**Official** New Zealand v Australia

[Blaze]

I dont underestimate them but if they make the same mistakes versus Endland it could be goodbye Ashes.

We were playing against a team with 1 bowler and 2 in form batsmen.

We picked the wrong team, made the wrong decision at the toss, fielded badly, batted poorly with the exception of Katich and Gilchrist, and still won by 9 wickets.

That is as much a reflection of the Kiwis as us.

We may not be world beaters but we at least gave you a competitive game for three days.

I am actually quite happy with the way we performed. I think we did better than expected but let ourselves down in the first session today. And thats all it takes. Aus can afford to play poorly for a session because we can't fully capitilise but the reverse is not true as proven today. It was inevitable that we would slip up in a session eventually just dissapointing that it eventuated casue we could have made a proper game of it if we had of gritted out a 300 run lead

 

[Natman20]

What a crud ending to a great competitive 3 days!!!

 

[Ming]

At what stage did NZ have AUS on the ropes?

200/6 with a 200-odd run deficit.

 

[Blaze]

i think i would give our batters more credit losing the game than the aussie bowlers.. HOPELESS.. honestly... so poor.. and it happens OVER AND OVER AND OVER again in the 2nd innings..

what can u do about it ?

**** all :/

Typical.. kick them while they are down why don't ya.

The Aussies bowled extremelly well IMO

We are talking about IMO one of the top three test teams of all time and we managed to remain on level pegging with them for three days. That is nine sessions of cricket. Man for man they should have thrashed us and that is what the final result suggests however we played some great cricket, especially on the first day.

 

[Blaze]

200/6 with a 200-odd run deficit.

I wouldn't consider that as being on the ropes when they still had 14 of their 20 wickets left and two of the remaining four in the first innings being Gilchrist and Katich. 200/7 and you could say NZ have the advantage.

 

[Ming]

Even Gilchrist admitted the Kiwis had them on the ropes at 200/6.

Had we dismissed either Gilchrist or Katich 100 runs earlier, we could have built up a decent lead, and given the Aussies are a tougher chase.

 

[social]

I wouldn't consider that as being on the ropes when they still had 14 of their 20 wickets left and two of the remaining four in the first innings being Gilchrist and Katich. 200/7 and you could say NZ have the advantage.

Gilchrist gets out early and we are staring at 350 to win in the last innings - that is no easy task even for this great side.

For people to say that we are unbeatable based on this performance against very limited opposition is ludicrous.

 

[Blaze]

Gilchrist gets out early and we are staring at 350 to win in the last innings - that is no easy task even for this great side.

For people to say that we are unbeatable based on this performance against very limited opposition is ludicrous.

But Gilchrist didn't get out. It is expected that he will get a 50 in every innings he plays and therefore Australia were never really on the ropes.

It is how you respond from getting in tough positions that makes you a champion team that is pretty near to unbeatable

 

[anzac]

yeah and if we had got Gilchrist for his average I doubt Katich would have got to his ton & that 250+ to get even with the Kiwi collapse.............which could have been very different.........

btw IMO the Kiwis were gone as soon as Gilchrist & Katich posted 150 partnership, their respective tons served to rub it in.............but mentally & emotionally the Kiwis were shot by the time they got Gilchrist.............which also contributed to their 2nd innings downfall as it brought AUS back level after having only won 2 sessions in the match (but had done so comprehensively) - and thus created self doubt in the Kiwis about being able to lift again having already lost the advantage................

 

[Scallywag]

Gilchrist gets out early and we are staring at 350 to win in the last innings - that is no easy task even for this great side.

For people to say that we are unbeatable based on this performance against very limited opposition is ludicrous.

Its a bit different saying they were "on the ropes" to saying they were "on the ropes if...."

 

[anzac]

I think it was fair enough to say that the AUS 1st innings WAS on the ropes at the time Gilchrist came to the crease...............

however on the ropes is still some way off being down on the canvas, and is still only 1 innings.................

 

[howardj]

Anyone worried about Michael Clarke's performance? I read somewhere that he's scored less than 100 runs in his last six Test innings. I think it's becoming pretty apparent that he is deficient against pace bowling. He seems extremely vulnerable on off stump.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

IWe picked the wrong team, made the wrong decision at the toss, fielded badly, batted poorly with the exception of Katich and Gilchrist, and still won by 9 wickets.

That is as much a reflection of the Kiwis as us.

Agreed, but it's still worth noting that Australia have regularly managed to do this in recent times. In the 2000-2001 period Australia had a weaker team but everybody fired at once. In recent times the bowlers have been sensational but somebody has always been a bit down on form in the batting. Last year it was Martyn, Langer and Clarke who held up Hayden, Ponting and Lehmann, and this year so far it's been Ponting, Gilchrist and now Katich who have helped out the others. If everybody fires at once it will be pretty devastating.

I expect Kasprowicz to be dropped for the second test for Lee, regardless of how well Australia bowled in the second innings. Kasprowicz bowled well no doubt, but his figures weren't spectacular and the selectors will have looked at how Australia lacked penetration against a defensive New Zealand side on the first morning and will look to Lee to fix that, in my view.

In regards to Clarke, he made a century half a dozen tests ago, has been in great ODI form and he's only 23 and is a rising star, I don't think he's under pressure yet. Maybe if he fails for the rest of this series, but even then I would expect him to get a run in the Ashes.

 

[shaka]

Gillespie had a poor first innings though, this might make it tough on the decision as to whether Kapro or Dizzy get dropped for Lee, I am sure Lee will be in the next test.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Gillespie had a poor first innings though, this might make it tough on the decision as to whether Kapro or Dizzy get dropped for Lee, I am sure Lee will be in the next test.

No question in my view. Gillespie has been a consistently brilliant servant of Australian cricket for years now. He was the dominant player in the Indian series win and was the catalyst for the New Zealand collapse today. He's not in the best form of his life, but he's a certain selection. Kasprowicz, as good as he has been, has been back-up for the other two seamers. Kasprowicz will be dropped for Lee in the second test.

 

[howardj]

Everyone knows how Lee performs on docile pitches, like the pitch in the first innings of the recently completed Christchurch Test Match. Just look back to the last docile/benign Test pitch that Lee played on - Sydney 2004.

People are talking of Lee as though he is some great messiah, in the same way that they talk of Michael Clarke (who has averaged 16 in his last five Test Matches). Have a look at Lee's record in his last ten test matches - he averages 37.

By contrast, Kasprowicz, Gillespie and McGrath all average below 25.

 

[telsor]

Gillespie had a poor first innings though, this might make it tough on the decision as to whether Kapro or Dizzy get dropped for Lee, I am sure Lee will be in the next test.

Yeah, Aus only won by 9 wickets...they must be in a panic over the need to make changes to the lineup.

 

[Isolator]

I noticed that Franklin isn't bowling the way he normally does, that is, swinging it into the right hander. I don't remember seeing him bowl a single delivery of that sort...

 

[Ming]

He did with the new ball.

Franklin got some nice reverse into the lefties.

 

[Kippax]

I noticed that Franklin isn't bowling the way he normally does, that is, swinging it into the right hander. I don't remember seeing him bowl a single delivery of that sort...

Yes - I didn't get to see a great deal of the test unfortunately, but I noticed that as well. It's surprising to see someone you'd always had pegged as a 130kph paceman bowling inswing (L-to-R) now up to 138kph bowling outswing (R-to-L).

I'd say his new method may be more threatening in the long-term, but his old trait of losing steam in his later spells was once again really disappointing.