-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Aus v NZ
- Thread starter Tim
- Start date
luckyeddie
Cricket Web Staff Member
Rik said:
It's one thing getting Australia in trouble - it's quite another thing to actually finish them off.
This side has so much character - IMO the greatest will-to-win I have ever seen in a cricket team.
NZ didn't 'let it slip'. They did the only thing they could - brought back Bond and went for the kill. Similarly with the approach to the batting - early on they went for it. It didn't come off.
New Zealand were beaten by a side with better spirit.
luckyeddie
Cricket Web Staff Member
As did England, but as I said in the SS thread, it means nothing. In order to beat this Australian side, you have to do something different - bowl them out for a start..Rik said:
I suggest tying their laces together, covering them in clingfilm, getting them drunk (should be easy), stealing their shoes and possibly blackmail (or a combination of all 5).
Langeveldt
Soutie
Is it true that Shane Bond averages 19 with the bat? Nearly makes him an allrounder
That is more than Englands Ronnie Irani, and he spent most of the winter at three
That is more than Englands Ronnie Irani, and he spent most of the winter at three
Top_Cat
Well-known member
Realistically, NZ were never in it. That pitch was a shocker, almost as bad as the one the Aussies beat England on. 160 was a defendable total on it so 208 was overkill, really. To say NZ missed an opportunity isn't quite accurate in my opinion because chasing 208 would have like been like chasing 270 anywhere else. In the end, NZ did well not to get bowled out for less than 100 considering the tricks it was playing. It wasn't as if they played stupid shots and got out or anything (other than Cairns). They were undone by tight bowling backed up by good fielding and enhanced by what was an ordinary pitch.
Mind you, notwithstanding the horrible pitch, Brett Lee really did bowl well after Cairns went. He actually beat the batsmen in the air because lord knows hitting the pitch wasn't doing anything for him. Hitting the pitch slowed him down just enough to be at a perfect hitting pace. Once he forgot about trying to bowl like McGrath, he came into his own. Well bowled after quite an ordinary start from him.
Shane Bond bowled beautifully. Other than Ponting, he beat the batsmen with movement and speed off the pitch. He was far too good for the Aussie top-order and the ball he got Harvey with moved so damn far it's yet another contender for 'Ball of the Tournament'.
And someone shoot Chris Cairns in the head. It might obliterate the part of his brain which exploded when he played that wild swipe.........
Mind you, notwithstanding the horrible pitch, Brett Lee really did bowl well after Cairns went. He actually beat the batsmen in the air because lord knows hitting the pitch wasn't doing anything for him. Hitting the pitch slowed him down just enough to be at a perfect hitting pace. Once he forgot about trying to bowl like McGrath, he came into his own. Well bowled after quite an ordinary start from him.
Shane Bond bowled beautifully. Other than Ponting, he beat the batsmen with movement and speed off the pitch. He was far too good for the Aussie top-order and the ball he got Harvey with moved so damn far it's yet another contender for 'Ball of the Tournament'.
And someone shoot Chris Cairns in the head. It might obliterate the part of his brain which exploded when he played that wild swipe.........
Paid The Umpire
All Time Legend
Come off it,
Australia had the worse of the batting conditions and yet they still batted out there overs. While NZ simply didn't.
The ball that got Harvey was a good ball, BUT it was a shocking shot... Trying to hit the ball through square-leg on a full lenght, deadon middle ball... What a fool.
New Zealand threw it away...
Brett Lee took his FIVE wickets in fifteen balls at only 3 runs... WHICH I MIGHT ADD included two overthrows...
Australia had the worse of the batting conditions and yet they still batted out there overs. While NZ simply didn't.
The ball that got Harvey was a good ball, BUT it was a shocking shot... Trying to hit the ball through square-leg on a full lenght, deadon middle ball... What a fool.
New Zealand threw it away...
Brett Lee took his FIVE wickets in fifteen balls at only 3 runs... WHICH I MIGHT ADD included two overthrows...
Top_Cat
Well-known member
You reckon? I thought the ball was so damn unplayable that it made Harvey look foolish. I mean, the ball was angled in from wider on the crease and on leg-stump. Where would you hit it? I know I'd be looking to hit it into the leg-side. Was it Harvey's fault that it then changed direction and veered away to hit middle-peg?
Some deliveries are so good, they make a batsman look like a tail-ender. Andy Flower got one from Brad Hogg and it won't be the last time you see that.
Paid The Umpire
All Time Legend
Well I admit it was a good ball, but it still Harvey should never of even thought about trying to put it through Square Leg.
age_master
Well-known member
Ian Harvey proved he cant bat, again, thye should have put Clarke in instead of him
well done Australia - not for the first time this WC they have shown why they are No1 in both forms of the game.
If they aren't destroying the opposition they are able to resurect their innings where other mere mortals would have fallen.......
they have been in serious trouble when ENG got away on them but then Bichel saved the day, now they were in serious trouble batting first v NZ but yet again Bevan showed the way - from memory this is about the 3rd / 4th time that he has secured a victory for AUS v NZ when it should have been the other way around!!!!!
congards to Bond - I thought he was due.........
As Fleming said - they went for it and ran out of steam - both bowling and batting.
I didn't like Vettori opening - if it doesn't come off the middle order are exposed too early - hence Astle getting one of those balls.....
Styris should have known better than to stay on the crease line on a slow / low pitch
Cairns had done the work & seen off Lee - then had a brain fade - mind you he was not the first or last as Fleming can testify - if he had of left it it would have been wided......it was just the tonic Lee needed & he then started to pitch the ball up and got the due results as Bond had earlier.....
as for the rest - not enough application to the craft of graft - Bevan & Bichel had already shown what was required - ! partnership nearing 3 figures and block out the pacemen when pitched up!!!!!! I think Bond would have taken more wickets against any of the remaining tailenders with those deliveries except Bichel bats well below his ability with the bat.
NZ still need an opening partner for Fleming - do they bite the bullet in this WC & bring back Astle or do they chuck Sinclair in if Macca is still out of form???? They need to protect the middle from exposure to the new ball as they are only playing with 3 - 4 recognised specialist batsmen!!! Maybe Vincent needs to open - I liked what saw when he was leaving anything outside off......
NZ can't continue with Adams - yes he is an impact player but he seems to also be a confidence player & at the mo he has none. In the last 2 matches he has struggled for his control of not only line & length but he is also lost his release. Mills is the obvious replacement, but I would even go with a fit Tuffey if Mills is still out. Even a fit again & confident Cairns sharing the 10 overs with Adams would not be enough IMO.
OK so it's a loss - still some positives to be taken from the match & they know what they need to do v India so far as their own performances are concerned.
bottom line they still pushed AUS harder than anyone else had managed (at least for about 40 overs of the AUS innings & 25 overs of the NZ innings).....
If they aren't destroying the opposition they are able to resurect their innings where other mere mortals would have fallen.......
they have been in serious trouble when ENG got away on them but then Bichel saved the day, now they were in serious trouble batting first v NZ but yet again Bevan showed the way - from memory this is about the 3rd / 4th time that he has secured a victory for AUS v NZ when it should have been the other way around!!!!!
congards to Bond - I thought he was due.........
As Fleming said - they went for it and ran out of steam - both bowling and batting.
I didn't like Vettori opening - if it doesn't come off the middle order are exposed too early - hence Astle getting one of those balls.....
Styris should have known better than to stay on the crease line on a slow / low pitch
Cairns had done the work & seen off Lee - then had a brain fade - mind you he was not the first or last as Fleming can testify - if he had of left it it would have been wided......it was just the tonic Lee needed & he then started to pitch the ball up and got the due results as Bond had earlier.....
as for the rest - not enough application to the craft of graft - Bevan & Bichel had already shown what was required - ! partnership nearing 3 figures and block out the pacemen when pitched up!!!!!! I think Bond would have taken more wickets against any of the remaining tailenders with those deliveries except Bichel bats well below his ability with the bat.
NZ still need an opening partner for Fleming - do they bite the bullet in this WC & bring back Astle or do they chuck Sinclair in if Macca is still out of form???? They need to protect the middle from exposure to the new ball as they are only playing with 3 - 4 recognised specialist batsmen!!! Maybe Vincent needs to open - I liked what saw when he was leaving anything outside off......
NZ can't continue with Adams - yes he is an impact player but he seems to also be a confidence player & at the mo he has none. In the last 2 matches he has struggled for his control of not only line & length but he is also lost his release. Mills is the obvious replacement, but I would even go with a fit Tuffey if Mills is still out. Even a fit again & confident Cairns sharing the 10 overs with Adams would not be enough IMO.
OK so it's a loss - still some positives to be taken from the match & they know what they need to do v India so far as their own performances are concerned.
bottom line they still pushed AUS harder than anyone else had managed (at least for about 40 overs of the AUS innings & 25 overs of the NZ innings).....
Top_Cat
Well-known member
Geez, all you guys being so harsh on Harvey should ask yourselves just how you would have played that ball. 9/10 of you would have done exactly the same or worse and I seriously doubt whether a better batsman would have been able to keep it out at all. At that pace and with that amount of movement, I defy anyone to have even laid bat on it.
I notice none of you lambasted someone like Andy Flower when Hoggy bowled him. That ball, when looked at in isolation, was short enough to pull yet he didn't even get his bat anywhere near it in time. Why? Because it was a great delivery. Same with Harvey. He got an unplayable which may have looked like a leg-stump ball initially but on pitching, moved violently to the off. He had no chance and neither would anyone else, guys like Sachin included.
I notice none of you lambasted someone like Andy Flower when Hoggy bowled him. That ball, when looked at in isolation, was short enough to pull yet he didn't even get his bat anywhere near it in time. Why? Because it was a great delivery. Same with Harvey. He got an unplayable which may have looked like a leg-stump ball initially but on pitching, moved violently to the off. He had no chance and neither would anyone else, guys like Sachin included.
The Argonaut
Well-known member
No one is doubting that it was a great ball. However harvey played an awful shot. No foot movement. If he had played forward and played straight he would have at least got an edge. He may have got out anyway but he didn't do himself any favours. Earlier he missed two full tosses outside off stump so he certainly wasn't seeing them well. He has no right being called an all rounder as he has never produced with the bat in the one day game. He can be a fine bowler on his day and therefore should only be treated as such.
Bichel would have to bat at 7 now wouldn't he (unless Symonds comes back for Harvey). He and Bevan played sensible cricket and showed that you can't call the Auusies down until you've bowled them out. They can come back from anywhere.
Bond bowled a sensational couple of spells. He got top and middle order wickets unlike Lee who got out the tail plus Fleming. It is fun to watch classy fast bowling.
Much has been made of the Cairns dismissal which was reckless but the Fleming one wasn't much better and triggered the eventual collapse by the tail.
Why isn't Vincent given the job of opening with Fleming. He seemed very capable when last in Australia and is a fighter. he would surely be a better option than Vettori.
Bichel would have to bat at 7 now wouldn't he (unless Symonds comes back for Harvey). He and Bevan played sensible cricket and showed that you can't call the Auusies down until you've bowled them out. They can come back from anywhere.
Bond bowled a sensational couple of spells. He got top and middle order wickets unlike Lee who got out the tail plus Fleming. It is fun to watch classy fast bowling.
Much has been made of the Cairns dismissal which was reckless but the Fleming one wasn't much better and triggered the eventual collapse by the tail.
Why isn't Vincent given the job of opening with Fleming. He seemed very capable when last in Australia and is a fighter. he would surely be a better option than Vettori.
NZ selector's ODI strategy re Vincent seems to be to drop him down the order to bat in the middle overs & use his speed to ran quicks 1s & 2s etc & put pressure on the field & support bowlers.
IMO nice theory but the top order has to function firstly for the middle & lower not to get exposed to the new ball attack!
I liked the way Vincent came in & was leaving the ball outside off - just like you want an opener to do - only problem is you can't have him do this when he comes in later in the match, but you can if you have him open, which is what he does in Tests. It has always amazed me that he is good enough to open for one but not the other!
As this WC seems to have reverted to the old formula re saving wickets for the 'death' as opposed to a first 15 over assault, maybe the NZ selectors need to rethink their lineup & strategies.
IMO nice theory but the top order has to function firstly for the middle & lower not to get exposed to the new ball attack!
I liked the way Vincent came in & was leaving the ball outside off - just like you want an opener to do - only problem is you can't have him do this when he comes in later in the match, but you can if you have him open, which is what he does in Tests. It has always amazed me that he is good enough to open for one but not the other!
As this WC seems to have reverted to the old formula re saving wickets for the 'death' as opposed to a first 15 over assault, maybe the NZ selectors need to rethink their lineup & strategies.