**Official** New Zealand v Australia

[Scallywag]

Whatever way you look at it you have loads more playing resources than we do..

I have no doubt about that Blaze and as I have stated before I admire not only the way NZ play their cricket but also how they seem to fight above their weight if you know what I mean.

 

[Ming]

If McGrath is injured and not available then you dont say Australia is not at full strength because Australia will still field its best 11 players.

Well, you have an interesting way of interpreting when a team is at "fullstrength".

The current NZ team is not at fullstrength, because we cannot play our best 11 players that are fit and available. I guess in your world, there isn't anything such as a non-full strength team.

Styris, Harris, Bond and Oram are not available.

 

[Blaze]

I have no doubt about that Blaze and as I have stated before I admire not only the way NZ play their cricket but also how they seem to fight above their weight if you know what I mean.

Yeah i know what you mean. I think as time goes on we will get weaker and weaker and building up to the 2007 world cup in very important for us because we might not have very many more realistic opportunities to win a world cup but with the current crop of players and if Bond can regain fitness, pace etc we have a chance

 

[benchmark00]

What a crock. Cricket is your national game. 3rd behind rugby? You're kidding. Rugby is played to ACT, NSW and Queensland. Rules is played primarily in Victoria and Sth Australia. Cricket is played right throughout Australia and is accepted worldwide and by Australians themselves the national game. The fact that more people play soccer doesn't mean anything. More people play bowls in NZ but it's not our national game. Rugby is. Some of your arguments are a bit dumb Scallywag.

Like you'd know, scallywag is correct in everything he said.

 

[Crazy Sam]

I don't think the aussies will be too badly off after the world cup. It's only 2 years away; There are some good young players who are just below first grade standard who will probably step up for their states in the next two years and beyond.

Players such as Hopes, Haddin, Philipson, Nye, White, Clarke, Watson, Tait, Lee, Cullen, Ronchi will all probably still be under 30 years of age, and this current Australian team has shown that if the stability is there, players can play through until they're 34-35. The biggest worry is the apparent lack of any decent spinner to fill the void of Warne; apart from that there are no huge problems that I can see yet. I think all states have put an emphasis on bringing youth through over the past 2-3 years and I think it will pay off. Australia's stability is something most of the other international teams lack.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

The 2007 exodus thing is a bit overblown really. Where are Australia going to struggle? Lee and Gillespie will still be around as far as pace bowlers are concerned, and with the likes of Tait coming through (and Watson as potential backup) that is still a formiddable bowling lineup. There's a heap of unused batting talent in domestic Australian cricket as well. The only questionmarks are really the lack of a new young spinner to replace Warne and a keeper/batsman of Gilchrist's stature.

No doubt it will be a tough transition for the Australian team, but dropping out of the top 4? Not in a million years.

 

[Mister Wright]

The 2007 exodus thing is a bit overblown really. Where are Australia going to struggle? Lee and Gillespie will still be around as far as pace bowlers are concerned, and with the likes of Tait coming through (and Watson as potential backup) that is still a formiddable bowling lineup. There's a heap of unused batting talent in domestic Australian cricket as well. The only questionmarks are really the lack of a new young spinner to replace Warne and a keeper/batsman of Gilchrist's stature.

No doubt it will be a tough transition for the Australian team, but dropping out of the top 4? Not in a million years.

Cullen looks pretty good. He bowled very well at the 'Gabba last week on a seam friendly pitch.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Interesting decision on behalf of the Australian selectors. It looks like Hogg and Ponting will be rested for the next match with McGrath and Hopes returning in their place. This means that Australia will be playing four front-line pacers (plus Hopes) with only Symonds available to lift the over rate. I'd expect some problems in this area if New Zealand can get through their 50 overs.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Cullen looks pretty good. He bowled very well at the 'Gabba last week on a seam friendly pitch.

Yeah he looks decent. There's a few others around who aren't too bad either, but obviously there will be a big drop-off from having Warne and Macgill unless someone really comes ahead in leaps and bounds soon.

 

[Mister Wright]

Yeah he looks decent. There's a few others around who aren't too bad either, but obviously there will be a big drop-off from having Warne and Macgill unless someone really comes ahead in leaps and bounds soon.

Absolutely. MacGill is a year younger than Warne and says he wants to play after Warne retires, and while he's still bowling well I can't see why he can't. That will at least give the next spinner another year or two. Who knows, we could end up with a 4-pronged pace attack and have no need for a spinner. Just think - Gillespie, Lee, Tait & maybe Johnson or someone else.

 

[social]

Interesting decision on behalf of the Australian selectors. It looks like Hogg and Ponting will be rested for the next match with McGrath and Hopes returning in their place. This means that Australia will be playing four front-line pacers (plus Hopes) with only Symonds available to lift the over rate. I'd expect some problems in this area if New Zealand can get through their 50 overs.

What a disgrace - Lee not being sent home!

Get the ice-packs ready boys.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Who knows, we could end up with a 4-pronged pace attack and have no need for a spinner. Just think - Gillespie, Lee, Tait & maybe Johnson or someone else.

If no other spinner presents themselves, I could see Australia using Gillespie, Lee, Tait, Watson and White, with the 4th and 5th bowlers getting slightly less work but making up for it with the bat.

Not an ideal setup, but about the best we've got at the moment.

 

[social]

What a crock. Cricket is your national game. 3rd behind rugby? You're kidding. Rugby is played to ACT, NSW and Queensland. Rules is played primarily in Victoria and Sth Australia. Cricket is played right throughout Australia and is accepted worldwide and by Australians themselves the national game. The fact that more people play soccer doesn't mean anything. More people play bowls in NZ but it's not our national game. Rugby is. Some of your arguments are a bit dumb Scallywag.

Problem for Australia is that more Australian schools have basketball than cricket as their summer sport as teachers dont have to spend as much time on that sport.

BTW, I would not be admitting that Rugby is NZ's national sport at the moment

 

[Fiery]

Like you'd know, scallywag is correct in everything he said.

Yes I would know. I lived in Sydney for a year not to mention I'm half-Australian.
So you're trying to tell me rugby is more popular than cricket in Australia?
You really are having a

 

[benchmark00]

Yes I would know. I lived in Sydney for a year not to mention I'm half-Australian.
So you're trying to tell me rugby is more popular than cricket in Australia?
You really are having a

A year? oooo mate im sorry, you must be an expert...

 

[Burpey]

A year? oooo mate im sorry, you must be an expert...

there is no way rugby is more popular than cricket. this is how i would rank them

1. cricket
2. aussie rules
3. rugby league
4. rugby union
5. soccer (or football, whatever you wanna call it)

 

[benchmark00]

there is no way rugby is more popular than cricket. this is how i would rank them

1. cricket
2. aussie rules
3. rugby league
4. rugby union
5. soccer (or football, whatever you wanna call it)

You my friend, have no idea... There would be absolutely no way Cricket would be the most played sport in australia, which is what we're talking about. Soccer is the most played, and you have it at 5.... there are stats on this mate, how about you look it up, this is not an opinionated topic

 

[Fiery]

You my friend, have no idea... There would be absolutely no way Cricket would be the most played sport in australia, which is what we're talking about. Soccer is the most played, and you have it at 5.... there are stats on this mate, how about you look it up, this is not an opinionated topic

Who said anything about most played. We're talking about what is the national game which is about popularity not how many people play it ya plonker

 

[benchmark00]

Who said anything about most played. We're talking about what is the national game which is about popularity not how many people play it ya plonker

Personal insults, classy. Well arent we talking about the scope of people Australia have to choose from for our sports?... besides, if we're talking most supported, then Aussies Rules by a loooooooong way, a long long way, 50,000 (varying) spectators for every game on a weekend (8)... cricket doesnt even compare, Rugby League would be next, then rugby union, a first class game in Australia get a crowd of 100 people, so again, your opinions are false.

 

[Fiery]

Personal insults, classy. Well arent we talking about the scope of people Australia have to choose from for our sports?... besides, if we're talking most supported, then Aussies Rules by a loooooooong way, a long long way, 50,000 (varying) spectators for every game on a weekend (8)... cricket doesnt even compare, Rugby League would be next, then rugby union, a first class game in Australia get a crowd of 100 people, so again, your opinions are false.

Plonker isn't an insult, more of a ribbing like "wally". Don't take offence to that. Anyway, I'll do a poll to see.