**Official** New Zealand in Australia Thread

[vic_orthdox]

Originally Posted by Scaly piscine
I don't agree with that at all, in England and New Zealand (especially when there's cloud cover or moisture) you should be bowling it reasonably full, not half-volley length but up there to have a go at, then the movement does the rest and you get catching practice. In Australia where there is very little if any lateral movement compared to NZ then the length should be a bit shorter because if you bowl a length that you can drive, even if the drive is played on the up you'll get smacked around all day.

simply...on australia, the ideal length is to have the batsman on the forward defensive or driving on the up if wanting to be very attacking, with the aim of the ball hitting high on the bat. to hit this length, you must be fuller than what you are bowling on lower bouncing wickets, which are reputedly what are found in new zealand, as if bowling the same length the ball will not be as high on the batsman and he will be able to drive the ball much more easily. therefore one must bowl shorter on a new zealand wicket to bowl at an awkward length than on an australian one

 

[anzac]

just done some quick number crunching re one of my earlier comments about the NZL batting lacking partnerships etc..........went back to the start of the decade & not including this test...........very roughly..........

NZL
64 innings
88 partnerships 50+
37 partnerships 100+
33 centuries

Opponents
63 innings
64 partnerships 50+
45 partnerships 100+
33 centuries

looks fairly balanced esp with NZL primarily using a 5-5 split.........
however something else that came up - 33 innings where NZL lost 3 or more wickets for less than 10 runs a piece............more than half the number of total innings.............that then becomes 46 times if you apply it to the loss of 2 or more wickets for less than 10 runs each...............

the pattern emerges that they tend to loose wickets in pairs in the middle order very quickly for little or no addition to the score, then in 25 innings they actually repeat this through the innings on more than 1 occaision & not just meaning the tail - esp when you condiser how far down the order NZL supposedly bats..............

finally since Bracewell took over hands on in the Home series v PAK.........
NZL
18 innings
27 partnerships 50+
15 partnerships 100+
10 centuries

Opponents
18 innings
18 partnerships 50+
18 partnerships 100+
9 centuries

but................11 innings lost 3 or more wickets for less than 10 a piece - including 8 in a row from the 3rd test v RSA - ending with 2nd innings 3rd test v ENG.........8 innings where wickets have been lost on more than 1 occaision, also includes such collapses as
10/96 & 10/103 v PAK
4/21, 4/16 & 5/54 v RSA
5/26, 3/14, 4/23(twice in same innings),8/86,4/18 & 6/33 v ENG

I also note that key batsmen such as Richardson, Astle & Styris are having their worst run of series averages for some time - basically back to the begining of the decade..........by this I mean that they have gone 2 or more series in a row where they have failed to make their career averages for those series - as a result their averages will have dropped as a consequence meaning that the discrepencies were greater at the time of the series being played.......

I haven't looked any further into it ATM as to where the partnerships & runs have been made - but I think the indications re regularity of batting collapses is concern enough...........

 

[Scaly piscine]

simply...on australia, the ideal length is to have the batsman on the forward defensive or driving on the up if wanting to be very attacking, with the aim of the ball hitting high on the bat. to hit this length, you must be fuller than what you are bowling on lower bouncing wickets, which are reputedly what are found in new zealand, as if bowling the same length the ball will not be as high on the batsman and he will be able to drive the ball much more easily. therefore one must bowl shorter on a new zealand wicket to bowl at an awkward length than on an australian one

No way, if you bowl shorter in NZ or England you're gonna beat the bat and not get any edges because the ball will move too much for the batsman to get near it (this is why the earlier version of Flintoff looked like he was bowling brilliantly and hardly got anyone out).

 

[marc71178]

Yes, they are not. But India are (or were?) deemed to be almost unbeatable at home. And Australia did it with relative ease. It's a valid point, which need not be rebutted just for the sake of quoting and rebutting someone.

I didn't do it for the reasons you mention, I responded because I do not think that India at home is the yardstick for sides to compare to.

 

[Mister Wright]

haha, yeah I was in 67, just to the left of the umpire.

I was in section 67 for day one. Then moved to section 68 so I could drink.

 

[Dar]

Once again Australia may have been the better team but once again the umpires have played their part in an Aussie victory. I don't care what anyone says, umpires feel more obliged to put the finger up when the aussies appeal more so than anyone else. And for some reason Steve Bucknor seems to always umpire when australia are playing and again show his favouritism. Gilchrist was given not out on 7, what a turning point that proved to be.

Before you start i'm not saying australia didn't deserve to win but the yet again the umpires made the win look more convincing than it was and it still annoys me

 

[Slow Love™]

Once again Australia may have been the better team but once again the umpires have played their part in an Aussie victory. I don't care what anyone says, umpires feel more obliged to put the finger up when the aussies appeal more so than anyone else. And for some reason Steve Bucknor seems to always umpire when australia are playing and again show his favouritism. Gilchrist was given not out on 7, what a turning point that proved to be.

Before you start i'm not saying australia didn't deserve to win but the yet again the umpires made the win look more convincing than it was and it still annoys me

Actually, this is a pretty observable phenomena that happens when a team is dominant. I remember all the years when the West Indians were on top, and the favorable decisions they got used to drive me insane (similarly, I think they were still going to win their games, just that sometimes the results got blown out by bad umpiring decisions).

Interestingly, it works the same way in AFL football out here - at the end of the season, generally when the free kick stats are tallied, you'll often find that the top teams disproportionately benefit from umpiring decisions. Some of this will be due to discipline, but you'll also see that perceived "mistakes" heavily favor the top teams. I think it's because, subconsciously (I don't really feel it's conscious), the umpires err on the side of the more powerful team because it's less likely to upset the applecart of heirarchy in the game.

Another issue of course, is that everybody notices flaws in the umpiring when they lose - it's an unavoidable occurrence (IMO).

One thing - I'm not sure you're right about Bucknor. While I completely agree that his umpiring of late has been abysmal on the whole, I'm not sure that it's been so much in favor of Australia (at least, any more than any other umpire) as been anti-India (as much in his behaviour as in his decision-making), and we've seen Australia play India quite a lot in recent times. Yesterday he gave McMillan not-out when he clearly hit the ball.

 

[Crazy Sam]

the umpiring was ordinary however the kiwis were even worse. Is Bucknor past it? Maybe. perhaps he just needs an extended break. the pakistani umpire didn't have a clue.

 

[Son Of Coco]

I don't agree with that at all, in England and New Zealand (especially when there's cloud cover or moisture) you should be bowling it reasonably full, not half-volley length but up there to have a go at, then the movement does the rest and you get catching practice. In Australia where there is very little if any lateral movement compared to NZ then the length should be a bit shorter because if you bowl a length that you can drive, even if the drive is played on the up you'll get smacked around all day.

I agree, but I've never played in NZ so.........Having bowlers that weren't that quick and were apparently described as 'swing' bowlers seemingly doesn't justify the decision to bowl so short (I've never seen a ball swing much when it lands halfway down the wicket). There were cracks you could stick your finger in opening up on a good length and it seemed like landing the ball around those spots would have been more productive - I think we saw this in the Kiwi's second innings.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Even so, Gilchrist is making an absolute fool of himself. What on earth is the point in walking if, half an hour later as a wicket-keeper, you turn around and appeal against an opposition batsman - like Gilly did today against McCullum - who has missed the ball by at least 10cm!!!! It's a massive double standard. You are making an absolute fool of yourself, Gilly!

He's not the only one.....

 

[Son Of Coco]

Turn it up, mate. As if Gilchrist - standing behind the stumps - thought it was out! When someone misses something by 10cm and you dont hear an edge, and you're the wicket-keeper, I think it's a fair bet that you know it's not out.

I think you'd probably find that the guys who were standing at first and second slip (in the direction it deviated) would have more of an idea than the guy standing directly behind the stumps. When you throw in the noise from the pad it can make it quite difficult........while you're blaming everyone let's be honest - the umpire should have known it wasn't out before anyone else.

 

[Son Of Coco]

A pitch with cracks on on Day 4, shock horror!

Note that this is the 4th day of the game, NOT the 4th over.

hahahaha, that's great.

 

[Son Of Coco]

simply...on australia, the ideal length is to have the batsman on the forward defensive or driving on the up if wanting to be very attacking, with the aim of the ball hitting high on the bat. to hit this length, you must be fuller than what you are bowling on lower bouncing wickets, which are reputedly what are found in new zealand, as if bowling the same length the ball will not be as high on the batsman and he will be able to drive the ball much more easily. therefore one must bowl shorter on a new zealand wicket to bowl at an awkward length than on an australian one

yeah, these guys are supposed to be professional cricketers though. They've played in Australia before and should know what to expect. It's not quite the same as a club cricketer coming from NZ to play in Australia for the first time. The bowling was just poor as a whole...........Vettori an exception.

 

[Son Of Coco]

I was in section 67 for day one. Then moved to section 68 so I could drink.

Where abouts were you? I was row JJ seat 70, can't have been too far away.

 

[bryce]

I agree, but I've never played in NZ so.........Having bowlers that weren't that quick and were apparently described as 'swing' bowlers seemingly doesn't justify the decision to bowl so short (I've never seen a ball swing much when it lands halfway down the wicket). There were cracks you could stick your finger in opening up on a good length and it seemed like landing the ball around those spots would have been more productive - I think we saw this in the Kiwi's second innings.

notice how they didn't bowl so short with the new ball because as you said you have to bowl fuller to get it to swing which it did, the problem was with the old ball which is not swinging they reverted back to stock nz pitch length which is a no-no on your typical aussie track.

 

[The Argonaut]

The umpiring was poor in this match. Unfortunately it looks like Bucknor is past his best. With the Kiwis the most unlucky part was the ends that the two umpires were standing at. Trigger happy Aleem Dar probably would have given Gilchrist out and Bucknor would have given the 2 high LBWs not out as he seems to be overly cautious these days.

Australia probably would have won anyway but it would not have been an innings defeat. The bowling wouldn't have been as tired when it came to bowl to Gillespie and McGrath. That said their bowling to them was atrocious, way too short.

 

[Scallywag]

Before you start i'm not saying australia didn't deserve to win but the yet again the umpires made the win look more convincing than it was and it still annoys me

Dar you should get your mum to ring up the ICC and complain about the umpiring or ask an adult if you can use the phone and do it yourself.

 

[Mr Casson]

I know it sounds a bit like sour grapes but IMO there were too many cracks having an impact too early in the day..............not that the NZL bowlers had any idea where they were or what they could do................

I can live with it if the cracks start to impact in the last session on Day 4, and if the bounce becomes uneven to go with it on Day 5 (not saying the bounce had much to do with it today)...........as I said for me they were a bit too wide a bit early................

not looking for excuses - just personal preference re pitch behaviour...........

Well before you mention the impact of the cracks, keep in mind that at the start of the match, it was a wonderful batting strip, which the Kiwis should have applied themselves much more on. Australia could have been batting last, when the pitch had deteriorated even more on day 5.

The pitch was even starting to open up on day 3, so I'd like to hear complaints about it being hard to bat on when Gillespie and McGrath both made fifties.

Is it so unfathomable that NZ were simply overwhelmed by a much better team?

 

[Craig]

So he didn't go at 4 an over then?

Very true.

Yes he went for a few, but the fact he got wickets and got wickets doesn't mean or prove anything?

 

[Mr Casson]

Very true.

Yes he went for a few, but the fact he got wickets and got wickets doesn't mean or prove anything?

He didn't bowl consistently well. He bowled well in patches, and that's probably how his ER got up to 4.