Australia v New Zealand, 2nd Test, Hobart, 4th day December 12, 2011

Taylor 'stoked' with Bracewell burst

  shares 56

That Doug Bracewell was not Man of the Match in Hobart was a travesty. He finished with match figures of 9 for 60. He was responsible for altering the course of the Test when Australia seemed set for victory. In short, he was the reason New Zealand won a Test in Australia for the first time since his uncle John played for the national side in 1985.

In their wisdom, Channel Nine asked viewers to vote for the Man of the Match. On a day when David Warner's maiden Test hundred nearly won Australia the game, it was no wonder that Australian fans elected Warner. His innings was brilliant, but he was not the best player in the game. Even Bracewell's captain, Ross Taylor, was surprised by how dramatically the fast man lifted New Zealand.

"I thought Dougie would bowl well," Taylor said. "I didn't think he would bowl that well."

Taylor was referring to his decision to hand the ball to Bracewell with less than 30 minutes to go for lunch. Operating from the southern end, Bracewell removed Ricky Ponting with the fourth ball of his spell and in his next over, nipped the ball away magnificently from Michael Clarke to entice an edge to slip. His very next ball swung in to Michael Hussey, who was lbw on review.

"I thought the way [Peter] Siddle and [James] Pattinson bowled from that end, Doug is probably 5kph slower than them but he's a similar bowler, can hit the deck and swing it away," Taylor said. "As captain you've got to go on hunches.

"I'm just stoked for Dougie. He didn't bowl as well as he would have liked in Brisbane. It didn't help that his captain dropped a catch as well. He bowled outstandingly well for a young guy, only 21, to come in in his third Test match and get Ponting, Clarke and Hussey - that's something you tell your grandkids."

Based on Bracewell's family history, his grandkids might well play for the Black Caps too. It is a huge tick in the box of New Zealand's two selectors, Kim Littlejohn and the coach John Wright, that they trusted Bracewell to be ready for Test cricket. Prior to his debut in Zimbabwe, he had 42 first-class wickets at an average of 42.45. But they saw something in him.

Three Tests into his career, Bracewell has 16 wickets at 19.25. When he mastered the curve in the air and seam off the pitch, Australia had no way to handle him. Another double-wicket over came when he had James Pattinson caught at slip and bowled Mitchell Starc, who couldn't get bat on a ball that jagged in from the off stump, leaving Australia nine wickets down.

Fittingly, Bracewell finished the job in his seventh consecutive over after lunch - his tenth of the spell if the pre-lunch overs are taken into consideration. He nipped another ball in from outside off to bowl Australia's No. 11, Nathan Lyon, and was mobbed by his team-mates. He was the star, but he had plenty of assistance.

Trent Boult was excellent on debut, while Chris Martin led the way in the first innings. And Tim Southee, perhaps the weaker link during the first three innings of the series, picked up two wickets in an over on Monday to take New Zealand from a good position to a brilliant one.

Southee swung the ball away from Brad Haddin to have him caught at slip one ball after being dropped in the cordon, and also drew an edge to slip from Peter Siddle. Taylor said bowling Australia out for 136 and 233 rated as one of the most complete bowling performances he had been part of in the New Zealand side.

"I thought we bowled better in the first innings to be honest," Taylor said. "As a complete performance, yes, I thought we caught well, we didn't drop any. We get a lot of flak for dropping catches but we took all our catches. I'm just stoked.

"We knew we needed wickets before lunch. I didn't bat very well but I never felt in, so I knew that it wasn't going to be easy to bat on that wicket. It was still nipping around on day four so we thought wickets, as they did in our innings, would fall in clumps, so we couldn't be too flat. We had to be as upbeat as possible and that's how we looked at it."

And of course, they needed someone to bowl well. That well.

Brydon Coverdale is an assistant editor at ESPNcricinfo

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • POSTED BY FatBoysCanBat on | December 13, 2011, 9:00 GMT

    @Pardo: I never said 135-140kph was quick [or "scary" for that matter] I just said that it wasn't medium which is what a guy like Styris was [110-125 kph] so you aren't "breaking anything to me" mate. NZ only has one guy who is genuinely quick - Adam Milne - and having played with him at Palmerston North Boys High School when we were 18 years old [and facing in the nets almost daily] I have to say it wasn't that "scary".

  • POSTED BY RandyOZ on | December 13, 2011, 7:44 GMT

    Bracewell is a plodder at best. Even Starc somehow managed swing on that track and he couldn't pitch it up if his life depended on it. The batting was the failure. Warner easily deserved the MoM award.

  • POSTED BY redneck on | December 13, 2011, 6:41 GMT

    see i have been shown up, sorry about the mix up in nationallity. ill trade the rose coloured glasses for some humble pie. only just this time though!

  • POSTED BY on | December 13, 2011, 5:19 GMT

    Thanks @redneck that after a longish explaination of MOM to Warner you do concede the point that it should have gone instead to Bracewell. Btw in your comment to @anuradea notice the fact he is wishing u from Sri Lanka and not from India!!! So do hold your horses and rose glasses in the right direction and yes bring on Boxing day match

  • POSTED BY desi1 on | December 13, 2011, 5:02 GMT

    @redneck do you realize that anuradea is from SL and not India. By the way i have no problems with MOM going by votes, the best performance should be what the majority says, not pundits. If more people votes for Warner then he was the best performer, fullstop. Afridi is the best player from Pak because majority supports him, Waqar, Wasim might have other opinion but it is the public that matters, and for Pakistan afridi is the biggest charm in cricket.

  • POSTED BY on | December 13, 2011, 4:50 GMT

    @redneck . Please do not make it about India all the time. If you read @anuradea's post fully, that guy is from Sri Lanka.

  • POSTED BY RajitD on | December 13, 2011, 4:24 GMT

    While Warner batted brilliantly, Bracewell won the match and was more deserving just for that simple reason. Hearing words that since it was done by viewer voting. If that is how they want to do it, then the voting should be opened only post completion of the match, and not while it is in progress.

  • POSTED BY anuradea on | December 13, 2011, 2:33 GMT

    I agree with you absolutely that the indians do vote in numbers for these Best all time XI's. Since I am Sri Lankan and do not care too much how the indians get into these XI's although ther 3 indian greats who had proved that they should be in any world XI are Tendulkar, Gavaskar & Kapil Dev. But did you know there was a sri lankan nominated for the all time XI even though as a bowler he had taken 37 test wickets (ave. of 36) & 32 ODI wickets (ave.48). What would be the color of the glasses for that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • POSTED BY Naikan on | December 13, 2011, 2:32 GMT

    I am not surprised that Batsmen always seem to get more of these awards (ironically a match is turned around - to use the phrase- usually by bowlers - Batsmen need the better part of a day to do it). Batsmen tend to build up the expectations over a longer period of time and therefore strike a deeper emotional chord. I struggle to recall a fielding effort that got a man of the match - though I am sure there would have been some deserving cases. Another aspect I observe is that while England and Aussie fans are generally more appreciative of good players from other teams (than people from elsewhere), when it comes to giving the final word - they rarely look beyond their own. Their world rarely revolves around some one else. Even the Don could not escape from this when he filed in his best 11, so I am not surprised with Aussie fan's choice of best player. I can understand that a lot of votes may have come in early, but that just proves the point -- they did not feel the need to wait!

  • POSTED BY redneck on | December 12, 2011, 23:04 GMT

    in defence of the man of the match award when voting started we were 0/72 needing 169 to win. when warner made his ton we still had 5 wickets in hand. there had already been too many votes already cast in the man of the match poll by the time new zealand had turned the match on its head!!! i do think channel 9 should give the stupid gimmick up and award it based on match winning plays. still warner made 123 in a test that had no other centuries made. not totally underserving, but it should have gone to bracewell. @anuradea you ever seen any of these cricinfo best XI of the year/of all time! alot of indians get in these teams due to the amount of indias voting not becasue of merit. rose coloured glasses my friend!!! bring on boxing day!

  • POSTED BY FatBoysCanBat on | December 13, 2011, 9:00 GMT

    @Pardo: I never said 135-140kph was quick [or "scary" for that matter] I just said that it wasn't medium which is what a guy like Styris was [110-125 kph] so you aren't "breaking anything to me" mate. NZ only has one guy who is genuinely quick - Adam Milne - and having played with him at Palmerston North Boys High School when we were 18 years old [and facing in the nets almost daily] I have to say it wasn't that "scary".

  • POSTED BY RandyOZ on | December 13, 2011, 7:44 GMT

    Bracewell is a plodder at best. Even Starc somehow managed swing on that track and he couldn't pitch it up if his life depended on it. The batting was the failure. Warner easily deserved the MoM award.

  • POSTED BY redneck on | December 13, 2011, 6:41 GMT

    see i have been shown up, sorry about the mix up in nationallity. ill trade the rose coloured glasses for some humble pie. only just this time though!

  • POSTED BY on | December 13, 2011, 5:19 GMT

    Thanks @redneck that after a longish explaination of MOM to Warner you do concede the point that it should have gone instead to Bracewell. Btw in your comment to @anuradea notice the fact he is wishing u from Sri Lanka and not from India!!! So do hold your horses and rose glasses in the right direction and yes bring on Boxing day match

  • POSTED BY desi1 on | December 13, 2011, 5:02 GMT

    @redneck do you realize that anuradea is from SL and not India. By the way i have no problems with MOM going by votes, the best performance should be what the majority says, not pundits. If more people votes for Warner then he was the best performer, fullstop. Afridi is the best player from Pak because majority supports him, Waqar, Wasim might have other opinion but it is the public that matters, and for Pakistan afridi is the biggest charm in cricket.

  • POSTED BY on | December 13, 2011, 4:50 GMT

    @redneck . Please do not make it about India all the time. If you read @anuradea's post fully, that guy is from Sri Lanka.

  • POSTED BY RajitD on | December 13, 2011, 4:24 GMT

    While Warner batted brilliantly, Bracewell won the match and was more deserving just for that simple reason. Hearing words that since it was done by viewer voting. If that is how they want to do it, then the voting should be opened only post completion of the match, and not while it is in progress.

  • POSTED BY anuradea on | December 13, 2011, 2:33 GMT

    I agree with you absolutely that the indians do vote in numbers for these Best all time XI's. Since I am Sri Lankan and do not care too much how the indians get into these XI's although ther 3 indian greats who had proved that they should be in any world XI are Tendulkar, Gavaskar & Kapil Dev. But did you know there was a sri lankan nominated for the all time XI even though as a bowler he had taken 37 test wickets (ave. of 36) & 32 ODI wickets (ave.48). What would be the color of the glasses for that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • POSTED BY Naikan on | December 13, 2011, 2:32 GMT

    I am not surprised that Batsmen always seem to get more of these awards (ironically a match is turned around - to use the phrase- usually by bowlers - Batsmen need the better part of a day to do it). Batsmen tend to build up the expectations over a longer period of time and therefore strike a deeper emotional chord. I struggle to recall a fielding effort that got a man of the match - though I am sure there would have been some deserving cases. Another aspect I observe is that while England and Aussie fans are generally more appreciative of good players from other teams (than people from elsewhere), when it comes to giving the final word - they rarely look beyond their own. Their world rarely revolves around some one else. Even the Don could not escape from this when he filed in his best 11, so I am not surprised with Aussie fan's choice of best player. I can understand that a lot of votes may have come in early, but that just proves the point -- they did not feel the need to wait!

  • POSTED BY redneck on | December 12, 2011, 23:04 GMT

    in defence of the man of the match award when voting started we were 0/72 needing 169 to win. when warner made his ton we still had 5 wickets in hand. there had already been too many votes already cast in the man of the match poll by the time new zealand had turned the match on its head!!! i do think channel 9 should give the stupid gimmick up and award it based on match winning plays. still warner made 123 in a test that had no other centuries made. not totally underserving, but it should have gone to bracewell. @anuradea you ever seen any of these cricinfo best XI of the year/of all time! alot of indians get in these teams due to the amount of indias voting not becasue of merit. rose coloured glasses my friend!!! bring on boxing day!

  • POSTED BY anuradea on | December 12, 2011, 22:21 GMT

    You can get 1000 runs in whatever the conditions, but if you do not complete the job and win the game the person who got 9 wickets and won the game for NZ (Bracewell) should have got the MOM. Whoever thought the Aussie fans will vote for a Kiwi or another player from another country even if they have taken 20 wickets or scored 300 runs in a match must have been dreaming. Well done KIWI's, keep it up and well wishes from Sri Lanka.

  • POSTED BY Bishop on | December 12, 2011, 22:20 GMT

    @RowdyMallett Undoubtedly a case for Warner as MOM, but here Bracewell wins it hands down. A century in a low scoring match is a special thing, but the pitch had flattened out a lot from the first day. Seamed only a touch on day 4, not the 3 degrees it was seaming on day 1. Sure there was a little movement in the air, but that is as much bowler skill as atmospheric conditions. Warner played well, but he had his fair share of luck - he edged passed the slips, over the slips, and short of the slips during his stay. He must have played and missed a couple of dozen times. Not questioning the value of his knock - all good batsmen have a bit of luck, you NEED a bit of luck in difficult conditions. But Bracewell hardly bowled a bad ball. Also he made a significant first innings contribution which Warner didn't do.

  • POSTED BY Rabies on | December 12, 2011, 21:55 GMT

    I for one am not surprised at the MoM award- who else do you expect homegrown Oz supporters to vote for? Anyway- in the big scheme of things it will be Bracewell's performance that will live longer in the memory- even the Oz memories. As a Saffer- I am more excited to see a real pace threat emerging from NZ for the first time in years and if their batters could get some consistency- that would be really good for cricket all round- have a bit more competition to look forward to- and with the WI starting to look more dangerous- we could be in for some treats in the years to come...

  • POSTED BY Chris_P on | December 12, 2011, 20:56 GMT

    I am just stunned that CA asked the televising network to come up with a way to select MOM. If this is not a point of too mnuch media control, I am not sure what is. Who is running cricket? Unless a player comes up with a Hadlee like performance, it wil go to a home player every time. It was, indeed a travesty that Bracewell didn't get it. Even Warner was embarrassed to receive it! Have we sunk so low? They are destroying this great game we love so much. Bracewell bowled without luck in Brisbane and I thought he was close to be being the pick of the bowlers when I watched the test up there, so wasn't surprised he kicked on. On seamer friendly conditions, this NZ attack can match any attack. very impressed with their discipline, kudos to Damo Wright!

  • POSTED BY NRI- on | December 12, 2011, 20:41 GMT

    Not just Australia in tests, this is a problem everywhere in tests, ODIs and 20-20s. Batsmen are preferred to bowlers when awarding MoM awards even though a typical team has 6 specialist batsmen and 4 specialist bowlers and bowlers win matches. Bracewell was definitely deprived. GO BOWLERS!!!

  • POSTED BY Alexk400 on | December 12, 2011, 20:09 GMT

    NZ finally have a X factor player like kapildev , botham , imran khan. Bracewell WILLED nz to win. Ross taylor captaincy was iffy. Southie was bowling badly ...he was using hin instead of boult. Southie would have lost that test. Southie is not working hard.. he is just floating the ball just like RP singh used to bowl. No zip in the ball. Southie needs to bend back...it seems like he is kinda lazy nz player. Nz full ofplayers who try hard but lack skill. Ross taylor has batting skill but not batting like a champl. he throw the wicket some times. WIlliamson would be good in 2 years...He is still learning the craft. Guptil has to go..mccullum should be moved to midde and should be wicket keeper. he can' bat in tough condition and can't keep. nz is not balancing the team well. Southie get hammered every time he floats the ball and to the stumps...and get hammered every time. When he is going to learn that he don't have zip in the ball..his action is the problem

  • POSTED BY piper on | December 12, 2011, 20:04 GMT

    Nothing against Warner, but... I appreciate a good test innings and I have no doubt that Warner is Australia's answer to Sehwag in tests. Yet, he knew and so did Mark taylor when they both were shaking hands that another man deserved it. Even if the OZzzzz losing as many as 16 tests in the last four years does not tell you, Katich incident does not tell you, this surely proves that Cricket Australia has lost it. Using Apps to get the MOM may look good to a group of marketing buffs, fans buying and paying to get the word in is not helping cricket. Let somethings be as they are, you can continue asking ridiculous questions like "Will ponting make 25 today?". So the bottom line is "Dear CA, Do not mess with the real cricket stuff!!!"

  • POSTED BY Jburger on | December 12, 2011, 19:48 GMT

    Well done kiwis, that was one of the most amazing days of cricket i have watched, could have gone either way, and i nearly had a heart attack every five minutes. I agree, Warner played very well and deserved praise, but his team lost because of some freakish bowling from Bracewell, i called it as soon as the game finished - exactly the same as when the kiwi league team beat Aussie in Aussie, man of the match "Lockyer". Anyway, fantastic outcome, bring on south Africa!

  • POSTED BY JG2704 on | December 12, 2011, 18:45 GMT

    Where are the fairweather fans aka RandyOz and Jonesy2 on these Australia related threads ?They have plenty of time to post rubbish on the England threads. A shame they have nothing constructive to say on their own forums. No doubt they'll return when Australia get back to winning ways.

  • POSTED BY JG2704 on | December 12, 2011, 18:45 GMT

    Re Man Of The Match , while I agree that DB should have been MOM , I'm sure he and NZ fans would have preferred to have won the test with no MOM award than lost the test with the MOM consolation. Had the rest of the batsmen stayed with Warner and Aus won then that would definitely have been worthy of the award. What a great test match though. But yet again we have the same scenario as when Aus levelled vs SA whereby both teams would reckon they would win a decider and we get no 3rd test. Great performance by NZ especially without Vetori. I think the word inconsistent best sums up Australia. They beat SA in SA in the 2nd test to level that series , then they win convincingly the 1st test vs NZ and now this result

  • POSTED BY JG2704 on | December 12, 2011, 18:44 GMT

    @khiladisher on (December 12 2011, 14:15 PM GMT) - The Aussie umpires cost India the last 2 series they played there? My geography aint great but as far as I was aware New Zealand (Bowden) , South Africa (Koertzen) and Pakistan (Darr and Rauf) were not part of Australia. I thought that even your good self would know that Pakistan was not part of Australia.

  • POSTED BY on | December 12, 2011, 18:16 GMT

    IF THIS VOTING SYSTEM IS GONNA CONTINUE!!! SACHIN WILL WIN MOM AWARDS EVEN FOR THE SA VS SL MATCHES!!

  • POSTED BY on | December 12, 2011, 17:38 GMT

    Performances from Bracewell nd Warner has shown that players shouldnt be given tooo much hype based on domestic performances. You need an eagle eye to spot a talent much like John Wright in this case nd Ganguly in case of India. Heartning to see these guys perform without any good domestic record nd very disheartning to see guys like arvind nd Vinay Kumar flopping for india at national level.... domestic cricket is totally diff than international... so srikant better learn dis and also shud quit favouring players of his state nd region...support the real talent nd u will see much similar performaces as dese guyz !!!! lookin forward to indo aussie series....

  • POSTED BY zico123 on | December 12, 2011, 17:29 GMT

    why putting unnecessary pressure on the youngstar Hughes, he has still everything to gain, he will definitely improve with more Test matches he play. what value is old Ponting or Hussey adding to the team, Australia have nothing to gain from them. Ponting is on 2 year run draught, wonder how much more time he can buy using his big name, he got to go

  • POSTED BY RowdyMallett on | December 12, 2011, 16:55 GMT

    It is acknowledged that voting by *Australian viewers* is not fully appropriate and obtains bias, but were they wrong? On a pitch which provided 40 wickets in less than 4 full days even with the rain delays, etc. wasn't it a bowlers paradise if it was put on the right spot! But to have conquered this with a century and having carried your bat the unexpected has been achieved, whereas Bracewell provide the probable, slightly above other bowlers and in itself a wonderful and timely effort, congratulations. Based on this I wouldn't say the MOM should have been simply given to Bracewell but more of a toss of the coin which fell the wrong way, for seven runs later 100% without doubt it could have only been Warner - who did better to negate the conditions overall as no other batsmen could in the conditions. So throughout the match where batsmen failed and bowlers flourished who really did better. Definitely a closer call than is being portrayed and may it was the batsmen's effort.

  • POSTED BY on | December 12, 2011, 16:48 GMT

    cool...the kiwis nail the aussies! Aussie-Aussie-Aussie....

  • POSTED BY Nampally on | December 12, 2011, 16:36 GMT

    The man who carriedhis team to a victory deserves to be the Man of the Match. It is sad that for the second match on the same day the MOM award went to a local guy rather than to the deserving player who turned the tide of the game.K.Pollard of WI deserved the MOM award after a great one man innings of 119 including 10 sixers!. Yet the MOM award went to local batsman Tiwary albeit he scored a century in a winning cause.Bracewell deserved in this case because he dramatically turned a definite loss into a win with a brilliant pre lunch spell. Warner scored a century in a losing cause so did not deserve his award. Congrats. to the NZ team & Young Bracewell for the win. The Aussies were preoccupied with the series ahead with India & forgot the current game.Without Watson the Aussies do not have a star model to lead them although even with Watson in the side the Aussies were skittled for 49 in SA!.

  • POSTED BY Tjoeps on | December 12, 2011, 16:28 GMT

    Well done NZ, as a Saffer I am very happy for you guys, well played! Cannot wait for the Saffers tour in NZ next year... Well written article Brydon, I so wish people that comment will stick to the contents of the article, so tired of the DRS bashing, at least it takes care of the howlers.....

  • POSTED BY Jack_India on | December 12, 2011, 15:41 GMT

    I think it is a ridiculous idea having to vote for the Man of the Math award. The award will always go to the player of the country that has more people online. Let see if they use the same system when India plays Australia. The MoM will most likely be someone from India even if we lose the match. And what's next? DRS decisions been referred to the public. Did the ball straighten enough to hit leg? Vote now!.

  • POSTED BY Quazar on | December 12, 2011, 15:34 GMT

    CA and their telecom sponsor may have made some $, but Bracewell was deprived. Should at least have got a joint Man of the Match award. Anyhow, well played the Kiwis, and well played to Warner too!

  • POSTED BY Sinhaya on | December 12, 2011, 15:26 GMT

    I was stunned that Bracewell was not man of the match. I commented in the article citing Chris Martin on Saturday where I predicted an NZ win and it happened! This is the start of a golden era for NZ cricket. Southee and Bracewell will be a lethal bowling combination.

  • POSTED BY dr.jha on | December 12, 2011, 15:07 GMT

    he really bowled well.that MOM award goof up wasn't good but then, david played well too.. best they could've shared it .anyway... SOMEBODY PLEASE REMOVE THAT "Jarrod Kimber" ARTICLE ON RICKY PONTING. WELL DONE NEW ZEALAND. CRICKET IS SO MUCH BETTER ON SUCH PITCHES.I USED TO GET UP AT FIVE IN THE MORNING TO WATHC THESE MATCHES...DIDN'T BOTHER FOR THE IND VS WI SERIES ,ONLY CUZ OF THE PITCHES..WHEN WILL WE START PRODUCING SUCH PITCHES...BCCI .. YOU LISTENING???

  • POSTED BY Z.Saleem on | December 12, 2011, 15:04 GMT

    Shame on Aussie viewers and crap decision by CHannel 9, just so stupid not to give the MoM to the great Kiwi and I saw the bowling display when he removed Ponting, Clarke and Hussey (in quick session) and then it was lunch and I went to bed.

  • POSTED BY on | December 12, 2011, 14:42 GMT

    Inconsistency seems to rule globally. If Warner is Mom in this match, Pollard should have been at Chennai, the other day. One of the two decisions is certainly wrong!

  • POSTED BY on | December 12, 2011, 14:38 GMT

    @FatBoysCanBat. Yes, Fat boys can bat. Look at Sehwag & Ryder. Tendulkar is no skinny model either. From the past, there are many, from Boon to Gatting to Insamam. Fat boys can bowl too -- but some one like Merv Hughes chasing the ball to the boundary, but being invariably beaten by the ball in that race, used to be hilarious.

  • POSTED BY on | December 12, 2011, 14:32 GMT

    IT IS REDICULOUS NOT FACILITATING THE BOWLER FOR HIS EFFORT "AS MAN OF THE MATCH AWARD". HE (BRACEWELL) TOOK 3 WICKETS IN FIRST AND 6 IN SECOND INNINTGS. THE MAN WHO MADE A HUNDRED WAS GIVEN MOM...IT IS JUST UNFAIR, REDICULOUS AND A CHEATING OF THE HONOR OF THE CRICKET. ANYWAY, JAI HO BRACEWELL....

  • POSTED BY khiladisher on | December 12, 2011, 14:15 GMT

    IT IS HIGH TIME THE FARCE CALLED DRS IS BANNED-{HOWEVER ITS STILL MUCH BETTER THAN AUSSIE UMPIRES{WHO HAVE COST INDIA THE LAST 2 SERIES PLAYED THERE} IN COMBINATION WITH STEVE BUCKNOR.IF UMPIRING IS NOT A ISSUE I PREDICT INDIA TO WIN 2-0{WITH A FULL STRENGTH SQUAD AND NO INJURY CONCERNS UNLIKE ENGLAND TOUR{WHERE WE PLAYED WITH A HALF FIT AND INJURED PLAYERS.

  • POSTED BY TTking on | December 12, 2011, 14:08 GMT

    What rubbish, this voting system needs to be changed, there is an understandable and apparent bias towards the home team players. I dont know how it works but i do believe 25% of votes should come from the public and the balance from knowledgeable cricket personalities.

  • POSTED BY Dravid_Pujara_Gravitas on | December 12, 2011, 14:07 GMT

    Obviously, DRS sucks. Ball-tracking sucks. I'm happy that BCCI opposes this dubious technology. Next, regarding MoM it was 50-50. It wasn't a batting paradise. Scoring more than half the team's runs in a 4th innings chase on that ridiculous underprepared track is no easy effort - very rare. Though I would have loved Warner to call upon Bracewell to share it. Remember how Ponting called on Gibbs in SA to share the MoM when both of them scored centuries, SA won and MoM was again given to the losing side batsman (Ponting)? Ponting was a class act to call on Gibbs. Remember how Sachin called on Rayudu to share the MoM in IPL? Sachin was a class act too in sharing the MoM with Rayudu. May be Warner will learn with experience. Bracewell not getting the MoM in a historical, jaw dropping win was a bit of a shame. But hey, let's move on without forgetting Bracewell's fantastic performance and respecting Warner's superhuman effort on a dodgy pitch.

  • POSTED BY on | December 12, 2011, 14:05 GMT

    Bracewell seem to put everything into his bowling. Taylor (and the team management) need to protect him from injuries. ( See the case of Cummins of Australia and Aaron of India)

  • POSTED BY ashlatchem on | December 12, 2011, 13:40 GMT

    It's a travesty for Warner, Bracewell and test cricket in general...I didn't see today or the voting system but the first thing I said after the I saw the scorecard was though Warner played incredibly he shouldn't have been MOM I imagine I will hear that conversation for a while yet. Terrible idea... Shouldn't Bracewell be rewarded for sealing NZ's first win on Oz soil in over a 1/4 of a century! Not only is Warner's first test century part of a heart-breaking loss that MOM is always going to be debated too.

    @satyam.sharma Hopefully this is the best of both worlds NZ still won and the debate can restart as to the inaccuracy of ball-tracking and while they are there hopefully they find away to actually get rid of shocking decisions instead of this 50-50 lbw/thin edge crap we have now! (Which was the whole idea in the first place)!

  • POSTED BY Chris_Howard on | December 12, 2011, 13:38 GMT

    The big problem with the MOTM voting system was they started it too early and finished it too early - which skewed the voting so far in Warner's favour, Bracewell was unable to make up ground. It shouldn't have begun until the match was over.

  • POSTED BY SirRickyPunting on | December 12, 2011, 13:20 GMT

    What is even worse is that a guy has been given a poisoned chalice he doesn't need!

    Stupid - 'viewer' voting - it's not ice-skating!

    Warner was v.good but Bracewell won the match - change it for Warner's sake!

  • POSTED BY crazier on | December 12, 2011, 13:15 GMT

    @satyam.sharma:please dont blame technology for inaccuracy and its only the man who created it.And if it is not accurate it means it our mistake not the technology just because we create it. And what about the umpires if they do mistakes what about that then, will u ask that u r not accurate so that their should be no umpire on the field.

  • POSTED BY on | December 12, 2011, 12:53 GMT

    How stupid is this. Why ask viewers to vote for the Man of the Match ? Clearly majority of the viewers would be Australians and its very inevitable that they would vote for their man Dave Warner. Doug Bracewell was the one who changed the course of the game, therefore he should have got it disregarding the fact what viewers think.

  • POSTED BY pardo on | December 12, 2011, 12:45 GMT

    Hi FatBoysCanBat - hate to break it to you but 135-140 isn't quick. OK, its way faster than I could even have a chance of making contact with, but it isn't going to scare a test quality batsman. I remember an aussie commentator (might have been Chapple) years ago (probably the last time we beat Oz) saying that has far as he was concerned there wasn't any point in arguing whether someone was fast- medium or medium-fast - in his book there was fast, and then everyone else. Nothing wrong with bowling at 135-140 if you're good enough, Hadlee and McGrath did all right at that pace, but its at 145-150 that things start getting scary. Hope I'm wrong but suspect that Bracewell with find the going tougher on less helpful pitches/overhead conditions at that pace.

  • POSTED BY RSBali on | December 12, 2011, 12:40 GMT

    Bracewell is the Man of the Match, period.

  • POSTED BY lyoung on | December 12, 2011, 12:32 GMT

    Finally, NZ has some bowlers who didn't break down during the test. What a find Bracewell has been. Only 21, in his third test, and he bowled 10 overs straight (3 before, 7 after, lunch) without wavering from the line that was most likely to bring wickets. Such good control for such an inexperienced bowler. He and Boult are the good young fast-medium bowlers NZ has been wanting since the retirement of Shane Bond. Bracewell is 21, Boult 22, and Southee 23. This trio will hopefully stay fit and be the core of the NZ bowling attack for the next 10 years. They could well develop into a great bowling attack.

  • POSTED BY on | December 12, 2011, 12:32 GMT

    It is not surprising anyone out side Australia, because we know who are Australian fans and how they treat overseas players.David W, played well but Dug Bracewell is undoubtedly man of the match.

  • POSTED BY on | December 12, 2011, 12:28 GMT

    Well said gents; the Aussies love to huddle amongst themselves...deprive Dougie of a memory of a lifetime; this said I am sure he knows who was the winner all the way after the match and sure he feels like a million bucks. Way to go lads and I hope its all the way up from here for Taylor and Wright... about time!

  • POSTED BY on | December 12, 2011, 12:22 GMT

    @satyam.sharma stop spamming dude! u keep posting this in every article everyone wants DRS other than the stuck up losers of BCCI

  • POSTED BY on | December 12, 2011, 12:00 GMT

    'Travesty'? Honours are at least equal between the two performances on either side. Why do people need to look for something to be outraged over? The Pakistan series in Australia two years ago Nathan Hauritz made a good case to be Man of the Match every game as I recall and got overlooked every time, and by their own admission was 'just pipped' for Man of the Series, I seemed to be the only one who even noticed. If Doug Bracewell is half the man suggested by this lionizing he'll be getting plenty of MoMs so what does it matter?

  • POSTED BY satish619chandar on | December 12, 2011, 12:00 GMT

    Bracewell has basics right.. If it coupled with discipline, it can be very dangerous and it is what happened.. He has a long way to go.. Hope NZ plays good amount of cricket each year and we see more of budding cricketers in good competitive cricket..

  • POSTED BY Ifty_Khan on | December 12, 2011, 11:31 GMT

    Hi all this voting system should be scraped its injustice to great win by NZ. Bracewell not only deserved man of the match he owned it. bad. bad very sad.

  • POSTED BY FatBoysCanBat on | December 12, 2011, 11:22 GMT

    Bracewell has looked the goods since coming into the side. His domestic record isn't good at all but he seems like a guy who will rise to the big occasion. I really liked what I saw from Boult in the first innings. With that away swing he gets from the left-handers he is a good option to replace Martin [who won't be around forever]. Between Bracewell, Boult, Milne, Southee, and Wagner NZ have the makings of a world-class bowling attack. Another guy you can add to that list is Matt Henry from Canterbury. He bowls around 135kph with substantial movement through the air and off the pitch and has at times looked unplayable during his brief first-class career. On another note; Cricinfo ought to change Bracewell's profile as it states he is a medium bowler. I would not consider 135-140kph to be medium.

  • POSTED BY satyam.sharma on | December 12, 2011, 11:19 GMT

    For matches in Australia the *Australian viewers* determine the Man of the match?! There go 4 MoM awards for Laxman in the upcoming series... BTW, this match showed how much, and how abominably, DRS sucks. Forget ball tracking, even the pitch map has elements of prediction in it. How? Because even the fastest cameras capture only few discrete frames every few milliseconds of the ball's continuous journey through the air. That translates to several 10s of cms of unknown trajectory (between frames) that must be predicted and interpolated to guess where had the ball landed on the pitch during its journey between bowler and batsman. That leads to such inaccuracies and technology-caused blunders.

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • POSTED BY satyam.sharma on | December 12, 2011, 11:19 GMT

    For matches in Australia the *Australian viewers* determine the Man of the match?! There go 4 MoM awards for Laxman in the upcoming series... BTW, this match showed how much, and how abominably, DRS sucks. Forget ball tracking, even the pitch map has elements of prediction in it. How? Because even the fastest cameras capture only few discrete frames every few milliseconds of the ball's continuous journey through the air. That translates to several 10s of cms of unknown trajectory (between frames) that must be predicted and interpolated to guess where had the ball landed on the pitch during its journey between bowler and batsman. That leads to such inaccuracies and technology-caused blunders.

  • POSTED BY FatBoysCanBat on | December 12, 2011, 11:22 GMT

    Bracewell has looked the goods since coming into the side. His domestic record isn't good at all but he seems like a guy who will rise to the big occasion. I really liked what I saw from Boult in the first innings. With that away swing he gets from the left-handers he is a good option to replace Martin [who won't be around forever]. Between Bracewell, Boult, Milne, Southee, and Wagner NZ have the makings of a world-class bowling attack. Another guy you can add to that list is Matt Henry from Canterbury. He bowls around 135kph with substantial movement through the air and off the pitch and has at times looked unplayable during his brief first-class career. On another note; Cricinfo ought to change Bracewell's profile as it states he is a medium bowler. I would not consider 135-140kph to be medium.

  • POSTED BY Ifty_Khan on | December 12, 2011, 11:31 GMT

    Hi all this voting system should be scraped its injustice to great win by NZ. Bracewell not only deserved man of the match he owned it. bad. bad very sad.

  • POSTED BY satish619chandar on | December 12, 2011, 12:00 GMT

    Bracewell has basics right.. If it coupled with discipline, it can be very dangerous and it is what happened.. He has a long way to go.. Hope NZ plays good amount of cricket each year and we see more of budding cricketers in good competitive cricket..

  • POSTED BY on | December 12, 2011, 12:00 GMT

    'Travesty'? Honours are at least equal between the two performances on either side. Why do people need to look for something to be outraged over? The Pakistan series in Australia two years ago Nathan Hauritz made a good case to be Man of the Match every game as I recall and got overlooked every time, and by their own admission was 'just pipped' for Man of the Series, I seemed to be the only one who even noticed. If Doug Bracewell is half the man suggested by this lionizing he'll be getting plenty of MoMs so what does it matter?

  • POSTED BY on | December 12, 2011, 12:22 GMT

    @satyam.sharma stop spamming dude! u keep posting this in every article everyone wants DRS other than the stuck up losers of BCCI

  • POSTED BY on | December 12, 2011, 12:28 GMT

    Well said gents; the Aussies love to huddle amongst themselves...deprive Dougie of a memory of a lifetime; this said I am sure he knows who was the winner all the way after the match and sure he feels like a million bucks. Way to go lads and I hope its all the way up from here for Taylor and Wright... about time!

  • POSTED BY on | December 12, 2011, 12:32 GMT

    It is not surprising anyone out side Australia, because we know who are Australian fans and how they treat overseas players.David W, played well but Dug Bracewell is undoubtedly man of the match.

  • POSTED BY lyoung on | December 12, 2011, 12:32 GMT

    Finally, NZ has some bowlers who didn't break down during the test. What a find Bracewell has been. Only 21, in his third test, and he bowled 10 overs straight (3 before, 7 after, lunch) without wavering from the line that was most likely to bring wickets. Such good control for such an inexperienced bowler. He and Boult are the good young fast-medium bowlers NZ has been wanting since the retirement of Shane Bond. Bracewell is 21, Boult 22, and Southee 23. This trio will hopefully stay fit and be the core of the NZ bowling attack for the next 10 years. They could well develop into a great bowling attack.

  • POSTED BY RSBali on | December 12, 2011, 12:40 GMT

    Bracewell is the Man of the Match, period.