Australia will reclaim the No.1 Test ranking if they avoid defeat in the second trans-Tasman Test in Christchurch after belting New Zealand by an innings and 52 runs in Wellington.
NZ resumed at 4-178 on day four, their hopes of salvaging a draw having been all but dashed by the loss of key batsmen Kane Williamson and Brendon McCullum on day three.
The Black Caps made it to lunch on Monday but were rolled in the second session for 327.
Australia turned the screws at the Basin Reserve despite Peter Siddle being restricted to fielding duties.
Siddle failed to bowl because of back spasms, which also kept him out of the attack in Sunday’s final session.
“I think he could have bowled today if needed,” skipper Steve Smith said.
More cricket:
» Australian bowlers show the Kiwi attack how it’s done
» Adam Voges, batting ugly but sitting pretty over Bradman
» Can Adam Voges better The Don’s average?
» New Zealand vs Australia: First Test – Day 4 cricket scores, live blog
» Scorecard: New Zealand vs Australia first Test
Debutant Henry Nicholls impressed in his knock of 59 but otherwise it seemed like a case of when, not if, as the visitors hunted the six remaining wickets.
Corey Anderson, BJ Watling and Nicholls all departed in the morning session.
Doug Bracewell, Tim Southee and Trent Boult threatened to make Australia bat again but all fell after lunch, Australia completing the win at 2.08pm local time.
Australia will top the International Cricket Council’s Test rankings if they win the two-Test series 1-0 or 2-0, with the Christchurch match to start on Saturday.
Their previous stint at No.1 came in June 2014 but South Africa reclaimed the mantle a month later.
From the moment Smith won the toss and Josh Hazlewood grabbed three wickets in his opening spell, NZ’s 13-Test undefeated streak at home looked in a degree of doubt.
Umpire Richard Illingworth’s no-ball howler, which reprieved Adam Voges on seven when he was bowled by Bracewell, will be one of the main talking points of the match.
Voges went on to score 239 and be named man of the match.
“It’s obviously not ideal but you’ve still got to give credit to Adam .. it was tough for our boys to cop at the time,” McCullum said in the post-match ceremony.
“We’ve said all along you have to cop the rough with the smooth.
“We were outplayed through the Test match and Australia deserve to be up 1-0 in this series
“Australia were very, very good.”
On day four it was Mitch Marsh who fired first, with a little help from Smith.
Smith gestured that Anderson could be an lbw candidate given how much the ball was reverse-swinging.
Anderson’s dismissal followed that exact script, with the allrounder on his way for a duck after unsuccessfully reviewing the verdict.
Watling, who always puts a high price on his wicket, fell to a sharp-turning delivery from Nathan Lyon (4-91).
Watling attempted to cut the ball but was cramped for room and played on.
Recalled paceman Jackson Bird then broke through for his first wicket of the match, skittling Nicholls’ stumps.
Spearhead Hazlewood grabbed his sixth wicket of the match in the first over after lunch, trapping Bracewell lbw.
Southee slapped 48 off 23 balls, the entertaining knock ending when he tried to hammer Lyon for a fourth straight boundary but instead picked out Usman Khawaja in the deep.
Boult hammered the 17th six of his Test career, grabbing the record for a No.11 batsman before Marsh bowled him to end the contest.
Bobbo7
Guest
Voges could not score a try with no ball
Jerry
Guest
That's a hypothetical that relies on the idea that the producers know what the replay is gonna be. They replay almost every ball as a matter of course, they replayed the Marsh one almost instantly and I doubt they'd even looked at it. They replayed Warner's LBW in the ODI's too (within the time to challenge I believe).
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
But that case also opened a can of worms. Inconsistency. What happens if the same thing could benefit another team but ground producers don't show a replay?
Don Freo
Guest
Well, Danger Mouse, leave the sheep alone and start doing the wild thing with women.
rasty
Guest
You gotta pay that.
Jerry
Guest
So wait, when you say NZers are obsessed with Australia your evidence is you watching, listening to and reading about a cricket match between NZ and Australia? Okayyyyyyyy.
soapit
Guest
yep, keep talking about rugby fellas.
john
Guest
...Which was simulcast on Fox, and via Cricket Australia Radio. PS what's with all the adds about helping you blokes in the bedroom? Got some problems that side of the ditch, hey?
Jerry
Guest
" Kiwis by large are obsessed with Australia" And yet, you're the one confessing to watching NZ TV and listening to NZ radio.....
john
Guest
Shifted so far, we're now on a different field. And comparing Tests with ODI's... tut tut tut. Are you sure you're not an Indian cricket fan? Anyway this has been humorous, and mildly enjoyable if it wasn't so tragic. It shows, as always, that Kiwis by large are obsessed with Australia. The angst and obsession is very evident listening to Sky Sport, Radio Sport and the comments which appear on this website.
soapit
Guest
ah, i must admit i still havent read the original question in detail. actually just checked and republican says baggy greens (just tests) and then overall rah rah so that would include 7's but not odi's? yeah, i said it in another thread but its named after a bushranger captain thunderbolt . very well known in new england where i grew up but didnt think anyone had heard of him anywhere else. i think they were trying to have a great aussie reference but without the 'captain' it turns very generic and coupled with never having heard of the guy it just leaves everyone a bit baffled.
soapit
Guest
i'm just thankful that was the only time any amount of luck played any part in the match and hopefully everyone only gets exactly what they deserve for the rest of the series.
Jerry
Guest
No, cause he wrote "Wallabies" and they don't play 7's The Thunderbolts do.... As an aside, that's a truly terrible name.
soapit
Guest
we'd have to include 7's then jerry. tests and odi's are very different
Phantom
Roar Rookie
comparable with the Moaning Mitchel Marsh dismissal. Except in that case the right decision was made.
Jerry
Guest
Well, if you wanna be pedantic that statement you quoted would include ODI's, wouldn't it? If you include both forms of the game, NZ's overall record is a 24% winning record. Which, yes, isn't as good as the Wallabies historic 27% record vs the All Blacks but it's not actually a huge difference and if you factor in that the Black Caps would have considerably less losses...... And as he said 'presently' - in the last 10 years the Black Caps would have a 27% record, identical to the Wallabies historic record and considerably better than the Wallabies record of 15.6% over the same period. How you like those goal posts?
john
Guest
"resently the blackcaps have a greater chance of defeating the oz cricket team than the wallabies have of defeating the ABs." Change the goal posts a bit further to the right, why don't you. But since you insist, more consistently than the BlackCraps have won in Australia, or even beaten Australia.
Jerry
Guest
When did the Wallabies last win in NZ?
john
Guest
The Wallabies beat the AIG's in a test 6 months ago... When did the Black Caps get a win? 2011? And that was their first in what, 20 years?
Phantom
Roar Rookie
If that call had been mad in a game involving some countries the match fixing debate would be in full swing. The ball was in the WC gloves before any call was made.