**Official** New Zealand v Australia

[Scallywag]

So what?

He has proven that he is one bowler that can match it with the aussies and with him NZ would have been competitive in this series, still wouldn't have won but competitive

Bond has played six ODI's against Australia with NZ winning the first three but Australia has won the last three, I cant see how you can say because NZ won three games in 2002 that they can suddenly match it with Australia three years later if Bond was playing. I would say 2003 form indicates that with Bond NZ cant match Australia.

I know NZ have been hit hard by injuries but keep things in perspective.

 

[Blaze]

UGH... so the Aussies would just let these part timers come in and bowl lovely line a length without doing everything... by this, by gee Australia wouldnt make over 100 in any game! oh this Australian team are absolute rubbish!!!!

Oram, Cairns and whoever they picked as the other opening bowler wouldnt be part timers.

Styris and Astle are part timers but have proven to be very successful.

I am not denying that you still would have the series but I am just saying that it is obvious that we would have been so much more competitive with a fully fit squad.

Can't you see that?

 

[Ming]

Why is everyone saying 'if such and such was in form'... the fact is that you cant take that into consideration, Australians had players that werent in the best form also, Gilchrist, Gillespie (imo), Hogg didnt set the world on fire etc etc.

Gilchrist scored 91 from 64 balls. Gillespie didn't get smacked around did he? He came out of the series with a respectable RPO, and that's what's important.

Bond, Oram, Styris, Harris would have had good RPOs, and would have been able to support Vettori.

Both at full-strength and Aussie wins?

I guess that didn't happen 4 months ago. 1-1.

 

[Somerset]

Hypothetical

Australia at full strength Vs NZ at full strength

Everyone in the side in form.

Australia wins.

We've yet to see that happen. How you can come to that conclusion that easily is beyond me. Yes, Australia would be favourites and should win at least 2 times out of 3 - but a New Zealand side at full strength should never be counted out.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

That is such a lame call.

In the VB series with Bond on fire NZ won 3/4 games against AUS and the fourth was very close.

This was years ago now. Bond hasn't played international cricket in well over a year, Australia has half a dozen changes to the team that played in that series and New Zealand has a different team as well. That series directly resulted in the sacking of Steve Waugh as one-day captain, and if you don't think Australia are a far more complete and dominant side in recent times you haven't been watching them play enough.

Yes, New Zealand were injury hit and bringing up the loss of the likes of Styris and Oram is fine if you really think that they might have made a difference, but Harris and Bond? Please. Harris is quite likely to never play ODI cricket again (although the recent team failures may increase his chances), and Bond is only just returning to FC cricket now and there is no guarantee he won't be a shadow of his former self if and when he gets back into the international arena. Either way New Zealand wouldn't have won more than one game in my view, but the side they put out was completely outclassed in every facet of the game and blaming injuries alone for that (remembering that their batting lineup was pretty close to first choice) is ridiculous. Injuries didn't lead to Fleming, Astle, Cairns etc having shocking series.

 

[Somerset]

Bond has played six ODI's against Australia with NZ winning the first three but Australia has won the last three, I cant see how you can say because NZ won three games in 2002 that they can suddenly match it with Australia three years later if Bond was playing. I would say 2003 form indicates that with Bond NZ cant match Australia.

I know NZ have been hit hard by injuries but keep things in perspective.

How many other countries have that record against Australia then? 50/50 is more than respectable and considering we should've won both the 4th VB Series match and the Super Six game, something certainly doesn't add up.

 

[Blaze]

Hypothetical

Australia at full strength Vs NZ at full strength

Everyone in the sides in form.

Australia wins.

Don't start this 'everyone in form' rubbish.

No team ever has every player in the team playing to their full potential on any given day

Aus at full strength Vs NZ at full strength

AUS still wins but NZ far more competitive

 

[bryce]

styris is a very underrated ODI bowler, in the CH series him and vettori bowled through the middle overs very economically and no doubt would of helped keep the runs down with vettori being given adequate support, in the CH series styris had a RPO of 3.78 and he was as bigger loss as anyone IMO

 

[benchmark00]

Gilchrist scored 91 from 64 balls. Gillespie didn't get smacked around did he? He came out of the series with a respectable RPO, and that's what's important.

Bond, Oram, Styris, Harris would have had good RPOs, and would have been able to support Vettori.

Both at full-strength and Aussie wins?

I guess that didn't happen 4 months ago. 1-1.

Gilchrist, one innings
Gillespie, not in his usual wicket taking form.

are you seriously suggesting that when NZ beat Australia, that Australia had a full strength team?

 

[Ming]

UGH... so the Aussies would just let these part timers come in and bowl lovely line a length without doing everything... by this, by gee Australia wouldnt make over 100 in any game! oh this Australian team are absolute rubbish!!!!

You shouldn't even comment on the New Zealand players, because obviously you know nothing about them.

Bond is not a part-timer, he's an express fast bowler who has rattled the Australians many a time. Oram is not a part-timer, and he has shown that with his rise up the ODI rankings. Harris is not a part-timer, he has taken over 200 ODI wickets. Styris is not a part-timer, and is now used quite often by Fleming in ODIs, and come out with success as well.

 

[bryce]

Gilchrist, one innings
Gillespie, not in his usual wicket taking form.

are you seriously suggesting that when NZ beat Australia, that Australia had a full strength team?

nathan astle averages more than gilchrist in ODI's - how many good innings did he have?

"note that this is not a defence against your last question*

 

[Scallywag]

Considering we beat the world champs three times in a wrong, then came within an inch of embarrassing them to death, I can't see your point.

I could see your point if it was 2002 but its 2005 and Aus have more than proved that NZ are no match after losing 12 of the next 13 games against Australia

 

[benchmark00]

You shouldn't even comment on the New Zealand players, because obviously you know nothing about them.

Bond is not a part-timer, he's an express fast bowler who has rattled the Australians many a time. Oram is not a part-timer, and he has shown that with his rise up the ODI rankings. Harris is not a part-timer, he has taken over 200 ODI wickets. Styris is not a part-timer, and is now used quite often by Fleming in ODIs, and come out with success as well.

Never have i said Bond is a part timer.... Oram is a batting all-rounder, as is Styris... Harris, ... Clarke is used by ponting often, doesnt make him a gun...

Your comeback of: "You shouldn't even comment on the New Zealand players, because obviously you know nothing about them"... is so stupid its unbareable.

 

[benchmark00]

nathan astle averages more than gilchrist in ODI's - how many good innings did he have?

"note that this is not a defence against your last question*

Thats what im saying, form is no excuse, and Australia werent at their ultimate best also.

 

[Blaze]

You Aussies clearly can't see my point

Oh well

 

[Ming]

are you seriously suggesting that when NZ beat Australia, that Australia had a full strength team?

I'm sorry, but I consider this lineup that played NZ in Decemeber as pretty much full-strength:

AC Gilchrist, ML Hayden, RT Ponting, DS Lehmann, DR Martyn, A Symonds, MJ Clarke, SR Watson, GB Hogg, B Lee, MS Kasprowicz.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

If that's not their "ultimate best", then they must have come pretty close.

It's very difficult to whitewash an away ODI series.

 

[benchmark00]

I'm sorry, but I consider this lineup that played NZ in Decemeber as pretty much full-strength:

AC Gilchrist, ML Hayden, RT Ponting, DS Lehmann, DR Martyn, A Symonds, MJ Clarke, SR Watson, GB Hogg, B Lee, MS Kasprowicz.

no gillespie, no mcgrath... Lehmann and Watson also in the team....

 

[Somerset]

I could see your point if it was 2002 but its 2005 and Aus have more than proved that NZ are no match after losing 12 of the next 13 games against Australia

12 of the 13 games...well take out five and that makes seven out of eight. Only three of those eight games actually occured after 2003 - of which New Zealand won one - which makes your point just as invalid.

 

[Ming]

Never have i said Bond is a part timer.... Oram is a batting all-rounder, as is Styris... Harris, ... Clarke is used by ponting often, doesnt make him a gun...

Your comeback of: "You shouldn't even comment on the New Zealand players, because obviously you know nothing about them"... is so stupid its unbareable.

Oh no, it's not stupid, because you have just made yourself out to be stupid with your previous lines.

Oram is a genuine allrounder, and NOT a part time bowler. I can't see how you can be 7th in the rankings and be a part-timer.

Styris is not a part timer in ODIs, well if he is, the Australians still had trouble against his wicket to wicket bowling. Christopher Zinan Harris aye....a part timer....I wonder if he is the first man in the world to take 200 ODI wickets and regarded as a part timer?