2nd best ODI side?

[Furball]

I remember the thumping the All Blacks got against the Wallabies in Sydney in 1998. 28-7 or something like that. It was such a catastrophic loss that, in hindsight, it was a portent of a period of dominance that Australia would hold over New Zealand for about 4 or 5 years.

The thumping at Eden Park in the first match of this series was similar. In that match, the traditional underdog got up, not just to beat their historical superior, but to cane them. Aussie was as completely shut out of that game as the ABs were in 1998.

Because of this precedent, I expect the Black Caps to dominate Australia over the next World Cup cycle, culminating in a NZ CWC victory in 2019. Probably few people think the Black Caps are the No. 1 team in the world, but to me if you win a World Cup and then, a year later, with half your team different, you comfortably lose an ODI series, then your claim to still be No. 1 is pretty thin. The Aussie team of today is simply not the same team that won the CWC a year ago.

That's not to claim the BCs are No. 1 necessarily. I think it's undisputed. But if the No. 1 ranking was a championship belt like boxing, the BCs would have just won it.

Probably after that we will return to mediocrity for the next 20 years. But until then it's going to be a great ride.

hahahahaha

10/10 would read again

 

[kiwiviktor81]

ffs shut up between you and fiery it's no wonder brisbane happened

I'll tell you why I'm looking forward to this Test series so much. It's because, for the past four years, NZ-Aussie series have so frequently been decided by home advantage (CWC final) or by a team getting ambushed (CWC 15 pool match) or being poorly prepared (NZ in Aussie just recently) or simply by luck in a low-scoring crapshoot (Hobart, Adelaide).

I'm not sure that the BCs have as much of a home advantage in this case because our wickets are more sporting and not prepared specifically for the strengths and weaknesses of our team. In any case, the ambush factor is zero, as Aussie have already copped it in the ODI series. The poorly prepared factor is zero, as Aussie have already played an ODI series here. The luck factor, who knows. I hope this series isn't decided on luck.

 

[kiwiviktor81]

Also, there's frankly a huge degree of uncertainty over how good Aussie actually is, now that there are so many different players. The commentators this series said that the highest wicket taker in the Aussie team was Steve Smith, and the next highest was Glenn Maxwell. With that much inexperience it's simply not possible to say with any confidence how good the team is on paper. Results must necessarily factor much more heavily.

 

[Zinzan]

Ahhh KV. C'mon man, why always so much hyperbole? Seriously now.

 

[Burgey]

everyone has a home ground advantage except NZ. This is novel.

 

[kiwiviktor81]

Ahhh KV. C'mon man, why always so much hyperbole? Seriously now.

What hyperbole? I'm contending two things:

1. This Test series will be as fair, meaningful and decisive as any series between Aussie and NZ, ODIs or otherwise, have been for a while, and
2. There are a huge number of question marks about this Aussie side. They may be world champions. They may be mediocre. Given their history you'd tend to side with the "world champions" possibility, but there is a very real chance that Aussie could be seriously exposed in this series, as they were in the ODI series. We don't really know how good Starc is in Tests. We don't really know if Steve Smith can cope with lateral movement. There's frankly a lot of things we don't know, and I'm looking forward to finding out.

 

[kiwiviktor81]

everyone has a home ground advantage except NZ. This is novel.

I didn't say we have no home advantage. I said we have sporting wickets.

 

[Zinzan]

What hyperbole? I'm contending two things:

1. This Test series will be as fair, meaningful and decisive as any series between Aussie and NZ, ODIs or otherwise, have been for a while, and
2. There are a huge number of question marks about this Aussie side. They may be world champions. They may be mediocre. Given their history you'd tend to side with the "world champions" possibility, but there is a very real chance that Aussie could be seriously exposed in this series, as they were in the ODI series. We don't really know how good Starc is in Tests. We don't really know if Steve Smith can cope with lateral movement. There's frankly a lot of things we don't know, and I'm looking forward to finding out.

Just you're overstating it, they could have so easily won that game and the series yesterday and then they'd be one of the few teams to beat NZ at home in recent times. Only SA have done it in the last 4 years or so. All this when they're missing arguably their 2 best ODI cricketers in Starc and Faulkner and anyone could see they should have selected Khawaja in the first game.

 

[Burgey]

I didn't say we have no home advantage. I said we have sporting wickets.

But the consensus is Australia can't bat on sporting wickets. Ergo, advantage NZ.

 

[cnerd123]

I didn't say we have no home advantage. I said we have sporting wickets.

urgh

 

[Black_Warrior]

I don't think KV actually watches a lot of cricket.

There are a huge number of question marks about this Aussie side. They may be world champions. They may be mediocre. Given their history you'd tend to side with the "world champions" possibility, but there is a very real chance that Aussie could be seriously exposed in this series, as they were in the ODI series. We don't really know how good Starc is in Tests. We don't really know if Steve Smith can cope with lateral movement. There's frankly a lot of things we don't know, and I'm looking forward to finding out.

Ok we have to be clear what we're talking about here.

Question marks of Aussie test side. Correct. Agreed. No issues there.

Question marks over Aussie ODI side (and this is a thread about ODI sides) - I don't think there are any questions marks there. They are clearly the best side and losing 1 series comprising of 3 ODIs does not in any way change that. They have clearly been, over the last 2-3 years, a dominant ODI side in all conditions. I think the last time they lost was in India Oct 2013.



Since then

Won in UAE
Lost Tri series in Zimbabwe against South Africa
Thrashed South Africa 4-1 at home
Thrashed India and England at home
Won World Cup
Won in England
Won against India
Lost to New Zealand 1-2. You're reading far too much into a three match series.

The problems that the Aussie top order faces against lateral movement whether seam or spin don't play that big a role in LO cricket. Firstly bowlers bowl in short spells and the field placings and context of the game is totally different. You won't have 3 slips, gully and point.


The two formats are very very different. Cricket is a bit more complicated sport than Rugby or Boxing and I am not sure you're entirely aware of that.

 

[kiwiviktor81]

Just you're overstating it, they could have so easily won that game and the series yesterday and then they'd be one of the few teams to beat NZ at home in recent times. Only SA have done it in the last 4 years or so. All this when they're missing arguably their 2 best ODI cricketers in Starc and Faulkner and anyone could see they should have selected Khawaja in the first game.

They could also have lost the series 3-0, in fact it took a career-high innings from a No. 8 batsman to prevent this. I don't agree with the "Team A would have been better if players X, Y and Z weren't injured" argument because cricket is as much a test of depth as anything. I didn't blame the loss in the second ODI on not having Taylor and Southee, for example.

As for selecting Khawaja, I fail to see how massive selection blunders correlate with being the No. 1 team. I'd argue that not knowing Khawaja was first choice is evidence for my contention that the Aussie team is in a general state of disarray and their "world champions" tag is an artifact of history.

 

[kiwiviktor81]

The problems that the Aussie top order faces against lateral movement whether seam or spin don't play that big a role in LO cricket..

This is just silly. I just watched three games in which lateral movement wrecked the Aussie top order three times. Had there been a three match series on Aussie roads I have little doubt that Aussie would have beaten us comfortably.

The team that worn the World Cup no longer has Clarke, Watson, Johnson or Haddin. Take all that experience out and this is what you're left with: Aussie has 1 batsman ranked in the top 12 in ODIs (compared to NZ's 3) and 1 bowler ranked in the top 20 (compared to NZ's 3).

If you have 1 batsman in the top 12 and 1 bowler in the top 20 you are not the No. 1 team, even if a team of mostly different players won a World Cup a year ago.

Behind Starc, the highest ranked Aussie bowler is Faulkner at 28th. You just cannot tell me that that's worthy of a No. 1 team, when NZ has Boult, Henry and McClenaghan all in the top 20.

I'm being fair about this and I'll tell you why. Half of the All Blacks retired after the 2015 RWC. If we lose the Rugby Championship I'll happily accept we are no longer the No. 1 team in the world.

 

[kiwiviktor81]

For the record, this is what an Aussie side looks like when it's clearly No. 1:

9 February 2005: 3 of the top 7 ranked ODI batsmen (Gilchrist, Ponting and Clarke) and 3 of the top 6 ranked bowlers (McGrath, Gillespie and Lee).

THAT is a No. 1 side. Not 1 batsman in the top 12 and 1 bowler in the top 20.

 

[TNT]

This is just silly. I just watched three games in which lateral movement wrecked the Aussie top order three times. Had there been a three match series on Aussie roads I have little doubt that Aussie would have beaten us comfortably.

The team that worn the World Cup no longer has Clarke, Watson, Johnson or Haddin. Take all that experience out and this is what you're left with: Aussie has 1 batsman ranked in the top 12 in ODIs (compared to NZ's 3) and 1 bowler ranked in the top 20 (compared to NZ's 3).

If you have 1 batsman in the top 12 and 1 bowler in the top 20 you are not the No. 1 team, even if a team of mostly different players won a World Cup a year ago.

Behind Starc, the highest ranked Aussie bowler is Faulkner at 28th. You just cannot tell me that that's worthy of a No. 1 team, when NZ has Boult, Henry and McClenaghan all in the top 20.

I'm being fair about this and I'll tell you why. Half of the All Blacks retired after the 2015 RWC. If we lose the Rugby Championship I'll happily accept we are no longer the No. 1 team in the world.

So you dismiss the ranking system that puts Australia at number 1 and to prove NZ are the better team you use the player rankings to show that the rankings don't provide a true picture.

 

[TNT]

For the record, this is what an Aussie side looks like when it's clearly No. 1:

9 February 2005: 3 of the top 7 ranked ODI batsmen (Gilchrist, Ponting and Clarke) and 3 of the top 6 ranked bowlers (McGrath, Gillespie and Lee).

THAT is a No. 1 side. Not 1 batsman in the top 12 and 1 bowler in the top 20.

So SA are the number one ODI team, three ODI batsmen in the top ten, two of the top three. Three of the top six bowlers in ODI's.

SA are clearly the top ODI team.

 

[Black_Warrior]

This is just silly. I just watched three games in which lateral movement wrecked the Aussie top order three times. Had there been a three match series on Aussie roads I have little doubt that Aussie would have beaten us comfortably.

And I saw two games where New Zealand collapsed from great positions to settle for below par scores in their own home conditions against a bowling side that is not even known for great seam or swing credentials.

The team that worn the World Cup no longer has Clarke, Watson, Johnson or Haddin. Take all that experience out and this is what you're left with: Aussie has 1 batsman ranked in the top 12 in ODIs (compared to NZ's 3) and 1 bowler ranked in the top 20 (compared to NZ's 3).

And none of them had much of a contribution in that World Cup

MOM - Faulkner
MOS - Starc

The key players were Warner, Smith, Maxwell along with those. You can sort of make a case for MJ but that's it.

If you have 1 batsman in the top 12 and 1 bowler in the top 20 you are not the No. 1 team, even if a team of mostly different players won a World Cup a year ago.

Behind Starc, the highest ranked Aussie bowler is Faulkner at 28th. You just cannot tell me that that's worthy of a No. 1 team, when NZ has Boult, Henry and McClenaghan all in the top 20.

I'm being fair about this and I'll tell you why. Half of the All Blacks retired after the 2015 RWC. If we lose the Rugby Championship I'll happily accept we are no longer the No. 1 team in the world.

This is a classic case of wrong reading of data. I think you will have a lot in common with Moores.

Yes Starc is the only bowler ranked in top 10. Despite that this team is winning pretty much against everyone. You know what that tells me? It tells me what I already argued in the previous page - about the depth and quality of the bench strength. You need to have a bulk of performances and games to break into top 20. Guys like Hastings and Richardson haven't played as much to break into the rankings but are still contributing towards series wins despite lacking in experience.

You take out Boult and Henry
You take out Morkel and Rabada
You take out Ashwin and Shami

Then have a look at the difference in how those teams perform as opposed to how Australia are performing. Twice they restricted New Zealand to below par scores, 4 times they restricted the mighty Indian batting line up to below par scores.

 

[kiwiviktor81]

So you dismiss the ranking system that puts Australia at number 1 and to prove NZ are the better team you use the player rankings to show that the rankings don't provide a true picture.

Yes. I did this because the ranking system that puts Aussie at No. 1 includes a number of historical factors that I don't consider relevant, such as the impact of Clarke, Johnson, Watson and Haddin winning games for them. The player rankings tell you more about how good the players in the team right now are. And my verdict is that they are unproven.

 

[kiwiviktor81]

Yes Starc is the only bowler ranked in top 10. Despite that this team is winning pretty much against everyone. You know what that tells me? It tells me what I already argued in the previous page - about the depth and quality of the bench strength. You need to have a bulk of performances and games to break into top 20. Guys like Hastings and Richardson haven't played as much to break into the rankings but are still contributing towards series wins despite lacking in experience.

You take out Boult and Henry
You take out Morkel and Rabada
You take out Ashwin and Shami

Then have a look at the difference in how those teams perform as opposed to how Australia are performing. Twice they restricted New Zealand to below par scores, 4 times they restricted the mighty Indian batting line up to below par scores.

I am certain the new Aussie bowlers are going to climb the rankings rapidly, especially Hastings who I thought was excellent throughout the Chappell-Hadlee series. But as of now they are unproven. Richardson and Boland might turn out to be no good at all. Zampa is a total unknown at international level. Even Josh Hazlewood has fewer wickets than Steve Smith, so he's hardly proven himself either.

They bowled well against us - but they still comfortably lost the series. That one point weighs 100x more heavy than what Michael Clarke did 3 years ago.

 

[Spark]

Clarke barely played ODIs in the last few years of his career. Watson hasn't retired last I'd checked, Johnson was rested half the time, and Haddin didn't that play that much either. This idea that they were integral to our success in the last two years above Starc, Smith, Faulkner etc is silly.

I am certain the new Aussie bowlers are going to climb the rankings rapidly, especially Hastings who I thought was excellent throughout the Chappell-Hadlee series. But as of now they are unproven. Richardson and Boland might turn out to be no good at all. Zampa is a total unknown at international level. Even Josh Hazlewood has fewer wickets than Steve Smith, so he's hardly proven himself either.

They bowled well against us - but they still comfortably lost the series. That one point weighs 100x more heavy than what Michael Clarke did 3 years ago.

Wait more than a day before starting with the revisionism k