistency in scoring, even allowing for the fact that he doesn’t do anything other than bat.Thorpe wins.BRENDON McCULLUM v OWAIS SHAHTwo relative newcomers. McCullum in five games has 80 runs at a strike rate of 55.55 while Shah in seven games has 111 runs at 57.51.A tie.LOU VINCENT v PAUL COLLINGWOODVincent in 29 matches has 589 runs at a strike rate of 60.47. He’s also a lethal fieldsman.Collingwood in 15 games has 319 runs at a strike rate of 79.15. He’s take three wickets at an economy rate of 5.59.Collingwood has the better strike rate but will he still be there when the English grand plan emerges? Vincent is a crucial part of New Zealand’s future mix.But on the facts of the moment, Collingwood wins.CHRIS CAIRNS v ANDREW FLINTOFFCairns’ 148 matches have produced 3549 runs at a strike rate of 81.45 and 146 wickets at an economy rate of 4.7. Flintoff has played 36 games and hit 634 runs at 82.33 with 22 wickets at an economy rate of 4.79.The figures make for interesting comparisons, but Cairns’ proven match-winning ability cannot be denied.Cairns wins.CHRIS HARRIS v CRAIG WHITEHarris in 200 games has 3603 runs at a strike rate of 68.05 and 183 wickets at 4.28. In 39 games White has 348 runs at at a strike rate of 52.01 and 50 wickets at an economy rate of 4.42.Harris wins.ANDRE ADAMS v DARREN GOUGHAdams in nine games has 108 runs at a strike rate of 120.0 and 11 wickets at an economy rate of 4.47. In 103 games Gough has 162 wickets at an economy rate of 4.27.Again the experience factor comes into effect. But Adams’ batting makes this a very close call.Gough wins.DANIEL VETTORI v ASHLEY GILESIn 74 matches Vettori has 75 wickets at an economy rate of 4.44 and Giles in 14 games has 15 wickets at an economy rate of 4.81.Vettori can bat, and, more importantly, he can field. No race.Vettori wins.DARYL TUFFEY v MATTHEW HOGGARDTuffey in 21 games has 27 wickets at an economy rate of 4.65 while in nine games Hoggard has 17 wickets at an economy rate of 4.57.Hoggard wins.On individuals New Zealand wins 5-4 with two ties.Missing from the England team was Caddick himself and he is throughout the 38 games of his career, the most economical of England’s bowlers with 48 wickets and an economy rate of 3.91. New Zealand is without Shane Bond but if his figures were put alongside Caddick’s they would show he had 21 wickets in nine games and an economy rate of 4.17.”Man for man the best team” – the evidence would suggest New Zealand have much the greater right to make that claim.And “man for man” the New Zealanders have more dimensions to their play, especially with the fastly higher quality of their fielding.But there is one other factor – the combination of elements that make up a team. And there is no doubt that in the one-day game it is the ability to consistently perform as a team that will bring a team success.That team in this series has so far been New Zealand, as witnessed by its recovery to halt England’s potentially runaway batting in the first game in Christchurch, and its performance to overcome a collapse to still head off England.Then it was the combination of partnership building that created such a huge difference between the two sides in Wellington.Evidence so far at least would suggest Caddick is well short of substantive fact to back his claims.