Zinzan
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Simply because clearly they don'tmarc71178 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.
Simply because clearly they don'tmarc71178 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.
If you don't think winning percentages matter...What about the fact NZ have beaten Aust in 4 out of the last 6 ODI's against Aust in Australia?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?
How about Australia beating New Zealand in 80% of the last 10 ODI's they have played.zinzan12 said:If you don't think winning percentages matter...What about the fact NZ have beaten Aust in 4 out of the last 6 ODI's against Aust in Australia?
Scallywag said:How about Australia beating New Zealand in 80% of the last 10 ODI's they have played.
So I guess that would mean McCullum bats at 6 in the tests, followed by Wiseman, Wilson and three more bowlers (any of Tuffey, Franklin, Mills, Butler, Martin etc.).Blaze said:They will replace Oram with Wilson
why play five bowlers? i would just play 4 seamers out of tuffey, franklin, butler, martin and wilson - i think that would be the right team balance for the test series, we can't afford to have the batting even weaker and a fifth bowler(including wiseman) isn't likely to make much of a differenceKippax said:So I guess that would mean McCullum bats at 6 in the tests, followed by Wiseman, Wilson and three more bowlers (any of Tuffey, Franklin, Mills, Butler, Martin etc.).
Oh yes, because needed 100 runs from 77 balls with 3 wickets left (1 of which was an injured player) is such a simple thing that it was obvious that NZ were going to win from thereBlackCap_Fan said:Did you see the Mcullum dismissal?
In the same way that NZ is clearly not a better ODI side than Australia.zinzan12 said:Simply because clearly they don't
Relevance of games a long time ago to current teams?zinzan12 said:If you don't think winning percentages matter...What about the fact NZ have beaten Aust in 4 out of the last 6 ODI's against Aust in Australia?
yeah the series can't start soon enoughTim said:Jeez, I can see the sh*t starting to hit the fan already in this thread.
Four of which were years ago. In the last 12 months they have met three times and Australia won twice. And the winning percentages against different opposition is irrelevant because... well... the opposition is different. It's not a valid point of comparison.zinzan12 said:If you don't think winning percentages matter...What about the fact NZ have beaten Aust in 4 out of the last 6 ODI's against Aust in Australia?
marc71178 said:In the same way that NZ is clearly not a better ODI side than Australia.
Assuming you saw the 1-1 odi series in between Aust and NZ recently, I'd suggest that stating the two sides are not even close is ludicrous. Both games could have been won by either side. It wasn't just one game it was both. As a NZer, I was gutted that Fatty Parker gave that Dodgy decision and even more gutted when NZ just needed a run a ball 17 off 17 (from memory)FaaipDeOiad said:Four of which were years ago. In the last 12 months they have met three times and Australia won twice. And the winning percentages against different opposition is irrelevant because... well... the opposition is different. It's not a valid point of comparison.
England are not a better test side because they won more tests last year playing the West Indies, New Zealand and South Africa than Australia did playing India and Sri Lanka at home, because the opposition is not comparable. And, New Zealand have not shown themselves to be in Australia's league by beating different opposition or by winning one out of three ODIs against them. If New Zealand pound Australia in the coming ODI series you may have a basis for the argument, but to suggest now that Australia and New Zealand are equal (or even close) is ludicrous.
Missed opportunities mean nothing.zinzan12 said:Assuming you saw the 1-1 odi series in between Aust and NZ recently, I'd suggest that stating the two sides are not even close is ludicrous. Both games could have been won by either side. It wasn't just one game it was both. As a NZer, I was gutted that Fatty Parker gave that Dodgy decision and even more gutted when NZ just needed a run a ball 17 off 17 (from memory)
and Vettori had a brain explosion ran himself out. It was a missed opportunity to win 2-0.
Ponting also said this,zinzan12 said:Why did Ponting state after the game that NZ were the 1 oneday side in the world at the moment that they fear the most and he also made the point that they have closed the gap and he didn't feel that there was much between the two sides? Thats not the sort of comment Ponting would make for the sake of it.
NO nz are the closest to Australia in odi cricket,i belive nz are on par with australiaDeja moo said:Missed opportunities mean nothing.
India had the opportunity to be 3-1 up on the Aussies last VB series after the group stage if it wasnt for Bangar running out Ganguly in the first ODI, and Lee managing to get in that sixer in the last over of the 3rd game.
India could then claim to be the closest to Australias level, couldnt they ?
And you have what, iffy situations to back that up ?cric_manic said:NO nz are the closest to Australia in odi cricket,i belive nz are on par with australia
india are a good test side but are no where as good as nz in odi