***Official*** Australia in New Zealand

[marc71178]

Funny how the sight of an axe looming over your neck makes you concentrate.

What's slightly intriguing is how long the axe took to arrive over his neck!

 

[marc71178]

How can you call a century a bad innings? Would you rather he got a duck? Just because it was an old-fashioned knock, not the run-a-ball stuff we are spoilt with today, doesn't not make it a bad innings. If he had got a duck we may well have lost the Test, who knows.

Exactly, how was it a bad innings when the 2 openers got tons but the other 9 couldn't even get Australia up to match England's score?

 

[social]

What's slightly intriguing is how long the axe took to arrive over his neck!

I agree but obviously several thousand runs at well over 50 buys you time.

Should England ever manage to produce a batsman of similar stature again (a big ask I know given that its been 50 or so years since they've done so), I assume he'll be given similar treatment.

Anyway, looks as though he has repaid the selectors faith for the time being.

 

[shaka]

if NZ can restrict Aus to few runs in the first 15 (and last 10), the slower / line and length bowlers come into the frame and increased number of outfielders, thus creating a better shot of beating and matching Australia.

 

[age_master]

NZ not losing too many wickets to Brett Lee / Bracken early will be the key to their batting.

 

[Tim]

What Bracewell is failing to see is that these days, test cricket is not going five days as much as it used to. Teams are scoring runs quicker, and if you're Australia you're bowling out sides quicker too.

It's not about sitting back & trying to graft your way through a test, it's about creating as many chances as possible and taking them before the other side does.

NZ will not be winning many tests or ODI's (against the better sides) if they continue to use that approach.

 

[Tim]

I agree, it's going to come down to whether the NZ top order can survive the opening exchanges. If they can, then their chances of winning should be reasonable.

 

[Burpey]

The Australian bowling attack is looking pretty weak (relatively). I think NZ have to capitalise on this because the Aussie batsmen will probably build some fairly sizable totals.

 

[shaka]

So Aussie media are angry by Mark Richardson comment that Aus cricket team are not taking this series seriously by giving McGrath a rest. I agree with Rigor on this..

rigor comments

 

[Burpey]

I don't think resting McGrath is arrogance. He is getting on and I am guessing he has a few niggles that could become worse and is taking this opportunity to rest up.

I can see where Richardson is coming from though, he makes a valid point. It does kind of mock the status of the series. However, I think Australia would rather a fresh McGrath for the SA series rather than an injured or tired one.

 

[Sir Redman]

^ I agree that just resting McGrath does not necessarily show arrogance. However, I heard that they wanted to rest Gilchrist too and IMO resting arguably your two best players definately smacks of arrogance.

 

[parttimer]

Exactly, how was it a bad innings when the 2 openers got tons but the other 9 couldn't even get Australia up to match England's score?

The batting collapse was caused by cloud cover and Flintoff's ability to exploit it, whereas Hayden's and Langer's knocks came under ideal conditions. If conditions are difficult Langer will shut and shop and rally, not rattle along at 4.3 an over. Hayden's innings came at only 2.8. 250 balls for his hundred yet if he was back in form would he have straggled so much behind Langer? I doubt the other Aus batsmen would have been tied up that much, given that he was close to being the worst of them in the prev 4 matches.

Given how there was so much talk of rain affecting the 5th test, one would think going for some quick runs while the goings good should have been the strategy. It was certainly employed by Langer.

 

[Burpey]

^ I agree that just resting McGrath does not necessarily show arrogance. However, I heard that they wanted to rest Gilchrist too and IMO resting arguably your two best players definately smacks of arrogance.

Yeah resting Gilly would have been arrogant. But they didn't, it was just talk in the end.

The batting collapse was caused by cloud cover and Flintoff's ability to exploit it, whereas Hayden's and Langer's knocks came under ideal conditions. If conditions are difficult Langer will shut and shop and rally, not rattle along at 4.3 an over. Hayden's innings came at only 2.8. 250 balls for his hundred yet if he was back in form would he have straggled so much behind Langer? I doubt the other Aus batsmen would have been tied up that much, given that he was close to being the worst of them in the prev 4 matches.

Given how there was so much talk of rain affecting the 5th test, one would think going for some quick runs while the goings good should have been the strategy. It was certainly employed by Langer.

As for this, he scored a bloody century for goodness sake. Yes, it might have been ugly and a little slow but it was a good innings. As I already said, better than a duck or even a half-century.

 

[parttimer]

Yeah resting Gilly would have been arrogant. But they didn't, it was just talk in the end.

As for this, he scored a bloody century for goodness sake. Yes, it might have been ugly and a little slow but it was a good innings. As I already said, better than a duck or even a half-century.

You dont' score great centuries in a vacuum it takes place within the context of the match. A slow and ugly century was not in the interest of the team at that stage of the test

 

[Tim]

I just view it the same way that the All Blacks rested their key players against Ireland & Scotland. If you've got the depth to do it, then I don't see a problem.

 

[parttimer]

Kiwi's should note the amount of cricket Aus has played lately. Ashes, then super test and ODI and then a test series against windies all in quick succession. The guy is 35 yo give him a break.

 

[Burpey]

You dont' score great centuries in a vacuum it takes place within the context of the match. A slow and ugly century was not in the interest of the team at that stage of the test

I beg to differ. The rest of the team failed. If he hadn't have got that century, we would have been in deep trouble. Langer played very well, it was just his day you could say. All you Hayden-bashers are very one-eyed; quick to criticise him, slow to praise him.

 

[vic_orthdox]

I just view it the same way that the All Blacks rested their key players against Ireland & Scotland. If you've got the depth to do it, then I don't see a problem.

LOL. Yeah, guess it is a bit rich for NZers to be pointing the finger at Aus so soon after their Rugby tour. Mind you, I think it's fair to say that the All Blacks' depth is a bit better than Aus' in cricket.

 

[parttimer]

I beg to differ. The rest of the team failed. If he hadn't have got that century, we would have been in deep trouble. Langer played very well, it was just his day you could say. All you Hayden-bashers are very one-eyed; quick to criticise him, slow to praise him.

If Hayden's playing so well why's he been left out of the OD team, even now when he's scoring hundreds at a clip? It has to be a belated recognition that he will struggle to adjust to NZ conditions. Its all elementary now anyway.

 

[Burpey]

If Hayden's playing so well why's he been left out of the OD team, even now when he's scoring hundreds at a clip? It has to be a belated recognition that he will struggle to adjust to NZ conditions. Its all elementary now anyway.

I would more think it's because the national selectors are viewing the OD and Test sides as two totally different teams. He has good Test form, but his ODI form hasn't been there and they have recognised that he no longer warrants a place in the team.