**Official** New Zealand v Australia

[Blaze]

When did I ever imply that ?

What I'm saying is that in the normal course of events, SL would beat NZ at home and vice versa. But SL conditions in the Sl-NZ-Pak tri series were not the usual conditions SL are used to at home, and surely you could see that they were more suited to NZ ?

Also given that Sl were more competitive vs Aus than NZ were (albiet on flat decks), and that SL walloped SA 5-0, I dont see why NZ should automatically question SLs spot at two?

NZ also beat SA convinceingly. In normal course of events I would back NZ to beat everyone other than AUS home and away in ODI's

 

[Deja moo]

NZ also beat SA convinceingly. In normal course of events I would back NZ to beat everyone other than AUS home and away in ODI's

I think NZ would have problems in India, Pakistan, South Africa too.

 

[Blaze]

Id say this is a devastating blow to NZ cricket because they seemed to fancy themselves against australia, when its been shown they are not even in the same class.
The thrashings got worse by the match.

Not really a devastating blow IMO. Most were aprehensive and thought although we would be competitive, knew that it would take a hell of a lot to beat AUS.

They were the underdogs and lost.. lost badly but still it is only one series and in the context of their overall ODI form over the past year or so it means very little IMO

If Aus had have lost the series then it would have been devastating for them but NZ were big underdogs and I know they got less confident and the thrashings got worse but they had a number of injuries and I think we should really look at the bigger picture and not be so dramatic tbh

 

[Blaze]

I think NZ would have problems in India, Pakistan, South Africa too.

I disagree. Especailly at full strength

 

[Blaze]

Hence this :

But as I have presviously said it has nothing to do with conditions.

IMO it is a mental problem not physical

 

[Deja moo]

But as I have presviously said it has nothing to do with conditions.

IMO it is a mental problem not physical

I am undcided on this one, but inclined slightly towards it being a problem of not adapting to conditions not suited to their resources.

 

[Blaze]

I am undcided on this one, but inclined slightly towards it being a problem of not adapting to conditions not suited to their resources.

I can see what you are getting at.

Both of their warm up games in NZ were rained off so they didn't get much of a chance to adapt to the conditions before the first ODI.

In the only game they actually did play before the tsunami Sri lanka didn't apply themselves and really played some awful shots. They didn't even bat their 50 overs which is not only criminal it also indicates a lack of application.

 

[Somerset]

I can see what you are getting at.

Both of their warm up games in NZ were rained off so they didn't get much of a chance to adapt to the conditions before the first ODI.

In the only game they actually did play before the tsunami Sri lanka didn't apply themselves and really played some awful shots. They didn't even bat their 50 overs which is not only criminal it also indicates a lack of application.

The match against Central Districts meant they would've got some match practice in New Zealand - their bowling attack had 50 overs out of a possible 100 to bowl at a strong lineup including Jacob Oram who scored 70-odd. Even during that match they struggled and had already lost two wickets in four or five overs.

As Blaze has pointed out, some terrible shots were played and the consequences were that Sri Lanka failed to bat 50 overs in the only ODI match. The pitch wasn't that bad and the Sri Lankans should've reached a much higher total.

 

[SJS]

I have a slightly different view on the Kiwis.

I am a great admirer of this side but it appears to me that their lack of superstars is both their strength and a weakness.

They caNn put up a fight against the best in the world since there is hardly anyteam with so many team-players as the Kiwis. Every one chips in with bat and/or ball AND in the field. This helps them to fight on much closer terms than their man to man strengths would have you believe they were capable of. BUT..

when it comes to a big one. Say chasing a huge total or facing a rampaging bowler on his day, or some such combination of factors which requires an individual to stand up and with a personal performance pull the team out of a hole. Not that they havent ever done it, but its rarer.

At times having just one superstar is bad enough as Windies have found for many years now, since that superstar may have been taken care off when the problem started becoming to big. Then they find it difficult to have another man do a 'Lara' for them.

The Kiwis have virtualy no one. No individual great, the last one being Richard hadlee, and this is a problem for them.

Even in this team game, you still need super stars because at the micro level, cricket is a contest between one man, the bowler, and another, the batsman.

You need both great teams and great individual cricketers. All truly dominant sides have had both.

The mercurial sides, like Pakistan for instance have had only individual stars , and workman like sides like Kiwis have had only great team-players.

Of course the really bad sides have neither !

 

[Somerset]

I'm not saying that SL are to be "automatically slotted" into positon two. All I'm doing is questioning those who seem to deem it unthinkable that SL could make it so high. The rankings are not arbitrary. They do take into account the conditions and the quality of opposition.

And its too close to call, sort of like choosing between the lesser of the two evils. A side that cannot play well in one set of conditions, but can compete well with the top ranked team, versus a side that can play relatively well in an alien set of conditions (but were obviously not tested in those conditions at all in the recent past), but is also subject to serious thrashings from the top ranked team.

The first three Australian matches were fairly close - the two in Australia and the one at Wellington I wouldn't call severe thrashings. Injuries and poor form meant thrashings occured in the next four matches but if we could've fielded a full strength side, it was likely we would've had a decent chance. Sri Lanka played well in their own conditions against the Australians - there's no disputing that - but if that series was played in different conditions, 9 times out of 10, the Australians would walk over the Sri Lankans. Maybe I got the impression you were certain Sri Lanka should be placed at number two - I feel this is far from certain with their unpredictabilities away from home.

 

[Somerset]

I have a slightly different view on the Kiwis.

I am a great admirer of this side but it appears to me that their lack of superstars is both their strength and a weakness.

They caNn put up a fight against the best in the world since there is hardly anyteam with so many team-players as the Kiwis. Every one chips in with bat and/or ball AND in the field. This helps them to fight on much closer terms than their man to man strengths would have you believe they were capable of. BUT..

when it comes to a big one. Say chasing a huge total or facing a rampaging bowler on his day, or some such combination of factors which requires an individual to stand up and with a personal performance pull the team out of a hole. Not that they havent ever done it, but its rarer.

At times having just one superstar is bad enough as Windies have found for many years now, since that superstar may have been taken care off when the problem started becoming to big. Then they find it difficult to have another man do a 'Lara' for them.

The Kiwis have virtualy no one. No individual great, the last one being Richard hadlee, and this is a problem for them.

Even in this team game, you still need super stars because at the micro level, cricket is a contest between one man, the bowler, and another, the batsman.

You need both great teams and great individual cricketers. All truly dominant sides have had both.

The mercurial sides, like Pakistan for instance have had only individual stars , and workman like sides like Kiwis have had only great team-players.

Of course the really bad sides have neither !

Shane Bond is our superstar, and he's proven that with his performances against Australia in particular in the past. The six-for at the World Cup should've been enough for victory but I won't go into that. We've been without Bond for a while though and the likes of Oram, Styris, Marshall, etc. who you would probably class as team players have provided that team atmosphere since his absence.

 

[Ming]

But as I have presviously said it has nothing to do with conditions.

IMO it is a mental problem not physical

I guess there's no point in bringing back Bond, Oram, Styris, Papps and co because the players that played today had all the "physical" abilities?

Of course it is not all mental. Our bowling attack was the worst we have ever fielded. Mills. Hamilton. Canning. McMillan. Cumming. It's not to do with mental, it's just the fact that our bowlers today just didn't have the ability. If you don't agree with me, I think you are extremely stupid frankly. Sounds rude, but it's true.

Had Bond, Oram, Styris and Astle replaced Hamilton, Mills and Canning in there, 347 from 50 overs would not have been posted.

 

[maxpower]

I think AUS should stop playing cricket for couple of years, maybe the rest of the world will kinda catchup to AUS by then, if not the 2 year layoff should make em rusty enough for everyone else to compete with them.

 

[Ming]

The pitches didn't seem so flat when SL played their aborted tour recently.

When they played one match? Fleming showed the SLs how to bat properly on that pitch in that game.

 

[SJS]

Shane Bond is our superstar, and he's proven that with his performances against Australia in particular in the past. The six-for at the World Cup should've been enough for victory but I won't go into that. We've been without Bond for a while though and the likes of Oram, Styris, Marshall, etc. who you would probably class as team players have provided that team atmosphere since his absence.

Yes Shane was a super star but he hasnt been around.
Even when he returns you will need more than one, particularly in batting.

The last batting superstar Kiwis had was probably Martin Crowe and before that Glen Turner. These are to few and far between.

India have , for exampla, a galaxy in Tendulkar, Dravid, Laxman, Sehwag besides Kumble and Harbhajan. They help us a lot inspite of not as much of a team effort as Kiwis can summon

Before that we had Azhar, Siddhu, Kapil, but that period was our weaker period.

Before that we had Gavaskar, Vishwanath, Vengsarkar, Mohinder PLUS Kapil and the last of the spinners' trail. Again we had some good performances but not great team work so lack of consistency.

West Indies have similar problems after the Lloyds, Richards, Greenidges, Haynes's, Holdings, Marshals et al have gone.

 

[Slow Love™]

Also, what the hell was up with that McMillan thing? Symonds took the catch and claimed it, the umpire put the finger up and McMillan refused to go, and then rather than referring it to the third umpire or anything play just went on. One of the most inexplicable moments I've ever seen in international cricket. Unless Symonds told the umpire he didn't catch it or something, which seems unlikely given that he claimed it when he took it, Shephard should have preferably just told McMillan to get a move on back to the pavilion as he had been given out, or at the very least referred it to the third umpire and had him confirm that the catch was taken. Why he just let McMillan keep batting I have no idea.

It all seems very confusing - I just read in The Age that Ponting overruled the decision, but this might well just mean that after McMillan refused to move, Ponting said "OK, f*** it then, you can stay there, a$$hole."

Either way, if the umpire has given him out, and he refuses to leave the crease and plays on, surely this is a more serious offence than a bowler giving a sendoff to a batsman he has just dismissed. Unless Ponting actually overruled the decision because he was certain the catch hadn't been taken.

 

[Blaze]

I guess there's no point in bringing back Bond, Oram, Styris, Papps and co because the players that played today had all the "physical" abilities?

Of course it is not all mental. Our bowling attack was the worst we have ever fielded. Mills. Hamilton. Canning. McMillan. Cumming. It's not to do with mental, it's just the fact that our bowlers today just didn't have the ability. If you don't agree with me, I think you are extremely stupid frankly. Sounds rude, but it's true.

Had Bond, Oram, Styris and Astle replaced Hamilton, Mills and Canning in there, 347 from 50 overs would not have been posted.

You are an idiot. Read the rest of the thread. I was talking about Sri Lanka touring overseas. You are the one that looks stupid now

 

[chaminda_00]

Sri Lanka aren't as bad as people think they are away from the home. If u look at their last 50 matches 22 were played away from Asia. In those matches they won 13 games (which is 60%) not too bad is it. If u take out matches aganist Zimabwe it is still over 50%. In conditions foriegn to New Zealand (asia) they only won 7 out of the last 19 games. That a great record isn't even whose then Sri Lanka's record away from dust bowls.

Also that series that New Zealand won in Sri Lanka (18 Months ago), in the matches aganist each other they both won one game. Also Sri Lanka only missed out on the final cus of that stupid bounus point system.

Champions Throphy: well we only got knocked out of the tornment cus of D/L, who to say we wouldn't of beat England if it wasn't for the rain. Considering Sangakkara was at the crease when the game was called off, im pretty confident we still would of won that game. Also the Kiwis got knocked out at the same stage.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

It all seems very confusing - I just read in The Age that Ponting overruled the decision, but this might well just mean that after McMillan refused to move, Ponting said "OK, f*** it then, you can stay there, a$$hole."

Either way, if the umpire has given him out, and he refuses to leave the crease and plays on, surely this is a more serious offence than a bowler giving a sendoff to a batsman he has just dismissed. Unless Ponting actually overruled the decision because he was certain the catch hadn't been taken.

Yeah. I heard that the umpire changed his mind after McMillan's protest, but for some reason didn't call for the third umpire.

My guess about what happened is this: Shephard saw Symonds take the ball and claim it and thought it was out, so signalled to McMillan for him to leave. After McMillan refused it created doubt in Shephard's mind, and he didn't want to call it out in case the batsman was right and replays showed that he didn't take it, which would cause him a lot of grief in the media especially given recent complaints about umpires supposedly favouring Australia. He also didn't want to call for the third umpire, since his vision was not obscured and he is not supposed to do so unless it is. So, since McMillan's refusal to walk created doubt in his mind, Shephard reversed his decision.

The problem with this is obviously that doubt is not supposed to be created by the players on the field, it has to exist from the start in the umpires mind before he can reject an appeal because of it. Otherwise, players could simply protest everything and create "doubt" in every decision. If this is what happened, and neither Ponting nor Symonds called for McMillan to stay at the crease, he should certainly be punished for dissent in a rather severe way, since this is a far worse infraction than anything else we have seen in recent times.

On another note about the umpiring, how about Kasprowicz' hat-trick ball? Remind me to bring up this game next time someone complains about Australia getting all the dodgy decisions.

 

[Sir Redman]

On another note about the umpiring, how about Kasprowicz' hat-trick ball? Remind me to bring up this game next time someone complains about Australia getting all the dodgy decisions.

Yep one call goes against Australia. Man they have it tough.