20th Match - New Zealand v Australia

[3703]

I think if you take from Australia's batting performance anything other than they were off the boil after the broken up schedule, you're setting yourself up for disappointment I feel. And I love Southee and Boult. It was just obvious. Conversely, given NZ's form and the momentum they had accrued, there is a problem with genuine pace. Once McCullum went (and the manner in which Cummins dismissed him is a marker for the next clash), they couldn't score, and it seemed all about the pace. Anderson felt like he had to go after Maxwell.

I think if they meet again it'll be a rout Australia's way. But hey, if I'm wrong, power to them.

 

[Zinzan]

Southee has bowled some amazing overs under pressure in t20s and ODIs before. His temperament is not under question.

He had a bad day and still took 2 key wickets.

Exactly & like I said, if people are going to question him under pressure then they need to look at several other players who underperformed yesterday.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

I think if you take from Australia's batting performance anything other than they were off the boil after the broken up schedule, you're setting yourself up for disappointment I feel. And I love Southee and Boult. It was just obvious. Conversely, given NZ's form and the momentum they had accrued, there is a problem with genuine pace. Once McCullum went (and the manner in which Cummins dismissed him is a marker for the next clash), they couldn't score, and it seemed all about the pace. Anderson felt like he had to go after Maxwell.

I think if they meet again it'll be a rout Australia's way. But hey, if I'm wrong, power to them.

If the problem was with pace, why was only one of your three 150kph bowlers causing problems?

 

[Zinzan]

I think if you take from Australia's batting performance anything other than they were off the boil after the broken up schedule, you're setting yourself up for disappointment I feel. And I love Southee and Boult. It was just obvious. Conversely, given NZ's form and the momentum they had accrued, there is a problem with genuine pace. Once McCullum went (and the manner in which Cummins dismissed him is a marker for the next clash), they couldn't score, and it seemed all about the pace. Anderson felt like he had to go after Maxwell.

I think if they meet again it'll be a rout Australia's way. But hey, if I'm wrong, power to them.

That's a very convenient way to interpret it. I mean, had Anderson not played that ugly swipe against Maxwell when there were 20 runs needed with 5 wickets in the bank, would you still be saying that?

Let's go through just how weak NZ are against pace shall we;

Guptill - looked absolutely fine to me only to be caught at mid-off after a loose shot - Affected by pace? - NO
McCullum - took a blow to the body, not unlike any other international cricketer does once in a while, but all & all, he loves pace so - NO
Williamson - Obviously was totally unfazed so - NO
Ross Taylor - Proven class player who averages +40 in both forms, if he had a problem against Pace, we'd know by now so- NO
Elliott - Terrible dismissal yesterday & one of the commentators rightly pointed out it looked like a no 11s dismissal, but he has played fast bowling well in the past & was NZ's star in the last ODI series in Australian conditions, so I'd honestly say - NO
Anderson - Struggled against Starc early on, but looked better as the innings progressed - Got out to the part-time spinner with the finish line in sight, so I wouldn't necessarily say he has an obvious weakness vs pace from that innings, so - NO
Ronchi - Bought up in WA & generally bats well against pace & bounce, even if he played that Starc bouncer poorly yesterday, so I'd say - NO

Batsmen 8-11 - Yes, probably not unlike any no.s 8-11 in the world, they have a weakness against express pace - so YES.

Overall, the way I sure it is once Anderson played that lazy poor stroke vs. Maxwell, it gave Starc a look at our lower order & once he got Ronchi, our tail looked very susceptible to his almost perfect yorkers, admittedly.

 

[Flem274*]

ok guys i have a confession to make.

i like watching mitchell starc bowl*

*with the white ball

and another, more terrible confession that i think i've made before

australia are my third favourite top eight side to watch

Clarke has to bat three, TPC to four and my man Gorgeous George Bailey at five. Maxwell goes to six and Forkers should play as well. He's an ODI weapon. Watson has been an ODI gun but he's a million miles out of nick and shouldn't play atm. I know Bailey has been ordinary of late but hes at least shown he stil has he ability to rebuild an innings for the side as he did in the recent tri series game.

Arun
Gravy
Captain Blood
TPC
Jimmy Stewart
Big No
Rad
Forkers
Johnson
Starc
Pat the Rat/ Haze

I don't care if that means Forkers bowls ten overs. He is less likely to die in a ditch doing so than Watson. Maxwell/ Arun/ TPC/ at a pinch Clarke to deliver the other 10 between them.

The only other alternative I can see is they drop one of Finch or Warner and bat the Long Nosed Bilby (Watson, who's a protected species it seems) at opener.

yeah i like your team

See I thought this would go undetected. Cummins zeroed in on McCullum's weak area, from ball one. He ain't comfortable against the short stuff. Whether it was a "good" delivery or not, it was right where you're likely to pick him up and it did the job. Pay all the others though.

baz is weak on the short ball now? this is news.

I think if you take from Australia's batting performance anything other than they were off the boil after the broken up schedule, you're setting yourself up for disappointment I feel. And I love Southee and Boult. It was just obvious. Conversely, given NZ's form and the momentum they had accrued, there is a problem with genuine pace. Once McCullum went (and the manner in which Cummins dismissed him is a marker for the next clash), they couldn't score, and it seemed all about the pace. Anderson felt like he had to go after Maxwell.

I think if they meet again it'll be a rout Australia's way. But hey, if I'm wrong, power to them.

ok buddy

 

[Flem274*]

i don't think either side should be too worried by their batting yesterday. i mean it was bad but they're not going to see another attack like that apart from SA who have a wayne parnell anyway. finch has runs against SA, warner/smith/clarke/haddin are proven against all bowling and maxwell and marsh are icing so early dumb dismissals are on the cards. likewise guptill/taylor/elliott all have international runs against at least one of australia or SA so it's all good.

both sides will be better for yesterday. they were pushed to their limit. i can't speak for aussie but the last time NZ were pushed that hard Baz and Watling broke records.

 

[Dan]

i don't think either side should be too worried by their batting yesterday. i mean it was bad but they're not going to see another attack like that apart from SA who have a wayne parnell anyway. finch has runs against SA, warner/smith/clarke/haddin are proven against all bowling and maxwell and marsh are icing so early dumb dismissals are on the cards. likewise guptill/taylor/elliott all have international runs against at least one of australia or SA so it's all good.

both sides will be better for yesterday. they were pushed to their limit. i can't speak for aussie but the last time NZ were pushed that hard Baz and Watling broke records.

I'm curious, how much have you seen of Mitchell Marsh? Because he's certainly not pure icing, despite playing in an icing role at present. Some solid cake to him when he's given the responsibility.

 

[Zinzan]

I think if you take from Australia's batting performance anything other than they were off the boil after the broken up schedule, you're setting yourself up for disappointment I feel. And I love Southee and Boult. It was just obvious. Conversely, given NZ's form and the momentum they had accrued, there is a problem with genuine pace. Once McCullum went (and the manner in which Cummins dismissed him is a marker for the next clash), they couldn't score, and it seemed all about the pace. Anderson felt like he had to go after Maxwell.

I think if they meet again it'll be a rout Australia's way. But hey, if I'm wrong, power to them.

Incidentally, haven't Australia had form and momentum as well with the exception of the one rained-out game against Bang? I mean they've played tons of ODIs recently as well, and I can't remember them losing. Therefore, can we also draw a conclusion that Australia can't score runs against a decent bowling attack? Because we could just say, like McCullum, once Watson was dismissed at 1-80, Australia couldn't score.

 

[Flem274*]

I'm curious, how much have you seen of Mitchell Marsh? Because he's certainly not pure icing, despite playing in an icing role at present. Some solid cake to him when he's given the responsibility.

yeah i've seen a bit of him and i know he's got big wraps. he usually comes in during icing situations though, a bit like candy and shark eyes do even though they're capable of being cakes when required. so i've only really seen him in the icing role.

my rushed post was harsh on marsh. maxwell should be a cake too because he's got everything except brains going for him.

 

[Prince EWS]

I'm curious, how much have you seen of Mitchell Marsh? Because he's certainly not pure icing, despite playing in an icing role at present. Some solid cake to him when he's given the responsibility.

Marsh has got a good defensive setup but I don't think he's a good enough strike rotator to be considered cake in one day cricket. Being able to keep out good bowling does not a cake make.

 

[Jono]

Exactly & like I said, if people are going to question him under pressure then they need to look at several other players who underperformed yesterday.

I am though.

 

[Jono]

Elliott's dismissal was terrible, granted... looked like he totally misjudged the line of the ball. But it's far too simplistic to form a whole bunch of fixed assumptions from one game.

Elliott played one of the great rearguard ODI innings just a month ago, when NZ were down and out, so can't see how he's suddenly a piece of luggage after one admittedly terrible dismissal.

Ross Taylor & Aaron Fitch were also bowled all over the place, are we going to form a fixed assumption about them as well?

Can we say the same about Johnson suffering nerves under pressure because his figures were actually worse than Southee's. And who knows, in the next game Johnson may be amazing & Starc may get pumped all over the place. I agree Southee didn't respond well yesterday, but I've also seem him respond well in pressure situations prior to today, same applies to Mitchell Johnson.

Not saying you can't take anything away from yesterday at all, but seems a tad fickle & simplistic to form fixed assumptions from it, especially the comment on Elliott...remembering this guy had his best ODI series against Aust on their faster bouncier tracks.

My comment on Elliott is that he looks like a piece of luggage. Not saying he can't bat.

And your use of "fixed" assumption is wrong. I'm saying you just add what you watch to the data of your previous views of the players. That is all.

 

[Flem274*]

I think what Jono is trying to say is it was interesting to see who cracked and who stayed cool yesterday, but that it doesn't mean the players who cracked will do so again but will probably be better for it.

Am I right Joni?

 

[Jono]

Indeed. My point isn't that Southee now can't handle the pressure or that Mitch can't bowl to players who want to beat the **** out of his bowling. All I was saying is that match provided us with further insight into these two teams, and I'll take what I saw from it, add it to the other "data" I have on the players in my mind from watching them, and it will help paint a picture as to how I think they'll go next time. For Southee in particular, I think that'll mean he will bowl better on the big stage on his next opportunity. Also interested to see how Australia plays the great Dan the Man next time he bowls to them, I think what he did will be in their mind.

 

[Jono]

Hahaa Maxwell you ****ing idiot.

That was just before Kane's six.

 

[Flem274*]

yeah i heard that story on the radio today. god he just asked for that six.

 

[Antihippy]

He's not wrong though. Nearly one of the greatest chokes of all time.

 

[Dan]

Marsh has got a good defensive setup but I don't think he's a good enough strike rotator to be considered cake in one day cricket. Being able to keep out good bowling does not a cake make.

Yeah, he's more in that 'third way' position, the Guptill block-bash.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Haha Maxi

 

[Zinzan]

My comment on Elliott is that he looks like a piece of luggage. Not saying he can't bat.

And your use of "fixed" assumption is wrong. I'm saying you just add what you watch to the data of your previous views of the players. That is all.

Well that's all good man. I just felt the players you mentioned seemed a little selective for a game in isolation eg. you fairly mentioned Elliott and Southee (for nerves & luggage) , but not Johnson, who was probably worse than Southee & no mention of Cummin's nerves, either though his 2nd ball ( and first to McCullum) was 5 wides down the legside & then his last was a perfect half-volley for Williamson to hit for 6 and win the game, when Australia actually had a chance at the end.