aussie1st said:
If you look at the players they are missing they are all vital to NZ.
Mills - One of the best bowlers in the Champions trophy also decent hitter.
Oram - Gets very good bounce with his bowling and is a decent striker of the ball.
Styris - Adds more stability to the middle order and can bowl a few.
McGrath - one of the finest bowlers ever.
Lee - arguably the best ODI bowler in the world since the last world cup
Watson - handy runs, would strengthen the lower order and provide better bowling than White.
I'm not a big fan of Watson, but the Aussies had 3 guys that if fit would have been selected for the match, so NZ have no excuses.
And talk about perception being reality, I'm tired of hearing 'the Kiwi's always raise their game against the Aussies' and things of the like. From around the 99/2000 season...
ODI's
Head to Head
AUS 18
NZ 7
Head to Head Trophies
AUS 3
NZ 0
DRAW 1
International Trophies both were part of
AUS 3 (99 & 03 WC, 06 CT)
Three of NZ's wins came in that 01/02 VB Series when the Aussies failed to make the final (SAF beat NZ), so other than that there has been virtually no resistance.
They haven't won a trophy in a series AUS has been apart of in at least 7 years (probably more if you go back further). In that period they have won less than 25% of their matces against AUS, in a form of the game where anyone can win on their day and the toss can sometimes prove decisive. I'm sure some will say they've played AUS tough, but aside from the fact that the margins of victory don't bear this out, why in sport (which is about winning) would you applaud competitiveness. I suppose if your goal is mediocrity then fair enough, but who strives for that in elite sports (plus 25% is below mediocre)
Tests
Head to Head
AUS 7
NZ 0
DRAW 5
Series Trophies
AUS 3
NZ 0
DRAWN 1
Again, what is being aspired to. Yes it was a good effort to draw the series on Aussie soil in 01/02 (though the elements were the decisive factor), but not only have they failed to win a series in over 7 years, but FAILED TO WIN A SINGLE MATCH.
I'm not denigrating NZ, I like the Kiwi's and Bond is one of my favourite players in the world, but I guess I'm a little tired of this monumental myth that seems to resurface in the media prior to the two teams facing off that it is a keenly fought rivalry. I suppose you could say they are subjective terms, but to my mind, winning 25% of the games and 0% of the trophies in ODI's and 0% of the games and 0% of the trophies in almost an 8 year period does not amount to a close contest, and a rivalry involves more than one team winning.