Field Theory by Hadyn Green

and this just in: Michael Phelps will not be charged in that recent storm in a bong

Dan Vettori was right to get angry at his team. While he is still the #1 ODI bowler (Mills is #3) his ten friends in black are letting him down.

Actually, he was far from the best bowler in the series. He went for heaps in the last two completed games without taking wickets, and that made a big chunk of the difference. Deciding to bat second in Sydney and then first in Adelaide might not have helped either, although it's easy to say in hindsight.

The boy and I will be at the 20/20 match at the Basin tonight, he said casually.

This story makes it seem like John Key has just learnt what Cholera is, and is going around saying "ohmigod, we send people to countries that have this disease!".

"What you're dealing with here is that if the NZC doesn't go to Zimbabwe then there is potentially a fine from the ICC. Well, if the ICC wants to fine New Zealand for not sending its players to a country where our players would be unsafe, they could contract a Third World disease, might not return, and support a regime we don't support, I am happy to have that discussion with the ICC myself."

Love the order. 1. Could be unsafe. 2. Could get third-world-itis. 3. Might not come back. 4. Oh and that political thing that we couldn't do when Rod Donald raised it a few years ago, but can do now.

Actually, he was far from the best bowler in the series. He went for heaps in the last two completed games without taking wickets, and that made a big chunk of the difference. Deciding to bat second in Sydney and then first in Adelaide might not have helped either, although it's easy to say in hindsight.

The boy and I will be at the 20/20 match at the Basin tonight, he said casually.

Vettori was not his consistent self in the series, for sure, but I think that was partly because in those two completed games the Australians decided to deliberately target him, reckoning (rightly), that if he got rattled, then it would bring them that much closer to victory.

As for batting second at Sydney, don't forget that NZ could've easily taken that match- and indeed were making a good fist of it right up until the dying stages. Again, the failure of the top order is what did them. In the Adelaide match, NZ were undone by the fact that they simply didn't make enough runs- the pitch was clearly a 270-280 one, and so they were at least 30 short of that mark. Also, poor fielding and some dodgy umpiring decisions didn't help their cause, either.

I actually thought Mills and O'Brien were the most impressive of the NZ bowlers, actually. Admittedly, O'Brien was expensive at times, but he took wickets, bowled well at the death (when you're on a hiding to nothing), and seems to have picked up an extra yard of pace on the tour. It seems he's starting to settle into the ODI format as well as he had been in the tests.

The batsmen were inconsistent, but Elliott impressed me throughout. If we're at the stage where we accept that Oram is unlikely to be fit for most series (and unfortunately, it appears we are, much like Cairns, it seems Oram's body can't stand the battering he's given it), then he seems a natural fit for the no. 6 spot, and his medium-pacers are a very good option indeed in the middle stages.

Even when Oram returns, I'd be tempted to have him at no. 7 and Oram at no. 6, as that would strengthen our middle order no end. That said, Ross Taylor also batted very well in bursts, too, and Guptil must be furious that (so far) his two best performances with the bat for NZ were ultimately in vain.

It was a frustrating series, for sure, but I think in the end, NZ was undone by bad luck and a couple of bad decisions, and ultimately bad weather. The way Guptil was batting in the final match (and with Southee and Vettori to come), I'd have backed them to win it 9 times out of ten. They didn't even need to go at a run a ball.

^^
Apologies for the appalling grammar in the above post.

Vettori was not his consistent self in the series, for sure, but I think that was partly because in those two completed games the Australians decided to deliberately target him, reckoning (rightly), that if he got rattled, then it would bring them that much closer to victory.

And rattle him they did, which is why I don't think you could say he was let down by the rest of the team. Agree with you on everything else (esp. the last game, that was ours for the taking), but I still think in Sydney we ought to have batted first - the history of the ground suggested it was always going to be easier, we had spinners suited to a deteriorating pitch, and we need to be able to assert ourselves batting first too - what best opportunity than when you're up 2-0 in a series? We would have won, too.

Deciding to bat second in Sydney and then first in Adelaide might not have helped either, although it's easy to say in hindsight.

There's also a mantra going around that NZ chases well, and people seem to think that this means that they should always chase. Clearly that's not the case, and I'd be concerned if they made that decision automatically without consideration for the weather, teams, pitch, etc etc.

Apart from anything else, if you were only good at chasing, every time you lose the toss you'd be screwed.

The only thing more frustrating than supporting the Black Caps is supporting the Highlanders. Both teams manage to get off to great starts, only to blow away huge opportunities. The reason the Highlanders lost was that the Brumbies got into position and slotted a drop goal. Perhaps New Zealanders could learn about this drop goal, as if it had been the Chiefs rather than the Brumbies that the Highlanders were playing, would they have been able to come back from one point down, with almost no time left on the clock.

Btw, when did the rugby season end? With all our players heading north, naturally we have been keeping an eye on them, and in turn the competitions they play in. But turning our attention to the Chiefs v Crusaders, here's an alternative question on the drop goal. Why did the Chiefs not attempt a drop goal around the 72 minute or so when they were in Crusaders territory and basically hit a wall of Crusaders defenders? If you're not able to penetrate a team's defense while down by two points in the latter stages of a game, isn't a drop goal a logical option?

If you're not able to penetrate a team's defense while down by two points in the latter stages of a game, isn't a drop goal a logical option?

*cough* france RWC quarter-final *cough*

You would think that, wouldn't you?

RWCs aside, it is a failing of all New Zealand rugby players that the drop goal is not a more widely used tool. At the end of the day it is still worth three points and can still win matches. In the Chiefs v Crusaders match before Laulala scored the final try the Chiefs were down by one, and were in possession of the ball. They could not score a 4 try bonus point, and were within striking distance of taking the lead. They chose to keep ball in hand and not opt for the drop goal to take the lead. As it turned out the Crusaders got possession and eventually won the match, however things may have been different if the score was 16 - 14 to the Chiefs in the final minutes.

I suspect our 'failure' to take greater advantage of the drop goal arises from a few things.

1. 'We' think it's a bit 'wussy' relative to scoring a try.
2. Certainly at the All Blacks level, a significant proportion of our games we finish well ahead, so in a lot of games it's never considered. And even at the provincial level, a lot of games are fairly one-sided.
3. The nature of the way rugby happens, there are penalties regularly throughout the game. So if you spend enough time near the other team's line, you're likely to get a penalty (notable exceptions ie RWC).

Interesting that it's used more in rugby league when it's worth both less in actual terms, and relative to all the other point scoring methods.

Love the order. 1. Could be unsafe. 2. Could get third-world-itis. 3. Might not come back. 4. Oh and that political thing that we couldn't do when Rod Donald raised it a few years ago, but can do now.

Do you think he knows *how* you get cholera? The precise reason that it's appalling Zimbabwe has an epidemic is because it's a disease of poor sanitation, rather than being contagious. It's representative of the breakdown of infrastructure. It's not lurking in the streets to molest unsuspecting cricketers, FFS.

*sigh*