Effortless
New Zealand defeats Australia by 6 wickets. Neither team was really trying. And in the absence of effort, New Zealand was the better natural team. They fielded and bowled well (only 5 extras given away). Then they paced their innings impeccably perfectly. Raw efficiency.
0-2 down and the Aussie commentators still reckon they are man-to-man the better team. Well maybe this Australian team has a greater potential, but it’s not coming to them naturally.
MGMT:
February 7th, 2009 at 1:22 am
“0-2 down and the Aussie commentators still reckon they are man-to-man the better team.”
That’s the problem with commentators. Comparing man-to-man is no indicator of team performance, and if we are to believe reports about the kerfuffle between Katich and “Nads” Clarke, then this Australian team is looking more like a loosely assembled group of 11 individuals than a team. I don’t know what the Ch9 commentators are thinking, but last time I checked, cricket is scored according to the aggregate runs and wickets collected by a team, and not according to head-to-head contests between pairs of opposing players.
Also interesting that the Allan Border Medal ceremony was held in the middle of the series. Like as if that’s the only night of the year in which the Crown Casino is free. The entire way Cricket Australia has approached the Chappell-Hadlee series rubs me up the wrong way.
February 7th, 2009 at 2:14 am
Thanks Blackcaps, you’ve helped India surge past the Aussies now in the ODI rankings. Given that NZ are now 4 points behind the Aussies, a 5-0 sweep could see them start the year as third best!
Who takes the Aussie commentators seriously anyway?