Before the game, you had the sense that New Zealand approached the World Cup final with destiny on their side.
As good as Australia’s players might be, the men in black had been irresistible. Unbeaten, unworried, unshakeable, across thrashings and thrillers, they had surged through the tournament.
It was their first time past the semi-final stage in seven attempts. They were spurred by their country’s excitement, their own bond, and the illness of their predecessor Martin Crowe.
Trent Boult had provided the grunt, Daniel Vettori the patience and pathos, but Brendon McCullum was the talisman. Whether he was hitting four sixes from an over or installing four slips for a bowler, his on-field aggression inspired.
He took 65 from 49 balls against Sri Lanka, 77 from 25 against England, 50 from 24 against Australia, 42 from 19 against Afghanistan, and 59 from 26 against South Africa.
He took 22 in an over from Lasith Malinga, 29 in an over from Steven Finn, 25 from Dale Steyn, and 17 with one arm from Mitchell Johnson.
Mitchell Starc had been the most dangerous bowler of the tournament. In the pool game against Australia, McCullum had come down the track to smash Starc’s second ball over cover for six.
In the final McCullum tried the same trick. Starc was expecting it, firing the ball outside leg stump at the batsman’s feet. McCullum missed it, and was distracted enough to push half-heartedly at the next. It swung in and smashed his stumps.
The talisman was toppled. While we all knew that the game could still go anywhere, there was a sense then, five balls into the day, that New Zealand’s chance had vanished in a scatter of blaring red LEDs.
From then it was an afternoon for Australia’s bowlers. All of them. Where New Zealand had been starting games in a blaze of strokeplay, instead they were blocking out maidens and harvesting singles as rare as human organs.
Starc and Johnson approached 150 kilometres per hour even with short balls. Josh Hazlewood gave away nothing. The pressure told. New Zealand’s top four batsmen each fell to a different antagonist.
Martin Guptill, so recently celebrating the highest World Cup score, played around a Glenn Maxwell floater. Kane Williamson, sorely needed as New Zealand’s Steve Smith, was beaten by Johnson to bunt back a catch. Ross Taylor scraped a painful 40 from 72 balls, mostly from the outside edge, but in an age where low catches are never clear on replays, his was.
When New Zealand steadied and set course for 250 with 15 overs to go, James Faulkner bobbed up to sink them with 3/36. Nothing worked for New Zealand, because nothing was allowed to work.
The feeling in the ground was one of suffocation, all that anticipation and euphoria having the air squeezed out of it.
One thing told the whole story. There’s McCullum, with his tournament strike rate of 191.81. Luke Ronchi, with a recent 170 from 99 balls. Corey Anderson, recent holder of the world’s fastest century.
Between them, they contributed zero runs.
The same is true of Australia’s hitters, but only because they weren’t required. Even when Tim Southee looked like he might slog New Zealand past 200, freakish fielding from Glenn Maxwell ran him out at the non-striker’s end.
What was the likelihood of Faulkner, the flamboyant finishing batsman, winning man of the match in a game where he didn’t face a ball?
What was the likelihood of anyone winning man of the series without scoring a run in the tournament?
In a World Cup where batsmen made double centuries and sides made 400, these gongs went to the bowling of Faulkner and Starc.
Starc’s tournament was on another plane. While he and New Zealand’s Trent Boult shared top spot with 22 wickets each, Starc was well ahead in terms of average (10.18 to 16.86), strike rate (17.4 to 23.1) and economy rate (3.50 to 4.36).
Even applying no qualification filter, Starc was second in the tournament for bowling average (behind Jeevan Mendis, who bowled five overs), second for economy rate (behind Michael Clarke, who bowled five overs), and sixth in strike rate (behind Anderson with 36 overs, and four guys who bowled 13 overs or fewer).
Only four players have taken more wickets at a World Cup: Glenn McGrath had 26 in 2007, while Chaminda Vaas, Muttiah Muralitharan and Shaun Tait are equal on 23.
There are 109 players who’ve taken a dozen wickets or more in a World Cup. Starc has the best tournament average of the lot, despite this World Cup smashing records for runs scored. He has the third-highest strike rate on that list, and the tenth-best economy rate.
As recently as the United Arab Emirates tour last October, Australia’s ODI bowling was ad hoc. Players came and went without explanation. But through the home series against South Africa in November things began to take shape.
Around Johnson’s experience was built a squad of young bowlers. Starc and Faulkner blossomed, Hazlewood seized his chance, Pat Cummins is a work in progress. Eschewing a specialist spinner for Maxwell is a good trade when his batting offers 324 runs at a strike rate of 182.
When it came down to it, that bowling attack produced its best in the most important game. Emotion, momentum, destiny – in the end, pure physical potency trumped all the abstract concepts in the world.
A version of this article was first published on Wisden India.
Geoff Lemon
Expert
Yup, bad phrasing. Should read that he's third highest on the list for best strike rate.
Broken-hearted Toy
Guest
Yes, having bowlers who are picked on bowling alone who can really hit is a massive plus in modern short form cricket. The Aussies are blessed there.
Bondy
Guest
Interesting read ( http://www.foxsports.com.au/cricket/icc-world-cup-2015/cricket-world-cup-2015-australias-triumph-inspires-respect-but-no-love-after-our-boys-antics/story-e6frf3ju-1227286687232#itm=newscomau%7Chome%7Cnca-homepage-news-plus-story%7C5%7Cheading%7Chomepage%7Chomepage&itmt=1427862476130) .
ChrisB
Guest
So what, they're all well paid grown men. As long as it's not violent or involve race or sexual orientation, who cares? Cricket need to grow up on this front and get over this silly gentlemans game crap. Never was really
Don Freo
Guest
All this talk about Williamson as the best batsman in the world...you'd think he'd justify the hype in at least one innings. I think we saw 4 NZ batsmen that were better...maybe 5 if you include Vettori, who was a better batsman.
JGK
Roar Guru
Small point: "He has the third-highest strike rate on that list, and the tenth-best economy rate." Usually you want the lowest strike rate, being balls per wicket.
Mark
Guest
Have a Snickers
Marcus
Guest
I was fortunate enough to be one of the 93013 people at the ground, and let me tell you that there wasn't much in anything done on the field. Both teams played hard as you'd expect. Some NZ fans on the other hand were sledging and abusing the Australian players and generally being yobbos, all of which was not done by Australian fans.
Death by Watson
Guest
Hi Darren. You appear to be one of the dwindling few that believes that the Australian team exists for Watson. The is no slump too long, no average too low, no fielding too lacking, no changes and shuffling to batting order too inconvenient to the other better batsmen, no budding talent that can't be excluded, there is nothing that should not be done to provide an ongoing spot for Watson, he must be kept in the team at all costs. Mind blowing, simply mind blowing. The Faulkners, Maxwells, Marshes and others are all desperate to be given one tiny fraction of the opportunity to contribute that Watson has had. Sadly we will have to keep waiting until Watson decides that he is ready to move on, regardless of his performance. Fancy having a national cricket team that exists to give you a job, how did we get so lost?
Darren
Guest
Proves nothing of the sort. Watson delivered after being moved to 6. Runs and depth in the bowling. I think your name says it all.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
If anything it should be the other way around. If the player isn't wanted by the test nation, then let them walk straight back into the associate to help strengthen them. A bit like Rugby League do with their "world cups", where all the Australian and New Zealand players who have a heritage from another country can basically suit up for that country if they aren't picked for Australia, New Zealand etc. Considering how little league is player outside of the top 3 countries, if they want anything more than a tri-series, they need to allow this sort of thing. If players had to commit to those other countries, nobody would unless they really felt they were never a chance of playing for Australia at all.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
A bit tongue in cheek, but most of the England and Indian confrontations in recent memory have really given the impression that the England and India players who copped a bit deserved everything they got. Especially guys like Anderson and Broad. Kholi made a habit of standing at the crease waiting for the new batsman to arrive whenever a wicket fell and regularly walked large distances to get involved in things.
Ronan O'Connell
Expert
Bobbo7 and Golden Boots where is the evidence of this "send off" to Vettori you speak of? I have the full footage of the game and have just re-watched his dismissal and there is no evidence in real time or on replays of any send off whatsoever. Johnson just stares at him silently as he runs past on the way to celebrate with his teammates. Doesn't say a word. There's also no footage of any other players saying anything to, or gesticulating towards Vettori. Yesterday Kiwi fans on here were claiming Faulkner screamed in the faces of NZ players after taking wickets in the final which again the full footage of the match shows no evidence of. Where are you getting evidence of these send offs? Can you share it?
Digby
Roar Guru
Thanks Geoff, great piece. The intensity from the Australian quicks and ability to maintain that pressure throughout the innings was outstanding. I cant really think of a comporable perfomance from a team of quicks and the ability to focus and produce the performance at the big dance, excellent stuff.
Sideline Comm.
Guest
It was a joke, and I thought an obvious one. Some other people seem confused by this, but I would suggest if you're talking to someone in the morning after a huge night of drinking, don't take them too seriously.
Bobbo7
Guest
Taylor was just out of touch during the WC - and Williamson dropped off a bit towards the end too. I'm sure Taylor could play for a few more years
Bobbo7
Guest
Not sure I agree with that. Australia has a pretty well documented history of this type of thing. But fair to say, they are not alone
Pumping Dougie
Guest
Yeah, I'm a bit surprised Faulkner and Maxwell both missed the West Indies tour. I think Maxwell has stepped-up big time and deserves a spot ahead of Shaun Marsh.
Pumping Dougie
Guest
Yeah and I reckon it was predictable. They relied each game on McCullum getting off to a great start. He was fantastic. But as soon as he failed, it thrust his teammates into an uncomfortable new experience and they had to try and absorb it in a pressure-cooker cauldron. NZ defeat was predictable because: (a) As good as McCullum is, he's not 'that good'! (b) the Aussie bowlers have been consistently good throughout this tournament - all of them were a realistic chance of snaring his wicket cheaply; and (c) the Aussie batting line-up contains 7 blokes consistently capable of match-winning performances (I'm being kind to Finch) and they are supported by Haddin and Johnson who also bat well.
Geoff Lemon
Expert
Ed Joyce. Under ICC regs, players can move from Associate teams to Test nations immediately, but have to wait two years to move back. Which is what Joyce did. Yet another helping hand from the big countries to the small...