Hello and welcome back to my blog
The Black Caps have done it at last. It has taken 19 or 26 years (depending on which humiliating marker you prefer to use) but the New Zealand cricket team has finally been victorious over their Australian counterparts in Hobart this week.
The test was played on one of the greener wickets I have seen (certainly the greenest seen IN Australia in many years) and provided an amazing dogfight that saw the tourists secure a victory with a margin of less than 10 runs just as Australia seemed likely to steal it (although cricket historians will tell you that Australia almost never wins with 9 wickets down - 1982? 2005? for instance, but even I had my doubts when just two scoring strokes were required). Young Bracewell collected 9-60 in the match (with 6-40 in the second innings) and recked the home side's seemingly simple task of scoring another 80 runs 20 minutes before the lunch break. His castling of Lyon to win the thing was so emphatic as to bypass the review system that delayed Australia's demise till that point. Credit should also go to Taylor for aggressive field placements, Guptill and Martin for their partnership that ended Phillip Hughes' career and Southee for the crucial wickets of Haddin and Siddle.
I said at the beginning of the series that the audience input into Channel 9's broadcast would annoy me by summer's end but now has already annoyed myself and many others by allowing the ridiculous instance of Warner receiving the Man fo the Match award despite his side losing the test. Although he played a fine innings that should see him retained for Boxing Day (at the expense of his partner Hughes one would expect) Bracewell's effort was really the winning of the game - I have always said that the award should go to the player that most infuenced the final result (thus on occasion I would award this to the groundsman for producing a flat, draw-inducing, bore of a pitch). Thankfully this farcical ending to a great match prompted the abandonment of this system in favour of expert opinion. What did they think was going to happen? The Australian public would recognise a great effort by a foreign player? Please, they haven't done that since Hammond made 905 runs in 1928/29 and quickly forgot that achievement after Bradman toured England in 1930. From a neutral point of view, the idea of awarding the Man of the Match prize in such a fashion was faulted by the close nature of the finish that had many votes received in Warner's favour because it looked like he was going to win the match until the final hour which didn't give time for Bracewell to receive enough.
The fall out from the match has been sadly predictable with many papers and commentators announcing the 'lowest point' for the Australian cricket team, their 'worst loss' and the 'ultimate low' (and this is just those based in Australia). What is sad about this attitude is the absence of any real credit awarded to New Zealand for their fine seam and swing bowling that dismantled the Australian batting line up on a very green wicket. In my opinion, the home side should not be too surprised with what happened given the nature of the wicket and the make up of the New Zealand team. There were potentially two key points to note during this match: the first was the injury to Daniel Vettori before the match began that enabled the fielding of four quick bowlers that almost certainly would not have happened otherwise; all four were required to get 20 wickets, the second point to note was the period of play late on Day Two when Williamson and Taylor put together a large partnership. This partnership, while impressive in its execution by the batsmen, should be a main point of focus for Australian criticism because their bowlers lost control of the match, revealing their inexperience. This inexperience was on show the next afternoon when their lower order imploded against some good swing bowling by Southee and Bracewell.
In the end I would not be too harsh on the team as a whole, the bowlers will learn (and did learn as their bowling on the 3rd morning was much more impressive than the previous evening). Hughes should lose his position though after four dismissals that all come from the same technical weakness. This drawn series creates a great deal of interest in the India tour that begins on Boxing Day: will the young bowlers be able to cope with a vastly experienced Indian batting line up? Will the Australian batsmen find form enough to grind out big totals against a varied Indian attack?
For New Zealand there is nothing but renewed hope leading into the home season. South Africa present the largest challenge in the New Year but if we break the habit of the last 5 years and actually prepare some greener wickets that suit our bowlers we should be able to compete.
Congratulations to the Black Caps for doing what Stephen Fleming and Daniel Vettori could not and win a test in Australia - slightly simplistic but the result is a huge boost to a young, positive team
Well that's it from here and I hope you join me again
It's good bye for now
No comments:
Post a Comment