Finally, yesterday New Zealand becomes the third team to be defeated by Australia in all three formats of the game when they formally lost the second test by 176 runs after the Kiwis were bowled out for 302 runs on the board. An expected result was delayed by just another day when the test match which should have been lost on day 4 itself happened to go on until the end of the 5th day. Similar to the Aussies, even the Kiwis followed suit when almost every known batsman fro the New Zealand side contributed his little bit to his side.
There were 20+ scored from the blades of Walting, Tim Macintosh, Mathew Sinclair, Vettori, Guptill, McCullum and Southee. Earlier in the test match, even the Aussies had shown a similar type of team work when there were 40+ scores from the blades of as many as 7 Aussie players on the 4th day's play. This is the difference between both the sides where Aussie batsmen scored 40+ regular scores which was twice of what each batsman from the New Zealand side could contribute to his side. After Australia had amassed 511 runs on the board, the Kiwis had lost half of their side for less than 200.
New Zealand's defeat came after Pakistan and West Indies had their turn when they had faced the Aussies some three months back. The only difference this time was the unlike in the previous two occasions where both Pakistan and West Indies lost a test series in Australia, New Zealand lost their test series at home and not on their tour to Australia. However, the NZC may not follow the PCB chairman Ijaz Butt by banning players from playing international cricket or impose hefty fines on their players. May be the NZC will not even take the loss against Australia seriously with most of the teams' fate being almost same when they face OZ.
This was Australia's 7th test match victory out of the 8 games that it has played since December last year. At the same time, this was New Zealand's 3rd loss at home with the other one being against Pakistan. New Zealand have repeatedly shown the world that they are hardly interested in playing test cricket when they can show some decent performances in the remaining two formats of the game. New Zealand won two out of the 5 one dayers against Australia and one T20 game out of the scheduled 2 matches. But, the Kiwis were nowhere when it came to playing tests.
Showing posts with label Australia vs New Zealand. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Australia vs New Zealand. Show all posts
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Aussies - A perfect example for team work
Well what a team work this has been from the Australian team, who can still bring the cricket fans out of the IPL mood that is catching up high on the other side of the globe? If one goes through the scorecard of the second innings of Australia's bating chart, almost all the Aussie batsmen have done their bit towards the team total of 511 for the loss of 8 wickets. If not for the captain Ricky Ponting who returned back scoring just 6 runs that all included was a full-toss hit out of the boundary line, the rest of the Aussies batsmen gave in everything they could to their team.
Much to the surprise, there were decent knocks from the blades of Ryan Harris and Nathan Hauritz - both of whom are more known for their bowling skills and less when it comes to playing a similar delivery. Ryan Harris scored an unbeaten 18 runs and Hauritz scored 41 that included 2 sixes as well. But, I give it all to the opening batsman - Simon Katich who not only top scored with 106 but also held the Australian innings firmly after their first innings lag of 33 runs. This is evident from the fact that he stood at the crease for 279 deliveries having crucial partnerships with Shane Watson and Mike Hussey.
Simon Katich not only bought in all his experience when he did that but also showed a non-selfish motive when he gripped the Aussie innings as mentioned. It was Katich who was responsible for his team to put up such a mammoth total after their initial hiccup. All batsmen who followed Katich came up with increasing strike rates with Hussey, Clarke, North and Haddin returning with strike rates of 41.87, 57.79, 66.66 and 120 respectively. All these were steadily increasing after Katich's 37.99. One bad decision that Ponting was found doing was when he declared the innings at 511 with 2 wickets in hand.
It is neither an insufficient total at which Ponting should not have declared nor the two wickets that Australia had that could have added few more runs to their mammoth total of 511. But, the fact is that, had Ponting chosen to declare a bit later, may be Nathan Hauritz might have scored a half century who had to end his innings at 41*. An interesting fact is the, it was only Mitchell Johnson who could not contribute with the bat for his team but did everything to compensate with the bat when he took three of the five wickets that fell from the Kiwi side.
Much to the surprise, there were decent knocks from the blades of Ryan Harris and Nathan Hauritz - both of whom are more known for their bowling skills and less when it comes to playing a similar delivery. Ryan Harris scored an unbeaten 18 runs and Hauritz scored 41 that included 2 sixes as well. But, I give it all to the opening batsman - Simon Katich who not only top scored with 106 but also held the Australian innings firmly after their first innings lag of 33 runs. This is evident from the fact that he stood at the crease for 279 deliveries having crucial partnerships with Shane Watson and Mike Hussey.
Simon Katich not only bought in all his experience when he did that but also showed a non-selfish motive when he gripped the Aussie innings as mentioned. It was Katich who was responsible for his team to put up such a mammoth total after their initial hiccup. All batsmen who followed Katich came up with increasing strike rates with Hussey, Clarke, North and Haddin returning with strike rates of 41.87, 57.79, 66.66 and 120 respectively. All these were steadily increasing after Katich's 37.99. One bad decision that Ponting was found doing was when he declared the innings at 511 with 2 wickets in hand.
It is neither an insufficient total at which Ponting should not have declared nor the two wickets that Australia had that could have added few more runs to their mammoth total of 511. But, the fact is that, had Ponting chosen to declare a bit later, may be Nathan Hauritz might have scored a half century who had to end his innings at 41*. An interesting fact is the, it was only Mitchell Johnson who could not contribute with the bat for his team but did everything to compensate with the bat when he took three of the five wickets that fell from the Kiwi side.
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
New Zealand out of the race
As it has been the case whenever Australia faces most of the teams, no matter whether the Aussies take a first innings lead or not but they end up on the safer side towards the end of the match. And, this time as well the situation was no different when Simon Katich continued from where he had left in the first innings of the test match where he scored a valuable 88 runs with the entire team getting bowled out for a mere 231 runs on the boards, which was - needless to be said far behind the standards of Aussie cricket.
This was more so when the opposition - New Zealand surpassed the Aussie total by 33 runs, which is more than enough for the Kiwis to rejoice. However, that could in no way trouble the Aussies who were pretty confident of their comeback to the game which has seen them doing o since the past decade or so. But, with New Zealand being the hosts, a lot more was expected from them and not just a lead of 33 runs and that too in the second test after surrendering the first one without atough decent fight. New Zealand has been the worst hosts in the recent past.
It is really surprising that Simon Katich who shone with the bat took 137 balls to score his first boundary when he was found driving the 100 test man - Daniel Vettori through cover. However, at the end of his innings, he had 12 hits to the fence to his credit. Katich was also involved in an 85 run first wicket partnership with Shane Watson and a 155 run partnership with Mike Hussey despite having a bad strike rate of a run from every 3 balls. As expected, the entire Australian team batted with utmost cautiousness to take the game away from New Zealand.
Simon Katich stood for 279 balls which was close to 47 overs and 4 sessions before getting out. Katich's score was close to 33% of the entire Australian team total on the 3rd day's play. The entire Australian side was out on the first day's play and so was the case when New Zealand batted on day 2. Such games are quite rare in today's test cricket. Today's test cricket either has both the teams scoring huge amount of runs with just 2 out of the 4 innings being possible. Or else, there would be one high scoring team with the other team crashing out even before its play has been started.
This was more so when the opposition - New Zealand surpassed the Aussie total by 33 runs, which is more than enough for the Kiwis to rejoice. However, that could in no way trouble the Aussies who were pretty confident of their comeback to the game which has seen them doing o since the past decade or so. But, with New Zealand being the hosts, a lot more was expected from them and not just a lead of 33 runs and that too in the second test after surrendering the first one without a
It is really surprising that Simon Katich who shone with the bat took 137 balls to score his first boundary when he was found driving the 100 test man - Daniel Vettori through cover. However, at the end of his innings, he had 12 hits to the fence to his credit. Katich was also involved in an 85 run first wicket partnership with Shane Watson and a 155 run partnership with Mike Hussey despite having a bad strike rate of a run from every 3 balls. As expected, the entire Australian team batted with utmost cautiousness to take the game away from New Zealand.
Simon Katich stood for 279 balls which was close to 47 overs and 4 sessions before getting out. Katich's score was close to 33% of the entire Australian team total on the 3rd day's play. The entire Australian side was out on the first day's play and so was the case when New Zealand batted on day 2. Such games are quite rare in today's test cricket. Today's test cricket either has both the teams scoring huge amount of runs with just 2 out of the 4 innings being possible. Or else, there would be one high scoring team with the other team crashing out even before its play has been started.
Monday, March 29, 2010
A peculiar Aussie reply
On the 2nd day's play between Australia and New Zealand, no matter if New Zealand put up a total of 264 on the board which was more than the total of 231 put up by the Aussies on the 1st day's play. This can in no ways trouble the Aussies. All that the New Zealand could achieve was a 33 run lead in the first innings. In case New Zealand had to take a lead, be it by any amount of runs, for that the Aussies should display an under - power performance which would in turn allow the opposition to capitalize. And this is what New Zealand did.
It is just a matter of time before the Aussies get back strongly at the opposition and this time as well the situation is no different. At the end of the day's play, the Aussies were 35 runs on the board without any loss of wickets and furthermore, the Aussies had a lead of 2 runs which, though not much at the moment, with three full days being available, the Aussies can make it count for which its history itself is an example. May be at the end of the 5th day, New Zealand could take home only the satisfaction that they had a first innings lead and nothing more.
If one side of the coin suggests New Zealand taking an upperhand after they took a lead of 33 runs as mentioned, the other side of the coin also suggests that the Kiwis lost all their ten wickets almost a session before the second day's play got over. So, it would not be wrong to say that New Zealand had got hardly anything to take away from the match. Highlights from the scorecard suggests that if not for Ross Taylor, no other Kiwi batsmen really stood to the Aussie challenge whatsoever. If there was Ross Taylor who notched up a hundred for his team, there was also Mitchell Johnson who bagged 4 wickets for Australia.
And, Ross Taylor didn't achieve this without the aid of some sloppy fielding from the Aussies who dropped him when the batsman was on 7, 53 and 92. However, some majestic knocks from Ross Taylor were witnessed when the batsman scored 25 runs from Nathan Hauritz over which included three consecutive maximums. By the time New Zealand crossed a total of 231 put up by Australia, they had lost 6 wickets meaning the remaining 4 5 batsmen from New Zealand could manage just 71 runs, with Taylor's score being 41 out of that. So, by hooks or crooks, Kiwis took a temporary edge over Aussies.
It is just a matter of time before the Aussies get back strongly at the opposition and this time as well the situation is no different. At the end of the day's play, the Aussies were 35 runs on the board without any loss of wickets and furthermore, the Aussies had a lead of 2 runs which, though not much at the moment, with three full days being available, the Aussies can make it count for which its history itself is an example. May be at the end of the 5th day, New Zealand could take home only the satisfaction that they had a first innings lead and nothing more.
If one side of the coin suggests New Zealand taking an upperhand after they took a lead of 33 runs as mentioned, the other side of the coin also suggests that the Kiwis lost all their ten wickets almost a session before the second day's play got over. So, it would not be wrong to say that New Zealand had got hardly anything to take away from the match. Highlights from the scorecard suggests that if not for Ross Taylor, no other Kiwi batsmen really stood to the Aussie challenge whatsoever. If there was Ross Taylor who notched up a hundred for his team, there was also Mitchell Johnson who bagged 4 wickets for Australia.
And, Ross Taylor didn't achieve this without the aid of some sloppy fielding from the Aussies who dropped him when the batsman was on 7, 53 and 92. However, some majestic knocks from Ross Taylor were witnessed when the batsman scored 25 runs from Nathan Hauritz over which included three consecutive maximums. By the time New Zealand crossed a total of 231 put up by Australia, they had lost 6 wickets meaning the remaining 4 5 batsmen from New Zealand could manage just 71 runs, with Taylor's score being 41 out of that. So, by hooks or crooks, Kiwis took a temporary edge over Aussies.
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Vettori's gift for NZ on his 100th test appearence
Well this is the New Zealand captain Daniel Vettori's 100th test match and has been a good performance both as a captain and as a player. With Daniel Vettori trying to prove a point in his 100th test, one has to see the positives in the ongoing test match against Australia. New Zealand have successfully bowled Australia for a mere total of just 231 on the board which would have otherwise been close to somewhere around 500+ like it happened in the earlier test where Australia put up a total in excess of 400 and defeated New Zealand till the death.
Because this is Daniel Vetttori's 100th test match, New Zealand can think of a decent loss unlike it happened in the earlier test where Australia had a lead in excess of 302 runs. Australia had lost half the number of wickets that New Zealand lost towards the end of their innings and as mentioned earlier scored 302 runs less than what the Aussies could manage. However, now if the first day's play is considered, New Zealand are found enjoying a slight upperhand when it comes to the test match. May be the loss that New Zealand would have anticipated to incur be now reduced by an innings to a few runs.
No matter how low the team total of Australia is, victory can never be snatched from them. The best example being the Sydney test between Pakistan and Australia where Australia lost all their 10 wickets for a score of 127 with hopes of an Aussie win being nowhere. But, much to everyone's surprise Australia won the match by 36 runs needless to be said. Now, if Australia have lost all their 10 wickets on the 1st day's play itself, it would not come as a surprise to anyone if Australia manage to reduce New Zealand to a lesser total than what Ponting's men could.
And, in case New Zealand manage to take a small lead in the first innings, the Aussies have always shown that they get back to the game by not repeating the mistake they did in their first innings for which once again the Sydney test against Pakistan stands as an example. A hint regarding the same is already available from the 1st day's play when the first New Zealand wicket fell with the scoreboard reading 19 runs at the end of the day's play. It would not be a tough task for the Aussies to get the remaining 9 New Zealand wickets in the next day they play.
Because this is Daniel Vetttori's 100th test match, New Zealand can think of a decent loss unlike it happened in the earlier test where Australia had a lead in excess of 302 runs. Australia had lost half the number of wickets that New Zealand lost towards the end of their innings and as mentioned earlier scored 302 runs less than what the Aussies could manage. However, now if the first day's play is considered, New Zealand are found enjoying a slight upperhand when it comes to the test match. May be the loss that New Zealand would have anticipated to incur be now reduced by an innings to a few runs.
No matter how low the team total of Australia is, victory can never be snatched from them. The best example being the Sydney test between Pakistan and Australia where Australia lost all their 10 wickets for a score of 127 with hopes of an Aussie win being nowhere. But, much to everyone's surprise Australia won the match by 36 runs needless to be said. Now, if Australia have lost all their 10 wickets on the 1st day's play itself, it would not come as a surprise to anyone if Australia manage to reduce New Zealand to a lesser total than what Ponting's men could.
And, in case New Zealand manage to take a small lead in the first innings, the Aussies have always shown that they get back to the game by not repeating the mistake they did in their first innings for which once again the Sydney test against Pakistan stands as an example. A hint regarding the same is already available from the 1st day's play when the first New Zealand wicket fell with the scoreboard reading 19 runs at the end of the day's play. It would not be a tough task for the Aussies to get the remaining 9 New Zealand wickets in the next day they play.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Too late for the Kiwis
As expected, it was Australia who walked away with the honors in the first test against New Zealand at Wellington when they beat the Kiwis by 10 wickets. New Zealand had given hints about their downfall the day the match started when Aussie batsmen piled up a mammoth 459 runs on the board and following that, the Kiwi batsmen played exactly the way the Aussies expected them to. Lose wickets at regular intervals and then get some sympathy owing to which a decent score compared to that expected from them is found to be put up on the board by the Kiwis.
After New Zealand batsmen ruled out every possibility of an innings win for Australia, the second best thing to that did happen when Australia took home a 10 wicket victory in the game. New Zealand had ended their fourth day with the scoreboard reading 369 runs for the loss of 6 wickets which eventually ended at 407 for the loss of all ten wickets. Had the same score been scored by them in the first innings, things would not have been that difficult for the Kiwis though that might not guarantee them a victory against the Aussies. But, their brains were found to work a bit later than expected.
But, had the score of 407 been their first innings total for the Kiwis, then may be the second innings would have ended with the New Zealand batsmen putting up just 157 runs on the board reversing what happened in the present situation. But, had that been the case, Australia would have had to bat once again with their lead being just 52 runs. And, Australia would have had to bat for yet another day with pressure building on them enroute to piling up atleast 300 runs in addition, incase victory could be a reality for the Aussies. But, "ifs" and "buts" form a different story altogether.
The only satisfaction for the New Zealand team was that, as mentioned earlier they didn't lose the game by an innings and neither did the match end well before the end of the fifth day. If the first innings of the New Zealand team is given a close look at, they should have got out for the second time well before the fourth day itself which fortunately for New Zealand didn't happen. And, there was Daryll Tuffey who scored a handy 47 runs which provided some interest in the match with a bowler doing a job left by some of the top order batsmen from New Zealand. But, the match would not have been complete without the Kiwis being unable to take even one wicket which still didn't happen.
After New Zealand batsmen ruled out every possibility of an innings win for Australia, the second best thing to that did happen when Australia took home a 10 wicket victory in the game. New Zealand had ended their fourth day with the scoreboard reading 369 runs for the loss of 6 wickets which eventually ended at 407 for the loss of all ten wickets. Had the same score been scored by them in the first innings, things would not have been that difficult for the Kiwis though that might not guarantee them a victory against the Aussies. But, their brains were found to work a bit later than expected.
But, had the score of 407 been their first innings total for the Kiwis, then may be the second innings would have ended with the New Zealand batsmen putting up just 157 runs on the board reversing what happened in the present situation. But, had that been the case, Australia would have had to bat once again with their lead being just 52 runs. And, Australia would have had to bat for yet another day with pressure building on them enroute to piling up atleast 300 runs in addition, incase victory could be a reality for the Aussies. But, "ifs" and "buts" form a different story altogether.
The only satisfaction for the New Zealand team was that, as mentioned earlier they didn't lose the game by an innings and neither did the match end well before the end of the fifth day. If the first innings of the New Zealand team is given a close look at, they should have got out for the second time well before the fourth day itself which fortunately for New Zealand didn't happen. And, there was Daryll Tuffey who scored a handy 47 runs which provided some interest in the match with a bowler doing a job left by some of the top order batsmen from New Zealand. But, the match would not have been complete without the Kiwis being unable to take even one wicket which still didn't happen.
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Kiwis delay the inevitable
If the way the New Zealand team played on the 3rd day against Australia was taken, it was as though the New Zealand team would end their second innings well before the end of the 4th day itself when, in addition to losing the remaining 6 wickets in the first innings, they lost another 5 wickets in their second innings as well. This no doubt gave hints of a New Zealand batting collapse even before the 4th day of the test match ended. However, this was no to be when the Kiwis, unlike in the first innings didn't lose more than 1 wicket with their scorecard at the end of the day's play reading 369/6.
The score at the end of the third day's play read 187 runs for the loss of 5 wickets, meaning the New Zealand batsmen could score an additional score of 182 runs in the process losing just 1 wicket which was that of their captain Daniel Vettori and not before he scored a solid 77 runs which also involved a 126 run partnership along with Brendon McCullum who was unbeaten on 94 at the end of the day's play. If any team is given a first glance, the very first thing that would be noticed would be the captain and the wicketkeeper and the same captain and the wicketkeeper doing a fab job for his team is a rare feat for any team.
It was their captain Daniel Vettori and the wicket keeper Brendon McCullum who were in an attempt to save some face for the New Zealand team, which would have otherwise seen their team losing the match by an innings on the fourth day itself. Even Bangladesh who are facing England on the other side of the globe are considered, the match is not found to finish before the 5th day commences. But, New Zealand evoked fears among the fans by losing 11 wickets on the third day's play. However, it was good that the duo settled the issue for the New Zealand.
Any team barring Bangladesh and West Indies (off late) have to rethink about their position in test cricket in case they lose a home series and more so in case the defeat is by an innings. Now that the Kiwis have avoided the innings, atleast some consideration though they are bound to lose the match. But still, a better performance was expected from the Kiwis with the likes of Vettori and Guptill who have a great potential to turn around things for their team. When they could do it in the second innings, there can be hardly any reasons that can be guessed for them not being able to do the same in the first innings.
The score at the end of the third day's play read 187 runs for the loss of 5 wickets, meaning the New Zealand batsmen could score an additional score of 182 runs in the process losing just 1 wicket which was that of their captain Daniel Vettori and not before he scored a solid 77 runs which also involved a 126 run partnership along with Brendon McCullum who was unbeaten on 94 at the end of the day's play. If any team is given a first glance, the very first thing that would be noticed would be the captain and the wicketkeeper and the same captain and the wicketkeeper doing a fab job for his team is a rare feat for any team.
It was their captain Daniel Vettori and the wicket keeper Brendon McCullum who were in an attempt to save some face for the New Zealand team, which would have otherwise seen their team losing the match by an innings on the fourth day itself. Even Bangladesh who are facing England on the other side of the globe are considered, the match is not found to finish before the 5th day commences. But, New Zealand evoked fears among the fans by losing 11 wickets on the third day's play. However, it was good that the duo settled the issue for the New Zealand.
Any team barring Bangladesh and West Indies (off late) have to rethink about their position in test cricket in case they lose a home series and more so in case the defeat is by an innings. Now that the Kiwis have avoided the innings, atleast some consideration though they are bound to lose the match. But still, a better performance was expected from the Kiwis with the likes of Vettori and Guptill who have a great potential to turn around things for their team. When they could do it in the second innings, there can be hardly any reasons that can be guessed for them not being able to do the same in the first innings.
Monday, March 22, 2010
A bold decision by Ponting
Well there are at present two test series' going on in parallel namely, the tour of England over Bangladesh and the other one being the Australian tour of New Zealand. However, if both the tournaments are considered, it looks that the Bangladesh have shown better performance against England compared to New Zealand's performance against Australia. This was evident from the fact that there, the England captain didn't turn up to impose a follow on over Bangladesh while here, Ponting took no further thinking in imposing the same against New Zealand. This itself shows the caliber of the New Zealand team.
In just one full day, New Zealand lost as many as 11 wickets which is as good as getting all out and losing a wicket extra. The entire day belonged to New Zealand which saw them bat without any Aussie taking the crease. The New Zealand team had ended the previous day that is day 2 with 108 runs on the board and losing 4 wickets which included an unbeaten 5th wicket partnership of 65 runs between Vettori and McCullum which could last for just 4 more runs on day 3 of the test match. It would not be longer for the Kiwis to lose the remaining 9 wickets in a similar fashion.
New Zealand were playing at home and no excuses regarding their debacle can be entertained. The first innings of New Zealand lasted for just 49 runs with 6 losses of wickets inbetween. After the loss of the 4th wicket on the 2nd day's play, New Zealand were expected to put up a fighting performance atleast if not a match winning one. But, all that happened was the continuation of the bad work that was seen by the New Zealand batsmen in the initial part of the first innings. And if that was not enough, they lost yet another wicket in the second innings of their batting when Watling lost out to a controversial decision.
Whatever, the highlight of the day's play was the Australian captain Ricky Ponting imposing a follow on upon the New Zealand team. Ponting was never found doing such a thing in the past despite there being a huge margin. I remember Ponting deciding to continue batting in the first test against England in the Ashes 2007 with a lead of 445 runs. And then, in the recently concluded test series against Pakistan, Ponting decided not to go in for a follow on despite the fact that Pakistan failed to cash out an opportunity to win a test at Sydney. These were the cases where Australia were hosting unlike in the current test against New Zealand. This shows some maturity of Ponting as a captain.
In just one full day, New Zealand lost as many as 11 wickets which is as good as getting all out and losing a wicket extra. The entire day belonged to New Zealand which saw them bat without any Aussie taking the crease. The New Zealand team had ended the previous day that is day 2 with 108 runs on the board and losing 4 wickets which included an unbeaten 5th wicket partnership of 65 runs between Vettori and McCullum which could last for just 4 more runs on day 3 of the test match. It would not be longer for the Kiwis to lose the remaining 9 wickets in a similar fashion.
New Zealand were playing at home and no excuses regarding their debacle can be entertained. The first innings of New Zealand lasted for just 49 runs with 6 losses of wickets inbetween. After the loss of the 4th wicket on the 2nd day's play, New Zealand were expected to put up a fighting performance atleast if not a match winning one. But, all that happened was the continuation of the bad work that was seen by the New Zealand batsmen in the initial part of the first innings. And if that was not enough, they lost yet another wicket in the second innings of their batting when Watling lost out to a controversial decision.
Whatever, the highlight of the day's play was the Australian captain Ricky Ponting imposing a follow on upon the New Zealand team. Ponting was never found doing such a thing in the past despite there being a huge margin. I remember Ponting deciding to continue batting in the first test against England in the Ashes 2007 with a lead of 445 runs. And then, in the recently concluded test series against Pakistan, Ponting decided not to go in for a follow on despite the fact that Pakistan failed to cash out an opportunity to win a test at Sydney. These were the cases where Australia were hosting unlike in the current test against New Zealand. This shows some maturity of Ponting as a captain.
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Ponting's decision to declare?
As expected, the second day also belonged top Australia when they amassed 459 runs on the board by scoring 143 runs extra compared to their score at the end of the first day's play. And as usual, the batting of the New Zealand side started collapsing like glaciers in snow mountains. The first four wickets of the New Zealand side fell with less than 50 runs on the board. The scoreboard of the New Zealand batting read 43 runs when the fourth New Zealand wicket fell. No needs to be given any sort of appreciation for tumbling the New Zealand wickets for it was the Kiwis who flattered.
The Australian bowlers did nothing extra ordinary to bowl the New Zealand batsmen out for a partly score. Since the fall of the fourth wicket at the score of 43 on the board, the New Zealand team didn't lose another wicket until the end of the day. The scorecard at the end of the day read 108 runs for the loss of four wickets meaning 65 runs in addition to 43 were scored without losing a wicket. The first three New Zealand batsmen went back to the pavilion scoring single digit scores of 9, 0 and 5 respectively. However, the scorecard read 31 runs when the 3rd wicket fell.
The trio New Zealand batsmen scored just 14 runs if their individual scores are taken which means that the additional 17 runs should have been scored by extras. Even Australia lost just 4 wickets on their first day's play like New Zealand. Australia lost 4 wickets on day 1 after scoring 316 runs and New Zealand also lost 4 wickets but with a score that was just 208 runs less than what the Aussie batsmen could pile up on day 1. The Kiwi batsmen could not even score half of what the Australian batsmen could do on day 2. This was rather expected taking into consideration their caliber in test cricket.
Earlier, the Australian batsmen put up a score of 459 runs on the board as mentioned above. In the process, the Australian team lost just one wicket of Michael Clarke who scored 168 runs that is needless to be said. After Clarke retreated, Ponting declared the innings with a score of less than 500 on the board and with as many as 5 wickets in hand. This can rather be considered to be an unusual gesture in today's test cricket especially when a total of 400+ on the board can no longer be considered as safe. And, this was done outside home as far as Australia are concerned. With the likes of Haddin, North and Johnson, Ponting could have delayed the declaration to avoid cursing himself later. But, the decision can well be understood by Ponting alone.
The Australian bowlers did nothing extra ordinary to bowl the New Zealand batsmen out for a partly score. Since the fall of the fourth wicket at the score of 43 on the board, the New Zealand team didn't lose another wicket until the end of the day. The scorecard at the end of the day read 108 runs for the loss of four wickets meaning 65 runs in addition to 43 were scored without losing a wicket. The first three New Zealand batsmen went back to the pavilion scoring single digit scores of 9, 0 and 5 respectively. However, the scorecard read 31 runs when the 3rd wicket fell.
The trio New Zealand batsmen scored just 14 runs if their individual scores are taken which means that the additional 17 runs should have been scored by extras. Even Australia lost just 4 wickets on their first day's play like New Zealand. Australia lost 4 wickets on day 1 after scoring 316 runs and New Zealand also lost 4 wickets but with a score that was just 208 runs less than what the Aussie batsmen could pile up on day 1. The Kiwi batsmen could not even score half of what the Australian batsmen could do on day 2. This was rather expected taking into consideration their caliber in test cricket.
Earlier, the Australian batsmen put up a score of 459 runs on the board as mentioned above. In the process, the Australian team lost just one wicket of Michael Clarke who scored 168 runs that is needless to be said. After Clarke retreated, Ponting declared the innings with a score of less than 500 on the board and with as many as 5 wickets in hand. This can rather be considered to be an unusual gesture in today's test cricket especially when a total of 400+ on the board can no longer be considered as safe. And, this was done outside home as far as Australia are concerned. With the likes of Haddin, North and Johnson, Ponting could have delayed the declaration to avoid cursing himself later. But, the decision can well be understood by Ponting alone.
Saturday, March 20, 2010
Clarke's performance not surprising
From the past one month or so, all news that Michael Clarke was able to make was regarding his break up with some female whose relation with Michael Clarke is needless at the moment and at the same time not clear as well. Clarke returned to the Australian cricket with a bang when he scored an unbeaten 100 runs in the first test at Wellington against New Zealand. It was not Bangladesh or the West Indies whom Clarke was facing to say that the weak opposition helped Clarke nor it was Brisbane or Sydney where Australia were playing to say that Clarke had the home team advantage.
In addition to Michael Clarke, there were other Australian players like Simon Katich and Marcus North who aided Australia in putting up a mammoth total of 316 on the board on day 1. This was achieved at a run rate of less than 4 which once again points towards Australia's losing momentum after the retirement of big guns a couple of years ago. However, this was more than enough for and against teams like New Zealand who are best suited for teams like Pakistan and may be England and that too under home conditions. The bowlers from New Zealand could get the wicket of just three Australian batsmen, with the other one being run out.
If not for Mike Hussey on a rare occasion, the rest of the Australian batsmen showed no signs of fear towards the New Zealand bowlers. There could have been only one bowler who could put pressure of some sort on the Aussie batsmen and that was Shane Bond who bid adieu to test cricket. If that is to be kept apart, the lone bowler who could do that job to some extent would be Daniel Vettori not because of his extraordinary bowling skills but due to the fact that Australians are bad players of spin bowling. But the other side of the coin is that so is New Zealand.
Even New Zealand fear spin bowling more than Australia due to the fact that atleast Australia have a decent batting run up which is not the same when it comes to New Zealand. It would not come as a surprise to anyone in case the same Michael Clarke who id much of the damage to the Kiwi bowlers turns up to do the same with the ball as well. Clarke would have two advantages, one owing to the fact of New Zealand's approach to spin bowling as stated earlier and two for having a mammoth total on the board which would persuade him to try and do different things. In case he fails in that, there is Ryan Harris and co who can settle things for Aussies.
In addition to Michael Clarke, there were other Australian players like Simon Katich and Marcus North who aided Australia in putting up a mammoth total of 316 on the board on day 1. This was achieved at a run rate of less than 4 which once again points towards Australia's losing momentum after the retirement of big guns a couple of years ago. However, this was more than enough for and against teams like New Zealand who are best suited for teams like Pakistan and may be England and that too under home conditions. The bowlers from New Zealand could get the wicket of just three Australian batsmen, with the other one being run out.
If not for Mike Hussey on a rare occasion, the rest of the Australian batsmen showed no signs of fear towards the New Zealand bowlers. There could have been only one bowler who could put pressure of some sort on the Aussie batsmen and that was Shane Bond who bid adieu to test cricket. If that is to be kept apart, the lone bowler who could do that job to some extent would be Daniel Vettori not because of his extraordinary bowling skills but due to the fact that Australians are bad players of spin bowling. But the other side of the coin is that so is New Zealand.
Even New Zealand fear spin bowling more than Australia due to the fact that atleast Australia have a decent batting run up which is not the same when it comes to New Zealand. It would not come as a surprise to anyone in case the same Michael Clarke who id much of the damage to the Kiwi bowlers turns up to do the same with the ball as well. Clarke would have two advantages, one owing to the fact of New Zealand's approach to spin bowling as stated earlier and two for having a mammoth total on the board which would persuade him to try and do different things. In case he fails in that, there is Ryan Harris and co who can settle things for Aussies.
Sunday, March 14, 2010
Ponting's yet another immaturity
Well what would have Australia lost if not for the match against New Zealand in the finals ODI of the bilateral series when the series has been pocketed by them a couple of days ago? Aussies made the most of it when they seriously had to win though they lost the first encounter which would have seen them go 1 down in the series. However, that was the match where both the teams fought in a very tight manner and as the convention goes, there could be only one winner and that happened to be New Zealand. And, then onwards, it has been the Aussie show until they sealed the series against their name.
And, there should be absolutely no reason for New Zealand to rejoice their victory in the 5th one dayer played at Wellington despite winning the match be a rather decent margin of 51 runs. This can be considered as Australia's loss and not a win by New Zealand for it was not New Zealand who fought for it. The match was gifted by Australia to New Zealand for which New Zealand has to be thankful to their Tasmanian rivals. However, things didn't start as though New Zealand would win the match when they lost 4 wickets for a score less than 100 on the board.
The score was 25 by the time the 2nd wicket had fallen and scorecard suggests that the New Zealand openers - Brendon McCullum and Martin Guptill had scores of 1 and 7 respectively. New Zealand could score a total which was only somewhere near to the total that they could manage in their earlier games. In the 4th ODI at Auckland, they ended up scoring 238 runs and in the 3rd ODI at Hamilton, they were found to score just 245 runs compared to the 241 they put up in the last one dayer which they appeared to win convincingly.
One has to wonder as to how come New Zealand could manage to defend a similar total in the inconsequential match at Wellington when they could not even come close to doing the same in the previous one dayers at Hamilton and Auckland respectively. And, the way Australia played was just another instance of a captain's immaturity when Ponting went into the fifth ODI with a full strength Australian team when he could have rested some senior players like Watson & Johnson and instead played some lesser talent like Bailey. Neither did Ponting go in for a whitewash nor did he give some lesser talent a little bit of match practice.
And, there should be absolutely no reason for New Zealand to rejoice their victory in the 5th one dayer played at Wellington despite winning the match be a rather decent margin of 51 runs. This can be considered as Australia's loss and not a win by New Zealand for it was not New Zealand who fought for it. The match was gifted by Australia to New Zealand for which New Zealand has to be thankful to their Tasmanian rivals. However, things didn't start as though New Zealand would win the match when they lost 4 wickets for a score less than 100 on the board.
The score was 25 by the time the 2nd wicket had fallen and scorecard suggests that the New Zealand openers - Brendon McCullum and Martin Guptill had scores of 1 and 7 respectively. New Zealand could score a total which was only somewhere near to the total that they could manage in their earlier games. In the 4th ODI at Auckland, they ended up scoring 238 runs and in the 3rd ODI at Hamilton, they were found to score just 245 runs compared to the 241 they put up in the last one dayer which they appeared to win convincingly.
One has to wonder as to how come New Zealand could manage to defend a similar total in the inconsequential match at Wellington when they could not even come close to doing the same in the previous one dayers at Hamilton and Auckland respectively. And, the way Australia played was just another instance of a captain's immaturity when Ponting went into the fifth ODI with a full strength Australian team when he could have rested some senior players like Watson & Johnson and instead played some lesser talent like Bailey. Neither did Ponting go in for a whitewash nor did he give some lesser talent a little bit of match practice.
Friday, March 12, 2010
New Zealand no match for Aussies!
It was just unfortunate for Australia to lose the first match of the Chappel-Hadlee series against New Zealand when a last moment risk from Scott Styris saw Australia with the last option of making it to the presentation ceremony first before Vettori had to. And, from then onwards, needless to be said, it has been only Aussies to have been walking away with the honors of the day. If not for the 2nd one dayer, the remaining two one dayers were completely dominated by Australia. And, this time in the fourth ODI, Australia dismissed Kiwis' claim in the 2nd ODI.
In the 2nd one dayer at Auckland, New Zealand were found blaming the Duckworth-Lewis method for their team's loss against Australia which saw their required number of runs being reduced by just 8 runs and the number of balls being reduced by 30. And, this time, it was the Aussies who were found facing the same situation when rain tried to play a spoilsport. The revised target for Australia happened to be 200 runs from 32 overs as against the 238 run target they were supposed to chase from 50 overs had everything gone alright. Meaning the number of runs required was reduced by just 39 and the number of balls by 96.
Had the game went on smoothly, and than Australia would have had to chase at the rate of just above 4.0 an over, which happened to be just below 6.0 an over after the rain interruption. The main thing that proved costly for the Kiwis was their batting which saw the 2nd highest score in their innings happened to be scored by a number 8 batsman in Darryl Tuffey who bought in all his experience. If not for Bollinger, all the Aussie bowlers returned with wickets and a run rate below 6.0 an over. Most of the Kiwi batsmen were batting as though it was a test match that would end in a draw.
And, when it came to the batting of Australian team, similar to their bowling, if not for one batsmen in Brad Haddin, the rest of them showed no signs of fear and mercy in belting the New Zealand bowlers. One Aussie batsman in Ricky Ponting was found having 8 hits to the fence which was 75% of what the entire New Zealand team put together could do. However, when it came to the number of sixes hit, New Zealand managed to take the upperhand when their team had 9 sixes compared to just 3 from the Aussie side. However, once again, the man-of-the-match was not justified. Scorecard suggests that it was Ricky Ponting who should have been awarded the Mom which was unfortunately awarded to White.
In the 2nd one dayer at Auckland, New Zealand were found blaming the Duckworth-Lewis method for their team's loss against Australia which saw their required number of runs being reduced by just 8 runs and the number of balls being reduced by 30. And, this time, it was the Aussies who were found facing the same situation when rain tried to play a spoilsport. The revised target for Australia happened to be 200 runs from 32 overs as against the 238 run target they were supposed to chase from 50 overs had everything gone alright. Meaning the number of runs required was reduced by just 39 and the number of balls by 96.
Had the game went on smoothly, and than Australia would have had to chase at the rate of just above 4.0 an over, which happened to be just below 6.0 an over after the rain interruption. The main thing that proved costly for the Kiwis was their batting which saw the 2nd highest score in their innings happened to be scored by a number 8 batsman in Darryl Tuffey who bought in all his experience. If not for Bollinger, all the Aussie bowlers returned with wickets and a run rate below 6.0 an over. Most of the Kiwi batsmen were batting as though it was a test match that would end in a draw.
And, when it came to the batting of Australian team, similar to their bowling, if not for one batsmen in Brad Haddin, the rest of them showed no signs of fear and mercy in belting the New Zealand bowlers. One Aussie batsman in Ricky Ponting was found having 8 hits to the fence which was 75% of what the entire New Zealand team put together could do. However, when it came to the number of sixes hit, New Zealand managed to take the upperhand when their team had 9 sixes compared to just 3 from the Aussie side. However, once again, the man-of-the-match was not justified. Scorecard suggests that it was Ricky Ponting who should have been awarded the Mom which was unfortunately awarded to White.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Australia do it effortlessly
Well after two matches that ended in tense moments, with both Australia and New Zealand fighting it until the last legal delivery was bowled and the last run scored or conceded, there was finally a game that proved one team to be stronger than the other. And as obvious it has been, that one team that had to be sideline from the other happened to be Australia. Though Australia won the second one dayer at Auckland by 12 runs, the victory couldn't guarantee Australia a convincing sleep, with reports suggesting that it was the D-L method that helped Australia achieve the task.
In the 3rd ODI which Australia won, the Australian bowlers did everything right if not for the toss which should have seen Ricky Ponting choose to bat rather than to bowl. Though Australia won the match convincingly, it would have been a better decision from Ponting had he chosen to bat first with the seamers not being able to extract anything from the surface. However, despite the ball being unable to swing, it was enough to trouble the New Zealand batsmen who kept on losing wickets at regular intervals. The final score of 245 was not at all an issue in chasing for the Australians who are gifted with atleast 7 specialist batsmen in their side.
The New Zealand team needed contribution from as many as 7 batsmen who departed after scoring double digit figures, with 5 of them scoring between 20 and 40 or above. But, when the same was considered from the Australians' side, they needed the efforts of just 2 batsmen in Ponting and Haddin, whose work was continued by White and Voges. No bowler from the New Zealand side could take a wicket until the 33rd over, after Watson was run out in the 7th over. Highlights suggests that there were two chance given to Haddin when the batsman was on 8 and on 83, both of which were tough ones but gettable as well.
And, this is the difference between a team that dominates and that which wins with a combined effort. A dominating team makes chances for itself and a strong team looks for chances while an ordinary team only welcomes chances. Finally, a weak team likeBangladesh West Indies lets go off a chance despite being forced to accept one. And NZ belongs to the third category that can only make it count when things favor them. One thing that was evident from the match was that, a 35 yer old mason, who should have retired by now was found making a comeback to the international after he was last found playing for NZ in July last year against Scotland.
In the 3rd ODI which Australia won, the Australian bowlers did everything right if not for the toss which should have seen Ricky Ponting choose to bat rather than to bowl. Though Australia won the match convincingly, it would have been a better decision from Ponting had he chosen to bat first with the seamers not being able to extract anything from the surface. However, despite the ball being unable to swing, it was enough to trouble the New Zealand batsmen who kept on losing wickets at regular intervals. The final score of 245 was not at all an issue in chasing for the Australians who are gifted with atleast 7 specialist batsmen in their side.
The New Zealand team needed contribution from as many as 7 batsmen who departed after scoring double digit figures, with 5 of them scoring between 20 and 40 or above. But, when the same was considered from the Australians' side, they needed the efforts of just 2 batsmen in Ponting and Haddin, whose work was continued by White and Voges. No bowler from the New Zealand side could take a wicket until the 33rd over, after Watson was run out in the 7th over. Highlights suggests that there were two chance given to Haddin when the batsman was on 8 and on 83, both of which were tough ones but gettable as well.
And, this is the difference between a team that dominates and that which wins with a combined effort. A dominating team makes chances for itself and a strong team looks for chances while an ordinary team only welcomes chances. Finally, a weak team like
Sunday, March 7, 2010
Luck shifts from NZ to OZ
Finally, yesterday in the 2nd one dayer between Australia and New Zealand, it was Australia who was finally declared winners after the last New Zealand wicket fell and not until the last legal Aussie delivery bowled. This is quite obvious when all the odds namely the weather, the opposition and the team itself favors only one team and aides its victory. Fortunately, for Australia it was also the toss that they won which helped them level the series 1-1 at present. Added to that was Ponting chose to bat first on a pitch where chasing a decent total would not have been that difficult.
The pitch to a greater extent suited the batsmen which saw all Aussie batsmen but Ponting and Michael Clarke contribute with the willow. The Aussie batting progressed in a slow and steady manner with even the pinch hitter Mitchell Johnson providing his share by scoring at a rate of more than run a ball during his unbeaten score of 16 runs from 13 balls. On the otherside, even the bowlers from the New Zealand side did not lag far behind in showing some sort of discipline in their bowling by making use of the Australians' fear for spin bowling when Vettori bowled 10 overs.
Bad luck struck the New Zealand side when play was suspended for a small duration owing to rain delays on two occasions and as it always happens, the side batting second always has to pay a heavier price for no mistake of theirs. The number of balls was reduced by 30 and the number of runs required to win the match was reduced by just 9. And, the time has not yet come for anybody to dispute the Duckworth Lewis method which has seen so many deserving teams lose out to non deserving ones. However, this time luck had to favor the Australian side no matter what.
The situation was the same like the one in the first one dayer where a slog shot from Styris saw the ball clear the fence and ensure a win for the Kiwis. The same slog shot could have even been a miscue and landed safe in one of the eleven Aussie fielders' hands. Or, Styris could have been beaten and in the process the stumps rattled. But, it was luck that batted for New Zealand in the form of Scott Styris. And this time, it should have been the top order batsmen to have made things easier for New Zealand and not the late middle order in Vettori trying to settle down issues.
Finally, there was a reason for the Kiwis to smile when Daniel Vettori was awarded the man of the match for his contribution with both the bat as well as the ball. Otherwise, New Zealand never deserved anything much.
The pitch to a greater extent suited the batsmen which saw all Aussie batsmen but Ponting and Michael Clarke contribute with the willow. The Aussie batting progressed in a slow and steady manner with even the pinch hitter Mitchell Johnson providing his share by scoring at a rate of more than run a ball during his unbeaten score of 16 runs from 13 balls. On the otherside, even the bowlers from the New Zealand side did not lag far behind in showing some sort of discipline in their bowling by making use of the Australians' fear for spin bowling when Vettori bowled 10 overs.
Bad luck struck the New Zealand side when play was suspended for a small duration owing to rain delays on two occasions and as it always happens, the side batting second always has to pay a heavier price for no mistake of theirs. The number of balls was reduced by 30 and the number of runs required to win the match was reduced by just 9. And, the time has not yet come for anybody to dispute the Duckworth Lewis method which has seen so many deserving teams lose out to non deserving ones. However, this time luck had to favor the Australian side no matter what.
The situation was the same like the one in the first one dayer where a slog shot from Styris saw the ball clear the fence and ensure a win for the Kiwis. The same slog shot could have even been a miscue and landed safe in one of the eleven Aussie fielders' hands. Or, Styris could have been beaten and in the process the stumps rattled. But, it was luck that batted for New Zealand in the form of Scott Styris. And this time, it should have been the top order batsmen to have made things easier for New Zealand and not the late middle order in Vettori trying to settle down issues.
Finally, there was a reason for the Kiwis to smile when Daniel Vettori was awarded the man of the match for his contribution with both the bat as well as the ball. Otherwise, New Zealand never deserved anything much.
Friday, March 5, 2010
Australia wants more from Ponting
Well after Australia's loss to New Zealand at Napier a couple of days back, tongues have to wag for the losing team. This happens to be either some lame excuses which form the reason for losing or the strength that the opposition is aided with that inversely hit them. However, Ricky Ponting comes out asking more from the Aussie batsmen when scoreboard suggests that the Aussie batsmen have done enough to see their team through the match which unfortunately didn't happen at Napier. It was just a matter of time that Australia get back to their winning ways which can be proved in the next 4 ODIs that follow.
This was more or less Dhoni's words when he comes out blaming the batsmen for India's loss in the finals of the tri nation tournament featuring Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and India a couple of months back. However, though the batsmen should have put up atleast a score of 300 on the board, Ponting's words are not completely justified whatsoever. Every Australian batsman put up a score in excess of 10 runs which is not guaranteed in case of a touring team that loses. Australia had a depth in batting upto number 9 until Mitchell Johnson who can prove something with the bat.
Ricky Ponting justifies his words citing the team total which was at one stage 50/1 at the end of the 6th over with the run rate above 8.0 an over, without realizing the advantage of the powerplay that the batsmen were enjoying. Even a run rate of over 10 an over at that stage should not raise eye brows. And, how can one extrapolate the final match score with just 6 overs been bowled? If this is the way calculation can go on, a match should yield a total in excess of a thousand incase the 1st over goes for 20 runs and the same is expected to happen for the remaining 49 overs.
Meanwhile, Ponting should take a look at his own captaincy when the way he used his bowlers is given a close look at. Despite going in for over 6 an over, Bollinger is given to bowl his entire quota of 10 overs. One has to wonder as to what on earth made Ponting go in for full pace attack leaving little room for the spinners to cash in. Ponting had spinners like Michael Clarke and Nathan Hauritz who bowled just 5 overs. Despite decades of experience, Ponting was found forgetting the fact that the batsmen from New Zealand are bad players of spin bowling. The Aussie bowling was found to oscillate between medium pace and fast bowling.
Whatever, despite all these mishaps from Ponting, he must consider himself lucky enough for coming close to winning and not losing in a one sided manner.
This was more or less Dhoni's words when he comes out blaming the batsmen for India's loss in the finals of the tri nation tournament featuring Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and India a couple of months back. However, though the batsmen should have put up atleast a score of 300 on the board, Ponting's words are not completely justified whatsoever. Every Australian batsman put up a score in excess of 10 runs which is not guaranteed in case of a touring team that loses. Australia had a depth in batting upto number 9 until Mitchell Johnson who can prove something with the bat.
Ricky Ponting justifies his words citing the team total which was at one stage 50/1 at the end of the 6th over with the run rate above 8.0 an over, without realizing the advantage of the powerplay that the batsmen were enjoying. Even a run rate of over 10 an over at that stage should not raise eye brows. And, how can one extrapolate the final match score with just 6 overs been bowled? If this is the way calculation can go on, a match should yield a total in excess of a thousand incase the 1st over goes for 20 runs and the same is expected to happen for the remaining 49 overs.
Meanwhile, Ponting should take a look at his own captaincy when the way he used his bowlers is given a close look at. Despite going in for over 6 an over, Bollinger is given to bowl his entire quota of 10 overs. One has to wonder as to what on earth made Ponting go in for full pace attack leaving little room for the spinners to cash in. Ponting had spinners like Michael Clarke and Nathan Hauritz who bowled just 5 overs. Despite decades of experience, Ponting was found forgetting the fact that the batsmen from New Zealand are bad players of spin bowling. The Aussie bowling was found to oscillate between medium pace and fast bowling.
Whatever, despite all these mishaps from Ponting, he must consider himself lucky enough for coming close to winning and not losing in a one sided manner.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Australia redefines homesickness
Well, after losing the first one day international to New Zealand yesterday, Australia reminded the word homesickness which has a different meaning in the world of cricket. Australia lost a match to New Zealand which was after a series of victories against Pakistan and West Indies in all formats of the game of cricket. All that Australia could lose in the gap was the first test to the West Indies in December which ended in a draw and the 3rd one dayer which was abandoned. If not for these, Australia won all the tests, one dayers and T20 games that it played.
However, all the aforementioned victories that Australia enjoyed until now was at home. Nevermind that at times, Australia popped up from a never again position and went on to win the game. This was in the Sydney test against Pakistan and in the only T20 game against the same. In both cases where Australia were bundled out for 127 runs on board. And also not to mention the T20 win against New Zealand in the 1st followed by a tie in the 2nd (though the match was handed over to NZ after the super over) . Now, Australia is found to be facing the heat with a loss in the 1st ODI to the Kiwis.
Had the same match been played at home, Australia would no doubt been victorious. The lat match before the one under discussion that Australia lost was against India on its tour at Delhi in the 3rd one dayer. Since then, Australia had not lost even a single match irrespective of the format of the game that it was playing. Whatever, this loss need not termed as the end of the road for Australia. Not only regarding the fact that there are 4 more ODIs to go but also that Australia lost the match by a close margin which it can make up in the next meeting at Auckland.
However, more than the loss that Australia suffered, the main thing that is bound to haunt them is the timing of the loss. As cited above, Australia had won all of its encounters against Windies and Pakistan at home and a loss in the very first encounter to New Zealand down under will surely make fingers point towards Australia regarding their victory restricted only to home conditions and nowhere when it comes outside it. There is more of a probablity that Australia will win the series but, it is the margin of victory that matters. Will it be a 4-1 or a 3-2 win for Aussies which makes the difference!
However, all the aforementioned victories that Australia enjoyed until now was at home. Nevermind that at times, Australia popped up from a never again position and went on to win the game. This was in the Sydney test against Pakistan and in the only T20 game against the same. In both cases where Australia were bundled out for 127 runs on board. And also not to mention the T20 win against New Zealand in the 1st followed by a tie in the 2nd (though the match was handed over to NZ after the super over) . Now, Australia is found to be facing the heat with a loss in the 1st ODI to the Kiwis.
Had the same match been played at home, Australia would no doubt been victorious. The lat match before the one under discussion that Australia lost was against India on its tour at Delhi in the 3rd one dayer. Since then, Australia had not lost even a single match irrespective of the format of the game that it was playing. Whatever, this loss need not termed as the end of the road for Australia. Not only regarding the fact that there are 4 more ODIs to go but also that Australia lost the match by a close margin which it can make up in the next meeting at Auckland.
However, more than the loss that Australia suffered, the main thing that is bound to haunt them is the timing of the loss. As cited above, Australia had won all of its encounters against Windies and Pakistan at home and a loss in the very first encounter to New Zealand down under will surely make fingers point towards Australia regarding their victory restricted only to home conditions and nowhere when it comes outside it. There is more of a probablity that Australia will win the series but, it is the margin of victory that matters. Will it be a 4-1 or a 3-2 win for Aussies which makes the difference!
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Why Brett Lee cites the IPL and not the NZ tour?
Well one has to feel happy that the Australian speedster Brett Lee has promised to be fit for the upcoming third edition of the Indian Premier League. I take your pardon- Brett Lee hopes to be completely fit for the upcoming IPL. This has to be a good news for cricket fans in India who would be looking forward to see him in action in the cash rich and entertainment rich tournament. More happier people would be the Kings XI Punjab who have already taken a blow when Yuvraj Singh was sacked as the captain and replaced by Kumara Sangakkara.
Anyways, that might not be an issue as far as the fans of Kings XI Punjab players or fans are considered and likewise, even Sangakkara has not been a bad captain for Sri Lanka. And the happiest man to be fit for the IPL would be Brett Lee himself, failing which he would also compromise with the payment he is bound to receive in case he opts out of the tournament. Needless to be said, Brett Lee was last found playing international cricket for Australia way back in October in the 7 match one day series against India last year in the 1st ODI at Vadodara.
There itself, Brett Lee had given a hint that he would not be fit for the next one dayer and since then has never been for for any international matches. Moreover, Brett Lee has made news for the wrong reasons when he retired from test cricket recently. However, when it comes to big tournaments like the world T20 and the cash rich IPL, any lazy bugger has to get up and come out shouting that he is fit irrespective of whether he is fit or not and Brett Lee is no exception. So has been the case with players like Sreesanth, Muralitharan to name a few who have given a fitness certificate about themselves when it mattered in the IPL and were nowhere in the scene when it came to playing international matches for their country.
Whatever, one thing that is to be noticed is that there is an ongoing one day series between Australia and New Zealand and will go on as scheduled until the 31st of this month, which would be more than 2 weeks after the IPl would have kicked in. But Brett Lee has neither been figured in the squad that played the 2 T20 games and also for the one day series that follows. And nothing needs to be cited specially regarding the 2 match test series that follows. Brett Lee was least bothered about the aforementioned tournaments and now comes shouting that he can play in the IPL. I wish Symonds should learn from Brett Lee how to handle such a situation.
Anyways, that might not be an issue as far as the fans of Kings XI Punjab players or fans are considered and likewise, even Sangakkara has not been a bad captain for Sri Lanka. And the happiest man to be fit for the IPL would be Brett Lee himself, failing which he would also compromise with the payment he is bound to receive in case he opts out of the tournament. Needless to be said, Brett Lee was last found playing international cricket for Australia way back in October in the 7 match one day series against India last year in the 1st ODI at Vadodara.
There itself, Brett Lee had given a hint that he would not be fit for the next one dayer and since then has never been for for any international matches. Moreover, Brett Lee has made news for the wrong reasons when he retired from test cricket recently. However, when it comes to big tournaments like the world T20 and the cash rich IPL, any lazy bugger has to get up and come out shouting that he is fit irrespective of whether he is fit or not and Brett Lee is no exception. So has been the case with players like Sreesanth, Muralitharan to name a few who have given a fitness certificate about themselves when it mattered in the IPL and were nowhere in the scene when it came to playing international matches for their country.
Whatever, one thing that is to be noticed is that there is an ongoing one day series between Australia and New Zealand and will go on as scheduled until the 31st of this month, which would be more than 2 weeks after the IPl would have kicked in. But Brett Lee has neither been figured in the squad that played the 2 T20 games and also for the one day series that follows. And nothing needs to be cited specially regarding the 2 match test series that follows. Brett Lee was least bothered about the aforementioned tournaments and now comes shouting that he can play in the IPL. I wish Symonds should learn from Brett Lee how to handle such a situation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)