What a remarkable cricket test; the Black Caps came back from the dead to beat Australia by a mere seven runs. Doug Bracewell, playing just his third test match ripped the guts out of the Australian innings with a career-best six for 40.
At 159/2, Australia had the match firmly in control. Then Bracewell picked up the premier scalps of Ponting, Clarke and Hussey in a devastating nine-ball spell to level up the odds just prior to the lunch break.
But the twists and turns weren't over. Warner and Haddin added 33 before Tim Southee removed the latter at 192/6. Siddle, Pattinson and Starc followed in quick succession and Australia was 199/9 and seemingly dead and buried.
But David Warner, who carried his bat for 130 not out (his maiden test hundred) and Nathan Lyon defied the odds. Lyon was given out LBW, then the decision was overturned by a VERY curious DRS referral, then was given not out a couple of overs later. The New Zealanders looked adamant that the balls was hitting, but this time the DRS showed the ball missing leg. Both decisions looked very "out" on first glance, and there will be questions raised.
But the final twist came with just eight runs required to win when Bracewell squeezed one through Lyon's defences, and hit the stumps. Not even the DRS could save Australia this time, and as Lyon sunk to his haunches, the Black Caps celebrated.
It's their first win against Australia in a test match since 1993, and their first test win in Australia since December 1985. After their lame batting effort at Brisbane, this was a gutsy effort, but more importantly, a TEAM effort. Ross Taylor, John Wright and company should celebrate long and hard tonight; they deserve it.
And if you didn't see or hear the moment when the match was won and the series tied, here's Bryan Waddle's commentary, courtesy of the ABC; a great moment for Waddle, who has endured more heartbreak at the hands of the Aussies than most.
Well done New Zealand; matches like that are exactly why we don't like test cricket; we love it!
15 comments:
Shame on the Aussies for not making Bracewell man of the match.
Good and all as Warner batted Bracewells was a matchwinning performance - Warners was not.
pdm you should never expecte the Ockers to make anyone other than one of their own MoM although I would have given it to the outright cheat running "Eagle-eye".
Thank christ for Brendan's little boy and the NZ cricket team finally earning the "team".
Shows what can happen when you excise cancer.
@pdm - Warner carried his bat for a century in a match where the innings totals averaged only 186. I can't quibble about a MotM award for that.
I agree with pdm james It was a close call but Bracewells effort gained the win and Warners fell short.
It was a doosy of a ball that took Lyons wicket, and we still had the indigestion creating wait for the review.
I seriously doubted the ability of the Kiwis to pick themselves up from the Backfoot review overturn it looked out for all money from where I was standing, err sitting.
Ps james do you seriously think the Ockers would have given it to say Ross Taylor if he scored a century in each innings and we lost by one 'I Don't Think So'
I'm with pdm; Bracewell's nine wickets in the match and his spell this morning when he cleaned out Ponting, Clarke and Hussey in the space of two overs was a match-winning performance. Giving the award to Warner is just the Australian way of trying to salvage something from an otherwise appalling batting effort.
I put this up at No Minister but some of you will remember back in the 80's. NZ beat the Aussies in a low scoring one dayer.
Lance Cairns took 5 for in a match winning performance but Man Of The Match went to Rod Marsh who scored 28.
Figure that out.
I put this up at No Minister but some of you will remember back in the 80's. NZ beat the Aussies in a low scoring one dayer.
Lance Cairns took 5 for in a match winning performance but Man Of The Match went to Rod Marsh who scored 28.
Figure that out.
Ooops - don't know what happened with the double post there. Zap one of them plus this if you want Inv.
Alright, tell you what, how about we chalk it up to the continued pro-batsman bias that exists in all cricket?
I'll tell you what; I've just seen the replay of the Lyon decision reversal on the news, and the DRS stuffed up majorly. In real time the ball hit Lyon in front of middle and off; on the replay everything had moved three inches to the leg side. Either the technology is flawed, or someone was trying to manipulate it. Either way, the ICC simply MUST investigate that decision.
I think you'll find the reason the decision was overturned was the fact the ball pitched outside leg.
End of story.
It's not the one that the New Zealanders referred that is the problem Adolf. It's the one where Lyon was given out, and got it overturned. The difference in the ball's path between real time and the DRS Eagle Eye view was so marked as to suggest that something either went wrong, or was made to go wrong.
From Cricinfo (my emphasis added)
A full delivery swung down the line and struck Lyon in front, quickly drawing a raised finger from the umpire Nigel Llong. Lyon's last-ditch referral looked exactly that, but the ball tracker improbably revealed the ball had pitched a millimetre outside leg stump. To widespread disbelief, the chase resumed.
Mmmm I wondered about that Inv but thought it was just my old eyes. It looked as plumb as Pontings in the first innings to me.
Post a Comment