I cannot recall the last time Australia and New Zealand met in the finals of a major cricket tournament. Nor for that matter, in a semi-finals. Usually the Kiwis end up playing against Pakistan or Sri Lanka and the Aussies against South Africa. So, this may be a first and it will be interesting to watch where it goes tomorrow.

This is a big high for the New Zealanders who have had a disappointing year for the most part. Their Test performances took a nose dive (poorer than usual against India and Sri Lanka), they didn’t get to the World Twenty20 semis and the last tournament in Sri Lanka ended up badly for them. So this has been a good outing for them even if they started it with a poor match against South Africa.

As for Australia, this is business as usual for them. The second consecutive final for them. They start heavy favorites, New Zealand being one of the lesser challengers – I would rate South Africa, Sri Lanka, India and Pakistan above the Kiwis as a threat to the Australians. But of course, no team can be taken lightly and the Kiwis have the ability to turn it on.

The interesting thing about the two finalists is their approach to cricket. Australia, to me, has always seemed a team that takes cricket in the most straightforward way. Bat well, bowl well and field well – you win the match. The only time I have ever heard the word “innovation” being mentioned in the same sentence as “Australia” was back in the early 1990s when the fielders used to sent flat throws from the boundary to the wicket. Which is not very different from “fielding better”. Australia succeeds because it simply plays better than the opposition.

New Zealand, on the other hand, has a fraction of the talent that Australia has and but over-performs compared to its potential. David Barry pointed out a possible reason in how software helps the Kiwis be more competitive. But even before all this, the Kiwis were one of the most innovative teams (pinchhitters in first 15 overs, spinners as opening bowlers, etc.) I don’t want to overplay this because New Zealand has never done enough to go all the way, but still they keep trying.

Which brings us to India. Interestingly, India’s biggest success (1983 WC) was when India most closely resembled the 1992 Kiwis. Since then, they have mostly played a conventional game, but never been good enough to win it all. The best performance since then (2003) was mostly built on Tendulkar’s amazing form during the Cup.

I don’t know what strategy India has for 2011. At this early stage, it doesn’t look like India has any major tricks up its sleeve to be an innovative team, but India also seems too brittle and inconsistent to be a tough conventional team. Guess we may have to cheer on Tendulkar to do a last act and this time not fall for 4 in the final match.