Jesse Ryder is just confusing

Well the latest from the world of cricket we learn is that the New Zealand captain Ross Taylor insists that the injury prone New Zealand (obviously) batsman bowler player has to restrict himself from bowling (no matter what sort of deliveries) owing to an injury in his calf muscle which has off-late been successful in having Ryder warm the benches during the first and the only test against Zimbabwe at Bulwayo which will be starting in a couple of moments from now onwards. This, we understand that happened during a warm up game against the same that he encountered the injury while bowling at nets.

Injuries can happen anywhere and at anytime and last but not the least to anyone and Jesse Ryder is no exception. But, the news is that Jesse Ryder happens to battle injuries more than battling the opposition out there in the middle since late last year and to be more precise in the series against India in India. Jesse Ryder missed the one day series against India last year owing to the same calf muscle injury. Ahead of that, there were problems for Ryder with his elbow and abductor muscle. Still that should not be a problem for New Zealand and once again, injuries do not follow any routine.

But, when Jesse Ryder happens to battle injuries and that too career threatening ones, one has to have a close look at his type of play which suggests that Jesse Ryder is a medium fast bowler and bowls occasionally and not a full time bowler say like Daniel Vettori and Shane Bond. On the otherhand, he is a batsmen who gets in at number six at which time either winning the match or else losing the same would have been a certainty. It is just amazing to see such a player battling injuries and that too more frequently. Just confusing!

The batsman until now has played only 37 one dayers and 16 test matches. And now, this has become a reason of concern for the Kiwi captain Ross Taylor who wants to keep Ryder away from bowling. One has to wonder what makes Taylor worry about the absence of the bowling of Ryder when there are other bowlers who can do the job for New Zealand and with Ryder being a part-time bowler, the job gets reduced a little bit. It should not be a worry if Ryder misses the test against Zimbabwe when there are better and challenging games coming ahead.

Only the amount will tell

Well I just can't figure out why anybody on earth has to justify himself when he has caused no harm to others in anyway and this happened recently when I read the news about New Zealand cricket denying any reports that suspects them to have forced the retired Sri Lankan off spinner Muttiah Muralitharaan to play for his country's domestic season where he would be turning up for Wellington. Once again it has to be stupid when Larsen says "Muralitharan loves touring New Zealand" . Why should that comment come in between his appointment and his love for the country?

When the Sri Lankan off spinner has called it a day from test cricket almost a year ago when he played against India and bid a farewell to the limited overs cricket once again against India in the finals at Mumbai, who has the right to ask the off spinner what he has decided to go about in his life after cricket? What better work does Muralitharan got to do after he has ended his international cricketing career? If at all he can do something now, it is play for some domestic teams and that to as long as his mind and body supports him.

At present, Muralitharan is now spending his time playing for Kochi Tuskers Kerala with his contribution to his team and his fans not so important at the moment. I really do not have the patience to go through any major cricket sites to check out for how much the Sri Lankan off spinner signed. But, I can just guess that the amount that Muralitharan would be receiving from KTK would be fairly large compared to what the authorities of New Zealand cricket would have paid him to play for Wellington. When the Kochi team owners can declare their payment one has to wonder why not the NZC?

It is the matter of the past that Muttiah Muralitharan is the leading wicket taker in the world in both forms of the game. But, Muralitharan was never the match winner that he was in the recently concluded world cup in the sub-continent. Having signed up Muralitharan is as god as signing up someone else and for that one need not hide their anxiety and give lame excuses over his recruitment. How would it matter for how much has Muralitharan been signed for by NZC? By the way, the exact amount that Murali was signed for is not revealed. Has he been paid a bomb that the NZC is fear of drawing in criticism? Well this is just for the sake of curiosity.

New Zealand still in WC trauma

Well regular visits to a cricket website reveals the depth to which the Kiwi players have had to undergo for ending their world cup dreams in the semi finals itself for the 5^th time. Four of their defeats have been to sub-continent nations, two each to Pakistan and Sri Lanka. One can take a wild guess that even the Aussies might have forgot what would have happened a week ago before Shane Watson blasted the Bangladeshi bowlers out of Bangladesh (if given a chance). This was the first time the Aussies have lost the world cup since the new shape of the world cup was introduced in 1999.

I wish it is high time for the Kiwis to realize that only one team can win the world cup and should be contended with not only being one of the 4 teams that made it to the semi-finals but also to be the only nation from the sub-continent to have done so this time. Of course, there was no 4th team from the sub-continent which could make it to the semi-finals of a world cup and there had to ne a non sub-continent nation to fill that vacancy. Still, that could have been some Australia, South Africa or England who could have made it there.

But, the Kiwis should be fortunate to have been there. Once again, New Zealand were the only nation who never faced a sub-continent nation in the quarter-finals of the world cup. And, had they played either of the three teams from the sub-continent, New Zealand's fate would have been decided then itself, thus paving way for any of the teams mentioned above. However, even after two weeks if this is found to worry the Kiwi coach-John Wright more than anybody else, it has to be justified because John Wright had coached India in the 2003 world cup which India lost surrendered.

I don't know whether any coach has been able to do it earlier but, if that is false, then John Wright will be the only coach to have seen two of the teams that he has coached to have made it to the finals of a world cup. However, if John Wright's statement needs a reconsideration, then it is worth mentioning that if New Zealand lost only against Sri Lanka (twice) and Australia then their wins have been only against Pakistan and South Africa. That balances the equation 3-2 favoring the Kiwis. This deleted show desktop icon is my site of the day for you guys.

No choker, only inefficient tag

I don't think the chokers tag is well suited for South Africa since the 2003 world cup when they were hardly the team that anybody would have wanted to beat. I can still remember the then South African captain-Shaun Pollock being given an over short in their 1^st game against West Indies which was solely South Africa's fault for maintaining a slow over rate bowling first. And then there was the match against New Zealand where though South Africa managed a satisfactory 307 provided by Herschelle Gibbs, Stephen Fleming's men also had equal zest in them to fight it out on the field.

New Zealand were given a revised target of 229 runs from 39 overs which was still over run a ball. All odds supported New Zealand despite South Africa having scored a 300+ total for, the Kiwis lost just one wicket en route to their successful run chase. The last was the game against Sri Lanka where a wrong signal from the stands ended the match in a draw and with it the South African dream not only in the world cup but also to reach the super sixes. Sri Lanka did their part of the game best by not relying on their wins against West Indies and New Zealand alone.

Atapattu did a fab job scoring 124* from 118 balls showing equal fight rather than just being a team that would cash out from the bad luck that the Proteas are believed to be cursed with. So was the case in 2007 when South Africans were far from being the favorites. With a miserable loss to Australia twice that included a complete surrender to Glenn McGrath in the semi-finals and New Zealand along with a clueless loss to Bangladesh, it was lack of the presence of India and Pakistan that saw South Africa in the semi-finals. I just cannot tell you My view on anything and everything under the sun.

The South Africans were favorites to win the cup only in the 1996 and 1999 editions where they had beaten all opponents in the league stages until they lost the plot in the knock out games against West Indies and Australia. This time, the South Africans have to consider themselves lucky to have ended up as the top team beating India and West Indies. A loss against England chasing 173 cannot be justified and neither can the loss yesterday against the Kiwis with the likes of Smith, deVilliars and Kallis. South Africa are gifted with the most promising squad even better than Sri Lanka and India. But, lack of commitment needs a heavy payment.

Bad grouping of teams evident from the quarter final line up

Well keeping in mind the quarter finals of the world cup, this just seems to be a mismatch with Pakistan not only having an upper hand against the Caribbean but also the West Indies might never ever be able to regroup once the quarter finals against Pakistan be over in the next 8 hours to come. Also the other side would be Sri Lanka who are scheduled to face England on Saturday. No doubt that both these teams would enter with minimum or no effort into the semi-finals of the world cup. But, is this right on the part of the ICC is a million dollar question.

There is no particular team like the Aussies in the past two world cups to have a birthright on the world cup. And neither have Bangladesh and Zimbabwe been underdogs as they have been expected. But, if things are given a close look at, it looks that group A is gifted with weaker teams compared to group B. Group A has two teams from the sub-continent namely Sri Lanka and Pakistan who always have an upper hand being the hosts and enjoying home like conditions. I all blame it on Australia to have deceived the ICC who came out with such grouping of teams.

In group B, only India is a team worth having anyone's bet into. Though South Africa have emerged on the top of the table, it was India who gifted them with a victory by losing 9 wickets for 28 runs with all odds predicting a 350+ total at the end of the Indian innings. Added to that, there were mismatches in England's games against Ireland and Bangladesh which reduced England's chances that in turn favored South Africa to end as the top team. Had England won against Ireland and Bangladesh, they would have been on the top and not the Proteas.

Teams like Zimbabwe, Kenya, Canada and Holland never made their presence felt. However, Ireland and Bangladesh did. Both Ireland and Bangladesh were far superior compared to Kenya, Canada and Zimbabwe in group A. One has to take a deeper look to Explore reality. West Indies on the other hand proved a 2^nd chance for teams like England and India. In group A, All four teams played to their potential with minnows aside. Pakistan beat Australia which in turn beat New Zealand. If I was in place of Lorgat, I'd have put Australia in group B and South Africa in group B and Bangladesh in group A while Zimbabwe would have been in group B.

Long gaps in world cups

I just happened to come across a JMF Bloogger before I could point out long gaps in cricket world cups wherein a team has not won a single match against a particular opposition or has been a long time since a team has had an upset in a world cup. A couple of Saturdays before, Pakistan beat Sri Lanka by 11 runs, which was Pakistan's 8th victory over the island nation in the history of a world cup keeping the world T20 apart. Sri Lanka was awarded the test status in 1983, partially considering their win over India in a prudential cup.

Matches between Pakistan and Sri Lanka have been played in 1975, 1983, 1987,1992 and 2011 offlate with Pakistan meeting Sri Lanka twice in 1987 and 1983. Viewers had to wait for 5 world cup to see a Pakistan-Sri Lanka match which was last played in 1992. Similar results include India's victory over Pakistan in all four meetings since 1992 till 2003. And then, India's last win over Australia was in 1987 when the Mohammed Azharuddin led team beat Australia by 56 runs at Delhi. Since then, India have lost 5 matches to Australia with two in the 2003 edition and one each in the others.

The best part being that in their 1^st encounter, Australia reduced India to their lowest world cup total of 125 and in the other Australia notched their highest world cup total against India or India conceded the most number of runs in a world cup when Australia ended their innings at 359/2 at Centurion. In 2007, neither did India face Pakistan nor did they play Australia. As mentioned in one of my earlier posts recently, New Zealand needed 28 years to find a win against Pakistan in a world cup match. The Kiwis had last won a match against Pakistan in 1975.

Of course, matches between a test playing nation and a non test playing nation cannot prove any different results unless the strong team underestimates the weaker opposition. New Zealand last won a game against Sri Lanka in 1992 when the Martin Crowe led New Zealand chased down the Sri Lankans' total of 207 with 6 wickets to spare. New Zealand since then have lost to Sri Lanka in 2003 and twice in 2007 with Jayawardane's captain's knock being the famous one in the semi finals of the 2007 world cup. Prior to 1992, Sri Lanka's games are as good as those involving today's Bangladesh or Zimbabwe.

Why is the ICC disgusting at times?

Well yesterday there were two matches of the world cup being held, one of them being between Australia and Kenya and the other one involving Canada and New Zealand. As expected Australia and New Zealand notched up their wins against the minnows. This is no something to complain about. But, one thing that is not worth tolerating is that these matches are held on weekends rather than conducting on weekdays where there are little takers for the match. Unable to tolerate this boredom, I had to go through brain blogs, areman, areman's brain blogs to satisfy myself rather than go through the same.

If one can take a look at the entire schedule of the world cup, it is interesting to see that there have been 4 Sundays and an equal number of Saturdays starting from 19^th February. The matches held are as follows: 19^th Feb saw the only match between India and Bangladesh while on 20^th there were two games, both of which were involving minnows Kenya and Canada. Though 26^th February saw a tough fight between Pakistan and Sri Lanka, on 27^th Feb things once again took a backseat with there being only one match between India and England played at Bangalore.

Coming further in this regard, next on the list is the matches between England and South Africa on one side with India battling Ireland on the other. One of them were worth watching while the other was not really. Owing to bad luck and rains, the match between Sri Lanka and Australia had to be called off which left another Saturday with viewers cursing. That was the first match to be washed away by rains and one has to no doubt curse the rain Gods for choosing an odd day and an odd match to play a spoilsport in Sri Lanka.

Traveling still further on the schedule, there was Australia playing Kenya and New Zealand playing Canada. Even if the next couple of weekends are considered, the matches scheduled hardly evoke any sort of interest. Luckily, Pakistan plays Australia and India plays West Indies the coming Saturday and Sunday respectively. With the Pakistan-Australia match scheduled in Colombo, one has to pray God that rain doesn't do another Sri Lanka-Australia there. Following that, only one out of four quarter finals are scheduled on weekends and the final. As a matter of suggestion, England-WI and Pakistan-NZ could have been held on weekends with India-Ireland and Australia-Kenya held on weekdays.

Can anyone tell this to the ICC?

New Zealand break the jinx

Despite the world cup going on so smoothly, god knows what on earth made me to go for Bare & Barren. But, that didn't take much time before I could switch back to blogging about cricket which is now going through its all time high with the 10th edition of the world cup keeping all eyes glued to the television sets. Yesterday, there was a rare match between Pakistan and New Zealand which needless to be said New Zealand won convincingly by 110 runs. This would not have been the case had the match been played somewhere in Pakistan rather than at Pallekele.

I just can't last remember when New Zealand had defeated Pakistan in a cricket world cup. I have been watching the event since 1992 and since then, the teams have met on five occasions, all of which have been pocketed by Pakistan. The jackpot struck twice in 1992 and 1999 world cup when Pakistan had two wins against New Zealand, the former being responsible in seeing Pakistan lift their maiden world cup and the latter their second entry into the finals of a world cup. In 1999, it can be said that Pakistan had their maiden runners-up tag which is not too bad.

If anyone comes to the decision that Pakistan are lucky in case they encounter New Zealand in the knock stages of the world cup, I'd like to add an exception citing Pakistan's loss to the Kiwis in the champions trophy 2009 when the Kiwis ran the Pakistanis out of the contest as well as the trophy when they beat them at Johannesburg by 5 wickets. If not for that, all is well for the Pakistanis for they beat them in two world cup semifinals and in the world T20 2007 at South Africa. But, this time things have been different compared to the last 5 world cups.

It was way back in the 1983 world cup that New Zealand had last beaten Pakistan at Birmingham by 52 runs. Pakistan didn't face the Kiwis in 1975, 1979 and 1987 world cups. And, the last they played each other was in 1999 and since then it has been three world cups since they have met each other. Things may be or may not have been different had they played in those world cups as well. But, the victory would have been a delight for the Kiwis which saw them beat Pakistan after 28 years or 7 world cups including this edition.

How can cricket in Ireland flourish?

Well in today's cricketing world, almost every country is into controversies with doubts being raised whether it is regarding the idea to make headlines in major cricket or sports websites or to just be in the news no matter whether it is for the good or the bad reasons. And, Ireland has proven not to be an exception as well. Well, though the post doesn't take into consideration about Ireland's intention, one has to question the integrity of the sport called cricket in Ireland which at present is showing signs of upraise. They have shown decent improvement in cricket the day since they made entry into the big stage.

Needless to be said, they beat Pakistan in the pool stage of the 2007 world cup at the Caribbean after ending up with a tie in their another league stage encounter with Zimbabwe. And to make it better, they beat Bangladesh in the super eights of the tournament, which saw to it that they never returned with empty hands from the super eights. They once again beat Bangladesh in the 2^nd world T20 held at England which saw them make it to the super eights of a world cup for yet another time. Though this fact may not go well with cricket enthusiasts, they could manage what India could in the super eights.

Precisely speaking, India came down to the level where Ireland were placed by the end of the super eights, when they lost all the three matches they played in the super eights. Luckily, Ireland could manage what even world champions - Australia couldn't in the 2009 edition of the world T20 when they made it to the super eights while the Aussies couldn't. If you are bored with cricket, then Movies reviews here after read and you can watch the movie at theater . Anyways, coming back, despite all these interesting facts about Ireland, the way things are going on thereafter is just disappointing.

News has its say that two players namely Hamish Marshall from New Zealand and Ed Joyce from England will be playing for Ireland in the coming ICC major world cup. The reasons for this might be quite obvious that they have little chance of not making their re-entry back to their national squad and they are a better bargain for an upcoming team like Ireland. They are better than any Irish born cricketer atleast in today's cricket. One can imagine if this continues to make rounds with every foreign cricketer trying to find a place in a non-test playing team, what might happen to the cricket in its own soil?

Only NZC can issue awards for its players

Well some fascinating news from New Zealand cricket (NZC) is that Daniel Vettori has been awarded top three of the awards in this year's major awards of the country. To mention the needed, Vettori has been awarded as the player of the year, Winsor cup for 1^st class bowling and Walter Hadlee trophy for the best bowler on ODIs. One aspect that is needed to be mentioned here is that, New Zealand players can be awarded only by their cricket association and no one else. That is what New Zealand have been able to achieve in international cricket until now.

My apologies for not taking pains to go all the way to search as to since when have New Zealanders been playing international cricket. However, if their statistics are given a close look at, it would come as no surprise that New Zealand stand far compared to all other teams but for Bangladesh and Zimbabwe. Of course, South Africa have been able to do exactly what new Zealand could manage which is a totally different issue here. New Zealand are yet to reach the finals of a world cup in its 25 year long history (since 1975 when the 1st world cup was played).

New Zealand players have hardly been able to produce any out standing cricketers be it in any department of the game. The only achievement by New Zealand team is the ICC Champions trophy which they won in 2000 by beating India at Nairobi. They did everything to win the world cup in 1992 only upto the semis where they lost to Pakistan. One has to note down that the maiden win for New Zealand in a tournament containing three or more teams is the ICC champions trophy 2000 as mentioned. They are yet to boast of a batsman who has scored a triple century in tests.

The highest individual score from a batsman from New Zealand is Michael Crowe who got out on a score of 299. Some outstanding names from New Zealand cricket are Sir Richard Hadlee, Martin Crowe, Shane Bond and Daniel Vettori. Of course, players like Brendon McCullum, Chris Cairns and the present bunch are found doing a fab job for New Zealand. But, these players are of no match to say Mark & Steve Waughs, Sachin Tendulkar & Sourav Ganguly, Brian Lara etc from outside New Zealand. Though Shane Bond stands apart from other fast bowlers like Shoaib Akthar and Brett Lee, his career started after them but ended much before them.

So, where else can New Zealand players expect an award if not for their own country? Stop wondering about New Zealand and become a movie fan instead.

Is the NZC influenced by the BCCI?

Should one feel happy for the New Zealand cricket opening an IPL window for its players in the recently concluded eight year agreement between the players' association and national board or feel disgusted and let low for one of the major cricketing power is bowing to another cricket board for reasons best anticipated by one and all following the game of cricket especially in the sub continent? The blog has repeatedly thrown out the other board's reaction to the two cricket leagues in one country when there were biased decisions regarding the IPL and the ICL. Now, there is no need to mentioned the latter.

All major cricketing boards including the one in Bangladesh were against their national players from playing in the rebel league and tried almost everything possible to make way for the other one namely the IPL. Few cricketing greats like Adam Gilchrist and Shane Warne also insisted that the IPL be included among the ICC's future tours program. The unofficial involvement of the BCCI can never be turned down in this regard. There are domestic tournaments happening in every country including non test playing nations like Ireland. But, no one comes out asking for a window for those tournaments no matter what.

The New Zealand cricket had formerly banned star fast bowler Shane Bond from featuring in the national side after he had enrolled for Delhi Gaints in the ICL. And now, the same cricket board has allowed its players that includes Shane Bond to feature in the IPL. Shane Bond has signed for the Kolkata Knight Riders who come in the bottom of the table in every edition played so far. There is hardly any country's cricket board who does not bow to the richest cricket board in the world - the BCCI and New Zealand has also not been an exception whatsoever.

However, the rest of the plans that come under the 8 year agreement is worth giving a thought for every cricket board who insists in taking the game forward in their country. The agreement has references to $65 million which can evoke interest in cricket among any cricketer from New Zealand. I wish this agreement is more valuable than playing in the IPL. But, this agreement is of no use to the BCCI and the IPL and citing a window for the IPL in this agreement can boost ties with the BCCI. This is no freedom for the NZC. In case the NZC wants to enjoy freedom I wish they visit Reko Blogging which may stop it from bowing to money in the form of IPL and BCCI.

Sehwag and New Zealand

Well yesterday, needless to be said, Virender Sehwag scored his latest hundred against New Zealand, a team against which Sehwag had not only scored his maiden ton of his international career in ODIs but also one of the top ten of the fastest hundred at that time. Sehwag's ton, at that time was second best only to Mohammed Azharuddin who had scored a 63 ball hundred against the same New Zealand way back in the early 90s. Virender Sehwag now has five out of his 12 hundreds against New Zealand in one dayers. This can once again prove Viru to be a perfect player for Kiwis.

Back in test match cricket, Virender Sehwag has three out of six double hundreds against Pakistan and that too three in a row in the three series' that were played between the countries between 2004-05 to 2006-07. Virender Sehwag was not a part of the squad of the Indian team that toured Pakistan in 2007 which would have otherwise seen him notch up yet another double century against Pakistan if at all history is to repeat itself. So, Sehwag can be considered as a rare Indian batsman who can silence the Pakistani players who were haunting the Indian side since the rivalry began.

Similar stories exist when V V S Laxman's test history against Australia is given a close look at with both his double hundreds pointing towards Australia. It doesn't matter that both the double hundreds of Laxman have come on home ground no matter that the Eden Gardens innings was an epic in Laxman's test cricket history. Otherwise also, Laxman has scores like 178, 167 and 148 against Australia in Australia. His performance against other teams has been less than satisfactory compared to the ones against Australia. So has been Laxman's hundreds in one dayers where he has four out of the six hundreds against Australia.

Similarly, Brian Lara has a special liking towards Australia and England when history suggests that he has two triple hundreds against England and two double hundreds against Australia though his team used to finish in the losing side. His performance against other teams is well above satisfactory which speaks for him. Lara has double hundreds against all teams except India and New Zealand. So, his liking towards one particular team can be restricted to only England considering the two triple hundreds he has scored against. Coming to Sehwag's issue, the tri series involving India, Sri Lanka and New Zealand always fascinates Sehwag.

Cricket in USA but not by USA

Well news says it that there'd be a two match T20 series involving New Zealand and Sri Lanka at neither Sri Lanka nor in the Kiwi land. Instead the matches will be held in USA keeping in mind the large Asian population in that country. And, with this being the reason, the assertion says something everything different when we hear that the ICC wants to globalize the game of cricket especially the T20 format of the game which is fast evolving. By this, obviously the question whether the ICC really wants to globalize the other two formats of the game or not arises.

There are tests and one day matches which are hungry for takers at the global level and just because there has been a lot of money into the shortest version of the game and the fan following that drives the T20 game, the ICC has everything in store for this format of the game. The iCC looks like it has no concern for that version of the game of cricket where a batsman's real temperament is tested. Neither does the ICC wants to bring forward the one day internationals which has seen bringing in people to the stands despite the 8 hour long day it consumes.

And all these is needless to be said. Coming to the schedule of the two T20 matches as above, it would no doubt be interesting to watch not because the game would approach a step towards globalisation as said by the ICC but for the reason that the teams can get a sense of a new pitch unlike the way it has been happening in the 8-10 countries during the rest of the year. One can see the pitches and the conditions in the American sub continent which is totally different from say Australia or England. This would be the 3^rd nation from the American continent after the Caribbean.

So far, if not for the West Indies & Canada, no other nation from the American continent has been able to make it to the international cricket compared to 5 from Asian continent and the European continent which has seen teams like Holland, Scotland, Bermuda and Ireland along with England. Though these nations don't play test cricket, they are regularly found wearing the team uniform more often than not these days. Similarly there have been teams like Namibia, Zimbabwe and Kenya from the African continent in addition of the presence of the Proteas. Whether the teams that host cricket benefit or not, there can be spectators who can go to stadiums and watch their favorite game which is not the case otherwise.

A mini SCG affair

Well I hope all of the ones reading this post would have thoroughly enjoyed the last ball thriller between Pakistan and New Zealand yesterday which was finally won by New Zealand. It doesn't matter if New Zealand did it by hooks or by crooks. But, the eventual result says that New Zealand wins the match by 1 run and keeps its hopes of making it to the semi finals of the World T20 2010 alive. And this was more important that how it was done by either teams. If one goes through the highlights of the match, he'd be surprised to know that there were three decisions that went in favor of the Kiwis.

First of all was the caught behind of the Kiwi batsman Nathan McCullum which was turned down by the onfield main umpire Billy Doctrove despite the replays suggesting repeatedly that there was definitely an outside edge which went on to find the wicket keeper's hands. But, it has to be fascinating when both the on field umpires couldn't hear the noise which a million odd spectators could hear when seated in front of their television sets. Of course, that didn't matter much when one took the Kiwis' scoring rate in their first innings which was just above 6 an over.

And then in the second innings when Pakistan batted, there were two decisions which went undeservingly towards the New Zealand side when first Misbah Ul Haq was given out leg before when replays suggested that there was a clean inside edge and if that was not enough as though, the ball was found to go above the wicket rather than hit the wicket which forms the main criterion for a batsman to be given out leg before. One edge that would have got a Kiwi batsman out was termed as not out which the other edge which would have seen a Pakistani batsman continue with his batting was given out.

Can anyone of you just believe it! Weather New Zealand would have won the match or not had these decisions been given correctly is all the more a different issue but, can such negligence be forgiven in a tournament which terms someone as champions of the game? Oh! I forgot to mention about the other decision which went to the New Zealand side despite the Kiwis not deserving that as well. If one goes through the replays of the way the Pakistani batsman Shahid Afridi got out, it is clearly evident that the ball had touched the ground before landing into the hands of Ian Butler.

The Kiwis can defend themselves that these were purely umpiring errors irrespective of weather the Kiwis desperately appealed for these dismissals. But, if that is not the case in reality, then its all shame of the Kiwis and also on the umpires.

New Zealand a much happy team now

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 5^th 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 4^th 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 7^th 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 3^rd 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.

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.

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 a tough 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 3^rd 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.

A peculiar Aussie reply

On the 2^nd 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 5^th 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.

Vettori's gift for NZ on his 100th test appearence

Well this is the New Zealand captain Daniel Vettori's 100^th 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 100^th 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 1^st 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 1^st 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.

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.