Kim Hughes says 'NZ are the only worthy opponents'

[Tim]

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sports/sp...ion=cricket&thesecondsubsection=international

Kim Hughes has said that NZ seem to be the only team that wants to compete with Australia in 'test' cricket...NOTE thats TEST cricket NOT ODI cricket.

NZ are a far better test side than ODI side.

I think thats a huge compliment, although I think NZ would need to sort out a few areas (mainly top order batting) before they could realistically think about winning a series over Australia.

 

[Gaijin-san]

NZ were the last team to draw a test series against Australia weren't they?
There was a lot of rain that series...

I dunno if they're that great, Warney got to 99 against them. I was sitting there watching with Warney on 99, and I didn't think for second he was going to make it. If you've seen him bat often enough you know he's going to sky the ball no matter what he's on. 'Lo and behold that's exactly what he did. The idiot got himself out. Warney got to 99 against NZ and even then got himself out.

Let's not forget that series being the catalyst for some Langer/Hayden ball flogging. 200 partnerships coming out like SMS' from Warney's phone.

 

[Tim]

Excuse me! but Langer was out (well should have been) in the 1st over of that 1st test in Brisbane, plumb lbw..but anyway you're right, apart from the 3rd test in Perth NZ probably would have lost those first 2 tests.

BUT, we should have won the 3rd test, instead we let Warne play a ridiculously long innings & ended up missing out.

 

[Mister Wright]

When Australia last toured New Zealand, even though New Zealand were beaten, they were never too far away from a victory. One good bowling spell or one massive partnership would have probably won New Zealand one of those tests.

When they toured Australia two years ago, the rain made that series alot closer than it was. New Zealand have struggled and still are struggling to get a fully fit XI on the field, Dion Nash had plenty of potential along with O'Connor, N.Z. missed them. Now they have problems with Cairns and Bond and now Fleming. New Zealand should be doing alot better than they are.

Hopefully Vincent and Richardson can be consistent and the top of the order. They need to start playing specialists rather than bit players.

I don't know about the Aussie players, but I, an Aussie fan, would love to see alot more competitive cricket.

South Africa were the big disapointments when they came out here, every one expected that to be a close series, perhaps even one that Australia might lose, but we hammered them!

 

[meatspx]

Only Brian Lara at home and India on dodgy wickets can touch Australia at the moment.

 

[Gaijin-san]

That's true, but I hardly think anyone wants Australia to fall back to the pack. It would be better if one by one the teams began to join Australia up there.

 

[Gaijin-san]

South Africa were the big disapointments when they came out here, every one expected that to be a close series, perhaps even one that Australia might lose, but we hammered them!

I remember Jacques Kallis getting a corker of a decision. One that missed his bat by a good 15cm or so, but there seemed to be a deflection in real time motion, and he was given out. Still, 15cm away from the bat is a joke!

 

[Mister Wright]

I remember Jacques Kallis getting a corker of a decision. One that missed his bat by a good 15cm or so, but there seemed to be a deflection in real time motion, and he was given out. Still, 15cm away from the bat is a joke!

Before we get into another thread-brawl I just want to clear something up:

Are you saying that, that one decision was the difference between the teams? Are you saying that if that one decision had gone the other way South Africa would have won the series? And if that decision had been given not out, South Africa would have not been hammered?

 

[Gaijin-san]

Of course not, just being nostalgic. I thought it was quite humorous the umpire would make a mistake like that.

I'm as parochial as the next Australian!

 

[Mister Wright]

Phew!!!

Yeah, I saw that decision, and while it was alot closer to 15cm it was a very bad decision.

 

[Tim]

Yeah I saw that also, it swung an absolute mile..the fact that it went to 1st slip must have convinced the umpire that he had to have got something on it.
But the replay showed that there was a huge amount of daylight between bat & ball.

 

[Gaijin-san]

On that note, I think Jacques Kallis is a very sporting player. He must have known that was a long way off but he controlled himself and just went. For example, in my last cricket game a guy was rapped on the pads and proceeded to be given caught behind. He actually had a dig at the umpire and was very offensive, which is not something that is instilled in cricket players as kids. Kallis was a pretty big man to do what he did though.

Having said that, don't think I'm a fan of Kallis, I'm not even close.

 

[Craig]

If Kallis didnt move he would of been poorer finicially.

Had that fool named Ian Robinson given Martyn out (he was) at the WACA, NZ might just well have won.

 

[Tim]

It was Steve Waugh & he was given not out 2 times in his score of 74 (i think) and both of them were harsh decisions.
In the end NZ had to resort to dirty tactics by running him out via a deflection onto the stumps at the non-strikers end.

Its all history now, but NZ can only look back on that test like the 2nd test recently in India & realise they had a huge opportunity to win the match & also take the series.

 

[Gaijin-san]

Speaking of poor decisions, how bout one that really had an impact? Australia v Pakistan, '99/'00. Yes, THAT match. Langer got a huge nick on the ball off Wasim Akram and it was turned down. Akram took it decidedly worse than Kallis, and so he should have. Langer and Gilchrist's performances got us home nicely in the end.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Only Brian Lara at home and India on dodgy wickets can touch Australia at the moment.

Well Lara may average 66.04 with 1387 runs in 12 Tests at home v Aus and 5 hundreds and 7 fifties, but don't discount his 1083 runs away against them. After all, his top 3 scores away are 277, 182 and 132.

 

[Top_Cat]

Speaking of poor decisions, how bout one that really had an impact? Australia v Pakistan, '99/'00. Yes, THAT match. Langer got a huge nick on the ball off Wasim Akram and it was turned down. Akram took it decidedly worse than Kallis, and so he should have. Langer and Gilchrist's performances got us home nicely in the end.

'Huge' nick? I've got the footage of that very ball and if there was a nick, it was a feather-touch. As it was, I wasn't convinced there was one regardless of what the snick-o-meter said. It may well have been his bat just touching the ground or another noise but it wasn't clearly a nick at all so the umpire made the correct decision.

 

[Gaijin-san]

I'm sorry I don't have video evidence to bring up at a later date in a dispute. I can only go on what most people use; their memory. As far as I remember there was a deflection.

 

[meatspx]

Speaking of poor decisions, how bout one that really had an impact? Australia v Pakistan, '99/'00. Yes, THAT match. Langer got a huge nick on the ball off Wasim Akram and it was turned down. Akram took it decidedly worse than Kallis, and so he should have. Langer and Gilchrist's performances got us home nicely in the end.

I remember that game.....think it was in Hobart. Wasim Akram was really disgusted at the decision.

If you reall want to dig up the past look at the LBW decision Danny Morrison wasn't given against Australia in the last test match in the 89/90 (I think) series.

 

[Craig]

'Huge' nick? I've got the footage of that very ball and if there was a nick, it was a feather-touch. As it was, I wasn't convinced there was one regardless of what the snick-o-meter said. It may well have been his bat just touching the ground or another noise but it wasn't clearly a nick at all so the umpire made the correct decision.

Mate to you have hundreds of tapes laying around in your place ready to use at any given moment?

Or you just tape everyday's play?