**Official** New Zealand in Australia 2015

[Zinzan]

God that was poop. With WI to follow, NZ better step the **** up or this could be one of the ****test summers ever.

Indeed, not sure I begrudge the Windies the boxing day test quite as much after that performance.

 

[Hurricane]

John: "I am from NZ. My wife is pregnant right now and we are expecting a son. If Mark Craig takes us to victory/draw, I will name my son "Mark Craig"."
.

I am sure the son will be told he was nearly called Mark Craig 4-5 years from now.

A post from cricinfo.

 

[adub]

Yes, the margin of error needs to change (I've gone on about it ad nauseum), but don't review marginal decisions ffs.

Then it needs to be one or the other - smaller margin or less cost on marginals, not both. Losing a review on for a decision ball tracking is showing the ball hitting essentially in the middle of the stumps is crap. That's not really a marginal decision to review.

 

[Zinzan]

I am sure the son will be told he was nearly called Mark Craig 4-5 years from now.

A post from cricinfo.

Not even close to 'nearly' though...

 

[Athlai]

I am sure the son will be told he was nearly called Mark Craig 4-5 years from now.

A post from cricinfo.

Kid will probably just get abandoned one day after being born.

#kiwaaahs
#****spikey

 

[Gob]

haha Keanu didnt even get a mention

 

[TheJediBrah]

Well what a scorecard to wake up to #NZBrandOfCricket. Expected them to take it to the second session at least. Did McCullum actually play-to-win-by-preparing-to-lose or was he just helping himself against loose bowling?

McCullum just played his normal game with gaps in the field everywhere and had a bit of luck ie. top edges falling safe etc.

Didn't take too many risks. Good innings.

 

[Dan]

Yeah, hence changing the margin of error to actually make sense (measure it in terms of half the stump or half the ball -- not both)

 

[Gob]

Am i seeing rain drops here

 

[Bahnz]

Well, don't gamble your review on a marginal decision. Simple.

Yes, the margin of error needs to change (I've gone on about it ad nauseum), but don't review marginal decisions ffs.

You can understand why NZ did it in both cases in this innings though. KW's one was genuinely very close and his wicket was obviously the key to the NZ resistance. And with BJ went any feeble hopes NZ had of saving the game.

Anyway, well done 'straya, far too good in every department.

Mark Craig now has his batting average higher than his bowling average. Kwality allrounder.

 

[Gob]

gtfo off with the new era bullocks

 

[Dan]

You can understand why NZ did it in both cases in this innings though. KW's one was genuinely very close and his wicket was obviously the key to the NZ resistance. And with BJ went any feeble hopes NZ had of saving the game.

Anyway, well done 'straya, far too good in every department.

Mark Craig now has his batting average higher than his bowling average. Kwality allrounder.

Yeah I can understand why NZ might want to do it this innings, and tbh after Watling's was upheld it really didn't matter if Baz got shafted for 80 -- the game was neither being saved nor won -- but DRS is there for howlers, not to try to hope a technicality goes your way to hopefully overturn a marginal call on your best bat.

It ain't meant to be a tactical tool, and as long as people try to use it tactically, they're going to be sorely disappointed by the outcome.

 

[TheJediBrah]

But it's a new era

an era of youth and Dave Warner maturity

 

[adub]

Yeah, hence changing the margin of error to actually make sense (measure it in terms of half the stump or half the ball -- not both)

That's one solution, I just think hanging on to your review if it's an umps call does much the same thing but fairer.

 

[Athlai]

Meh, umpire decisions had nothing to do with it. We lost because we brought 1 bowler who injured himself on the first day. Boult looks undercooked and half injured. Bracewell is as tepid as ever when he can't get it to swing. Craig is the spuddiest of spuds. Neesham is part-time at this level. We took 8 wickets from 170 odd overs. We went for roughly 4.72 an over.

We have much more important things to worry about.

 

[Zinzan]

Australia 8 for 820, New Zealand 20 for 612 - Should only have been one winner

 

[Zinzan]

Meh, umpire decisions had nothing to do with it. We lost because we weren't good enough in all facets of the game.

.

Edited

 

[hendrix]

Depends how you look at it...One school of thought is that Guppy was involved in a 56 & a 44 1st wicket stands and saw off the new ball. The other school of thought is he scored 23 & 23 on a close to a perfect batting pitch. Objectively speaking If we accept this a pass, we're well & truly accepting mediocrity. If Warner or Cook had two scores of 23 (as an example), it would be considered an utter failure.

Yeah the batting comes out of this with quite a bit of credit IMO. The bowling was the big let-down.

NZ Ratings:
Latham -- 7: good solid game, showed he belonged at this level, but needed to kick on more in both innings
Guptill -- 6: credit where credit is due, he performed above what I think most expected from him and his grafting in the second dig helped NZ immeasurably
Williamson -- 9: near-flawless, but being LBW getting hit in the box when he needed to bat d33p was a problem. -1 for that.
Taylor -- 4: scratchy and out in the first innings, fought to survive in the second but got out softly. +1 for his first innings catch.
McCullum -- 6: the 80 was very good and I have no issues with him batting aggressively per se. But the captaincy on the first morning and his first innings dismissal were poor. He gets a pass.
Neesham -- 3: given his back, arguably shouldn't have played. His bowling was all over the place, his batting not helpful at all. Poor game from him but I'm not going to be too harsh given the injury.
Watling -- 6: good behind the stumps as always (no byes in 180 overs), and his first innings 32 was useful. Second innings needed a patented Beej rearguard, and he wasn't undone by a good piece of bowling. Pass.
Craig -- 3: mostly for his batting, which was more "well at least he ground it out" than actually being good. Second innings figures flatter him, obvs. Bonus point for being a finger spinner in Australia who isn't Lyon.
Bracewell -- 3: I think he bowled better than 0/170, insofar as he got a few to take off and looked threatening in patches, but too much was pedestrian. Gets a point for his important partnership with KW.
Southee -- 7: opening spell was good, was the only bowler to consistently keep it tight and test the batsmen. His presence will be sorely missed if he doesn't play at the WACA.
Boult -- 4: looked veeeery underdone. Showed what he was capable of in patches, but, like Bracewell, was pedestrian for the most part. +1 for ridiculous back defence batting technique.

You're being incredibly generous to Boult, Craig, Bracewell and Taylor. None of them should be above 2 IMO.

Boult: 1. One good ball to Smith, let off all the pressure in the first innings. Gets a bonus mark for McCullum's captaincy being slightly responsible.
Bracewell: 2. Not test standard. Gets a bonus mark for bowling better than Boult.
Craig: 1. Not test standard. Gets a bonus mark for his batting.
Taylor: 2. Poor in both innings, does not look like a test 4 right now. Bonus mark for his catch.

 

[Gnske]

Will NZ or the Windies surpass the Sri Lankans in the 2012-13 summer in levels of pure disaster?

 

[TheJediBrah]

Australia 8 for 820, New Zealand 20 for 612 - Should only have been one winner

And about half of those Aus wickets were thrown away leading to a declaration