• 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.

**Official** New Zealand v Australia

FaaipDeOiad

FaaipDeOiad

Hall of Fame Member
Blaze said:
No your right NZ are probably a better a One day team.
Click to expand...
Yeah, right. Australia played New Zealand three times last year in ODIs and won twice. What evidence is there exactly to suggest that New Zealand are a superior one day outfit?
 
Blaze

Blaze

Banned
FaaipDeOiad said:
Yeah, right. Australia played New Zealand three times last year in ODIs and won twice. What evidence is there exactly to suggest that New Zealand are a superior one day outfit?
Click to expand...
Higher winning percentage last year?
 
FaaipDeOiad

FaaipDeOiad

Hall of Fame Member
Blaze said:
Higher winning percentage last year?
Click to expand...
Umm... until New Zealand prove they can beat Australia they haven't shown themselves to be a better side. Australia played a 5 match ODI series in Sri Lanka last year, which is about as tough as it gets, and lost two matches there. The fact that New Zealand lost less matches against different opposition is not a valid point of comparison. In 2003 Pakistan had a higher test winning percentage than Australia as well, it didn't make them a better side.
 
Blaze

Blaze

Banned
FaaipDeOiad said:
Umm... until New Zealand prove they can beat Australia they haven't shown themselves to be a better side. Australia played a 5 match ODI series in Sri Lanka last year, which is about as tough as it gets, and lost two matches there. The fact that New Zealand lost less matches against different opposition is not a valid point of comparison. In 2003 Pakistan had a higher test winning percentage than Australia as well, it didn't make them a better side.
Click to expand...
Yeah thats why I am looking forward to the upcoming series becuase hopefully we can show how good we are
 
A

anzac

International Debutant
as if the retirement of Richardson hasn't caused the selectors enough problems (the ongoing opener saga of which the only position that had been resolved was Richardson), the current injury clouds re Oram & Vettori must have them tearing their hair out...............both being the better performers in AUS............

if Vettori & Oram are both out we will probably see Wiseman as his replacement, but I'm not sure they will take Franklin (despite his contract), due to the way that Langer & Co took to him in AUS...........

another point will be wether they replace Oram with a batsman or a bowler.......

I'd like to think that they'd accept that they are likely to be on a hiding to nothing & look at some new faces in the Tests, but in reality I don't think they will & will go with their recent squad players - including the likes of Mills & Macca..........

that being the case they will need to pull something out of the bag so far as tactics go otherwise it is still a case of nothing new / different & the Test series result is likely to be much the same.............
 
marc71178

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
Ming said:
Actually, in the past 12 months we have actually been better than the Aussies.
Click to expand...
You may have a better winning percentage, but then again England's Test winning percentage was better in 2004 - and nobody says they're a better Test side.
 
Blaze

Blaze

Banned
marc71178 said:
You may have a better winning percentage, but then again England's Test winning percentage was better in 2004 - and nobody says they're a better Test side.
Click to expand...
Yeah but England didn't draw a test series with Aus like NZ did in the ODI's against Aus. And that series was very very even
 
marc71178

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
Blaze said:
Yeah but England didn't draw a test series with Aus like NZ did in the ODI's against Aus. And that series was very very even
Click to expand...
1-1 yes, but whereas the first game could've gone either way, the second wasn't as close as the scoreline would suggest.
 
Blaze

Blaze

Banned
marc71178 said:
1-1 yes, but whereas the first game could've gone either way, the second wasn't as close as the scoreline would suggest.
Click to expand...
Hmm agree that the first could have gone either way but Australia never made enough runs.

The second was an interesting game because if Mills hadn't of gone crazy with the bat NZ would have been beaten by a decent scoreline but IIRC Styris, Oram and definetly McCullum were all given shocking decisions by Peter Parker (ones that I have come to expect when playing in Aus though) and the game might have been pretty close had those decisions not gone against us.
 
thierry henry

thierry henry

International Coach
marc71178 said:
1-1 yes, but whereas the first game could've gone either way, the second wasn't as close as the scoreline would suggest.
Click to expand...
That is ABSOLUTE NONSENSE. Prior to Vettori's senseless run-out New Zealand were in a great position to win the 2nd match.
 
Smudge

Smudge

Hall of Fame Member
thierry henry said:
That is ABSOLUTE NONSENSE. Prior to Vettori's senseless run-out New Zealand were in a great position to win the 2nd match.
Click to expand...
Possibly only because Aussie had brought the part-timers on, having assumed the game was safe.
 
thierry henry

thierry henry

International Coach
What do you guys think about the loss of Vettori? Personally, I think that given the nature of NZ conditions historically, it's not a big loss. All of the potential seam options have career averages of less than 30 in NZ (well, Butler averages 30.14 or something), while Vettori's average in NZ is over 37.

I tried this line of reasoning out at another forum tho, and they were all convinced that Vettori was far and away NZ's best bowler and we were no chance without him.
 
thierry henry

thierry henry

International Coach
Voltman said:
Possibly only because Aussie had brought the part-timers on, having assumed the game was safe.
Click to expand...
The horse had well and truly bolted by the time Vettori was run-out, McGrath had come back into the attack and the Aussies were panicking.

Australia's own tactical mistakes are rather beside the point anyway.
 
Smudge

Smudge

Hall of Fame Member
thierry henry said:
The horse had well and truly bolted by the time Vettori was run-out, McGrath had come back into the attack and the Aussies were panicking.

Australia's own tactical mistakes are rather beside the point anyway.
Click to expand...
No they're not - they have everything to do with it.

And you don't seem to get my point.
 
BlackCap_Fan

BlackCap_Fan

State Vice-Captain
thierry henry said:
What do you guys think about the loss of Vettori? Personally, I think that given the nature of NZ conditions historically, it's not a big loss. All of the potential seam options have career averages of less than 30 in NZ (well, Butler averages 30.14 or something), while Vettori's average in NZ is over 37.

I tried this line of reasoning out at another forum tho, and they were all convinced that Vettori was far and away NZ's best bowler and we were no chance without him.
Click to expand...
You're right, but only a fool would deny that he was brilliant against Aus.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top