In Australia they are all concerns. That doesn’t mean they will all go great this series but all six of them are real threats in these conditions. Burns averages 55 against NZ from five tests (2 x 100, 2 x 50).
Australia v New Zealand preview.
- Thread starter Gough
- Start date
- Tagged users None
It's odd on this forum that burns runs vs them apparently aren't worth much yet at the same time the kiwis quicks are rated very highly.
Seems like if burns averages 30 vs them this series thats proof he is a hack who cant handle quality bowling but if he averages 50 it's proof he only scores easy runs, boult was or recently had been number one in the world last time the kiwis played us and southee was ranked high as well wagner was bowling well and santner was doing what he does now isn't that proof burns made quality test runs?
Last edited:
Pykie
Cancelled
10k Posts
A Star Wars Fan
Pokemon is Life
North Melbourne - North 2007 Player Sponsor
North Melbourne - 2013 Daw, Black and Gibson Player Sponsorship
50% of Heads runs @ 56 on Australian soil come against Bumrah, Shami, Sharma and Ashwin.
A better bowling lineup than NZ will put out.
Not to disrespect NZ bowlers, but 80% of their wickets over the last 2 years have come against 4 series vs Sri Lanka and Bangladesh.
I think the step up for the NZ bowlers is bigger than the step up you think the Aussie batsman have to make.
Pykie
Cancelled
10k Posts
A Star Wars Fan
Pokemon is Life
North Melbourne - North 2007 Player Sponsor
North Melbourne - 2013 Daw, Black and Gibson Player Sponsorship
Yes 'test'.
There's been plenty of domestic cricket and other cricket played on it over the last 2 seasons...
Warner played a match for Australia on it no more than 4.5 weeks ago and finished 48* off of 35 balls....
I think the Kiwis' problem in Perth will be Santner, if he plays.
The bloke's cannon fodder when it isn't turning, and if he can't get through a few overs to give their quicks a breather then things might be interesting.
I really don't think there's much difference in the batting of either side, the Aussie attack is the better of the 2 IMO.
The bloke's cannon fodder when it isn't turning, and if he can't get through a few overs to give their quicks a breather then things might be interesting.
I really don't think there's much difference in the batting of either side, the Aussie attack is the better of the 2 IMO.
- Feb 13, 2011
- 10,891
- 13,734
- AFL Club
- Richmond
We have to pretend New Zealand are a credible threat so that we can enjoy it more when we win 3-0.
It's like trying to take anyone seriously when they talk up whoever 8th place is in the AFL Finals.
ezcept whoever is 8th in the AFL finals isn’t ranked 3 spots higher than the team they’re facing, and the Kiwis, whether they win or lose here this summer, ARE, despite your reluctance to accept it, a credible opponent who have built a decent record in recent times to earn their spot.
if it was a one day series and Australia won, people would say ‘Well we just beat the two-time World Cup runners up from the last two tournaments’ and it would be viewed as credible.
Why would this be any different when they have well and truly earned their current standing in the game?
Pykie
Cancelled
10k Posts
A Star Wars Fan
Pokemon is Life
North Melbourne - North 2007 Player Sponsor
North Melbourne - 2013 Daw, Black and Gibson Player Sponsorship
And keep in mind Optus Oval isn't some sort of Wanderers green mamba, it plays like most other Australian pitches.
Warner and Smith are statistically the two best batsman in the world on their home decks.
Warner opens with an average of 66.46 @ SR 77.18, that's completely mental in all honesty over his sample size.
He might cop a lot of s**t for being a flat track bully, but NZ are in his backyard now, because they barely travel, they haven't faced a batsman like him in quite a while in their home conditions.
- Feb 6, 2013
- 12,443
- 17,240
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
Can't recall exactly but I vaguely recall you or someone else citing Pakistans rankings as a reason they were a credible threat before that series.
New Zealand aren't pure garbage like they were in the Vettori+ten randoms era but I feel like they are the Brisbane Lions (or Bulldogs pre-premiership) of cricket where neutrals are very quick to praise them and rate their players out of a sort of benevolent condescension which will dissipate quite quickly if they become genuine away favourites.
-As others have pointed out it wouldn't be a big surprise to see one, multiple or all of Burns/Wade/Head struggling. Not that they're bad, or should be expected to fail, but it wouldn't come as a big surprise.
Pykie
Cancelled
10k Posts
A Star Wars Fan
Pokemon is Life
North Melbourne - North 2007 Player Sponsor
North Melbourne - 2013 Daw, Black and Gibson Player Sponsorship
This.
Their test ranking is completely manipulated with fairly soft fixtures at the moment.
They are going to be a good test, but the away Ashes was a far more daunting prospect and we did better than most thought.
The gulf between the Australians home bowling record and the NZ bowlers away records is the clincher for me.
I think this series ends 2-0.
I don’t know what more they are supposed to do really.
They drew in Sri Lanka - Australia lost 3-0 there last time - they won the series in the UAE 2-1, where Australia hasn’t looked like succeeding this decade.
They can’t really do much more at the moment
Beat Australia in Australia. In a series.
Ratings are just a rubbish marketing ploy that pretty much no-one cares about.
People who watch cricket regularly will know who the good sides are, with or without "rating or table position". And the Kiwis ARE a good side. They need to prove that to the side they're about to play.
Australia's biggest problem in the past 5 or so years ( Other than the 3 morons who managed the unspeakable ) has been just not finishing sides off when they've been in the position to do so. India both home and away springs immediately to mind, likewise the last Ashes in Pomland. All 3 of those series should have been won. All credit to their opponents in each of those cases though, who fought back well from bad positions.
Australia for mine in this series. The Kiwis aren't India.
sorry but India here probably should have been 3-1 India. They won in a canter in Melbourne, Australia were flattered when getting within 32 in Adelaide after being 103 behind when the 8th wicket fell, and they were 300 runs behind on the first innings when only 25 overs were bowled on the last two days in Sydney.
you make some valid points but the debate about New Zealand isn’t about whether their rating will be valid after this series, it’s about whether they deserve to be rated now. They’ve lost only 3 times in 23 tests. That’s pretty good going
- Jul 24, 2013
- 1,932
- 2,610
- AFL Club
- West Coast
Reckon NZ need to bat out there minds to win
It is good going from the Kiwis, and I do think they're a good side. Let's see how they go.
Re the last series vs India. Flattered in Adelaide, maybe, but India were in trouble in the first dig at 6/127 (and if memory serves we put down the bloke who saved them) batting first and got to 250 ( As did we ). Point being, Australia had it's chances and didn't capitalise. India batted for way too long in Sydney, but I understand why they did.
And let's not talk about CA rolling over to the Indians re the Gabba. Very stupid move there.
- Mar 23, 2019
- 2,474
- 4,484
- AFL Club
- West Coast
Any truth to the rumour that the "long" break is going to be reduced from 40mins to 15mins so that the TV audience don't flick over channels and not return?
RussellEbertHandball
Flick pass expert
Can Boult and Southee bowl to Warner like Broad did, but in Australian conditions?? For me that is the $64,000 question. If so, then the Kiwis could win the series.
Look at every series or 3 tests or more since World War II and the only time the visitors have won the series was when they have had one great fast bowler with good support from others, or had 3 or 4 very good fast bowlers with a combo of bowlers with express pace and ability to move the ball. The batsmen were good and built good innings, but to beat Oz in Oz, its fast bowling that wins a series for visitors.
1954-55 England with Typhon Tyson causing havoc
1970-71 England John Snow was the difference
1978-79 England had Willis and Botham and Oz had their B team due to World Series cricket and lost 1-5.
1979-80 + 1984-85 + 1988-89 + 1992-93 The Windies pace battery
1985-86 New Zealand had Hadlee
1986-87 England had Botham, Small, Dilley and Defreitas
2008-09 + 2012-13 + 2016-17 South African pace battery
2010-11 England had Anderson, Finn, Tremlett, Bresnan and Broad but he had a poor couple of tests,
2018-19 India had Bumurah - finally found their Colin Croft type intimidator to take advantage of great batsmen
So since WWII there have been 74 Test series of 3 or more tests, Oz has won 50, lost 14 listed above and drawn 11
There have been 6 one off tests and Oz has won 3 and drawn 3.
There have been 11 x two test series and Oz has won 9 of them and drawn 2, in 1978-79 v Pakistan with the B team and 2011-12 against NZ.
Look at every series or 3 tests or more since World War II and the only time the visitors have won the series was when they have had one great fast bowler with good support from others, or had 3 or 4 very good fast bowlers with a combo of bowlers with express pace and ability to move the ball. The batsmen were good and built good innings, but to beat Oz in Oz, its fast bowling that wins a series for visitors.
1954-55 England with Typhon Tyson causing havoc
1970-71 England John Snow was the difference
1978-79 England had Willis and Botham and Oz had their B team due to World Series cricket and lost 1-5.
1979-80 + 1984-85 + 1988-89 + 1992-93 The Windies pace battery
1985-86 New Zealand had Hadlee
1986-87 England had Botham, Small, Dilley and Defreitas
2008-09 + 2012-13 + 2016-17 South African pace battery
2010-11 England had Anderson, Finn, Tremlett, Bresnan and Broad but he had a poor couple of tests,
2018-19 India had Bumurah - finally found their Colin Croft type intimidator to take advantage of great batsmen
So since WWII there have been 74 Test series of 3 or more tests, Oz has won 50, lost 14 listed above and drawn 11
There have been 6 one off tests and Oz has won 3 and drawn 3.
There have been 11 x two test series and Oz has won 9 of them and drawn 2, in 1978-79 v Pakistan with the B team and 2011-12 against NZ.
Zero chance of them dominating Warner. Broad himself couldn't do it in Australian conditions. Warner has played seven tests against New Zealand and averaged 71. Man of the series last time they came here. Robert Craddock was spot on speaking after the triple ton about Warner. His issue is purely technical. He could go back to England tomorrow and Broad would nick him off straight away. In Australia, no one in the world can dominate him.
How many times have NZ come here talked up as improving and been absolutely smashed?
Pakistan looked good in the tour game, completely fell apart on absolute roads, Kiwis will do the same. 2-0 with a face saving draw in the 3rd test on the Hume
Pakistan looked good in the tour game, completely fell apart on absolute roads, Kiwis will do the same. 2-0 with a face saving draw in the 3rd test on the Hume
probably not that many. They haven’t been absolutely smashed in their last two tours, and in between those and their 0-0 draw in the early 2000s, they were utter junk and not talked up at all - as teams tend not to be when they’re in the middle of streaks where they win one test in 16 (2007-08) and 2 wins in 12 (2004)
I don't know what Craddock said on that.
For me one thing is the length, the ones that were crashing into the top of middle and leg in England will go over the top in Australia. I still think Pakistan should have tried around the wicket earlier than they did, but I'm not convinced he is as vulnerable to it in Australian conditions. (And to be fair maybe they thought the left-armer provided something close to that angle.)
And Warner seems to have moved a cross toward off stump a littler in his stance, he won't do those wafts outside off as easily with the ball not moving and knowing where off stump is. Not that he would do that here anyway, in Australia with the extra pace on the ball he can just go hard and will not get caught in two minds. (He might get caught at third man if one jumps a bit; but not those half play, half leave.)
there are two main things that I’ve seen trouble Warner in his career - movement off the seam (swing doesn’t seem to trouble him that much), and unexpected bounce - remember how often he has been caught playing that half pull shot that he bunts up in the air on the leg side in front of square? Neither of those things are much of an issue in Australia. Yes there’s extra bounce but it’s also true bounce. If I remember rightly tht series in SA where he dominated was highlighted by very quick bouncy wickets but not a lot of sideways movement off them.
so your length has to be absolutely perfect in Australia to even worry him and there aren’t a lot of bowlers around who can hit that spot regularly
Similar threads
- Poll
