Final - New Zealand v Australia (29th March)

[Greenlite]

To Brendon and The Black Caps, my wife knocked the pot over the dining table in the last 30 minute of the final, and my friend tried eating a chocolate muffin to ease the pain but instead broke her tooth with the chocolate, so you are not alone.

 

[Athlai]

To Brendon and The Black Caps, my wife knocked the pot over the dining table in the last 30 minute of the final, and my friend tried eating a chocolate muffin to ease the pain but instead broke her tooth with the chocolate, so you are not alone.

Sheesh and I thought our lower order was fragile.

 

[Athlai]

To Brendon and The Black Caps, my wife knocked the pot over the dining table in the last 30 minute of the final, and my friend tried eating a chocolate muffin to ease the pain but instead broke her tooth with the chocolate, so you are not alone.

Wow, and I thought the Blackcaps had trouble with icing.

 

[_Ed_]

Wow, and I thought the Blackcaps had trouble with icing.

This is outstanding.

 

[Prince EWS]

Would've been better if he didn't make the other, poorer joke first.

 

[jcas0167]

I heard this replayed on radio sport this morning. Even as a NZ fan I had to laugh.

Billy Bakes The NZ Cricket Team | The Rush Hour | Triple M Melbourne

 

[Zinzan]

Would've been better if he didn't make the other, poorer joke first.

Agree, Icing was touch stale at that point.

 

[Zinzan]

I heard this replayed on radio sport this morning. Even as a NZ fan I had to laugh.

Billy Bakes The NZ Cricket Team | The Rush Hour | Triple M Melbourne

Ah, can I have that 2 minutes back please..I thought it was actually going to be humourous, and it's not a case of sour grapes.

I mean the Harry Potter reference about Vettori must be at least a decade old now. And then 'baa baa' joke, really? How original.

 

[straw man]

It’s been less than 48 hours since the game though it feels like an age ago already. I see the NZ newspapers, cricketweb and the NZ public have moved on remarkably quickly, from lamenting the loss to celebrating the way the team played throughout the competition, which is great. I’m starting to feel that way myself too though it’s still tinged with disappointment.

I was seated square of the wicket high up on the fourth level, watching with an Aussie mate. I’d been gifted the tickets and he was there on one of them, so he wasn’t allowed to get too lippy. I wasn’t feeling too nervous at that stage, just excited. Half the people on the train to the game were wearing black though notsureifjustMelbourne. There were plenty of NZ supporters anyway.

I’m not usually big on ceremonies and anthems but I enjoyed the onfield buildup to the game. There was a huge cheer when McCullum won the toss. I was perhaps expecting more stereotypical boorish Aussie cricket hangers-on but it sounds like most of them were in the commentary box instead. In truth I could not fault the crowd near me. In saying that they did cheer when bad things happened like an NZ wicket went down or Clarke hit a four. This was just not on.

Game started and I still felt good despite McCullum losing his wicket early. Impressed with Guptill and Williamson as they faced some excellent bowling especially, as always, from Starc. Guptill must still be wondering how he got out to that ball from Maxwell. I certainly am.

We all know where NZ lost the game, shortly after that lovely round figure of 150/3 from 35 overs appeared. I made an excellent comment to Aussie mate part way through the Taylor-Elliott recovery job ‘if these two can get to 35 overs I won’t mind so much if we lose a wicket’. Yes, shoot me.

As fruitless as it is to rake over the things that went wrong, especially when it’s not in keeping with the no-blame culture the NZ team has established, the dismissal that sticks in my head is Luke Ronchi’s. Skimming through the thread and commentary it seems people focussed more on others so maybe it looked different on tv, but from where I was sitting that was the worst. Fourteen overs to go and the team is in trouble having just lost two good batsmen in one over, but you do have an established batsman at the other end who is playing beautifully. As gung-ho as you are about your team you know objectively that the tailend batting below you is pretty poor. However your side does bowl well so any decent score you put up gives you a chance. You are facing the world’s best ODI bowler but thank god he only has three overs left after this one. You also know Australia have just put a slip in. What do you do? Try to absolutely smear a quick wide-ish ball outside off (and moving away?) through the offside. If ever discretion was the better part of valour...

Grant Elliott deserved better. Maybe some of the others did feel the pressure of the situation and the crowd get to them, I don’t know, but Elliott for the second time in the week gave the impression of someone unhurried and calm. This considering that he looked like a tail-ender last time Starc bowled to him. Where Taylor played very low risk (and understandably so) cricket through the recovery, Elliott got himself in and then balanced nicely his defence and attacking strokeplay. After the Vettori wicket when it was clear we weren’t going to get many more, all I wanted was Elliott to get a century, but unfortunately that was not to be.

I still had a few remnants of hope when we started bowling and after Boult’s first wicket the NZ crowd had a good Boult Boult Boult chant going (very inventive). At 67/2 or so I still felt if we could get through one of the test-quality batsmen (ok, cakes) plus Watson then we could put some serious pressure back on Australia. We needed 100/4 at minimum, however Clarke and Smith played well. Really well in fact – ah the benefits of having a top-quality defence. Despite the post-match positive feelings casting a golden glow back over the match, it was fairly sombre from the all-hope-is-gone mark at around 120/2. There were also the aforementioned bastard Australians in the crowd who kept standing up and making noise for some reason. I distracted myself with my love of Matt Henry - by watching the contrast between how the Australian cake played Southee and Henry; they were forced to respect and defend Henry for a while, whereas Southee was noticeably not only slower but also less accurate and Smith and Clarke duly cashed in. Against my better judgment and briefly swallowing some bitter bitter lemons I did manage to stand and clap for Clarke when he was dismissed in his final match. Ugh. Wac.

I was surprised Faulkner received MOTM. I don’t care that Starc only took two wickets, he was the matchwinner in my mind. Not just for McCullum’s wicket either; Starc always applied immense pressure every time he bowled, the game was more intense and the crowd paid close attention. It may or may not have felt like it to the NZ batsmen in the middle but Starc’s remaining overs were always a large elephant-shaped weight hanging over us, causing some trepidation at their imminent descent. The over before disaster struck it felt like a big victory; no wickets and Elliott got away with 6 runs iirc from a Starc over. Perhaps Starc’s bowling even contributed to Taylor trying to slam that Faulkner slower ball through the offside the next ball and getting out. That and the stupid powerplay.

Australia were deserving winners in the end. They’re a very good side. Well done to them and well done to the good Oz posters on this forum.

A word on McCullum, as I somehow seem to have taken him for granted this world cup. What an unbelievable leader he has turned into. He’s hit every right note and conjured an amazing aura around the team and around himself. He looks like someone who’s spent a fair few years working out exactly how he wants to approach cricket, his batting, where he fits in the team, how he can be a leader, and a bit of who he is as a person as well. Now he knows who he is, how he wants to play, what he wants to achieve and how to inspire others – it’s all come together. Surely the highest praise possible is that McCullum can now use expressions like ‘earn the right to be aggressive’ and it doesn’t sound like a parody. His speech after losing was excellent, as others have commented. A minor thing but I liked that McCullum said that Australia were better on the day. They clearly were. But he didn’t just say ‘too good’ (period) which has previously been the thing NZers say when Australia win at cricket. Believe that and you might as well give up and go home. Instead McCullum believes NZ are good now, can beat anyone and will get better. That’s the way up.

 

[JediNudist]

It’s been less than 48 hours since the game though it feels like an age ago already. I see the NZ newspapers, cricketweb and the NZ public have moved on remarkably quickly, from lamenting the loss to celebrating the way the team played throughout the competition, which is great. I’m starting to feel that way myself too though it’s still tinged with disappointment.

I was seated square of the wicket high up on the fourth level, watching with an Aussie mate. I’d been gifted the tickets and he was there on one of them, so he wasn’t allowed to get too lippy. I wasn’t feeling too nervous at that stage, just excited. Half the people on the train to the game were wearing black though notsureifjustMelbourne. There were plenty of NZ supporters anyway.

I’m not usually big on ceremonies and anthems but I enjoyed the onfield buildup to the game. There was a huge cheer when McCullum won the toss. I was perhaps expecting more stereotypical boorish Aussie cricket hangers-on but it sounds like most of them were in the commentary box instead. In truth I could not fault the crowd near me. In saying that they did cheer when bad things happened like an NZ wicket went down or Clarke hit a four. This was just not on.

Game started and I still felt good despite McCullum losing his wicket early. Impressed with Guptill and Williamson as they faced some excellent bowling especially, as always, from Starc. Guptill must still be wondering how he got out to that ball from Maxwell. I certainly am.

We all know where NZ lost the game, shortly after that lovely round figure of 150/3 from 35 overs appeared. I made an excellent comment to Aussie mate part way through the Taylor-Elliott recovery job ‘if these two can get to 35 overs I won’t mind so much if we lose a wicket’. Yes, shoot me.

As fruitless as it is to rake over the things that went wrong, especially when it’s not in keeping with the no-blame culture the NZ team has established, the dismissal that sticks in my head is Luke Ronchi’s. Skimming through the thread and commentary it seems people focussed more on others so maybe it looked different on tv, but from where I was sitting that was the worst. Fourteen overs to go and the team is in trouble having just lost two good batsmen in one over, but you do have an established batsman at the other end who is playing beautifully. As gung-ho as you are about your team you know objectively that the tailend batting below you is pretty poor. However your side does bowl well so any decent score you put up gives you a chance. You are facing the world’s best ODI bowler but thank god he only has three overs left after this one. You also know Australia have just put a slip in. What do you do? Try to absolutely smear a quick wide-ish ball outside off (and moving away?) through the offside. If ever discretion was the better part of valour...

Grant Elliott deserved better. Maybe some of the others did feel the pressure of the situation and the crowd get to them, I don’t know, but Elliott for the second time in the week gave the impression of someone unhurried and calm. This considering that he looked like a tail-ender last time Starc bowled to him. Where Taylor played very low risk (and understandably so) cricket through the recovery, Elliott got himself in and then balanced nicely his defence and attacking strokeplay. After the Vettori wicket when it was clear we weren’t going to get many more, all I wanted was Elliott to get a century, but unfortunately that was not to be.

I still had a few remnants of hope when we started bowling and after Boult’s first wicket the NZ crowd had a good Boult Boult Boult chant going (very inventive). At 67/2 or so I still felt if we could get through one of the test-quality batsmen (ok, cakes) plus Watson then we could put some serious pressure back on Australia. We needed 100/4 at minimum, however Clarke and Smith played well. Really well in fact – ah the benefits of having a top-quality defence. Despite the post-match positive feelings casting a golden glow back over the match, it was fairly sombre from the all-hope-is-gone mark at around 120/2. There were also the aforementioned bastard Australians in the crowd who kept standing up and making noise for some reason. I distracted myself with my love of Matt Henry - by watching the contrast between how the Australian cake played Southee and Henry; they were forced to respect and defend Henry for a while, whereas Southee was noticeably not only slower but also less accurate and Smith and Clarke duly cashed in. Against my better judgment and briefly swallowing some bitter bitter lemons I did manage to stand and clap for Clarke when he was dismissed in his final match. Ugh. Wac.

I was surprised Faulkner received MOTM. I don’t care that Starc only took two wickets, he was the matchwinner in my mind. Not just for McCullum’s wicket either; Starc always applied immense pressure every time he bowled, the game was more intense and the crowd paid close attention. It may or may not have felt like it to the NZ batsmen in the middle but Starc’s remaining overs were always a large elephant-shaped weight hanging over us, causing some trepidation at their imminent descent. The over before disaster struck it felt like a big victory; no wickets and Elliott got away with 6 runs iirc from a Starc over. Perhaps Starc’s bowling even contributed to Taylor trying to slam that Faulkner slower ball through the offside the next ball and getting out. That and the stupid powerplay.

Australia were deserving winners in the end. They’re a very good side. Well done to them and well done to the good Oz posters on this forum.

A word on McCullum, as I somehow seem to have taken him for granted this world cup. What an unbelievable leader he has turned into. He’s hit every right note and conjured an amazing aura around the team and around himself. He looks like someone who’s spent a fair few years working out exactly how he wants to approach cricket, his batting, where he fits in the team, how he can be a leader, and a bit of who he is as a person as well. Now he knows who he is, how he wants to play, what he wants to achieve and how to inspire others – it’s all come together. Surely the highest praise possible is that McCullum can now use expressions like ‘earn the right to be aggressive’ and it doesn’t sound like a parody. His speech after losing was excellent, as others have commented. A minor thing but I liked that McCullum said that Australia were better on the day. They clearly were. But he didn’t just say ‘too good’ (period) which has previously been the thing NZers say when Australia win at cricket. Believe that and you might as well give up and go home. Instead McCullum believes NZ are good now, can beat anyone and will get better. That’s the way up.

Yeah Grant was fabulous in the world cup. Dumped for over a year I have no idea why . He is class and was never a journeyman in my opinion. A term that the kiwis always see to have applied to them. Our Michael Bevan. I hope he goes to the ODI series in England. Need to keep winning.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

Yeah Grant was fabulous in the world cup. Dumped for over a year I have no idea why . He is class and was never a journeyman in my opinion. A term that the kiwis always see to have applied to them. Our Michael Bevan. I hope he goes to the ODI series in England. Need to keep winning.

He was dumped because the selectors were taking a gamble on Anderson and Neesham for the all-rounder spot. Seeing how Anderson has turned out that was a fair deal.

 

[JediNudist]

He was dumped because the selectors were taking a gamble on Anderson and Neesham for the all-rounder spot. Seeing how Anderson has turned out that was a fair deal.

Oh ok.Makes sense. Neesham has an ODI average of 14. I remember the outcry from some sections when Elliot was selected. I simply went to cricinfo and compared the stats and it seemed simple choice to me.
Neesham is a a fine test all rounder with a batting average of 44 odd.

 

[jcas0167]

Ah, can I have that 2 minutes back please..I thought it was actually going to be humourous, and it's not a case of sour grapes.

I mean the Harry Potter reference about Vettori must be at least a decade old now. And then 'baa baa' joke, really? How original.

It's certainly not Clive James. I laughed though at the sheer, unabashed, boorishness of it.

 

[jcas0167]

Oh ok.Makes sense. Neesham has an ODI average of 14. I remember the outcry from some sections when Elliot was selected. I simply went to cricinfo and compared the stats and it seemed simple choice to me.
Neesham is a a fine test all rounder with a batting average of 44 odd.

tbf, he's looked quite good at times in the middle lower order in his brief ODI career. It's interesting to think back to the start of the season at Mount Manganui in October when South Africa visited and Neesham was trailed as an opener. That was a big ask against Steyn & co. His form fell away after that and Elliott had an excellent A tour to England and did well in the Georgie Pie Super Smash. Plus Elliott had a good ODI record, particularly in Australian conditions.

 

[Greenlite]

I am more concerned about his body, stress fracture = bond, oram etc...

He looks great in tests, solid as, given time he can be a great asset.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

Oh ok.Makes sense. Neesham has an ODI average of 14. I remember the outcry from some sections when Elliot was selected. I simply went to cricinfo and compared the stats and it seemed simple choice to me.
Neesham is a a fine test all rounder with a batting average of 44 odd.

obviously Neesham hasn't quite had the same immediate impact in ODIs, but the point is there wasn't a lot separating him and Anderson when they were selected. They were both young, immensely talented, raw, and with little domestic success.

 

[vandem]

He was dumped because the selectors were taking a gamble on Anderson and Neesham for the all-rounder spot. Seeing how Anderson has turned out that was a fair deal.

Nope. Was dumped at end of 2013 after BMac gave away the keeping gloves again and Ryder returned successfully.

Elliott played in 14 ODIs in 2013, mainly batting at #4 / #5, moderate numbers (avge 24, SR 70). Didn't bowl much, only 1 wicket. Missed some games due to injury. Elliott was competing for a top 5 batting spot. Wasn't competing with Neesham and Anderson who made their ODI / T20 debuts as bowling all-rounders in SA tour in late 2012 - early 2013.

McCullum had kept wicket at times in 2013, but due to injury concerns reverted back to batsman-only in 2014, and didn't open as Ryder was back and successful. Middle order was Kane-Ross-BMac, no place for Latham / Elliott in the middle order until BMac returned to opening in early 2015.

 

[kiwiviktor81]

Can we all agree, in retrospect at least, that having Jesse Ryder would not have improved our team, chances in the final or otherwise?

 

[Hurricane]

@strawman
I also observed to those around me that if we made it to 35 overs that if didn't mind if we lost a wicket.
Personally I wanted ronchi to play his shots as I felt 220 was not going to be enough. Dan's wicket frustrated me more as the delivery looked like a half volley.

 

[Athlai]

Can we all agree, in retrospect at least, that having Jesse Ryder would not have improved our team, chances in the final or otherwise?

The current Ryder? Yes, he's unreliable.

But a hypothetical Ryder that his life sorted out? Would deserve to be there.