Man I hated Fleming opening. Hated it. But I suppose thinking back there weren't really any other options were there? Stupid 2000s.

The lack of serious top order contenders (the perennial issue) is the main point of interest, showing that the "team of the decade" involves playing various players out of position. It would be interesting to construct a team which requires using players in the position they actually played in. I wonder who then would be the best options at opener and first drop (assuming Fleming played most of his cricket in the decade at 4, but I'm not sure about this as he floated all over the place to try to solve the ongoing top order problem).

I can't argue too much with your team selection, Econ. It's slightly worrying having to rely on three notable crocks out of four pacemen though. Agree with Ryder, he will better fit in this decade's team. I reckon 12th man should be the player who carried the drinks most often in the decade.

Ryder was a good choice especially when you factor in his ability to intimidate bowling attacks or hangon and grind, as well as his role with the ball, 10 overs ish. It's not many overs but off a very short run they are very different from the offers of the other named bowlers and would serve well to fill in overs etc.

Unsure who the other opener would be though?

Thanks to the economist has been a great read.

Cannot argue with that side, but I did like Sinclair as 12th man, so I've put him back. Looking at it, it looks like an ODI side, the hitting in the middle is amazing. So to offset that, and I admit it's a punt, but in order to put players in their somewhat rightful positions, I'm putting McCullum in to open. Vettori comes up too, simply by sheer weight of numbers. Cairns at 9 is astonishing. Great side.

Richardson, B McCullum, Fleming (c), Taylor, Astle, McMillan, Vettori, Oram, Cairns, Bond, Martin and Sinclair (12th man).

I uhh, want to speak out in favour of Lou Vincent again (yeah, I'm a fan).

He averages 2 less than McMillan, and I think you should expect a slightly lower average from your openers than your middle order. It means Fleming gets to bat at 3, where he is a hell of a lot more successful, and Astle gets to bat at 4 where I am sure he would be a lot more comfortable as well.

Flemings average as an opener was 33 which is better than Vincent's 29, but, Flemings average when not opening was 42. Combine that with Vincent's 29 you get 71, compared with 69 from combining Fleming as an opener with McMillan in the middle order.

It just means everyone gets to bat where they like batting (except I guess Lou Vincent himself).

I'd also like to mention that McCullum should bat behind at least Oram, and it's very hard to argue not Cairns as well. Then I guess you could make a very strong case that Vettori shouldnt be anywhere but 8.

Rigger has always been under-rated as a batsman, but when you look at his average of 45 as an opener, it's almost world-class and the best in you team of the decade.

I suspect it would of been better if he had more support at the other end. Why does NZ not turn out more openers like his class?

Actually Jez, due to some indecision on my part, Holden has inadvertantly put Tuffey at 12th man instead of Sinclair. I had originally kept Tuffey in the side rather than McMillan, but in a late change decided to go with the extra batsman, and so Holden naturally assumed I'd still have Tuffey in the squad of 12. But like you, I think there's something right about having Skippy as 12th man - plus he deserves some time on the park on the basis of that catch to dismiss Hayden in Melbourne.

Mark - Why NZ struggles to turn out decent openers? It's one of the world's great mysteries up there with the meaning of life, do aliens exist and how can I get a girlfriend? You'll get the various theories but a proven answer is beyond the means of even the most talented bunch of cricket aficionados that view this blog. Good luck all the same.

Not sure if anyone else caught it, but yesterday Ian Healy pulled out what could possibly be his greatest ever peice of "commentary". Went along the lines of:

"That goes to show just how clever he (Justin Langer) is. He let the unpire give him a bad LBW call in the first innings so that when he snicked one in the second he wasn't given out. That's why Australia always wins".

Ummm, ok Ian, so he LET the umpire give him a bad call in the fist innings with a mind to CHEATING in the second......yep, that's why Australia always wins...............:(

Also, I've invented a new drinking game. Players must consume the remaining contents of their vessel each time the channel nine commentators say the word "reversing" ("reverse" also acceptable). According to them it is now happening after about 9 overs, so if you're still conscious at tea time, you've done very, very well.