Cricket-Match-Special ... A forum for discussion

So this is it, after 48(!) matches only two teams remain, and I think few (apart from some South Africans, maybe) would argue that they are not the best two teams of the tournament. The co-hosts battling it out as a nice ring to it

New Zealand beat Australia in their group stage encounter in home conditions, but this will be played in the very different environs of the MCG. Home ground advantage, especially combined with the fact that this will be the first match the Kiwis have played in Australia, leans me towards the Aussies, but the Kiwis are a very, very good side.

Excellent, England are hosts next...

The competition needs a NZ win to make it memorable, to give it some identity. So far it has been fairly predictable.

Based on this tournament, how about

Guptill
McCullum
Smith
Elliott
Maxwell
Anderson
Haddin/Ronchi
Vettori
Johnson/Southee
Boult
Starc
?

3 for Aus, six for NZ and two ties?

Still make the favourites the favourites though.

Ryder has been suspended. I don't know why, because none of the links on cricinfo work. But leaving him out has worked well for NZ. The players he might have squeezed out, Elliott and Guptill, have had great tournaments.

Arthur Crabtree wrote:Excellent, England are hosts next...

The competition needs a NZ win to make it memorable, to give it some identity. So far it has been fairly predictable.

Based on this tournament, how about

Guptill
McCullum
Smith
Elliott
Maxwell
Anderson
Haddin/Ronchi
Vettori
Johnson/Southee
Boult
Starc
?

3 for Aus, six for NZ and two ties?

Still make the favourites the favourites though.

Hazlewood for me ahead of either Johnson or Southee - he's got a better average and economy rate than both of them. Both Southee and Johnson have taken wickets but also had a tendency to go around the park a bit. And I think Haddin just about has the edge over Ronchi.

It depends who you line them up against, as there are not like-for-like replacements for each position in each team.

I suppose my drift is, don't write off the Kiwis. But it could be that the Aussie picks are clear winners, and the Kiwis marginal. But I'm not really saying that. I guess I'm betraying that however much the Kiwis impress, I still can't quite believe in them against the reputation of their neighbours. And home advantage will trump their consistently impressive performances.

I know he hasn't contributed as much in the tournament after missing the first few games but I would have Faulkner in a composite side before Anderson every time

far better bowler and just as dangerous with the bat

Composite sides rarely get agreement. It is always difficult to get the right balance.

rich1uk wrote:I know he hasn't contributed as much in the tournament after missing the first few games but I would have Faulkner in a composite side before Anderson every time

far better bowler and just as dangerous with the bat

I agree Faulkner is the better player overall, but based on performances in this tournament alone I think Anderson gets in to the composite team.

Maybe that'll change post final.

Arthur Crabtree wrote:I suppose my drift is, don't write off the Kiwis. But it could be that the Aussie picks are clear winners, and the Kiwis marginal. But I'm not really saying that. I guess I'm betraying that however much the Kiwis impress, I still can't quite believe in them against the reputation of their neighbours. And home advantage will trump their consistently impressive performances.

I agree. But then I think the Kiwis are more than the sum of their parts, whereas the Aussies have some excellent individual performers and several who have been very inconsistent (Clarke, Watson, Warner, Finch, Johnson and Faulkner. What the Aussies have had is enough strength in depth that only one or two of those players have needed to contribute to make it matchwinning, and in every match bar one someone has stepped up to the plate. That and their bowling has been the most consistently among the best of the tournament.

I cant see Australia losing , even though the players have changed they still have an in-built belief that they will win , they don't just go into games like this thinking they will win, they expect to win

that belief might be over-confidence bordering on arrogance but more often than not they actually do it

Arthur Crabtree wrote: I guess I'm betraying that however much the Kiwis impress, I still can't quite believe in them against the reputation of their neighbours. And home advantage will trump their consistently impressive performances.

That sums up a fair bit for me. Not that I am discounting NZ, or their chances, They will have a very good chance of winning if they play as they have throughout the tournament.

I, along with others, make mention of NZ not having played away from home and this could be their undoing. However, they haven't lost away from home, either, so it is all conjecture. At this point.

NZ do traditionally perform very well against Aus.

It is definitely the match up that the tournament wanted as the finale. If both teams play to their potential, I see an Aus win, and it won't be a 'down to the wire'.

Well, NZ did beat the Aussies in the preliminary group match, so....

I predicted an Aus v NZ final and said NZ would win the trophy so I'm half right so far.

The Kiwi's did beat them in the group stage, but that was at home. Williamson, and Taylor are due some runs, which they're going to need, as I can't see a repeat of the low scoring group game.
I'm predicting a high scoring game with the Aussies claiming victory.

Aidan11 wrote:I predicted an Aus v NZ final and said NZ would win the trophy so I'm half right so far.

So am I - but only.one of us will be fully correct after Sunday.