After a two-week break due to Brisbane rain and the essentially linear nature of time, Australia resumed their World Cup campaign against co-hosts New Zealand.
And without getting too carried away, it was a game that matched the excitement level of any of the associate games in the tournament so far. Here are the ratings for the Eden Park thriller.
Eden Park
Grade: C
The only thing that had been spoken about more than Australia’s infamous two-week break was Michael Clarke’s return as Australian acting full-time captain. Clarke showed he’d lost none of his captaincy nous, winning the toss as if he’d never been away.
He elected to bat, which was fine with Brendon McCullum, who revealed he had wanted to bowl anyway. (Side note: every time a captain loses a toss he should always say that he’d intended to do whatever it is he is being forced to do. That’s Mind Games 101.)
The only other thing that had been spoken about more than Australia’s two-week break were the short boundaries at Eden Park and how pretty much any total was possible on the ground. After the first over, Australia had plundered 15, setting an early benchmark total of 750, which most pundits agreed was ‘about par’.
In fact, such was the ease with which fours and sixes were being struck that Aaron Finch somehow scrambling a three had a strong claim to being the most remarkable feat of the day.
Well, batting feat, anyway. It got nowhere near any of the bowling feats.
Batting collapses
Grade: A
Australia lost Finch with the score on 30, and Shane Watson and David Warner partnered to take the total to 1/80.
Australia then lost 8/26, which even the most one-eyed of their fans (and a big hello to the Channel Nine commentary box if they’re reading) would have to admit was less than ideal.
What had happened to cause this record collapse? Was it a cunning Australian plan to minimise the amount of time in which Clarke could injure his hamstring? Had they rope-a-doped McCullum’s captaincy, tricking him into almost bowling out his best three bowlers for a mere nine wickets, leaving the last pair of Brad Haddin and Pat Cummins to reap the rewards?
Or was it simply a case of Trent Boult and the rest of the New Zealand attack shamefully showing no respect for the spirit of Gallipoli as they crushed their hapless Anzac brothers?
Who can say? One thing was for sure, that 750 target was beginning to seem less and less likely. Despite Haddin and Cummins’ best efforts, Australia unluckily ended their innings a disappointing 599 runs short.
Brendon McCullum
Grade: B
Brendon McCullum batted the only way he knows how. That is, with a cricket bat. He used that cricket bat to bludgeon 50 off a mere 21 deliveries. Ridiculously, that wasn’t his fastest ODI fifty. It wasn’t even his fastest World Cup fifty. Or his fastest fifty this week.
Why was he batting so slowly? Probably because Mitch Johnson had gone frighteningly close to breaking his arm. And without even a (swear) word of warning from Clarke. Thanks a lot, Jimmy Anderson.
Mitchell Starc
Grade: B+
There was a time when Mitchell Starc was number one on my personal ‘players who objectively do quite well but of whom I remain unconvinced’ rankings. In recent months, he has plummeted well down that list. (New leader: Aaron Finch.)
Starc was magnificent as Australia did their best to defend their stupidly small total. He took 6/28 off nine overs, almost singlehandedly dragging Australia to the brink of victory in a game where victory brinks should have been well outside of single-handed dragging range.
If there’s one thing Starc could work on though, it’s converting all the hat-tricks he finds himself on. He had two hat-trick chances in this match and blew both of them. Poor work.
Starc was well supported by Cummins, who not only took two wickets (including that of McCullum) but also a disputed catch, which gave the New Zealand crowd an Australian they could accuse of cheating, something that always makes them deliriously happy.
Net run rates
Grade: F
New Zealand got a large net run rate boost for winning this game. Because they won it in 23.1 overs and therefore obviously thrashed Australia.
This is kind of silly mid-1980s thinking, isn’t it? We’ve had Duckworth Lewis for decades now and, even if the mathematics of it is beyond most casual fans, the basic concept that wickets remaining are a resource that need to be considered along with overs remaining is pretty well established.
Net run rates in successful chases should be calculated by using Duckworth Lewis par scores that take into account not only the overs taken to win the game but also how many wickets the chasing team lost in doing so. It’s absurd that winning nine wickets down off 24 overs earns you a better net run rate than winning no wickets down off 25.
Sorry, no jokes in that bit. I was making an actual point. Won’t happen again.
But hey, at least we got that point against Bangladesh, right?
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
This comment seems to suggest that somehow New Zealand's approach had something to do with trying to have a good net run rate. In this tournament it's highly unlikely any of these teams will end up on the same number of points (you basically need some wins from the Associate nations against the top 8 teams to make that happen). So where's the NRR incentive? Unless they just love looking at a big number in that column it's not going to come into anything. They went for it like that because that's the only way McCullum knows how to play. He just swings hard from the start. Especially on those tiny NZ grounds, where if you swing hard enough, even if you edge it it's likely to go for 6. (I believe Warner top edged a 45 metre 6 in the Australian innings. Crazy!)
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
Rubbish. Clarke played one bad shot in his innings and got out. It happens sometimes. Other times you get away with a few, get a hundred and people think you are amazing. Prior to that he'd come out facing a ball swinging all over the place and basically hit everything off the middle of the bat. Considering he hasn't played a competitive game in over 2 months, he looked incredibly good. I suspect he'll come out and score a lot of runs in the remainder of this tournament.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
That is also why, in matches like this it's actually a big advantage to bat second. If Australia knew that 200 would have been enough runs to win the game, they'd have probably got there because they would have played much more circumspect. However, they were believing they needed 300+ and therefore were going hard, and doing it badly, and lost wickets. NZ then coming on knowing they only need 152, is actually a big advantage, just as batting first and piling on a big total can cause scoreboard pressure, the same is possible in reverse from a low score.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
It is true. The fact that NRR will never come into anything here as it's very difficult for teams to end up on the same number of points (even before the Aus v Bang washout) unless the "minnows" compete reasonably evenly and taking points off the teams that make the quarters.
vikramsudan
Guest
Australia will win the world cup. New Zealand cannot won the world cup because his batting is very poor.
Boerewors
Guest
And so many in the Australian team failed: Clark; Watson; Finch; Maxwell, and will fail again this series. Bowlers dug the side out of trouble, well done to Starc. Clark is rusty and will not regain form, aged ability, no grunt for this format, wont get going. Hes the ego of James Hird in cricket. Bring back Bailey.
Riccardo
Guest
Batting collapses. Grade: A Love your work Dan. Where's the love for MOM Boult?
Riccardo
Guest
Gidday Moa. The Australian commentators were cringe-worthy. Mark Waugh, whom I have admired as a silky stroke-maker, was just embarrassing. Shane Warne only marginally better. And McDermott still thinks he's an aggressive fast bowler hating on the opposition. Their lack of respect or even regard for New Zealand must have been verging on unbearable for Ian Smith who took it with pretty good graces all things considered. What a game though. Thanks God we got across the line; to lose that would have been criminal. Questions about application with the bat are required in the debrief. I must say that the Mitch of the Starc variety was superb though.
Sylvester
Guest
Use WASP prediction calculation to work out what the team batting second was likely to have achieved and then just subtract the difference?
Dan Liebke
Expert
I'm pretty sure we'll have to agree to disagree on what the purpose of net run rate difference is. In every other sport, the 'goal differential' is a secondary measure designed to quantify margins of victory in case two teams end up with the same points. If cricket wants something similar, then the current system doesn't achieve that. If, as you suggest, the purpose of NRR is to make run chases more interesting, that's fine. But it's a highly asymmetrical rule. There's no advantage for teams who've made a big score batting first for bowling the opposition out in 10 overs compared to 50 overs. They get the same NRR regardless. If you want the system to reward aggression, shouldn't the rule be adjusted to reward bowling out chasing teams more quickly?
dasilva
Guest
I'm sorry but I completely disagree about the run rate point Run rate difference is not a reflection of how close the team is but how attacking the team is. It's there to encourage attacking cricket (it's similar to goal differences and goal scored in football as a tie breaker) For example New Zealand could ahve batted defensively and scored 150 runs and reach the target in the 45th over with plenty of wickets to spare and it would have bored everyone to death However since there is a run rate carrot to chase down the target as fast as possible. It encourage teams to risk losing in getting the target as fast as possible. New Zealand took the risk in smashing the Aussie attack with Brendon McCullum assault. They risk losing the match in attacking the bowling and hence deserve the net run rate. If there is no incentive to chase the target quickly then you would get batting side boring the crowd with defensive batting to chase down small targets
Hayley
Guest
Sometimes its more difficult to chase a smaller total. Also, when was the last time any of the Blackcaps have faced the aussie bowlers. Like 20 million years ago (just a little bit of an exaggeration). Both countries need to looking at their batting. Both teams batted poorly and both teams bowled superbly.
Dan Liebke
Expert
I understand that argument. And it's certainly the most sensible way to play given the current rules. I just think it would make more sense to change the rules to more accurately reflect the margin of victory, rather than keep them as some kind of secondary risk-reward game you can play simultaneously. But, to each their own. We'll agree to disagree.
sd
Guest
watson shot >Grade: A ?
Bobbo7
Guest
But the chasing teams take the risk in batting hard for the quick win. In my view they deserve the RR because the risk is there, like we saw against Scotland
Mitch
Guest
Considering new zealand batted just as horribly as australia perhaps they should be worried for their game against bangladesh?
Craig Watson
Guest
Poms got walloped again. Thiramanne and Sangakkara got big tons. The Brits must make changes if they want to figure in the major finals.
Chinmusick
Roar Rookie
Most of them made themselves look silly...
Chinmusick
Roar Rookie
We batted like a pack of blind lepers, but one important point keeps entering my mind. NZ only just beat us, JUST! We posted a total of 151 - If they can take any confidence out of that I will be very surprised. They must know in the back of their mind that If Australia turn up with their bats, going off yesterdays match, NZ have absolutely no chance of beating us. They limped over the line and then cheered like they had Liberated Paris. If I was the Black Caps coach I would be tearing them a new one, really they should have destroyed us from that position. I know the bowling was insanely good, but it always is when you play against Australia.
Craig Watson
Guest
Starc and Boult showed us all some of the finest left arm swing bowling since the great Wasim Akram. Was a joy to watch as good batsmen were made to look positively silly.