Although middle order doesn't seem to have been sufficient ever for New Zealand but when we are talking of All Time NZ XI, we could expect that two openers plus three middle order batsmen could be sufficient. after that we could move to All rounders, Wicket Keeper and then the bowlers. In the test you have to have 5 genuine bowlers, so inclusion of Hadlee and Vettori would enhance the batting as well, plus a wicket keeper batsman, that would make a pretty nice batting strength.

Also re: NZ averages: a partial reason these seem low is that promising NZ batsmen tend to get picked very early. This happens in several countries but it's been worst in NZ (well, aside from Bangladesh) because of the small first class player base. Thus Martin Crowe gets thrown to the lions at 19; it takes him two years to score his first 50. Teenager Ken Rutherford is picked to face Marshall, Garner and Holding; it takes seven years for him to recover sufficiently to push his average over 20. You're even seeing it now with Vettori.

Of course, another reason NZ averages seem low is because we're not that good.

Where the supporting evidence for Dempster's greatness is strong, the supporting evidence for Donnelly's greatness is iffy. His record before the war is good but not overwhelming. A couple of his centuries for Oxford came against opposition of questionable strength (Cambridge, Free Foresters). His stint for Warwickshire was barren. It was only in 1949 that he had unquestionably become a world-class batsman, and then he promptly called it quits and mozed to Oz.

Still, at least Donnelly *might* have been a great batsman, which is more than anyone else on the list except for Crowe and Sutcliffe can claim. JR Reid was a great all-rounder, but not a great batsman. Fleming was a great captain, but not a great batsman, and I can't include a guy who only scored a century every 12 Tests, no matter how tactically astute he was. JF Reid had a fine record in a bowlers' era, except he managed to avoid the great bowlers more often than not. 1. Turner 2. Sutcliffe 3. Dempster 4. Crowe 5. Donnelly.

NZ definitely can afford to go in with 5 batsmen, considering that at no. 6 I would opt for John R Reid - NZ's best batsman at certain stages in his career - and plenty of batting depth at nos 7-8-9 with Richard Hadlee, Daniel Vettori (world's best average for a no. 8 batsman), and Ian Smith (world record highest score batting at no. 9)

I'll have more to say on this when the final 11 is announced. But frankly, this desire to have 5 specialist batsmen in EVERY TEAM we've seen so far... is absurd. Australia can afford it, England can with difficulty (I did not agree with the choice of the lower order, which has to be strong in batting when the team has just 5 specialist batsmen).... but New Zealand most definitely CAN NOT afford to go in with less than six batsmen.

The opening comments on cricketers qualifying in different fields highlight what's been, to me, an obvious difficulty of the shortlisting system - namely its inflexibility. Why can't we balance our sides to our own satisfaction?

I'd like to see shortlists simply of batsmen, bowlers and wicketkeepers, from which readers could have the choice of picking 6-4-1 or 5-5-1 as they wish. Allrounders could figure in the list of their stronger skill, or even in both with the obvious proviso that you couldn't pick them twice!

And why can't we - or the official selectors - pick a captain? Isn't good captaincy as vital to a well-balanced side as any other playing skill?

It's still been really interesting and a lot of fun though!

Specifically to this list, Sutcliffe should surely be listed as an opener where he played most of his best cricket.

ChairmanValvod, I'm not sure what your point is. There are 4 and bit million people in New Zealand. About the same population as Queensland. Queensland produced Matt Hayden, Ian Healy, Don Tallon, Craig McDermott; two of whom are world class, and two who arguably were. New Zealand has punched well, well above it's weight in world cricket since day one, given it's small population and remote location. There are other cricketing countries who have been quite, quite the obverse.

i wonder if No. 7 spot is for a batsman or it may be wicketkeeper. I've not seen a batsman like vetorri at this spot. he anyways qualfies as bowler if not a lower order batsman. In middle order Martin Crow is my choice, Stephen flemeng are the best I guess.

Reading through the comments I agree that apart from Crowe, Sutcliffe, Donnelly the rest are not really world class (I would have J R Reid as an allrounder). They are good players but not great. This highlights the problem that NZ cricket has faced througout it's history the lack of world class batsman. The 2 periods of history where NZ had a good record in test cricket (mid 1980's and late 1990's) were based around 2 world class all rounders (Hadlee and Cairns) being at the peak of their powers. The easiest way to see the lack of batting depth is to look at the averages, no one (Donnelly's short career apart) averages over 50! How many of these batsman would have made the short list for Australia or England! Maybe Crowe but that would be about it. Sad but true and it is the reason that NZ cricket continues to languish towards the bottom of the test rankings.

I remember JR Reid, listening to cricket commentry those days 'Benaud to Reid, full toss, Reid hits for a Six, Durani to Reid , full toss reid hits a huge six" this is how it used to be, a full toss will always land up in the galary. He missed T20!!!!!!! Ramaprasad, Tiruchi India