*Official* New Zealand in Australia 2019/20

[Gnske]

It's his Elite Honesty that gets me more than his skill.

 

[quincywagstaff]

Yeah, this SCG pitch reminds me of the 80s/90s Peter Leroy era; slow and sluggish from ball one to the extent that even the spin it offers are mitigated by the lack of pace and bounce. India would've scored 500 on this pitch easy.

And agree about the attentional way Oz have played this series. Their 3 1st innings have all been very similar and methodical; seems they took a lit of lessons from how India batted in last year's Boxing Day Test which effectively decided the series.

 

[GotSpin]

Yeah, this SCG pitch reminds me of the 80s/90s Peter Leroy era; slow and sluggish from ball one to the extent that even the spin it offers are mitigated by the lack of pace and bounce. India would've scored 500 on this pitch easy.

And agree about the attentional way Oz have played this series. Their 3 1st innings have all been very similar and methodical; seems they took a lit of lessons from how India batted in last year's Boxing Day Test which effectively decided the series.

I still think we failed to put the foot down a couple times. We didn't cross 500 right?

 

[GotSpin]

Although it always felt like we were going to get enough this series

We will need to be thorough against India though

 

[Spark]

I still think we failed to put the foot down a couple times. We didn't cross 500 right?

No, but I think time dictated that as much as anything else. In each case we batted into the evening session on Day 2, you don't really want to be going longer than that.

 

[Burgey]

I think hes toned it down a bit this year but he's the king of talking about himself and his own career. With the way he mentions it so often you'd think he played 100 Tests and took 450 wickets.

It’s a Victorian thing. Hodge does the same, Dean Jones too. Because of their natural inferiority, they feel the need to big up themselves. It’s tragic.

 

[Burgey]

Oh yeah I'm a fan, I think this is a much more likely approach to work well in the subcontinent in particular if we get "traditional" subcontinental conditions (i.e. not the minefields of 2017, more the wickets of the UAE and India 2013). But it's not what the general public will be accustomed to in Aus having grown up on Hayden, Ponting, Lee then watching peak Warner, peak Clarke and peak Johnson a decade later.

It’s the right approach for this batting side, which lacks even a Haddin let alone a Gilchrist at seven, and which still has blokes proving themselves at two, three, five and six. It’s just not an approach the side of the early-mid 2000s needed to take because their line up was just next level, including the tail with Warne, Lee and Gillespie, all of whom did a job with the cue better than their current counterparts imo.

 

[NUFAN]

Hmm. So you think Warne Lee Gillespie as a batting trio > Cummins Pattinson Starc.

I dont at all tbh. I get the feeling, especially Cummins rises to the occasion more when we are in trouble.

 

[Moss]

this australian side can't be beaten at home and will be a very good team away from home, but someone really needs to explain to their media the reason we are/were #2 and they're not is they got smashed in sri lanka, the uae, india and ****in drew 1-1 in bangladesh and we did a lot better plus haven't dropped a home series to india (yet, give it a couple of months)

like this is very easy maths they could all have looked up instead of going 'hurrrr rankings are meaningless we were bestest all along'

yes dears, at home you are the best. at home.

none of this condones nz's performance or diminishes australias (im very aware we have ian smith for the salty kiwi thing) but im saving my spray for after the series.

Honestly, there are enough examples in the past where a team rises up the rankings, fails to live up to their no1 or 2 billing and leads to questioning all around, and it's typical of the media and former players to harp on about this. India were no.1 before the England tour in 2011, proceeded to lose 4-0 and have all previous performances questioned. England took over as no.1 then and got swept in the UAE immediately after (barely crossed 200 in all but 1 innings IIRC). Australia themsleves were no1 on the back of that 2013/14 season (Johnson-inspired wins in the Ashes and in South Africa) and then didn't fire a shot in the UAE later that year. So would take any whining about the rankings with a grain of salt.

This series will still be a massive blot of the copybook of this NZ side, for not being able to steel themselves in the least for their biggest challenge having acquitted themselves well elsewhere. Guess it happens when a team's down but particularly disappointed that they haven't been able to capitalize when conditions have been in their favour - Day 1 session 1 at McG was made to order for Southee and Boult, and today they might as well have been playing in Hamilton. At least in 2015 when they got a suitable surface at Adelaide the bowlers gave Australia a real scare.

 

[vcs]

Tbh one thing that I think has gone unmentioned in general but will need to be acknowledged is that this is not the most watchable Aus cricket team ever in terms of playing really exciting attacking, high-tempo cricket. They're a very traditional, attritional Test side in terms of their approach to the game despite the reputations of some of the players in the side. So unless the other side is complete crap bowling-wise or conditions are very bowler-friendly, they're rarely going to look like the most incredibly exciting team ever. Labuschagne and Smith are grinders, Warner's toned it back a bit, and the attack functions on pressure first and foremost rather than human cannons like Johnson or Steyn.

I think pure excitement wise, England are more "fun to watch" than India and Australia for a neutral. They're a lot worse than both sides though.

 

[Burgey]

Hmm. So you think Warne Lee Gillespie as a batting trio > Cummins Pattinson Starc.

I dont at all tbh. I get the feeling, especially Cummins rises to the occasion more when we are in trouble.

Yeah, I think the tail of that era scored a lot more important runs than the current lot. Clutch runs, if you like. Throw Bichel in as well. Cummins has been woeful lately, Starc very hit and miss etc. Not their main skill so not that vital, but tail end runs kill you in the field.

 

[Spark]

I think pure excitement wise, England are more "fun to watch" than India and Australia for a neutral. They're a lot worse than both sides though.

England are hilarious to watch. That's not always for good reasons for England fans though.

 

[stephen]

Ehhh, I guess I'm just used to both the M and the SCG being terrible wickets as a rule by now. Especially the former.

It's a shame too as the SCG is an otherwise terrific ground to watch the cricket and the MCG is special.

I too would love for the wickets to quicken up and get a bit of extra bounce. But the big problem with this is that it would make Australian tests even more one sided than they have been in the last few years.

Australia were beaten twice at home in the last decade by teams not named South Africa - once by England and once by India. The English victory came off the back of their team coming together and peaking at the right time combined with an aging Australian team that hadn't found a good bowling combination. The Indian victory came in a summer where the two best batsmen Australia had were banned, the only other test class batsman went missing and all the replacements were batted out of place (Finch) or before they were ready (Labuschagne).

Other than the aforementioned South Africa, who would benefit just as much as us with extra bounce and pace, it already takes something special to beat Australia here. Virtually every other tour over the last decade has been completely one sided - Pakistan and Sri Lanka haven't won a test and I can't even remember either of them drawing Australia. The West Indies have been utter garbage. Outside their sole series victory, England have scrapped out nothing much of consequence. India would have been 4-0ed if not for the complete neutering of the pitches on their prior tour and were hammered on the tour before that. New Zealand fall to pieces on the plane somewhere across the Tasman.

The MCG and SCG being terrible, Asia- like pitches is virtually the only chance touring sides not named South Africa get to be competitive.

The world doesn't need a competitive West Indies, but Australia could sure as hell use one. England, South Africa, West Indies and India should be the for marquee tours to Australia but the West Indies and to a lesser extent England have gone down the gurgler over the last few years.

I think in many ways this is why I personally view the 90s as a golden era of cricket. We had a competitive West Indies, Pakistan, South Africa and England (who used to at least win a token dead rubber through the era) and it made victories during the era much sweeter.

Now that India have decided to start producing fast bowlers, they are basically the only decent touring side left other than South Africa. Although SA have been a shambles basically since de Villiers retired.

 

[vcs]

India would have been 4-0ed if not for the complete neutering of the pitches on their prior tour

Don't agree with that, we drew those matches fairly comfortably and your bowlers just weren't good enough to take 20 wickets.

 

[The Hutt Rec]

it should be fine tbh. there are some heavy accents around the world. craig cumming, one of the pakistanis and my favourite commentator of all time the bloke from zimbabwe who literally yells into his microphone every word. his name is on the tip of my tongue.

Pommie Mbangwa? Amazing voice & accent that dude, he could commentate someone eating a bowl of cornflakes and make it sound epic.

 

[morgieb]

Don't agree with that, we drew those matches fairly comfortably and your bowlers just weren't good enough to take 20 wickets.

Ehhhh, think you're exaggerating it. You were 6/7 down in both those matches, and that was despite some ****** fielding. We were pretty close to victory even though India did fight really hard (at least with the bat).

What is bizarre about New Zealand's tour is that their bowling has been kind of OK but their batting has been terrible. Usually for touring sides it's the other way around (although there's been a few sides that have just been smashed in both regards). Only other example of that in recent history was the famous 13/14 Ashes.

 

[stephen]

Don't agree with that, we drew those matches fairly comfortably and your bowlers just weren't good enough to take 20 wickets.

My thoughts on the pitches in that summer are well documented but suffice to say that "only" winning 2-0 still demonstrates the point I was making - make the pitches bouncier and faster and it'll be even more one sided than it already is (and it's been pretty one sided since the 90s).

 

[Hicheal Michael]

Pommie Mbangwa? Amazing voice & accent that dude, he could commentate someone eating a bowl of cornflakes and make it sound epic.

I think i know who Flem is referring to. I think he only calls series in Zimbabwe - it would have been the NZ tour in 2015 or 2016 (if not both).

 

[OverratedSanity]

The pitches that summer were no worse than the ****heaps Australia have always rolled out in the last 7-8 years. It's true that in general its helped touring sides be a little more competitive though. The fact that teams still havent been able to do it just makes it even more pathetic. SA's win in 2016 was impressive but even they got a little fortunate with Hobart which was a strange pitch by recent Australian standards.

 

[sunilz]

Agree with Stephen here ( For the first time). Matches in Aus would be extremely one sided in case of more faster and bouncier pitch. On the positive side Steve Smith batting average would come down a bit