Yes.
Don't get me wrong, that was a very, very good win. And a very good game of cricket. From Matthew Hayden's magnificent 181, with a broken toe, no less, to Mark Gillespie's surprising (and amusing) batting at the end of the innings.
Oh, yes, and some guy called McMillan proved me wrong. I was waiting for his head to explode and him to do something stupid. He didn't. I take it back. McMillan, McCullum and Fulton showed a lot of maturity, and some really impressive batting.
It was like a long 20-20 match, what with the fours, and the sixes, and the running between wickets, and the very poor-looking bowling figures. Seems like going for 6 or 7 an over might be about the average, now.
At 4-41, New Zealand looked like they were gone. With a total that big, you would never have believed they could chase that down, without Fleming, Vincent, or Taylor to anchor the innings.
But they did. They have shown they can definitly chase down big totals. They are hitting form at the right time. They did that without Bond, Vettori and Oram (who were in fact lying on the boundary for most of the game). But Australia did it without Ponting, Gilchrist, Symonds, Lee and Clarke.
And it wasn't long ago New Zealand were dismissed for 78. Sometimes sports fans have short memories. Yes, that was a beautiful game of cricket, and a complete series. They did everything fans asked, and then some. Presumably there are some improvements to make, there always are. But I bet there was a lot of beer consumed in Hamilton last night, and rightly so. The selectors now have the unenviable task of picking a playing 11.
Oh, yes, and some guy called McMillan proved me wrong. I was waiting for his head to explode and him to do something stupid. He didn't. I take it back. McMillan, McCullum and Fulton showed a lot of maturity, and some really impressive batting.
It was like a long 20-20 match, what with the fours, and the sixes, and the running between wickets, and the very poor-looking bowling figures. Seems like going for 6 or 7 an over might be about the average, now.
At 4-41, New Zealand looked like they were gone. With a total that big, you would never have believed they could chase that down, without Fleming, Vincent, or Taylor to anchor the innings.
But they did. They have shown they can definitly chase down big totals. They are hitting form at the right time. They did that without Bond, Vettori and Oram (who were in fact lying on the boundary for most of the game). But Australia did it without Ponting, Gilchrist, Symonds, Lee and Clarke.
And it wasn't long ago New Zealand were dismissed for 78. Sometimes sports fans have short memories. Yes, that was a beautiful game of cricket, and a complete series. They did everything fans asked, and then some. Presumably there are some improvements to make, there always are. But I bet there was a lot of beer consumed in Hamilton last night, and rightly so. The selectors now have the unenviable task of picking a playing 11.
But the World Cup is what they are building to. It's why we put up with Bracewell's rotational policy, and the experiment of McCullum opening. And as i discussed with some very knowledgable people earlier in the week, there is ever chance New Zealand could beat Australia three times in a row, and then lose to Kenya. Those of us who have watched cricket for a while like to temper our celebrations. But I drank a bottle of wine last night, so maybe that's just the wine talking.
I don't envy the Aussie selectors, what with Hayden's broken toe, Lee's ankle, and all the othe walking wounded. And the fact they've lost 5 games in a row. Hussey admitted he feels demoralised. I don't imagine any of the other players are feeling any better. But as Daza pointed out last night, if you had to bet everything you own on New Zealand or Australia winning the world cup, who would you back?
|