What's new

New Zealand defeat Australia by 6 runs to win 1st ODI in Auckland

Haroon786

Haroon786

Test Debutant
Joined
Jun 27, 2013
Runs
16,421
Post of the Week
1
New Zealand: Latham, Guptill, Williamson (c), Taylor, Broom, Munro, Neesham, Santner, Southee, Ferguson, Boult

Australia: Finch (c), Head, S Marsh, Handscomb (wk), Maxwell, Stoinis, Heazlett, Faulkner, Starc, Cummins, Hazlewood

Australia have won the toss and have elected to bowl.
 
Australia would be glad that after more than a month of playing against a club level side they finally get some real opposition.
 
I like and rate Latham but I have doubts weather he is a fit for odis. Playing him as a keeper today just seems like a way to keep him in the side.
 
Williamson is slowing the momentum of the innings down. He lacks impact in this format. Has good stats but I rarely feel like he will take the game away from the opposition.
 
we made cummins look unplayable because of our pathetic backfoot game.

let's see how he does against guptill and williamson.
 
Hasan123 said:
Williamson is slowing the momentum of the innings down. He lacks impact in this format. Has good stats but I rarely feel like he will take the game away from the opposition.
Click to expand...

Mate, it's perfectly fine how he's approaching it when he has someone going at the other end like Guptill is. Someone like Khawaja is much worse in this respect with Warner at the other end.

This is an ODI, not a T20 game and New Zealand are 76/1 after 12 & Williamson is 20 off 27.

Strange comment. He also has one of the greatest ODI batting records of all time averaging 47 with a SR of 85.
 
Snatch said:
Mate, it's perfectly fine how he's approaching it when he has someone going at the other end like Guptill is. Someone like Khawaja is much worse in this respect with Warner at the other end.

This is an ODI, not a T20 game and New Zealand are 76/1 after 12 & Williamson is 20 off 27.

Strange comment. He also has one of the greatest ODI batting records of all time averaging 47 with a SR of 85.
Click to expand...

He's improved his strike rate since that post lol.

A strike rate of 85 isn't earth shattering in this modern era. When it's on him to up the scoring rate he fails more often than not.
 
Hasan123 said:
He's improved his strike rate since that post lol.

A strike rate of 85 isn't earth shattering in this modern era. When it's on him to up the scoring rate he fails more often than not.
Click to expand...

He's playing the perfect foil to Marty.
 
Australia should go on the attack now, the NZ commentators were saying earlier that nz lower order won't want to have to rebuild they will just want to swing from the hips straight away. So a couple of more wickets here will put Australia well on top.

As I am typing Starc is on.
 
KW is super consistent without playing impactful innings. He is what Babar Azam so far is aspiring to be in ODI cricket.
 
Lol commentators wondering why Guptill is poor at test level. It's fairly obvious. He doesn't have the technique to survive on pitches that are favourable to bowlers.
 
Hasan123 said:
He's improved his strike rate since that post lol.

A strike rate of 85 isn't earth shattering in this modern era. When it's on him to up the scoring rate he fails more often than not.
Click to expand...

The point your missing is you need all sorts in a batting lineup. NZ have several big hitters to clear the ropes from Guptill to Munro, Taylor (although he can work it too), Anderson, Neesham to name a few.

They need guys who can bat through the order and get a 47 off 55 balls, which is Williamson's average performance.

I wouldn't say 85 is amazing these days, but it's very very good when coupled with an average near 50 & when you have big hitters around you.

He batting record is like top 5 of alltime or anything, but I would say it would be in the top 20 easily.

let's also no pretend Pakistan wouldn't kill to have a Williamson type player batting at no. 3 for them as one example.
 
Hasan123 said:
Lol commentators wondering why Guptill is poor at test level. It's fairly obvious. He doesn't have the technique to survive on pitches that are favourable to bowlers.
Click to expand...

Pretty much and mentally he doesn't know how to play.
 
I rate both Taylor and Guptill as better batsman than Williamson in ODIs. All have similar strike rate, but Taylor can play big knocks very often and Guptill can play destructive knocks. Williamson can neither play big knocks nor he can be as destructive. However he is a good accumulator and support player to Guptill and Taylor.
 
Snatch said:
The point your missing is you need all sorts in a batting lineup. NZ have several big hitters to clear the ropes from Guptill to Munro, Taylor (although he can work it too), Anderson, Neesham to name a few.

They need guys who can bat through the order and get a 47 off 55 balls, which is Williamson's average performance.

I wouldn't say 85 is amazing these days, but it's very very good when coupled with an average near 50 & when you have big hitters around you.

He batting record is like top 5 of alltime or anything, but I would say it would be in the top 20 easily.

let's also no pretend Pakistan wouldn't kill to have a Williamson type player batting at no. 3 for them as one example.
Click to expand...

People forget we're playing to complete 50 overs not 20. They want everyone in our XI to be a Sharjeel. Just not possible.
 
Snatch said:
The point your missing is you need all sorts in a batting lineup. NZ have several big hitters to clear the ropes from Guptill to Munro, Taylor (although he can work it too), Anderson, Neesham to name a few.

They need guys who can bat through the order and get a 47 off 55 balls, which is Williamson's average performance.

I wouldn't say 85 is amazing these days, but it's very very good when coupled with an average near 50 & when you have big hitters around you.

He batting record is like top 5 of alltime or anything, but I would say it would be in the top 20 easily.

let's also no pretend Pakistan wouldn't kill to have a Williamson type player batting at no. 3 for them as one example.
Click to expand...


I know you need all type of styles but he doesn't seem to have another gear at all. In this era scores of over 300 are the norm.


People talk about him as an atg but in LO I don't see it. Maybe in tests but he lacks impact in this format. His role is to be the stabaliser but there will be times where he will have to bat it another gear which I don't think he is capeble of.
 
Belawal2014 said:
People forget we're playing to complete 50 overs not 20. They want everyone in our XI to be a Sharjeel. Just not possible.
Click to expand...


My comment was more aimed at Williamson as an odi player in general rather than the game situation.
 
Joseph Gomes said:
I rate both Taylor and Guptill as better batsman than Williamson in ODIs. All have similar strike rate, but Taylor can play big knocks very often and Guptill can play destructive knocks. Williamson can neither play big knocks nor he can be as destructive. However he is a good accumulator and support player to Guptill and Taylor.
Click to expand...

Guptill is better, Taylor is about the same. Many Pakistani fans will think to the time he devastated Pakistan in the 2011 world cup, but Taylor hasn't been able to unleash anywhere near that for years. He bats a lot more like Williamson in the last 3-4 years.

Just checked, in the last 3 years Williamson has averaged 55 @ a SR of 87 & Taylor averages 57 @ 82
 
Hasan123 said:
I know you need all type of styles but he doesn't seem to have another gear at all. In this era scores of over 300 are the norm.


People talk about him as an atg but in LO I don't see it. Maybe in tests but he lacks impact in this format. His role is to be the stabaliser but there will be times where he will have to bat it another gear which I don't think he is capeble of.
Click to expand...

Guptill and Taylor are the impact players for NZ, even if Williamson can't be an impact player he does his job well. Not everybody can be Kohli or Warner
 
Snatch said:
Guptill is better, Taylor is about the same. Many Pakistani fans will think to the time he devastated Pakistan in the 2011 world cup, but Taylor hasn't been able to unleash anywhere near that for years. He bats a lot more like Williamson in the last 3-4 years.

Just checked, in the last 3 years Williamson has averaged 55 @ a SR of 87 & Taylor averages 57 @ 82
Click to expand...

I am saying that Taylor can play big knocks aka centuries much more than Williamson. Williamson is consistent but he doesn't score many match winning centuries which Taylor does. Williamson is a good support player, but Taylor has bigger impact on given days.
 
Hasan123 said:
I know you need all type of styles but he doesn't seem to have another gear at all. In this era scores of over 300 are the norm.


People talk about him as an atg but in LO I don't see it. Maybe in tests but he lacks impact in this format. His role is to be the stabaliser but there will be times where he will have to bat it another gear which I don't think he is capable of.
Click to expand...

The weird thing is I sort of agree when I see him in T20s when he can tie himself up, but guess what he's ranked in the top 5 of T20 batsmen when all said and done and averages 37 @ a SR of 123 in T20Is, better than Taylor's 24 @ 120. So in terms of output he seems to get the job done.
 
Joseph Gomes said:
I am saying that Taylor can play big knocks aka centuries much more than Williamson. Williamson is consistent but he doesn't score many match winning centuries which Taylor does. Williamson is a good support player, but Taylor has bigger impact on given days.
Click to expand...

Really? I mean do you know that? Can you cite the number of Taylor matching winning hundreds since they both played vs. Williamson?
 
Joseph Gomes said:
Guptill and Taylor are the impact players for NZ, even if Williamson can't be an impact player he does his job well. Not everybody can be Kohli or Warner
Click to expand...

That stats just don't say that about Taylor in the last 3 years or so though, but they sure do for Guptill
 
Snatch said:
The weird thing is I sort of agree when I see him in T20s when he can tie himself up, but guess what he's ranked in the top 5 of T20 batsmen when all said and done and averages 37 @ a SR of 123 in T20Is, better than Taylor's 24 @ 120. So in terms of output he seems to get the job done.
Click to expand...


He has good stats but it backs up my point. Someone batting at a strike rate of 123 in T20s is having no impact on the game.
 
Snatch said:
Really? I mean do you know that? Can you cite the number of Taylor matching winning hundreds since they both played vs. Williamson?
Click to expand...

I am talking overall. Taylor scores more centuries and has bigger impact on certain matches. Williamson often plays support roles and his conversion rate is pretty poor
 
Haha I was looking the NZ's batting stats in the last 2 years and look at Brendon McCullum. :O Have to laugh, & that is across 22 games

29532nc.png
 
Snatch said:
Hardly, lots of unlucky wickets. It can happen. They still have lots of batting, they won't all chop the ball on or get strangled down the leg side.
Click to expand...

Lol half of the team is out. Even 250 is looking difficult from here . Starc and Hazelwood have plenty of overs left as well.
 
Hasan123 said:
Lol half of the team is out. Even 250 is looking difficult from here . Starc and Hazelwood have plenty of overs left as well.
Click to expand...

I get they are 5 down I was just pointing out it's not often get 2 chop ons and two strangles down the legside in the fist 4 wickets lost.

250 might be competitive here.
 
Hasan123 said:
Lol half of the team is out. Even 250 is looking difficult from here . Starc and Hazelwood have plenty of overs left as well.
Click to expand...

He is repeating the narrative being pushed by the NZ commentators.

In fact, NZ has been extremely lucky so far with Australia dropping catches and conceding 20+ runs in byes and wides already.
 
Snatch said:
I get they are 5 down I was just pointing out it's not often get 2 chop ons and two strangles down the legside in the fist 4 wickets lost.

250 might be competitive here.
Click to expand...


Lol pitch seems flat, Australia are gun on batting friendly pitches.
 
Jimmy Neesham is a better batsman than Azhar, Malik, Hafeez, Akmal and Rizwan, and he plays at number 7 for New Zealand
 
NZ are 5 down and still motoring along at 5.5 rpo. The last 5 overs have yeilded 33 runs at a rate of 6.6.

This is how you play modern day ODI cricket. You counter-attack, you punch back.

Not like the Misbah/Azhar way of shutting up shop and 'absorbing pressure'
 
Kiwis need this partnership to go on , they do not have much batting to come after this
 
Deserved for dismal fielding. I only watched till the 35th over or so but Australia had 5 drops, 3 missed run outs and 15+ runs conceded in byes by that point.
 
Sin Nombre said:
Deserved for dismal fielding. I only watched till the 35th over or so but Australia had 5 drops, 3 missed run outs and 15+ runs conceded in byes by that point.
Click to expand...

all blame pakistan's fielding. but all the team's fielding is rubbish whether it is ground fielding or catching.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Cricket Warrior
New Zealand (330/6) defeat Pakistan (252/9) comfortably by 78 runs in the first match of the Tri-Nation ODI series 2025
14 15 16
Replies
1K
Views
23K
Aqib_mustafa
A
BouncerGuy
New Zealand (240/5) defeat Bangladesh (236/9) by 5 wickets to advance to semi-finals of ICC Champions Trophy 2025
4 5 6
Replies
426
Views
11K
Adiram
A
The Bald Eagle
New Zealand (362/6) defeat South Africa (312/9) comfortably by 50 runs to advance to final of ICC Champions Trophy 2025
9 10 11
Replies
820
Views
14K
jnaveen1980
J
Cricket Warrior
India (254/6) thump New Zealand (251/7) by 4 wickets to win the ICC Champions Trophy 2025
32 33 34
Replies
3K
Views
42K
JaDed
JaDed
Cricket Warrior
New Zealand (243/5) defeat Pakistan (242) comfortably by 5 wickets in the final of Tri-Nation ODI series
15 16 17
Replies
1K
Views
20K
BouncerGuy
BouncerGuy
Back
Top