Pity about the result, but another cracker of a game between Australia and New Zealand on Saturday.
The Chappell–Hadlee is the best one-day trophy competition. No question.
The tally of series wins currently stands at 2 Aus wins, 1 NZ win and 2 ties (the second of which should have been an NZ win but for that pesky Queensland rain), with a total of 8 games apiece. It is a very closely fought trophy.
A look at the individual results shows just how close. Apart from a few exceptions (such as the whole of the 07/08 series), victory comes down to the last 20 or so runs or the last 10 or so balls. And the results summary just doesn’t do justice to the drama and record breaking feats that have gone into those victories.
Cricinfo’s statisticians have found out why the trophy is so good – New Zealand seriously lifts for Chappell–Hadlee matches. Compared with non-C–H matches against Australia since the beginning of 2004 (the year the C–H trophy kicked off), NZ batsmen’s averages have been about 7 runs higher. Whereas the Australian averages are down by about the same amount, largely accounted for by the improvement in the NZ bowlers’ averages.
There is something special about this trophy.
(The Cricinfo article also reveals a sorry fact, that apart from the 8 against 8 wins in the C–H, NZ has had no further wins against Aus since the start of 2004.)
I guess it will be fixed eventually, but the first headline I read about John Howard being Cricket Australia and New Zealand Cricket’s nominee for ICC president was “Howard gets the not for ICC role“, on the New Zealand Cricket website.
The “not” for “nod” is only a typo of course, but I would like to believe it represents some kind of subconscious unwillingness by New Zealand Cricket to accept that they are colluding with Australia to subject the cricket world to John Howard.
I also took some childish delight in selectively reading extra, unintended meaning in the press release, such as how “Australia and New Zealand considered a number of distinguished candidates of global stature” but decided to go with Howard rather than a distinguished candidate.
Peter Roebuck has made the case expertly, but John Howard is quite clearly a poor selection as ICC president, a joke almost. He knows little about cricket, his only contribution being to dissuade Murali to tour. And there was an eminently qualified alternative in New Zealand’s suggestion John Anderson. Furthermore, he is a divisive figure and is not going to be liked in the subcontinent.
Personally I despise Howard for being a nasty little racist, war-mongering conservative. His objections over the apology to the Stolen Generation is particularly offensive. So I am naturally unhappy to have him heading world cricket. I must admit though that I don’t expect him as ICC president to turn any boat people back to the sea or drag cricket into any illegal wars. Peter Roebuck is also trying to be philosophical about the selection, suggesting that Cricket Australia nominated Howard because the ICC needs a strong, uncompromising, bull-headed leader to give it some clout, for Australia’s benefit.
When you’ve tanked the bowlers around the park on your way to an unbeaten 20-20 century, getting the finger from one of those bowlers is the highest form of flattery. Tait is presenting to McCullum here in a frustrated acknowledgement that McCullum was fricken’ awesome the other night.
In contrast, despite what others might think, the Lancaster Park crowd was jeering Shane Watson because he is a dick, not because we respect his abilities with bat and ball. We openly hate him, we don’t secretly rate him.
Best 20-20 ever. First time an over-200 run total has been nearly chased down. It was the 20-20 equivalent of the 872-run Johannesburg ODI, except not as long and tedious.
Can’t get better than a scintillating century, an exciting run chase, tied scores and then to top it all, we get to see the Aussies choke.
And it was an NZ win wasn’t it? Cricinfo are listing it as a tie, but I’m assuming that is just that their automated scoreboarding systems are set up to handle super overs.
But then, half a day later, we get the worst 20-20 ever, the West Indies failing to chase a target of 106, which like all worst things, has its charms.
Having playing Australia four times in 20-20s and lost each time, I think it is fair to say that New Zealand has not yet discovered the formula for beating Australia. Clearly setting a target of 119 is not going to do it.
Looking at Australia’s record (which is good, 15 wins from 28 matches, but not incredible), they seem to be as vulnerable as the next team to a moderately decent total or in being restricted to a moderately decent score.
Fielding first, as they did last night, Australia has only once chased down a score of over 160 – 161 to be precise. Checking New Zealand’s record, we have never lost posting a total of 164 or above. So I am going to suggest that 160 is a good target, which should stretch Australia.
Setting a total, Australia routinely defends totals of 180 or above, which is no surprise, as that is a good score. New Zealand has never chased down a score in excess of 180, so conceding that much would be a certain defeat for NZ. Now, while Aus have defended some pretty middling total, such as 127, they have failed to defend some pretty hefty scores in the 160s. However, 166 is the most NZ have chased down, and we’ve faltered on several scores of 150-odd. So restricting to Australia to 155 or less should give us a decent chance.
So in Sunday’s match, New Zealand should be trying to set a target of 160 or restrict Australia to a total of 155.
20-20 is such a fickle game. The whole match can turn on just a few minor factors.
Take last night’s match for example. A practically debutante opener, an early loss of a key wicket, a bad umpiring decision, difficulty forming partnerships, a tail that failed to wag, stark difference in bowling pace between the teams, a flying start to the chase, a cool-headed Australian middle order. If all of these factors were eliminated, the game would have been much closer.
