-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Final - New Zealand v Australia (29th March)
- Thread starter Prince EWS
- Start date
BigBrother
U19 12th Man
You have to give the NZ fans credit here, they have handled the loss reasonably well from what I have read. Some people look for all the excuses in the book after a loss instead of admitting they just weren't good enough.
Australia though, wow, a home world cup win is the only significant accomplishment they had missing in the sport and they even have that now.
If there was ever any doubt, think they just confirmed that they are the undisputed greatest side in cricket history.
Australia though, wow, a home world cup win is the only significant accomplishment they had missing in the sport and they even have that now.
If there was ever any doubt, think they just confirmed that they are the undisputed greatest side in cricket history.
Fuller Pilch
Hall of Fame Member
Well done Australia. The best side won. In hindsight I wonder if Macca wishes he'd lost the toss.
Was actually 8-20-2.
But don't think it won the game. His first spell gave them a good start, and tight bowling from both Starc and Hazlewood built pressure that played a part in the 2nd and 3rd wickets, but we managed to recover to 3-150 / 35, heading for 240 - 280 which would have allowed our bowlers an outside chance.
The game was won in the next two overs, from Faulkner (2 wicket maiden) and Starc (1 wicket, 1 run). It was like your dog had managed to find your kid's birthday cake and in a few minutes has licked off all the icing and eaten half of the cake. No way that NZ could set a reasonable total after that. So you could say that Faulkner won the game, or that Faulkner and Starc won the game.
WindieWeathers
International Regular
That's ok Athlai!!..i know emotions are running high right now after a such a bad loss.
BigBrother
U19 12th Man
Ahh...you ****y little minnows...
Maximas
Cricketer Of The Year
"If you take out the times Guptill scores runs, he never scores runs"
Jezroy
State Captain
I haven't had a chance to post too much during the world cup, so I just wanted to lay some thoughts down.
NZ did really well at this World Cup. Played probably the best ODI I have seen (from my personal point of view) in a semifinal. It's a bit gutting that they didn't turn up ever so well at the MCG. But the game sort of reminded me of our 1999 and 2011 semifinal losses, just not good enough on the day.
BUT the thing is that on the day they ARE good enough. And this is why New Zealand fans can still take satisfaction from this world cup. They weren't good enough not too long ago. But there is so much to like about this team both on and off the pitch, and there is so much to like about the future.
Kane Williamson (by his standards) had a horrible World Cup. But he will (hopefully) learn from that.
Ross Taylor had a pretty average one as well, but he can go away and (hopefully) regroup and get better.
Guptill scored the most runs at the World Cup when most (myself included) had written him off. That took some balls and skill.
McCullum (averaging only 19 balls per innings) said "**** it, if we don't have an opener, I'll just average 40 off 20. At least that can give us SOME sort of start". And that was great in some situations, not so ideal in others. But live by the sword, die by the sword.
Anderson showed glimpses of what he can do. And he's only 24. Chances are, he's going to get a weeeeeeeeee bit betterer.
Elliott stepped up in the games that mattered, and showed that our domestic contests might not be as piss poor as we feared. He was clutch.
Ronchi... Um... Tough tournament for him. Sth Africa set some good fields to him in that semifinal (guys straight). But that 170* wasn't that long ago.
Vettori - bye mate. You did the best you could, and a lot of it (especially your ODI bowling) was really good. NMac should do a good job in the short term.
Boult - T BOULT - I doubted ya. But you're pretty good at this game ay?
Southee - where did you go maaaaaaaaaaaaate? Showed flashed of brilliance amongst some rubbish. But again, pretty young guy with a number of skills, and with the right guidance, can surely only improve.
Henry - I like you. A lot. You are good at cricket and stuff.
Then Mitch and Milne are still hovering around as well. Plus Latham in the batting.
AND most of the country went nuts for you. That hasn't happened for nearly 25 years. It was a great time to be a (long suffering) fan.
And there really are some mouth watering challenges to come. Just hope we don't get Bangla-washed next time we're there. It's not in the current FTP. Phew.
NZ did really well at this World Cup. Played probably the best ODI I have seen (from my personal point of view) in a semifinal. It's a bit gutting that they didn't turn up ever so well at the MCG. But the game sort of reminded me of our 1999 and 2011 semifinal losses, just not good enough on the day.
BUT the thing is that on the day they ARE good enough. And this is why New Zealand fans can still take satisfaction from this world cup. They weren't good enough not too long ago. But there is so much to like about this team both on and off the pitch, and there is so much to like about the future.
Kane Williamson (by his standards) had a horrible World Cup. But he will (hopefully) learn from that.
Ross Taylor had a pretty average one as well, but he can go away and (hopefully) regroup and get better.
Guptill scored the most runs at the World Cup when most (myself included) had written him off. That took some balls and skill.
McCullum (averaging only 19 balls per innings) said "**** it, if we don't have an opener, I'll just average 40 off 20. At least that can give us SOME sort of start". And that was great in some situations, not so ideal in others. But live by the sword, die by the sword.
Anderson showed glimpses of what he can do. And he's only 24. Chances are, he's going to get a weeeeeeeeee bit betterer.
Elliott stepped up in the games that mattered, and showed that our domestic contests might not be as piss poor as we feared. He was clutch.
Ronchi... Um... Tough tournament for him. Sth Africa set some good fields to him in that semifinal (guys straight). But that 170* wasn't that long ago.
Vettori - bye mate. You did the best you could, and a lot of it (especially your ODI bowling) was really good. NMac should do a good job in the short term.
Boult - T BOULT - I doubted ya. But you're pretty good at this game ay?
Southee - where did you go maaaaaaaaaaaaate? Showed flashed of brilliance amongst some rubbish. But again, pretty young guy with a number of skills, and with the right guidance, can surely only improve.
Henry - I like you. A lot. You are good at cricket and stuff.
Then Mitch and Milne are still hovering around as well. Plus Latham in the batting.
AND most of the country went nuts for you. That hasn't happened for nearly 25 years. It was a great time to be a (long suffering) fan.
And there really are some mouth watering challenges to come. Just hope we don't get Bangla-washed next time we're there. It's not in the current FTP. Phew.
RossTaylorsBox
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
LMAO at everything about this sentence.
jcas0167
International Regular
From what I saw Guptill's technique actually looked pretty good? He survived the hostile opening from Starc, Hazlewood & Johnson only to get out to a nothing shot to the spinner. He was going well against South Africa but got run out.
Yeah, he was defending with a straight bat, playing late and looking very solid against some seriously high-class fast bowling.
He has strike rotation issues, and that's nothing new, but technically he looks as good as he ever has IMO.
my post was sarcastic BTW
Moss
International Captain
Warning: A couple more longish NZ supporter posts coming up, since I haven't been too active on the threads.
ON THE FINAL:
1. I don't think the MCG and the conditions played all that big a role - I feel Aus would've won this even in Wellington or Auckland or wherever. Knockout games are pretty much about holding your nerve and seizing clutch moments, and Australia are just far too good at winning those "tipping point" moments (Faulkner's over in that powerplay, removal of the slip to Warner, etc). They're the better side but not by much, but they sure as hell relish these big games and clutch moments a lot more. Taylor and Elliott's partnership showed that NZ had a definite gameplan about how to bat at the MCG, it's just that as soon as Australia got that opening they amde sure they ran off with it. Too bloody good on the day.
2. Too much is being made of the Baz dismissal. Credit to Starc for taking him out so early in that fashion, and it will probably live on as the defining image of this game, but McCullum getting out early and NZ rebuilding without him is nothing new. I thought Guptill and KW did extremely well surviving some top class bowling in the first 10 overs (made their soft dismissals SO much more disappointing), so I really don't understand why everyone around me was bemoaning the slow start. If you had told me NZ would be 150 for 3 going into the PP with TWO SET BATSMEN, I'd have gladly taken it.
3. I am loathe to criticize Taylor for the way he's been playing. I was always fearful that Elliott/Anderson/Ronchi was a soft underbelly waiting to be exposed at some point, and I think Rossco recognised this and played accordingly. It was bloody important that he and Elliott hung around a bit longer. While Elliott has been a total revelation (he deserves far more fanfare than what he gets from us), Anderson and Ronchi rely more on luck than method to survive great bowling so it just seemed inevitable it would happen sometime. They've stepped up at various points in the season and Anderson at least will only get better, so again hard to be too critical. But 150 for 3 again was the key point - can't believe the idiots at Cricinfo still focus on that first over!
4. Bowling wise, this was a bridge too far though I was surprised McCullum didn't persist with that 3+ slips formula which he did against the Saffers - another case where we blinked and the Aussies took full advantage. I would've thought his approach would be "Come on lads, let's try to roll them over for 50". This may sound ridiculous but it has been crazy self-belief that has been the hallmark of NZ's performances in the last 12+ months - why did it suddenly disappear for this game?
5. A bit about the Aussies - congrats and richly deserved. That old arrogant bloody mindedness in the final was something to see. Tough for a kiwi supporter to swallow but Steve Smith totally outbatted KW by the end of the tournament and that made a major difference in this game. Both are similar sorts of players and we'll no doubt see how they stack up when the sides meet later in the year for tests.
I felt before this game that NZ needed around 7-8 players to have a good game; it certainly happened with Aus. When the three frontline quicks EACH have a blinder it becomes too hard for the opposition. Faulkner was the icing (heh heh).
PS: I've exercised great self-restraint in not posting a long note on the on-field behaviour in this game, out of deference to the "now's not the time for it" argument. But hopefully the conduct of each team will speak for itself.
ON THE FINAL:
1. I don't think the MCG and the conditions played all that big a role - I feel Aus would've won this even in Wellington or Auckland or wherever. Knockout games are pretty much about holding your nerve and seizing clutch moments, and Australia are just far too good at winning those "tipping point" moments (Faulkner's over in that powerplay, removal of the slip to Warner, etc). They're the better side but not by much, but they sure as hell relish these big games and clutch moments a lot more. Taylor and Elliott's partnership showed that NZ had a definite gameplan about how to bat at the MCG, it's just that as soon as Australia got that opening they amde sure they ran off with it. Too bloody good on the day.
2. Too much is being made of the Baz dismissal. Credit to Starc for taking him out so early in that fashion, and it will probably live on as the defining image of this game, but McCullum getting out early and NZ rebuilding without him is nothing new. I thought Guptill and KW did extremely well surviving some top class bowling in the first 10 overs (made their soft dismissals SO much more disappointing), so I really don't understand why everyone around me was bemoaning the slow start. If you had told me NZ would be 150 for 3 going into the PP with TWO SET BATSMEN, I'd have gladly taken it.
3. I am loathe to criticize Taylor for the way he's been playing. I was always fearful that Elliott/Anderson/Ronchi was a soft underbelly waiting to be exposed at some point, and I think Rossco recognised this and played accordingly. It was bloody important that he and Elliott hung around a bit longer. While Elliott has been a total revelation (he deserves far more fanfare than what he gets from us), Anderson and Ronchi rely more on luck than method to survive great bowling so it just seemed inevitable it would happen sometime. They've stepped up at various points in the season and Anderson at least will only get better, so again hard to be too critical. But 150 for 3 again was the key point - can't believe the idiots at Cricinfo still focus on that first over!
4. Bowling wise, this was a bridge too far though I was surprised McCullum didn't persist with that 3+ slips formula which he did against the Saffers - another case where we blinked and the Aussies took full advantage. I would've thought his approach would be "Come on lads, let's try to roll them over for 50". This may sound ridiculous but it has been crazy self-belief that has been the hallmark of NZ's performances in the last 12+ months - why did it suddenly disappear for this game?
5. A bit about the Aussies - congrats and richly deserved. That old arrogant bloody mindedness in the final was something to see. Tough for a kiwi supporter to swallow but Steve Smith totally outbatted KW by the end of the tournament and that made a major difference in this game. Both are similar sorts of players and we'll no doubt see how they stack up when the sides meet later in the year for tests.
I felt before this game that NZ needed around 7-8 players to have a good game; it certainly happened with Aus. When the three frontline quicks EACH have a blinder it becomes too hard for the opposition. Faulkner was the icing (heh heh).
PS: I've exercised great self-restraint in not posting a long note on the on-field behaviour in this game, out of deference to the "now's not the time for it" argument. But hopefully the conduct of each team will speak for itself.
dontcloseyoureyes
BARNES OUT
Indeed.
jcas0167
International Regular
Sweet, that makes more sense reading it again
This game has really thrown me off my work today, distracted and unproductive.
TNT
Banned
I think any reference to on field behaviour would be sour grapes and take away the graciousness of being a good loser. Australia played the match in the right spirit and their behaviour was exemplary, I know that there will be a few disgruntled posters who find it difficult to deal with Australia winning their 5th WC and as usual will look to discredit them by using unsubstantiated or unmeasurable accusations.