Tag Archives: new zealand

A Real Test Match

Posted on by

Many series are going on at the same time: India versus Sri Lanka, Australia versus West Indies and England versus South Africa.

But the best play right now is the Test match between New Zealand and Pakistan.

New Zealand, put into bat, lose their opener off the first ball and limp to 211/6 where Vettori, as usual, leads the fightback with a 99. New Zealand end up with 429, a challenging total.

Pakistan have their own collapse when the Akmals pull them from 85/5 to a respectable 332. Bond takes a five-for on his return Test.

New Zealand have the chance to put Pakistan out, but Pakistan is no mood to allow them. New Zealand are 152/9 as I write this.

For the Indian fans, there is nothing more joyful than seeing India destroy Sri Lanka by an innings, but in terms of entertaining cricket, the Pak-NZ Test is the best thing going on right now.

The Trans Tasman Final

Posted on by

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.

Curtains for Sri Lanka

Posted on by

All those calculations would have been useful if England were the least bit interested in having Sri Lanka join them in the semi-finals. They weren’t. If England had to choose between Sri Lanka and New Zealand to play again in the finals, the Kiwis would be the natural choice. So it was not a big surprise to see the Poms do their best to grant them an easy berth to the semis.

I suppose not all the English players were in on the charade. Ryan Sidebottom for one. Perhaps Stuart Broad for another. But the rest were pretty obliging. Even with that, the Kiwis managed to lose 6 wickets while getting to the target.

Of course, there is no real *proof* that England threw the match. There wouldn’t be. After all, you don’t want to be censured by the ICC.

But consider the circumstantial evidence: By losing today, England gained a lot. They will not play on this pitch for the semifinals. They will have an additional rest day for the finals. They have eliminated Sri Lanka, the most dangerous ODI team after Australia.

I suppose New Zealand missed a trick. They should have thrown away their wickets after going past the required runs to reach the semis. They could have avoided the pitch and gained the rest day. But maybe it was the safe solution. You don’t want to do a 2003 WC South Africa, misread some figure and then lose out by one measly run.

So my predictions for Group B have been totally destroyed. But Australia should reach the semis tomorrow and they remain the favorites to win the Trophy.

How New Zealand Can Qualify If England Bats First

Posted on by

Common sense would suggest that since New Zealand is behind Sri Lanka in the NRR (Net Run Rate), a loss would set them further back and destroy their chances of reaching the semis. But the twist here is that both NZ and SL have negative NRR and so although NZ cannot obtain a positive NRR, it can still generate a negative NRR that is higher than Sri Lanka and qualify.

So here is a graph that explains this. New Zealand must restrict England to a score that is 260 or below and then get very close to the score. This can range from between 14 runs if England is bowled out for 30 runs (impossible) to 4 runs or less if England goes above 200. If England cross 270, New Zealand have to win the match to reach the semis.

new zealand margin of loss

Obviously, New Zealand will qualify if they win the match. They cannot and should not attempt to lose the match by a few runs. This chart will only come into play in situations if and when New Zealand is close to the English target and only have a few wickets in hand.

For example, if England were bowled out for 180. New Zealand can only afford to lose by 5 runs. Let us say that they are in the final over with 3 balls to play, 7 runs to get and one wicket in hand. Instead of trying to smash a boundary to win the game, they should take that critical single to ensure the semifinal spot and then go for the win, if possible.

Hope somebody in the Kiwi team has this calculation done and not miss out by a few runs.

South Africa Out, Sri Lanka on Verge

Posted on by

A few days back, Purna pointed out that 5% believed that England would win the Champions Trophy and she decided to cast her lot with Bangladesh! Well, believe it or not, England are just two victories away from being crowned the Champions (the next match against the Kiwis does not matter and they only need to win the semis and finals).

This competition is turning out to be a classic. Two consecutive victories for England. South Africa crashing out in the group stage. The second string West Indies creating major scares for Pakistan and Australia, and probably nightmares for the Indian team. Big favorites Sri Lanka just a few Net Run Rate decimal points away from elimination.

Today’s matches were spectacular. The Sri Lankan team’s batting performance against New Zealand was absolutely stunning despite their loss. Every time you thought that New Zealand had finished them off, another Lankan player would come out and bash a few sixes. Kulasekara hit his best ever ODI score (57 not out) and No. 10 Malinga equaled his. Thanks to their effort, the SL NRR stayed ahead just enough to keep them in the running. Take away 13 runs and South Africa would still be in the tournament and Sri Lanka would be flying back.

And England. Wow! After they had sunk to the absolute depths, losing to Australia 6-1, they are the first team to qualify for the semis. South Africa, yet again, fail to go past the first hurdle as hosts, despite that magnificent 141 by Graeme Smith. No choking this time. Just outplayed.

Tuesday will decide Group B. England are already through and the only effect of a loss is their position in the group (No. 1 or No. 2). But unless they lose by a huge margin, they will remain No. 1. New Zealand will go through if they win. If they lose, it will depend on Net Run Rate.

A quick back-of-the-envelope calculation shows that a low scoring match (less than 237 or so) that goes to the wire may allow New Zealand to overtake Sri Lanka’s net run rate even though they lose. I will post a graph with more details in my next post.

India Playing After Long Rest

Posted on by

For some reason, I cannot bring myself to be very excited about India’s match against New Zealand that starts in a few hours from now. It is strange. India has not played for several months after the short series against West Indies. And in this tournament, India is fielding Sachin Tendulkar and Rahul Dravid. So this feeling is strange.

I suppose the problem is that the group stage is too short. If India wins, the next match against Sri Lanka is redundant, sort of a dress rehearsal for the final. And even if India loses, if they keep the margin down, they will reach the finals by beating Sri Lanka. And the tournament is then over just like that (snap of fingers).

More pertinently, as many commentators have pointed out, the Premadasa Stadium, where all the Compaq Cup matches will take place, has a significant bias towards the team batting first. The last victory by a team chasing was England in October 2007. Since then, the victory margins have been 107 runs, 33 runs, 46 runs, 112 runs, 15 runs, 147 runs, 67 runs, 68 runs, 146 runs, 132 runs and 97 runs.

Essentially, it seems to boil down to who wins the toss. And if that is the case, then it would have been more appropriate to have a quick toss-throwing ceremony to decide who would win the Compaq Cup!

But we will see. Maybe there might be an interesting match on the cards.

The Sad Plight of New Zealand Cricket

Posted on by

New Zealand slumped to another miserable Test defeat against the Sri Lankans. I don’t know if you can call a 2-0 defeat in a 2-Test series a whitewash, but that is exactly what happened. At no point in either match did the Kiwis have any hope of winning the match. It was just a matter of when they would give up the fight.

Winning in Sri Lanka is never easy, but this has been a long slump in the fortunes of the New Zealand team. Ignoring Bangladesh, they are probably tied with West Indies at the bottom of the Test nations ladder. Unlike the West Indies, who have shown some resurgence in their non-striking team, New Zealand seem to be going from bad to worse.

This was bound to happen at some point. The problem with New Zealand is that they are a small nation (in area and population), but for a long time, overperformed because of their status as a developed nation with better infrastructure. This even though the playing season in New Zealand is truncated because of weather conditions during the winter.

Now, as the Indian subcontinent (India mostly, but also Sri Lanka and Pakistan) become more developed, the edge enjoyed by New Zealand has been wiped out by the sheer number of cricket players available in the former countries. Numbers are not enough, but statistically speaking, you will find better talent if there are more players.

That is the reason why the United States and China enjoy dominance at the Olympics, and why India, Australia and South Africa dominate cricket. It is a combination of population and GDP. What we will see is the continued fall of countries like New Zealand and West Indies. England seems to be an anamoly, but that is perhaps because the major English sport today is soccer, not cricket.

Ewan Chatfield and Money in Cricket

Posted on by

Ewen Chatfield played 43 Tests and over 100 one-dayers for New Zealand, forming a lethal opening bowler combination with Richard Hadlee. He gained fame in the most painful way, hit in the head by a deflected ball from Peter Lever. I was sad to read about his present situation, earning his living by driving a cab around Wellington, NZ.

And that is just one story. There are literally tens of thousands of cricketers playing professional cricket across the world who are not making any money worth talking about. If it weren’t for the love of the game, cricket would have been dead today.

That is why the rise of Twenty20 and the efforts (however poor) of the ICC in  promoting cricket around the globe should be applauded. The increasing popularity of cricket and the influx of money is not just good for the superstars, but also for the cricketers at the bottom of the food chain.

In this context, the BCCI’s attempts to destroy the ICL is contemptible. What we want is not just more cricket sanctioned by the governing bodies, but simply more cricket everywhere. Has anyone thought about why the ICL exists at all? If cricketers could make enough money playing “official” cricket, the ICL would have no supporters today.

It is an affront to justice that a cricketer can play for his country or state for years bringing joy to millions of viewers and finally have to live in poverty. They are not looking for a handout. All they ask is that they be allowed to participate in opportunities when they have the health and capability to do so.