**Official** New Zealand in Australia 2015

[Hurricane]

Really? Felt like this was the very definition of smashed.

300 is an average test match score. And we put it up twice. In foreign conditions.

 

[Daemon]

DWTA

45 all out is having your ass handed to you.

But the equivalent on 45 ao is having 800 scored against you in 2 days for 8 wickets with half of them coming from declaration batting.

 

[Hurricane]

6 out of 10? That's legitimately our worst bowling effort since Boult debuted. We may have lost two players to injury. And the batting on a whole was well under what we have come to expect.

I'd give that a 2.5 out of 10. Kane being awesome and the opening partnership not being spuds are the only source of enjoyment.

We lost one critical asset to injury and one player who has done us a favour by getting injured.

Captaincy and field settings were 40% of what was wrong with the bowling. Craig not so much, the fields were ok for him.

 

[Bahnz]

1) We basically scored 300 in both innings. I therefore don't think that Australia smashed us by any stretch. They did win comfortably though.

Haha, love to know your definition of smashed if conceding 800 runs for 2 genuine wickets and the result being a fait accompli an hour before stumps on day 2 doesn't fulfil it.

This was an archetypal, men v (Kane apart) boys smashing.

 

[Hurricane]

But the equivalent on 45 ao is having 800 scored against you in 2 days for 8 wickets with half of them coming from declaration batting.

You have argued against your point with the part I have bolded. That third inning was not meaningful in terms of drawing any lessons or even momentum from it.

 

[Athlai]

We lost one critical asset to injury and one player who has done us a favour by getting injured.

Captaincy and field settings were 40% of what was wrong with the bowling. Craig not so much, the fields were ok for him.

We do NOT have a better option than Neesham currently fit.

 

[Hurricane]

Haha, love to know your definition of smashed if conceding 800 runs for 2 genuine wickets and the result being a fait accompli an hour before stumps on day 2 doesn't fulfil it.

This was an archetypal, men v (Kane apart) boys smashing.

like I said 45 all out is being smashed. Losing on the 3rd day is being smashed. Australia only being required to bat once is being smashed.

It doesn't take much going back through the annals of New Zealand cricket to find much worse defeats than this. This may not be just a standard another day at the office. But it is not anything to raise an eyebrow at. Not if you have been watching us lose to Australia since the 80s anyway.

 

[Hurricane]

We do NOT have a better option than Neesham currently fit.

He was a liability, his wicket of Warner aside.

Brownlie at 6 is a better option, grudgingly Ronchi at 7 to keep is a better option with Kane and Guptil being asked to bowl.
Mind not made up on Santner at 7. But don't see how he can score any less runs.

 

[Prince EWS]

6/10 for the batting effort alone is fair enough. The bowling was abysmal though.

 

[Bahnz]

Oh c'mon. Even if we got to 300 twice, that only barely managed to pass Australia's first innings effort, which probably would've ended up at about 750 or something if Smith hadn't made a mercy declaration an hour prior to tea. We still didn't manage to bat a full day in either innings on one of the best batting wickets you'll ever see. The aussie batsmen were frankly bored at times. This was an embarrassing horsewhipping.

 

[Moss]

I think our captain needs to be given a kick up the jacksie by Hesson. I watched part of the first day, and what I saw with the chopping and changing of field settings was under eleven year old captaincy. And according to the commentators he had been worse in the first session and had apparently costed us 30-40 runs on the first day. Maybe even a wicket or two if we had've been able to dry them up a bit.

Where you place your field is critical. If you give a bowler a mid on and a square leg then he will bowl in specific areas, if you give him a mid wicket as well then he can afford to get a bit straighter. If you give him a short midwicket for four balls and a short cover for the final two balls you will mess with the bowler.

I think if we get nothing out of this game other than McCullum becoming more patient with his field settings I will be a happy man.

Overall I am a 6 out of ten level of happiness with our performance.

1) We basically scored 300 in both innings. I therefore don't think that Australia smashed us by any stretch. They did win comfortably though.

2) Kane scored a big century.

3) We actually have opening batsman who don't get out in the first 3 overs of the game.

We lost. It happens. We will hopefully bounce back.

Agree with the first three paras, but your three points of consolation at the end, well that was the minimum expectation of the batting right? Yes, it's nice to have a side that doesn't struggle to reach 200 in both innings like on the previous two tours, but we knew that already. The middle order couldn't really hold their ground which kind of offsets the gains at the top, let's hope it's down to initial adjustments.

6 on 10 way too generous. NZ can bounce back (though the bowling has inexplicably gone to pieces from the beginning of the tour) but it'll take quite a mental effort from the bowlers to recover from this towelling.

 

[adub]

6/10 for the batting effort alone is fair enough. The bowling was abysmal though.

Yeah this. First hour was ok and things might have been different if they'd got an early pole, but once the opening spells were done there was just nothing challenging. The pitch was great for batting (which goes some way to explaining NZ's runs), but that doesn't excuse the majority of what was served up.

 

[Hurricane]

6/10 for the batting effort alone is fair enough. The bowling was abysmal though.

Nice post

Don't forget though that I have already put it out there that, the new ball seam movement notwithstanding or the spin that Lyon got on day four this was somewhat of a road that only rewarded your bowling if you were 140ks plus. Hazelwood the exception that proves the rule* - he bowled testingly but took less wickets than the spinner.



* I have been trying to work the expression "the exception that proves the rule" into a post for the past 4 years so although it may not fit here it is going to be used anyway.

 

[cnerd123]

5 Mitchells would have to be some sort of record

Seriously, is 1 in every 6 boys in Aus/NZ actually named Mitchell? If so, why? And why are they mostly left-handed?

 

[Hurricane]

Oh c'mon. Even if we got to 300 twice, that only barely managed to pass Australia's first innings effort, which probably would've ended up at about 750 or something if Smith hadn't made a mercy declaration an hour prior to tea. We still didn't manage to bat a full day in either innings on one of the best batting wickets you'll ever see. The aussie batsmen were frankly bored at times. This was an embarrassing horsewhipping.

I will not join you in revelling in misery. I think too much is being read into the 3rd innings and people are not seeing it for what it was: Flat track/scoreboard situation bullying.
And I think that not enough is being read into the fact that this match was in AUSTRALIA. They know those conditions. They grew up with them. The first match of a tour there is always difficult. Our batsman aside for Kane all looked in better nick in the 2nd dig.

Anyway Bahnz let's agree to disagree.

 

[Moss]

I will not join you in revelling in misery. I think too much is being read into the 3rd innings and people are not seeing it for what it was: Flat track/scoreboard situation bullying.

But they got all the help in the world from the bowling. Pitch-it-up bowlers routinely bowling short...well let's just hope they've figured it out.

 

[Bahnz]

Nah, I don't care at all about the 3rd innings. I'm more unnerved by conceding 400/2 on day 1 and never really looking in the contest beyond the first session of our 1st innings. Also if you think Taylor looked better in the 2nd dig then you're letting your desperation to beat Pews cloud your vision. For that matter I don't really think any of our guys bar McCullum looked better in the 2nd innings.

But yeah, we've clearly got different definitions of what constitutes a smashing so there's little point in discussing it further.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

Yeah I'm with cane. OK, we got smashed. OK, we're all sad and disappointed. Something clearly went wrong, and given the performances we've seen from this team in the past few years I somehow doubt they're not trying to figure out what it was.

 

[Daemon]

Yeah I'm with cane.

OK, we got smashed.

Well then you're not with cane..

 

[jcas0167]

Seriously, is 1 in every 6 boys in Aus/NZ actually named Mitchell? If so, why? And why are they mostly left-handed?

I'm 37 and never heard the name growing up in NZ. It does seem to have taken off though sometime in the late 80's. I'm not sure what inspired it.