**Official** New Zealand v Australia

[Ming]

Wow.

Is that ground at high altitude?

Nope. Right by the sea it is. Great ground is Napier.

 

[James]

Nope. Right by the sea it is. Great ground is Napier.

Not quiet right by the sea but pretty close About 1.5 kilometers away I'd say.

Now the Cake Tin in Wellington is right by the sea.

 

[amiller]

Now the Cake Tin in Wellington is right by the sea.

Yes but fairly sheltered

 

[JASON]

This discussion as to which of the two Teams SL or NZ is number 2 in ODIs is highly amusing !!

Everyone behind Australia is in the ***t dump so why does it matter who is number 2 !!

 

[Sir Redman]

This discussion as to which of the two Teams SL or NZ is number 2 in ODIs is highly amusing !!

Everyone behind Australia is in the ***t dump so why does it matter who is number 2 !!

Privately I agree. I remember being laughed at in the start of this thread when I said that I didnt think we were as good as everyone thought and it was possible that we could get thrashed - and this series has shown just how far ahead Australia is. It doesnt really matter whos number 2 because chances are theyll have to beat Australia to win the World Cup - and that doesnt change whether you're number 2 or 7.

You see, by saying I didnt think we were that good I had all my bases covered. If we had won the series I would happily say "Gosh, we are actually quite good. I am an idiot who knows nothing about cricket" while running round my house doing victory dances. Now that we've lost I get to say "I told you so. Now dont you go listening to biased reporters with inflated ideas of our ability again"

 

[SJS]

Privately I agree. I remember being laughed at in the start of this thread when I said that I didnt think we were as good as everyone thought and it was possible that we could get thrashed - and this series has shown just how far ahead Australia is. It doesnt really matter whos number 2 because chances are theyll have to beat Australia to win the World Cup - and that doesnt change whether you're number 2 or 7.

You see, by saying I didnt think we were that good I had all my bases covered. If we had won the series I would happily say "Gosh, we are actually quite good. I am an idiot who knows nothing about cricket" while running round my house doing victory dances. Now that we've lost I get to say "I told you so. Now dont you go listening to biased reporters with inflated ideas of our ability again"

Thats much like my wife who insists in every game that India will lose and then is delighted whatever the result

 

[amiller]

You guys have fair points, but I'm sure the series would have been a much closer contest had our first team been fully fit. Also winning the first match (which we should have won), may have given us the momentum and confidence going into the following matches.. I guess we'll never know

 

[LongHopCassidy]

Injuries aren't really an excuse.

Australia were struck with injuries in the one-day series in India a couple of years back, and bowlers like Bracken and Williams stood up and won Australia the tournament.

This is just a demonstration of NZ's total lack of depth.

 

[Scallywag]

Also winning the first match (which we should have won), may have given us the momentum and confidence going into the following matches.. I guess we'll never know

Why should you have won.

Australia were too good for them, there is no reason why NZ should have won.

 

[Jono]

Injuries aren't really an excuse.

Australia were struck with injuries in the one-day series in India a couple of years back, and bowlers like Bracken and Williams stood up and won Australia the tournament.

This is just a demonstration of NZ's total lack of depth.

That's an excellent post. Australia's bowlers in India during the TVS Cup ODI series were all back-up (If that) and Australia only lost one match during the whole tournament, that was to India in the first match they played. So injuries aren't really an excuse.

That being said, if injuries aren't a viable excuse for NZ, they shouldn't be for Australia when the India vs. Australia series in 2003/04 is brought up. Because that's the pot calling the kettle black.

 

[John the Bookie]

I think New Zealand (and other countries) should research why Australian players rarely get injured. I think there is far more to it than luck and that Australian players are just more fitter.

I remember when australia were missing 4-5 bowlers through injuries and there were panic and investigation into the player's training program. With other countries, when they are in similar circumstances they just say its bad luck.

 

[SJS]

That's an excellent post. Australia's bowlers in India during the TVS Cup ODI series were all back-up (If that) and Australia only lost one match during the whole tournament, that was to India in the first match they played. So injuries aren't really an excuse.

That being said, if injuries aren't a viable excuse for NZ, they shouldn't be for Australia when the India vs. Australia series in 2003/04 is brought up. Because that's the pot calling the kettle black.

Well said. Injuries arenever an excuse and no one should offer them Aussies, Indians, Kiwis, no one.

 

[amiller]

Why should you have won.

Australia were too good for them, there is no reason why NZ should have won.

We were in a position to win, needing 14 off 14 or something like that with 4 wickets in hand and Hamish Marshall played a stupid shot to be bowled by McGrath

 

[Blaze]

Well said. Injuries arenever an excuse and no one should offer them Aussies, Indians, Kiwis, no one.

I would never use it as an excuse but you have to look at the injuries when asking why NZ got smashed so badly and overall played so poorly.

Lets just say the injuries didn't help NZ's cause

 

[Somerset]

We were in a position to win, needing 14 off 14 or something like that with 4 wickets in hand and Hamish Marshall played a stupid shot to be bowled by McGrath

Why bring this back up?

To be honest, I don't blame Marshall for attempting the shot, sure it was risky, but it had come off earlier and a boundary then would've all but secured the game. If anyone should be blamed, it should be Daniel Vettori for backing off against Brett Lee the previous delivery.

 

[Somerset]

Well said. Injuries arenever an excuse and no one should offer them Aussies, Indians, Kiwis, no one.

I wouldn't say injuries are never an excuse. The Kiwi bowling attack was depleted because of a number of injuries and our next best bowlers were not up to the same standard of the usual frontliners. Just look at the final match - a debutant, one playing his second match, one bowling his first ball in an ODI in New Zealand - and I struggle to see how injuries should never be called an excuse.

 

[SJS]

I wouldn't say injuries are never an excuse. The Kiwi bowling attack was depleted because of a number of injuries and our next best bowlers were not up to the same standard of the usual frontliners. Just look at the final match - a debutant, one playing his second match, one bowling his first ball in an ODI in New Zealand - and I struggle to see how injuries should never be called an excuse.

Oh yes, I know injuries to a star player can cause a depletion in performance but then reaaly top sides will show good benchstrength. After all star players when not injured can also be badly out of form, like Sachin in 2003. If he was injured instead of being in such dreadful form would it have ben an excuse for India?

PLUS it seems to others, unfortunately always only to others, as sour grapes. So its beter not over stressed.

 

[Somerset]

Oh yes, I know injuries to a star player can cause a depletion in performance but then reaaly top sides will show good benchstrength. After all star players when not injured can also be badly out of form, like Sachin in 2003. If he was injured instead of being in such dreadful form would it have ben an excuse for India?

PLUS it seems to others, unfortunately always only to others, as sour grapes. So its beter not over stressed.

Well look at it this way, New Zealand's best bowling line up would probably be:
Bond, Tuffey, Oram, Cairns, Vettori, Styris

Tuffey was in terrible form - no injury there - but Bond, Oram, Cairns and Styris were all unable to bowl, as was Andre Adams, Jeff Wilson and Ian Butler at Napier. That is seven of our best options out to injury, eight including Tuffey. If Australia take out Lee, Gillespie, McGrath and Kasprowicz - that's only four, half of our number -, Australia would be facing a similar problem. They would not be at full strength and injuries would surely be an excuse.

 

[benchmark00]

Well look at it this way, New Zealand's best bowling line up would probably be:
Bond, Tuffey, Oram, Cairns, Vettori, Styris

Tuffey was in terrible form - no injury there - but Bond, Oram, Cairns and Styris were all unable to bowl, as was Andre Adams, Jeff Wilson and Ian Butler at Napier. That is seven of our best options out to injury, eight including Tuffey. If Australia take out Lee, Gillespie, McGrath and Kasprowicz - that's only four, half of our number -, Australia would be facing a similar problem. They would not be at full strength and injuries would surely be an excuse.

Tuffey wouldnt be in Zimbabwe's best bowling line up at the moment, Cairns only missed one game (basically), Vettori only missed one game.... that leaves Bond Oram and Styrus (who played the first game)..... do you really think it wouldve made much of a difference?

 

[_Ed_]

Styris did take 4 wickets in the first game, brought NZ back into the game.