**Official** New Zealand v Australia

[Somerset]

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?

We should've been competitive in the first match and were. Less Styris, we struggled and only Cairns and Vettori played of New Zealand's better bowlers. If Oram or Bond had been there to back up, we would've stood a much better chance. With no Vettori in the 4th match, we were dispatched and a similar situation at Napier without Cairns.

As you say, Tuffey is terribly out of form but that's why I was hesistant in including him with the injured players. Having players out of form (Kyle Mills isn't in the greatest touch either) certainly doesn't help our cause.

 

[Somerset]

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

Exactly, without the senior players stepping up, we struggled. Vettori and Styris did the damage in the middle overs, Cairns also slowed things down after a good partnership between Hayden and Ponting was forming.

 

[Ming]

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?

What a fool by asking that question. Shane Bond, Jacob Oram and Scott Styris are the best ODI bowlers we have excluding Vettori. Styris' bowling record over the past year and a half has been outstanding.

That's like asking, how Australia would do without Brett Lee, Glenn McGrath, Kasprowicz, Gillespie and Symonds in their team. They would probably do OK since they have ready-made replacements, but NZ doesn't have that depth.

 

[benchmark00]

We should've been competitive in the first match and were. Less Styris, we struggled and only Cairns and Vettori played of New Zealand's better bowlers. If Oram or Bond had been there to back up, we would've stood a much better chance. With no Vettori in the 4th match, we were dispatched and a similar situation at Napier without Cairns.

As you say, Tuffey is terribly out of form but that's why I was hesistant in including him with the injured players. Having players out of form (Kyle Mills isn't in the greatest touch either) certainly doesn't help our cause.

Yes but would have you won in your opinion, thats what im asking... not how competitive.

 

[Blaze]

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?

Bond. Yes huge difference.

 

[benchmark00]

What a fool by asking that question. Shane Bond, Jacob Oram and Scott Styris are the best ODI bowlers we have excluding Vettori. Styris' bowling record over the past year and a half has been outstanding.

That's like asking, how Australia would do without Brett Lee, Glenn McGrath, Kasprowicz, Gillespie and Symonds in their team. They would probably do OK since they have ready-made replacements, but NZ doesn't have that depth.

You're the fool if you ask me. Do you honestly think that Styris and Oram are good enough bowlers to worry Australia on a regular basis?, not just a one-off??... The fact that Australia has more depth only supports the argument that Australia are a long way ahead of NZ, and no way does it support the argument of 'NZ got hammered because of injuries'

 

[Ming]

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

Injuries are an excuse when you have upto nearly a whole side out with injury.

Did you really expect that side in the 5th ODI to win?

 

[benchmark00]

Bond. Yes huge difference.

So NZ wouldve won on the basis of having Bond?

 

[Blaze]

You're the fool if you ask me. Do you honestly think that Styris and Oram are good enough bowlers to worry Australia on a regular basis?, not just a one-off??... The fact that Australia has more depth only supports the argument that Australia are a long way ahead of NZ, and no way does it support the argument of 'NZ got hammered because of injuries'

Fleming
Astle
Marshall
Styris
McMillan
Cairns
Oram
McCullum
Vettori
Bond
Butler

I firmly believe that XI would have given AUS a competitive series

 

[Somerset]

So NZ wouldve won on the basis of having Bond?

Not necessary win but with decent support - and I don't mean Lance Hamilton and Tama Canning - we would've had an incredibly better chance of beating the Aussies.

 

[Blaze]

So NZ wouldve won on the basis of having Bond?

Your original post said would they make much of a difference and so i replied yes i think Bond would have made a huge difference because the Aussies would have had to play Vettori in a more aggresive way because we would have had two world class bowlers in the team with Bondy there.

 

[benchmark00]

Fleming
Astle
Marshall
Styris
McMillan
Cairns
Oram
McCullum
Vettori
Bond
Butler

I firmly believe that XI would have given AUS a competitive series

....I honestly don't. Maybe wouldve won one game.

 

[Somerset]

Fleming
Astle
Marshall
Styris
McMillan
Cairns
Oram
McCullum
Vettori
Bond
Butler

I firmly believe that XI would have given AUS a competitive series

Absolutely, Ian Butler would be the only doubt in that squad for me. If Tuffey was available at the time the squad was announced he would've always been selected though and with better support in the form of Bond, Oram, etc. you'd think he would've bowled with more confidence anyway.

 

[benchmark00]

Your original post said would they make much of a difference and so i replied yes i think Bond would have made a huge difference because the Aussies would have had to play Vettori in a more aggresive way because we would have had two world class bowlers in the team with Bondy there.

I meant would it of made much of a difference to the final series result...

Bond and Vettori make up 20 overs... what about the other 60%?

 

[Blaze]

....I honestly don't. Maybe wouldve won one game.

I disagree. With Bond and Vettori AUS would have 20 high quality overs to deal with and then with your line and length bowlers ( Styris, Oram and Astle) plus Cairns in support, I don;t think you would have seen such high totals for NZ to be chasing

 

[Ming]

You're the fool if you ask me. Do you honestly think that Styris and Oram are good enough bowlers to worry Australia on a regular basis?, not just a one-off??... The fact that Australia has more depth only supports the argument that Australia are a long way ahead of NZ, and no way does it support the argument of 'NZ got hammered because of injuries'

NZ will never have more depth than Australia. That's a fact based on population alone and playing numbers.

Oram and Styris would have stood a better chance than the likes of Canning, Wilson, Mills and Tuffey that's for sure. Jacob Oram is in the top 10 ODI bowlers in the world, and has a good RPO. Styris has built up an extremely good bowling record recently, and he would have been a far better option than the likes of McMillan, in the middle bowling alongside Vettori.

 

[Blaze]

I meant would it of made much of a difference to the final series result...

Bond and Vettori make up 20 overs... what about the other 60%?

Styris Oram Cairns and Astle would bowl the other 30

 

[Scallywag]

So NZ wouldve won on the basis of having Bond?

In the last match Bond played against Australia he took 6/23 and Oram and adams plus Styris played but Australia won by 98 runs.


Lee took 5/42

 

[Somerset]

....I honestly don't. Maybe wouldve won one game.

With the exceptions being Bond and McMillan, that was the same squad that beat the Australians at Melbourne. If that squad was retained for the entire series in New Zealand, Bond and Butler would've been able to generate pace the way Lee did and the walkovers at Christchurch and Napier in particular would've been a lot closer. Oram and Styris would've been persistent throughout the middle overs instead of the rubbish Wilson and Tuffey had been bowling. And the lower scores from Australia thus resulting from the bowling would've meant better and more confident batting.

 

[_Ed_]

Oram is a quality bowler too, he usually bowls a tight spell (although often wicketless) which puts more pressure on the batting team. So really you would have Bond, Oram and Vettori all going for less than 45 from their 10, and with Cairns and an in-form Tuffey the other 2 bowlers there really wouldn't be any bowlers like Wilson, Hamilton and Canning for Australia to destroy like they did this series.