I have to criticize the fragmentation of the selection options for this team. I would have liked Reid (a batting allrounder) at 6, and Bruce Taylor as one of the paceman. That way, we'd have 3 pacers (and Congdon, who could bowl a bit), and two spinners (Vettori and Reid) on the bowling side. On the batting side, 5 batsmen, Reid as the batting-allrounder plus a very strong lower order (Vettori, Hadlee, Smith, Taylor). Down to number 10, you have possible centurions. All that's moot because the way the selections were offered, you can't pick both Taylor and Reid. Crickinfo - you've improved this series a bit since it started - the choice of Bert Sutcliffe as middle order or opener shows this (as opposed to the England side, where one of Sutcliffe, Hobbs and Hutton had to sit out), but there's still room for improvement.

I think Hadlee is the anonymous choice for this team, with Bond the other one, the third should be Jack Cowie

When in doubt, I've gone for stats, it's the only fair(ish) way to separate. Besides, the only place this team will play is on paper - so may as well make them look reasonable! JR Reid doesn't cut the mustard as pure batsmen, I would like him as my allrounder, but too much competition in this team. Donnelly and Cowie didn't play enough in my book - which may weaken the team... or may not... I guess we will never know. Hadlee, Bond and Taylor as the quicks. (Taylor should be considered as a bowler not an allrounder) McCullum is a hopeful selection. He may do well playing in this team...? I've put Vettori above him in the batting order in the time being. 1. G Turner 2. B Sutcliffe 3. A Jones 4. M Crowe 5. JF Reid 6. C Cairns 7. R Hadlee 8. D Vettori 9. B McCullum 10. B Taylor 11. S Bond.

Hadlee was one of the world's greatest players ever, so my suggestion is just to pick players to complement him. Collinge was an excellent foil for him in the late '70s who troubled most batsmen, notably Geoffrey Boycott in NZs first win over England. Whilst several others are gutsy hard-working types, for me the other has to be Bond or Cowie who were both match winners. For his sheer pace, Bond has to be my third.

Hadlee and Bond. Im a big fan of Danny Morrison but no way, not even close.

Chris Martin has been under rated. I think him and Chatfield should open, followed by Sir Richard Hadlee first change

Ok, the first two are automatic choices, Hadlee and Bond. But none of the rest really stand out. Most of the guys on the list average over 30 in test, for an all time eleven those are pretty sad figures, i don't think anyone in the England fast bowling shortlist averaged over 30. I can't say anything about Cowie, I haven't seen him bowl, who has? and do people really remember him that well from seeing him 50 years ago. But i will go by his stats and pick him, because the others are quite disappointing.

I'd love to see the NZ XI play together because when most of these guys played test it was with the weight of the world on their shoulders. Unlike most world test sides our best players often had to carry the whole team. I remember watching Martin Crowe around the time he became captain, if he didn't get runs then you could be pretty sure the team would not do well. So imagine these guys playing with the freedom of being surrounded by quality players - especially the batsmen.

No doubt about Hadlee. But the other spot should go to Martin. New Zealand is all about work horses, those who can bowl long spells without tiring, and going cheaply, which is what Martin did. Also, if any of you have been to a cricket match in New Zealand, he is a fan favourite, especially when batting. It's a pity we don't have another really great bowler to compliment Hadlee though.

Shane Bond - The fastest LEGITIMATE bowler of this era. Everyone else chucks. Even Lee's fastest ones are not kosher. Cowie Hadlee Chatfield - As NFL commentators would say - "On the outside looking in"