Despite fielding a team laced with rookies and without the services of their best bowler, Australia earned a comprehensive series victory over the highly rated Kiwis in Adelaide yesterday.
The settled and talent-rich New Zealand team arrived in Australia with their best chance of beating their old foes in a Test series for the first time in 25 years.
Instead, the Kiwis turned in a poor effort overall, with only Kane Williamson and Ross Taylor playing to their ability this series, while stars Tim Southee, Trent Boult, Brendon McCullum and BJ Watling struggled badly.
By comparison, Australia had a huge spread of contributors with nine players having big impacts at different points.
For all the controversy over the Nathan Lyon DRS decision, Australia were the better side in the Adelaide Test despite not being able to call upon the injured Mitchell Starc, who was easily the best bowler of the series.
Here are my player ratings for New Zealand for this three-Test series.
Kane Williamson – 9/10 – (428 runs at an average of 86)
The 25-year-old has no discernible weakness as a batsman. Australia tried bowling straight to him, they tried bowling wide to him, they tried roughing him up with short balls, but nothing worked. Looks destined to score more than 10,000 Test runs.
Ross Taylor – 7.5/10 (405 runs at 81)
Taylor’s 290 at the WACA was an extraordinary innings, even if it was on the flattest of tracks. But he gets marked down overall because he flopped in the two Tests where the Australian bowlers got assistance from the pitch, making just 79 runs across four innings at the Gabba and Adelaide Oval.
Mitchell Santner – 7/10 – (76 runs at 38, plus two wickets at 31)
Santner is the one positive to come out of this series for the Kiwis. Not only did the 23-year-old outbowl fellow tweaker Mark Craig but he also showed great technique and temperament with the bat. Santner should be offered a long run in the Kiwi Test team.
Tom Latham – 5/10 – (187 runs at 31)
Latham is a very well organised batsman who shapes as a terrific long-term opener for New Zealand. He looked comfortable against the Australian attack but kept wasting starts, with four scores between 29 and 50 from six digs.
Trent Boult – 5/10 – (13 wickets at 38)
Boult was wonderful in this day-night Test. But it took the tailormade conditions at Adelaide Oval, where the pink ball was swinging and the track seaming, for Boult to have any impact. In the first two Tests he was woeful.
Brendon McCullum – 4/10 – (137 runs at 27)
McCullum’s awful record against Australia continued in this series. His one knock of note came when the Brisbane Test was already all but over. Made a series of tactical blunders – from bowling himself and Martin Guptill on Day 1 at Perth to using spin against the hobbled Mitchell Starc at Adelaide.
BJ Watling – 3/10 – (83 runs at 17)
After a wonderful tour of England earlier this year, the gifted keeper-batsman shaped as a decisive player in this series. His keeping was neat, as always, but he had no impact with the bat.
Doug Bracewell – 3/10 – (7 wickets at 53)
Bracewell’s bowling was nothing short of horrendous at the Gabba, on a track which offered good pace and bounce. He improved significantly over the next two Tests but, despite bowling with accuracy, he had minimal penetration.
Mark Craig – 1/10 – (8 wickets at 64)
The worst specialist spinner I have seen tour Australia, Craig sprayed the ball all over the pitch. Even when he did land it in good areas, the lack of work he gets on the ball made him easy to combat. New Zealand should invest in Santner and not waste any more time with Craig.
Tim Southee – 1/10 – (6 wickets at 61)
Southee could not have wished for better conditions in which to bowl in this Adelaide Test, with the pink ball hooping around and the pitch offering significant seam movement. But he badly let down his side with a third consecutive limp display. In his past five Tests, against Australia and England, Southee has averaged a horrible 56 with the ball.
Martin Guptill – 1/10 – (82 runs at 14)
Guptill is not a Test-standard batsman, and most certainly is not a Test-standard opener, with his hard hands, leaden footwork and propensity for fishing at balls outside off stump. A batting average of 28 after 36 Tests says it all. New Zealand have one fine opener in Latham but should look elsewhere for his partner.
Matt Henry – 1/10 – (two wickets at 79)
Like the rest of the New Zealand attack, Henry had a shocker at the Gabba. But he showed with some clever spells in the Tests against England that he has a lot to offer as a bowler. At just 23 years old he is a good prospect and should be offered generous opportunities at Test level.
Jimmy Neesham – 1/10 – (six runs at an average of three, plus one wicket at 111)
Neesham should try to swiftly forget his awful performance in the Gabba Test. He is a tremendously gifted all-rounder and can be a key player for New Zealand for the next decade.
Jacko
Guest
You keep mentioning the Warner thing but the umpire reviewed it and said it was not a no ball so OUT.
Yea Right!
Guest
Yea Right!
Guest
Boult was returning from a back injury with no test cricket behind him for months and barely any 1st class either. His back troubled him in the series where he almost didn't play the last test and he has gone on record stating that is was a problem because he wasn't sure how far he could bend his back. We saw Boult almost - though not quite- back to his best in Adelaide and it was not JUST the conditions No bowler was particularly outstanding at the WACA on either side and the batting scores tell you that. Even if someone get 5 wickets if the opposition have 624 runs on the board - seriously who cares nothing but an exercise in statistics The Australian attack benefited from a clearly rusty NZ batting lineup at the GABBA - Williamson is a freak And that ridiculous decision by Nigel Long in the last test cost NZ - and this is the same clown that gave McCullum out when the ball missed his bat by 6 inches at the GABBA when he was on 80 and the same umpire that didn't give Kawaja out when he was on 23 at the WACA when it clearly hit his bat Nothing like the 12 man playing for Australia No wonder NZ officials are demanding an explanation about Long's decision from the ICC `and rightly so` and have said they won't let up until they get an proper answer = Long was rubbish in the series and should be dropped as an ICC Umpire
Yea Right!
Guest
Neither was Australia's at the WACA mate NZ scored 624 runs so that works both ways in that test
ClarkeG
Roar Guru
To Jameswm. Well yes I agree that Lyon was not out in that following a review (including an lbw review) he was given not out. Can’t disagree with that. That is fact. Warner after a review of a possible no ball was given out. That is fact.
Bobbo7
Guest
The Lyon decision was significant because Lyon can bat, NZ would almost certainly have had a 50 run lead, and more importantly, they would have been batting in better light. I could not have seen NZ losing of they had a lead in the first innings, But anyway, Australia won the series in Brisbane where NZ just did not turn up. Underdone by some measure. Perth was a blight on the game and Australia can never have a go at overseas pitches based on that joke of a pitch. Adelaide was pretty even. NZ have a lot of imprvement in them which I'm sure we'll see in the return series.
Gunther
Guest
^^ couldnt agree more Jacko !
Sideline Comm.
Guest
Not a bad post, that. I would add only an adage about our respective counties that I like: "Australians are bad winners, but good losers; whereas kiwis are good winners, but bad losers." Though I would say us Aussies have been pretty good about this win. There's plenty of respect here for the kiwi team, just not some of their fans. There can be no doubt that most kiwis have been bad losers here, blaming every outside source possible, but not themselves. It's a cultural difference I think, as similar as our countries are usually. Aussies are always far more keen to cut themselves down when results don't go our way – possibly a symptom of our tall poppy syndrome; we love to blame people who aren't as good as they claim. Our little brews though, they will stick up for their own even in the face of blind logic. Both approaches are probably just as commendable and damnable as the other, but I know which one I support. I refuse to be hubris, and will take the responsibility on myself before blaming others.
Sideline Comm.
Guest
I would also add that both teams have good bowlers, Australia generally and NZ in swinging conditions.
Sideline Comm.
Guest
It's like the NZ media have sold their whole audience a logical fallacy. It's impossible to judge the outcome of a match by a decision in the 2nd innings.
Sideline Comm.
Guest
Whatever helps you sleep at night champ.
Sideline Comm.
Guest
I actually didn't mind Langer's idea about getting some refs to judge the game like a boxing match. Get a 10 point must system for each of the 15 sessions and whoever won the most sessions wins the match.
Sideline Comm.
Guest
Haha, I think he means Australia. Going to his happy space I suppose.
Sideline Comm.
Guest
Sometimes I wonder if NZ might have won a game is McCullum didn't turn up as captain.
Sideline Comm.
Guest
That's absolute rubbish. It's like someone saying a dodgy decision in a football game at the 30th minute decided the result. There are just too many things after it. Who's to say that if Australia where rolled with a 80 run deficit,, that they wouldn't have come out and dismissed NZ for 100, leaving the chase much the same. All claims on a result are speculation. And besides, it's Nathan Lyon. He's hardly "The Wall" Rahul Dravid, just get him out.
ozinsa
Guest
Actually they have. The team sent a "please explain" to the ICC according to the Herald press this morning. In fairness, the C9 commentary team wouldn't let it go and made more of it than was necessary but if you take this action in the cold light of day you're looking for excuses for a pretty lame performance by a bunch of individuals when a little bit of navel gazing might be more useful. On balance, I'd suggest that the lack of run output from McCullum and Guptill and woeful spin bowling and inconsistent pace bowling might be a better thing for the team to review if they want to turn things around after Xmas. The team is within its rights to get cranky that a decision went against them but a good team puts it aside immediately and gets on with picking up the last two wickets, batting well to set a decent target and then bowling the opposition out. Still moaning about a decision 2/3 days later indicates they're in the completely wrong mental space. Or are they not cricket's entertainers after all and just another bunch of Kiwi whingers (oops, did I actually just type that)?
Worlds Biggest
Guest
Very enjoyable series, the return series will be a cracker.
Jameswm
Guest
You forgot to add at the end rant over.
Jameswm
Guest
So Clarke the Lyon LBW was not out. The decision was reviewed and found not to be out, so it wasn't. Do you agree?
Nudge
Guest
I think you're right Burgygreen, apparently Siddle in some doubt now so hopefully Sayers gets a shout.