Aussies maybe not as far ahead as everyone thinks

[parttimer]

It was very touch and go at 30 off 30 with mills and vettori looking very solid. NZ have definitely narrowed the gap if not closed it. The middle order needs to improve but cairns, vettori and mills (who should have been man of match) were very effective. Don't forget they almost won with 10 men!

 

[Scallywag]

Well the title says Australia maybe not as far ahead as everyone thinks.

Maybe some supporters think NZ are closer than they are, 1 win in eight games.

 

[cric_manic]

nz are closer than eny other odi team in the world

 

[Camel56]

If you people knew anything about statistics you would know that 2 games proves nothing. If you played two games a week between the two sides for 2 or 3 months then that would tell you pretty accurately the difference between the two side. Two games by themselves does not.

 

[cric_manic]

you can make stats tell you enything u want them 2

 

[Camel56]

People can try but the stupidity of trying to make something of two games where one lesser side played well above their ability will shine through.
If a player comes out and scored 150 in his first test innings and 200 in his next, is it fair to say he is a better batsmen than Bradman? Of course not, he needs to play many innings and maintain this kind of average for anyone with even half a brain to consider him better than the Don.

 

[cric_manic]

i dont link nz are a lesser side

 

[Pratters]

i dont link nz are a lesser side

Results over a period of time which is the true way of judging sides certainly proves other wise.

 

[cric_manic]

that will change over time

 

[Camel56]

NZ are a very good one day side but when they play Australia they most certainly are the lesser side. Thats all the word was meant to mean. Not a slight on NZ cricket.

 

[cric_manic]

i quess compared to aus the are but are better than eny one else

 

[Pratters]

that will change over time

Its what is happening since forever.

New Zealand always seem potentially dangerous but lose crucial matches and dont achieve much. Its not that they are under rated. They just lose matches which really matter.

Till they win the big matches, they will remain the cricket's version of the English football team.

 

[cric_manic]

it will take a world cup victory i think

 

[Pratters]

it will take a world cup victory i think

A few significant tri nation tournament victories can also help. Till then the kiwis are also rans and nothing else.

Consider the tournaments Australia have won and compare it to the kiwis in ODIs. Nothing close.

 

[cric_manic]

also rans is a bit harsh

 

[Pratters]

also rans is a bit harsh

Having potential means nothing if a team doesnt win stuff.

The kiwis won against the Aussies in world cup 99 round rob match. Wonder ful achievment. But didnt even reach the finals.

Now how many people will remember the kiwis were actually a good side way back in 99 when they look back into history? Australia will be remembered, South Africa will for the tie and Pakistan for losing the finals....

In 92, they topped the round robin but lost the semis again. Marc Greatbatch's performances and Crowe's captancy were good but what happened in the end?

I dont deny they have always had potential but thats the same for most sides in international cricket. But until you win the big games, a team will remain also rans and not Champions.

 

[cric_manic]

dont things like natwest series count as big games

 

[Pratters]

dont things like natwest series count as big games

one tournament win means nothing..

 

[cric_manic]

past few years we have one a few like sri lanka etc

 

[Richard Rash]

Yep and the icc knockout in 2000. NZ have beaten aussie in aussie four out of the last six. I would suggest that once they deal to the Lankans and beat them 5 zip and then have another close series with auz in the return series ther will be no doubt that they are the second best side in ODI's and pushing for top spot and no one will be able to deny it.