**Official** New Zealand v Australia

[MoxPearl]

But we certainly weren't "utter crap".

true :P

 

[cric_manic]

What a foolish comment!!!!

how does it show aussies can crumble under pressure? were you watching the same game?? aussies just thrived under it, it was nz who crumbled!

how does it show the umpires are intimidated?? terrible terrible post[/QUOTE/]

i said they can crumble under pressure,not that they did
i was talking about Kasprowicz mainly

my point about the umpires is valid they are put under huge pressure from the australians and the umpires do fell intimidated

 

[_Ed_]

What a game. Now I hope NZ can go that little bit better in the 2nd game at Christchurch so I can head to Eden Park next Saturday with a rather nice 1-1 scoreline...

 

[Scallywag]

my point about the umpires is valid they are put under huge pressure from the australians and the umpires do fell intimidated

And what would you know about what the umpires are feeling.

 

[Ming]

Bye Bye Sinclair at 3 for ODIs?

He just seems to totally struggle against the Aussie pace attack. Always looks out of sorts against them. One option would be to put Michael Papps in at 3, and still keep the Astle/Fleming opening partnership. Or you could push Marshall back up to 3, and play McMillan at 5 and Cairns at 6.

Would you retain Sinclair if he continues to fail in the next 2 ODIs?

 

[Loony BoB]

Why is that Bob do you think the umpires were intimidated by the Aussies.

I think that umpiring decisions favoured both sides throughout the match, but to say that NZ only got close because of a "bad third umpire decision" is awful. If there is any doubt, which there clearly was, then the batsman is not out. Unless the third umpire can see the bails off the wickets AND the bat not grounded at the SAME TIME, then he's not allowed to give the batsman out due to benefit of the doubt. That was a perfectly good decision - even Australians in this thread have said so. I'd say that it's very, very rare for any third umpire to get a decision 'wrong' because it's all technicality. If there was doubt and the batsman was out, though - I'd say that's up for debate, yes. But I can't remember a single time that's happened. You can't argue with the third umpire's decisions, as far as I'm concerned.

I don't know anything about the Aussie intimidation factor, though, although it seems a lot of respectable people do agree that it's there so I won't argue for or against it.

 

[mavric41]

I'm just glad there is finally another side that can provide real competitive opposition to the Aussies. There is good character in this Kiwi side. Many other sides would have buckled in their predictament.

 

[Somerset]

He just seems to totally struggle against the Aussie pace attack. Always looks out of sorts against them. One option would be to put Michael Papps in at 3, and still keep the Astle/Fleming opening partnership. Or you could push Marshall back up to 3, and play McMillan at 5 and Cairns at 6.

Would you retain Sinclair if he continues to fail in the next 2 ODIs?

As I said earlier, Marshall to three and Adams/Wilson in at number eight.

 

[Fiery]

I never meant to patronise NZ, I said in a earlier post that a few silly mistakes lost them the match and other than that they deserved to win, they bowled and batted better than us.

How can a cricket team bowl and bat better than the opposition and lose? Fielding would have to be the difference and we probably fielded better. Think before you post.

 

[_Ed_]

I will warn everyone that NZ have lost the last 11 ODIs I have attended.

 

[MoxPearl]

your right.. sinclair seemed WAY outta his depth....

Hopefully he gets replaced...

I would not actually mind putting in another all round for sinclair.. either adams or wilson... adams has good exp vs aussie.. and at some times our bowling was really poor (tuffy was having a shocker)

 

[benchmark00]

my point about the umpires is valid they are put under huge pressure from the australians and the umpires do fell intimidated

Cric.... how can you possibly deduce that from this game? Did you see that no ball that bowden paid against the aussies at the end? that wasnt a no ball and couldve cost australia the match, but the umpire was pretty much even all game, i just thought bowden had a pretty bad game... no signs of itimidation at all

 

[eastley]

How can a cricket team bowl and bat better than the opposition and lose? Fielding would have to be the difference and we probably fielded better. Think before you post.

Easily, like i said NZ made a few mistakes when batting, but besides that they did bat better.

 

[Ming]

Hmmmm.....

We have built up a pretty respectable ODI record at home though....

Adams and Wilson at 8? I would prefer to see McCullum being retained at 8, gives much more depth to the batting lineup.

 

[Fiery]

Easily, like i said NZ made a few mistakes when batting, but besides that they did bat better.

Say let me get this straight. You think NZ batted, bowled and fielded better than Australia?

 

[Loony BoB]

He just seems to totally struggle against the Aussie pace attack. Always looks out of sorts against them. One option would be to put Michael Papps in at 3, and still keep the Astle/Fleming opening partnership. Or you could push Marshall back up to 3, and play McMillan at 5 and Cairns at 6.

Would you retain Sinclair if he continues to fail in the next 2 ODIs?

I've never really liked Sinclair playing ODI's at all. In my opinion, he's a test match player. Papps is one player I would consider as a replacement, yes, and I don't mind too much about the order overall. Marshall has proven he can bat at 3, but he's proven he can bat lower if needed, too. He's versatile like that. I think Papps and Fleming or Papps and Astle could open and from that point the batsman going in should depend on the situation. Fleming/Astle (whichever isnt' opening) if a wicket falls early, Styris if another falls early again, then Marshall/Macca - but once we're outside the first 15 overs, bring Marshall in after the next wicket, because he's just so good at keeping the runs ticking over during the middle overs. His quick running is what keeps them in the game during this stage.

 

[Blaze]

And you said Australia wouldent win a match in this series


NZ only got close because of a blind third umpire and showed thier true colors by throwing things at the players, pathetic display by the NZ crowd.

F*ck off. Honestly get a life

 

[MoxPearl]

the only person in the team who cant bat is tuffy.. everyone down to him has had a domestic century.. and veto has had like 3(?) in a row in his last 3 games....

We just need to stay cool under extreme pressure... which we did well for most of the night.. then i t just got a bit tough near the end for the team

 

[eastley]

You scored more runs than us?

NZ had a better run rate than us, and as I said before silly MISTAKES... Cheeky shots more like it.

 

[Fiery]

NZ had a better run rate than us, and as I said before silly MISTAKES... Cheeky shots more like it.

You're trying to tell more NZ batted, bowled and fielded better than Australia and lost. I'm struggling to work out your logic.