Australia v New Zealand, Champions Trophy, Group A, Edgbaston June 12, 2013

Points split after rain ruins match

84

Match abandoned Australia 243 for 8 (Voges 71, Bailey 55, McClenaghan 4-65) v New Zealand 51 for 2
Scorecard and ball-by-ball details

The famously fickle English weather hadn't hurt the Champions Trophy much over its first six days, but struck in the crucial trans-Tasman match to leave Australia and New Zealand with split points. New Zealand were 51 for 2 after 15 overs in their chase of 244 when play was interrupted, and couldn't resume.

It is hard to tell whether either team will be happy with the split points. New Zealand were in a marginally worse position in the match, and the point from here means even a washout in their final league game could be enough to take them to the elimination rounds. Australia, having lost their first game, will probably be more aggrieved. They got their first point of the campaign but could still be out before they play their next, and final, match if England and New Zealand win the other two games in the group.

The solitary point didn't brighten Australia's mood on a day which had begun on a dismal note as their regular opener David Warner was stood down from the match after news emerged of an altercation with an England player in a Birmingham bar over the weekend.

Things worsened for them after the match got underway as Shane Watson, Australia's most dangerous batsman and one of only two players in the side to have played more than 50 ODIs, was caught behind in the second over. Soon after, Phillip Hughes was run-out, caught short by an underarm flick from Martin Guptill.

In walked George Bailey, the stand-in captain who seems to get scant respect despite a solid start to his one-day career, and he set about righting the innings with Matthew Wade, who was promoted to the top of the order to replace Warner. Their 64-run stand wasn't the most exciting to watch but against a disciplined New Zealand attack which thrived despite not getting much movement on a cloudy day, it steadied the early jitters.

When talk turns to the causes for optimism in New Zealand, it usually centres on the promising pace attack that has emerged. Tim Southee had an off day, and Mitchell McClenaghan continued to hoover up wickets - his fourth four-wicket haul in nine ODIs so far - but the biggest impact was made by New Zealand's spinners on a slowing track at Edgbaston.

Daniel Vettori, passed fit after struggling with his long-standing Achilles tendon problem, was his usual accurate self, not turning it big but slipping in the arm ball to keep the batsmen guessing. Nathan McCullum, the Man of the Match in the tense win against Sri Lanka, also proved hard to hit and he got the wickets of both Wade and Bailey at crucial junctures. Kane Williamson, a part-timer who is being increasingly used by New Zealand, bowled almost unchanged from the 29th over till the end of the innings, and his figures were dented only by a Glenn Maxwell onslaught in the penultimate over. All three bowled out their full quota, and their 30 overs was the most spin New Zealand have ever been sent down in an ODI.

Bailey played a series of crisp, uncomplicated drives down the ground against the quicks, but even he had trouble against the slower bowlers, making only 14 off 37 deliveries from Vettori. It was Adam Voges, another man who has had to wait a long time to get an extended run for Australia, who provided the impetus after the spinners choked the runs early on.

Voges nearly chipped a return catch to Nathan McCullum when on 2, and watchfully worked the singles after that, only opening out once the quick bowlers came back. Southee was driven for consecutive fours as he searched for swing, and McClenaghan was guided to fine leg for successive fours as well. More than those fours it was the steady singles that pushed the innings along, with Voges limiting the number of dot balls.

Bailey and Voges put on 77 to give Australia a launchpad, before Bailey was bowled trying to work the ball to the on side by moving across, before the batting Powerplay. Australia couldn't hit top gear as McCullum and Williamson kept things tight, and Voges fell soon after the Powerplay to a full toss that he miscued to short cover. It was left to Maxwell to throw his bat around at the death to lift Australia to 243, a score which should have test New Zealand on a surface where stroke-making was proving difficult.

The rain allowed only an hour of the chase, by when New Zealand had lost both their openers, but with neither team having taken a firm grip on the game.

Siddarth Ravindran is a senior sub-editor at ESPNcricinfo

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • JG2704 on June 13, 2013, 8:34 GMT

    It's a shame that rain ruined this game. I wouldn't say Australia were miles on top as NZ still had Taylor,Mccullum and others to bat. But NZ are fortunate that the rain didn't fall half an hour later as they were miles behind on DL. Maybe a lesson in looking at the weather forecast when batting 2nd? Re the reserve day thing. Yes it's a shame they seem unable to do this

  • Pelham_Barton on June 12, 2013, 19:05 GMT

    @TheBigBoodha on (June 12, 2013, 14:45 GMT): Please try a bit harder to understand the D/L system before you condemn it in such strong terms. If the NZ innings had been reduced to 20 overs before the start, the target would have been a lot higher than 54. Where the figure 54 comes from is as follows. Suppose that the NZ innings had been reduced to 30 overs before the start. Then the target would have been 190 to win, on the basis that scoring 189 (to tie) off 30 overs with all 10 wickets intact is deemed to be of equivalent difficulty to scoring 243 off 50 overs. That means that a team on 54-0 after 20 overs is exactly on course to win. New Zealand's total would only have been compared against a par score of 54 if they had batted for 20 overs without losing a wicket, expecting to have to bat for a full 50 overs, and then play had been stopped and not resumed.

  • SirViv1973 on June 12, 2013, 17:46 GMT

    Although Aus won't be happy with this, a point each is probably the fairest result given the circumstances. The game was still very evenly poised when the rain came and could have gone either way. I think it would have been a bit harsh to ask NZL to score 60 runs off 5 overs at the end had they managed to get back out. With the same token it would have been a bit tough on Aus if they would have got to 20 overs before the rain came as NZL were only 27 runs short of the D/L score for 20 overs. I guess the difficult thing now for Aus is that they won't know if they are still involved in this competition until after Eng play NZL on Sun eve.

  • on June 16, 2013, 12:41 GMT

    What a tournament; rain decides champions, not cricket?!!

  • landl47 on June 13, 2013, 11:48 GMT

    @Mitty2, I think you have made a grammatical error. You said: '..we have the world's statistical best opening partnership'. I think you meant to say 'we HAD the world's best statistical partnership'. Following the Australian tour of India and the England tests against New Zealand, Cook and Compton are easily the statistical best opening partnership.

    Sorry to pick you up on a point of grammar, but it does change the meaning of your comment.

  • on June 13, 2013, 9:34 GMT

    @mitty, woh better than amla.

  • on June 13, 2013, 8:58 GMT

    Aus dont deserve to go to semis in this champions trophy. Their batsman are totally out of form. I wonder how they can survive with England with out getting Whitewash in Coming Ashes

  • Mitty2 on June 13, 2013, 8:52 GMT

    Not difficult @greatest_game... Cowan and Warner scored the most runs at the highest average in the 2012 year as an opening partnership - looks the statistical best to me. And Clarke also by sheer aggregate of runs in the last two years is clearly the best batsman in the world right now. That comment was all in reference to test cricket though... Clarke is far worse in ODI's and not even is Australia certain of the opening partnership.

    On the subject of the game, my comment was probably a bit unfair when seeing NZ bat much the same but seriously... There's no fluency in any one of our batsmen except Vogues for one innings.

  • spant on June 13, 2013, 8:46 GMT

    Rain helped New Zealand cause to great extent. They are now in semi finals with any permutation and combination as the difference in NRR between them and Australia is near impossible to be covered!

  • ramli on June 13, 2013, 8:21 GMT

    No use in crying that rain halted Aussie progress in the match ... instead it is their bad outing against England that is the cause for present state ...

  • JG2704 on June 13, 2013, 8:34 GMT

    It's a shame that rain ruined this game. I wouldn't say Australia were miles on top as NZ still had Taylor,Mccullum and others to bat. But NZ are fortunate that the rain didn't fall half an hour later as they were miles behind on DL. Maybe a lesson in looking at the weather forecast when batting 2nd? Re the reserve day thing. Yes it's a shame they seem unable to do this

  • Pelham_Barton on June 12, 2013, 19:05 GMT

    @TheBigBoodha on (June 12, 2013, 14:45 GMT): Please try a bit harder to understand the D/L system before you condemn it in such strong terms. If the NZ innings had been reduced to 20 overs before the start, the target would have been a lot higher than 54. Where the figure 54 comes from is as follows. Suppose that the NZ innings had been reduced to 30 overs before the start. Then the target would have been 190 to win, on the basis that scoring 189 (to tie) off 30 overs with all 10 wickets intact is deemed to be of equivalent difficulty to scoring 243 off 50 overs. That means that a team on 54-0 after 20 overs is exactly on course to win. New Zealand's total would only have been compared against a par score of 54 if they had batted for 20 overs without losing a wicket, expecting to have to bat for a full 50 overs, and then play had been stopped and not resumed.

  • SirViv1973 on June 12, 2013, 17:46 GMT

    Although Aus won't be happy with this, a point each is probably the fairest result given the circumstances. The game was still very evenly poised when the rain came and could have gone either way. I think it would have been a bit harsh to ask NZL to score 60 runs off 5 overs at the end had they managed to get back out. With the same token it would have been a bit tough on Aus if they would have got to 20 overs before the rain came as NZL were only 27 runs short of the D/L score for 20 overs. I guess the difficult thing now for Aus is that they won't know if they are still involved in this competition until after Eng play NZL on Sun eve.

  • on June 16, 2013, 12:41 GMT

    What a tournament; rain decides champions, not cricket?!!

  • landl47 on June 13, 2013, 11:48 GMT

    @Mitty2, I think you have made a grammatical error. You said: '..we have the world's statistical best opening partnership'. I think you meant to say 'we HAD the world's best statistical partnership'. Following the Australian tour of India and the England tests against New Zealand, Cook and Compton are easily the statistical best opening partnership.

    Sorry to pick you up on a point of grammar, but it does change the meaning of your comment.

  • on June 13, 2013, 9:34 GMT

    @mitty, woh better than amla.

  • on June 13, 2013, 8:58 GMT

    Aus dont deserve to go to semis in this champions trophy. Their batsman are totally out of form. I wonder how they can survive with England with out getting Whitewash in Coming Ashes

  • Mitty2 on June 13, 2013, 8:52 GMT

    Not difficult @greatest_game... Cowan and Warner scored the most runs at the highest average in the 2012 year as an opening partnership - looks the statistical best to me. And Clarke also by sheer aggregate of runs in the last two years is clearly the best batsman in the world right now. That comment was all in reference to test cricket though... Clarke is far worse in ODI's and not even is Australia certain of the opening partnership.

    On the subject of the game, my comment was probably a bit unfair when seeing NZ bat much the same but seriously... There's no fluency in any one of our batsmen except Vogues for one innings.

  • spant on June 13, 2013, 8:46 GMT

    Rain helped New Zealand cause to great extent. They are now in semi finals with any permutation and combination as the difference in NRR between them and Australia is near impossible to be covered!

  • ramli on June 13, 2013, 8:21 GMT

    No use in crying that rain halted Aussie progress in the match ... instead it is their bad outing against England that is the cause for present state ...

  • lilyvans on June 13, 2013, 7:32 GMT

    Dang it! I want Australia to win!!! :P

  • mridulDeka on June 13, 2013, 7:32 GMT

    bad news for aussie..they have now very little chance..NZ must be happy as they were in more worse position..

  • Bishop on June 13, 2013, 5:41 GMT

    Why wasn't Mills bowled out? Or at least brought back for a crack? Was he injured? Southee was having an off day (probably because I nominated him as captain of my fantasy cricket team) but Mills seemed to be hitting his length okay.

  • avant182 on June 13, 2013, 5:36 GMT

    Nz is lucky still have lot chances, very less chances for Ausie team. If SL win this match and lost the next and Eng lose upcming matches.Then Ausie have chances. Really Ausi team struggling after the senior team members retire. Almost for 5 years down the road.

    Earlier, Gilli, Warner, pigeon....now ponting, hussey..Still they are struggling to set. They made a mistake they always depends on few persons. See some countries inform people only will be in or they wil sit in dug out. .Ex..SA team..

    Good luck to Ausie Team

  • 158notout on June 13, 2013, 5:21 GMT

    BigBooda - I think the D/L score would have been set at around 75-2 off of 20 overs had they managed the extra 5 or 95ish if they lost another wicket so I am not sure where you get the 54 from. That would only come into play if they were halted at 20 overs whilst batting as if they are playing all 50 and had not lost a wicket. As none of those things happened then the D/L being set to 54 in the situation is nonsense. P.S. As for the bowlers, have watched any of the other Champions Trophy matches here and noticed how much success teams have had taking pace off of the ball?

  • kiwicricketnut on June 13, 2013, 4:38 GMT

    that was as even as it gets and shared points was a fair result, all the aussies that feel aggreived should know we were in a stronger position than yourselves 10 for 2 ring a bell and all this talk about falling behind the run rate is a bit of a laugh all teams now take it slow and look to accelerate from the batting power play onwards. bit cconcerned about our pace attack or lack of pace attack, kill mills has always been slow but mcclenaghan and southee are down 5-10kms an hour, while mcclenaghan is still picking up wickets southee is well short of a gallop

  • Greatest_Game on June 13, 2013, 4:29 GMT

    @ Mitty2 Could you please explain what you mean by "the worlds statistical best opening partnership and the worlds best batsman?"

    Thanks

  • MJ1234 on June 13, 2013, 4:15 GMT

    ICC should strongly looking at having a reserve day for its tournaments.No point in rain having the final word in a marquee tournament like this. I think Australia had the advantage after the loss of two wickets. Still remember the 1999 WC when India progressed to the next round because the match against England continued on the reserve day.

  • Otuwa on June 13, 2013, 3:50 GMT

    People say Hughes is a shadow of Ponting[Num3 batsman at ODIs and Tests].But Hughes isn't a half of Ponting.

    People say Wade is a shadow of Gilly[Open the innings at ODIs and play as a middle order at Tests].But Wade isn't a half of Gilly.

    Also current Aussie team isn't a half of former Aussie team.

    Thanks...

  • Dashgar on June 13, 2013, 2:48 GMT

    New Zealand saved by rain. The Aussie attack were going strong on a slowing pitch so NZ were just barely hanging in there when rain came. Hopefully SL knock off the Poms and we can still qualify.

  • on June 13, 2013, 2:27 GMT

    For Oz to make it to Semi-Fianls, England should lose both their remaining matches, and Oz must beat SL. It will be difficult to make it on NRR

  • on June 13, 2013, 1:54 GMT

    Sometimes ,i cant help but wonder ,whether or not these weather conditions in england are random events in this ,the 21 st century....this result benefits england more than any one else .Australia needs to be eliminated ,they have not played any good cricket in this tournament so far , same goes for pakistan ,south africa ,west indies ,and yes ,england too . In justice, the semi finals should be India vs Sri Lanka,and South Africa vs New Zealand, couple more games to go and this joke of a tournament is almost over..it's nothing compared to the world cup .

  • dalboy12 on June 13, 2013, 1:04 GMT

    NZ was quite lucky again here I think. Through they were far from out of the game when it was called of. Southee didn't bowl at all well which is something we will need to get right against England.

  • RodStark on June 13, 2013, 1:02 GMT

    This sort of game adds supprt to an idea I like--making 50 over ODIs into two (perhaps more ) innings games. Team 1 bats 25 overs, team 2 does the same, then team 1 resumes and completes their innings, and so on. We'd have far fewer "no result" games.

    Second, if I were Australia (which I'm not) I'd send Warner home and add Bailey to the Ashes squad.

  • TheBigBoodha on June 13, 2013, 0:54 GMT

    @Pelham-Barton, the point remains that batting at a snail's pace to reach 54 without loss before 20 overs would be much, much easier than scoring 243 on that track - no team has done so yet in the 2nd innings at that ground. Go and watch the previous two games. It was exactly the same as this - excruciatingly slow, difficult scoring. That NZs scoring rate was 2-3 runs an over after the first few overs is perfectly consistent with what happened in prior games.

  • TheBigBoodha on June 13, 2013, 0:47 GMT

    @SirViv1973, I listed the fastest ball I saw for the NZ bowlers. I watched the speeds for many overs, especially at the start of the innings when the ball zips through.I really don't know how much clearer I can be. They bowled their stock balls 126-129 with a highest of 132. bowlers like Faulkner vary their pace greatly, but are simply capable of bowling faster. I am in no way trying to misrepresent what I saw, and I find you insistence That I am trying to deceive offensive. Is it really that difficult to accept that NZ's bowlers are medium pacers? The speeds were perfectly consistent both throughout this game and with speeds registered in other games.

  • on June 13, 2013, 0:35 GMT

    Only sport in the world that can be won, drawn and lost without ever playing. Has anyone thought about playing it the next day? So these teams might have fewer rest days. But its cricket not the NFL or Soccer. Of course then there is the mathematical contest of Duckworth and Lewis rule. What game? For babies and accountants. Grow up and make it real.

  • dunger.bob on June 13, 2013, 0:28 GMT

    Could be goodbye from us now. A lot has to go our way from here on and not much has so far. There's hope still, but most likely we are goners. ...

    George Bailey continues to impress me. He's batted very responsibly, like a Captain should, and he's a bit better than I thought he was. He seems a decent Captain as well. Uses his bowlers intelligently and isn't afraid to attack when needed. The only thing that irks me sometimes is that he NEVER seems to do his block. He may be a little too nice. He doesn't have to rant and rave at his players but he does need to let them know if he's annoyed with something. Mark Taylor could do it by using his eyebrows like a semaphore. Just a touch more mongrel there George and you'll be a very fine captain in my book.

  • Shaggy076 on June 13, 2013, 0:21 GMT

    Bit unlucky for Australia, the previous games on this ground show that 244 was going to be hard to beat. Anyway the much hyped demise of AUstralia and worse team ever the Australians havent lost too many one-day series in recent times. Well if this is bad as Australia ever get then the best from other countries is not too far in front if at all. Same with test series besides playing on baked wickets the Australians have been very competetive. Think other countries bagging the Australians should at least make sure they can consistently beat us before shooting there mouths off (looking at Indians and Sri Lankans in particular).

  • heathrf1974 on June 13, 2013, 0:20 GMT

    Rain happens. The Aussies really wanted to win this game. However, the match was in the balance and could have went either way. The Aussies now need to beat SL which will be tough for them.

  • bobagorof on June 12, 2013, 23:40 GMT

    Despite some failures, and the washout preventing a result, I think Australia can take some positives out of this match. Several of the batsmen have now spent some time at the crease - Wade, Bailey (again) and Voges all got starts, with Voges and Bailey converting those into 50s. The bowlers, too, looked to be finding their groove. It may well be that Australia only have one more match to play (and wont there be celebrations from Front-Foot-Lunge and Gautam N. Shenoy if they get knocked out by losing one match - a bit like dodging a bullet for some of the other teams), but regardless it is encouraging signs after some poor form in the warm-ups.

  • on June 12, 2013, 23:37 GMT

    @TheBigBoodha MJ was undoubtedly the fastest bowler on the park by a substantial margin - and he took a fair bit of damage in his opening spell. The next quickest is actually Southee (high 130s to low 140s) who, other than one maiden over, was hit out of the New Zealand attack. The pick of the Aussie bowlers in their shortened chance at the New Zealand batsmen, McKay, actually was bowling in the speed range you were extracting the excrement from the Black Caps bowlers for, ranging from 127-132.

    Pure pace clearly wasn't everything on this pitch, with variation of pace seeming to work well - other than the chest high full toss McClenaghan bowling out of the back of the hand, for instance, seemed to work very well.

  • OneEyedAussie on June 12, 2013, 23:23 GMT

    It's a shame the rain arrived - a couple more wickets and NZ were in real trouble. As it was I would contend that Australia were marginally ahead in the game. Pity, now we are effectively out of the tournament barring some very unlikely outcomes.

  • RednWhiteArmy on June 12, 2013, 23:02 GMT

    Unfortunate for NZ. They would have easily completed the victory.

  • GrindAR on June 12, 2013, 22:46 GMT

    D/L method is the dumbest rule. There is no moral of sports built into it. It never played balanced in deciding the winner. If there is a choice of scrapping the useless rule vs the sport, the common sense path is dump the rule. Look like ICC is interested in the other. Nobody can decide the coarse of the ODI match unless the second innings is at least 60% completed, or the batting team is at-least 6 wickets down. Especially with current rules, D/L is noway relevant to the game of Cricket.

  • on June 12, 2013, 22:30 GMT

    Front-Foot-Lunge, I would not call this a guranteed victory for New Zealand, there have been many collapses throughout this tournament, look at New Zealand's last game, which they barely scraped by. It is very hard to tell that this was a cemented victory for New Zealand, however due to their 8 wickets and score on the board, they did have a good chance of winning.

  • on June 12, 2013, 22:14 GMT

    So Bailey does it again -must be something in the Tasmanian water! Michael Clarke might be better off coming back into the team as a batsman only and leaving the captaincy to Bailey who seems to have a calm presence about him. And what to do with Watson, Hughes and Warner. Cant remember a shot in anger from any of them for a while now except for the century in the warmup game by Watson. If there are solid performances by Bailey, Faulkner and Voges when batting what is everyone else doing? So when the tests start I'd leave Bailey at 4/5 and build the innings around him. If he keeps on getting reasonable scores than all the other so-called stars might get with the program too! And the Tasmanian influence - while you have that fighting spirit from Ponting, Boon, Hilfenhaus, Bailey etc etc we have a back bone to our sides. Maybe Tasmania, winners of the Sheffield Shield ought to be playing for the Ashes - they sure do have a lot of talent down there.

  • megarain on June 12, 2013, 22:01 GMT

    The soil or ground at Edgbaston, is v clearly sub-standard, and they deserve to never get allocated another game.

    They continually waste the paying public's time, v rarely updating them with info.

    I will never attend another game there. I hope the council gets the money its owed - but at the rate they allienate the public, I think it will be a v long time.

    If I were the groundsman, I would be looking for another job .. he clearly cant do the one he has.

  • santhoo24 on June 12, 2013, 21:56 GMT

    @Gautam N. Shenoy, I have hard time believing NZ could win the game with 2 wickets down and RRR creeping up, specially after NZ huffed and puffed and barely crossed the line against SL chasing 138. Although the Ox didn't have the mighty Malinga at their disposal, they have decent bunch of bowlers who can defend 244.

  • SLSup on June 12, 2013, 21:47 GMT

    Kiwis appear to have the luck riding for them this time around: won a game they almost lost to SL (thank, in part, to Matthews you stopped attacking the batters when the McCullum brothers came together, go figure!) and now the rain gifts them a point when in all probability Australia could have secured their first points. To state the obvious along with the rest of you folks: SL must win the next two games or it's over. Which if fine. It's a game.

  • correctcall on June 12, 2013, 21:16 GMT

    Why is it that the ICC and host ECB could not invest in the small cost of outfield covers which would have enabled a result - at least by the dreaded D/L. Less than 5 more overs were required to achieve a result. I note that in both India and SL these are used but it appears too hard for recession hit England. Not good enough Messrs Isaacs, Richardson and Giles Clarke. Srini you are excused due to other distractions.

  • Biggus on June 12, 2013, 21:14 GMT

    @Cpt.Meanster-Don't like English weather? I have a suggestion you're bound to like. Play all international tournaments in Perth at the WACA. It hardly ever rains here, and I know how much your team likes to play on the bounciest, fastest track in the world.

  • on June 12, 2013, 21:01 GMT

    @Cpt.Meanster: I cannot think of any long tournament which has not been rain affected! England is as good a venue as any.

  • on June 12, 2013, 20:59 GMT

    @Santhoo: Most of us will argue that you should replace Aus with NZ and vice versa.

  • SirViv1973 on June 12, 2013, 20:48 GMT

    @Capt Meanster, always plenty of comedy value with your posts. Rain affects every 1 day tournament wherever it is played around the world. Have you forgotten how much rain there was in SRL at last years world T20? there was also a couple of rain affected games in 2011 WC & quite an important one between SRL & Aus had to be abandoned. The WI is also certainly not adverse to wet weather there were loads of games affected by rain at the T20WC in 2010, have you forgotten that Ire didn't have the chance to chase a target of 121 that was set by Eng & as a result were eliminated? You would also have the same problems in oz.

  • santhoo24 on June 12, 2013, 20:45 GMT

    it's too bad rain robbed Oz of their first win, instead NZ escaped a defeat, and in due process bagged a valuable point. Godd luck to both teams rest of the way.

  • Meety on June 12, 2013, 20:36 GMT

    As with the last sentence of this report - neither side had a firm grip on the match. As @TheBigBoodha on (June 12, 2013, 18:29 GMT) noted, the side batting first in these matches have an advantage, that said, I think Oz needed another 20 to 30 runs to have an above par 1st innings. With the Kiwis 2 wickets down, it was going to be a tough ask to win. Better performance from Oz's batsmen, more needed from Watto.

  • Ben2014 on June 12, 2013, 20:32 GMT

    We can argue with pre-conceived result and justify the same. The fact is any of these two teams could have won. The reality is that the game is washed out. Since NZ has already won a match the Kiwis are in a better position now than the Aussies who had lost a match previously. Bad luck Aussies, not so bad luck (still not lucky) for Kiwis.

  • SirViv1973 on June 12, 2013, 20:25 GMT

    @TheBigBooda, You quite conviently only listed the oz bowlers quickest deliverys & you admit yourself that you wern't paying much attention to speed gun when NZL were bowling so i'm still struggling to see how Aus bowlers (other than MJ which I agree with) bowled significantly quicker than NZL.

  • Pelham_Barton on June 12, 2013, 19:49 GMT

    Further to my comment at 19:05 GMT: In trying to fit the space I think I have left out an important part of my explanation. The sentence beginning "That means that a team on 54-0 after 20 overs" should really say "That means that a team on 54-0 after 20 overs of a 50 over innings is exactly on course if replying to a total of 243."

  • Front-Foot-Lunge on June 12, 2013, 19:19 GMT

    Australia are saved by the rain again. It's amazing how much this has happened in recent times. New Zealand were so clearly set and denied a much earned victory.

  • Dark.Matter on June 12, 2013, 19:04 GMT

    Best of luck to NZ, my favorite team after PK elimination :P

  • on June 12, 2013, 18:45 GMT

    It is not fair to award one point each due to rain stopped a match which was wide open. For an important match like this the organizers should have planned a spare day to play/resume a match which was ruined by weather condition as every team has to play only three matches. I wonder how an experienced ICC bearers should not consider when planning such important tournament which can be called as 'mini world cup' particularly planning to conduct this tournament in England where weather cannot be predicted. Owing to to this one point awarding,if a team wins other matches and still cannot qualify for next stage for want of another point, is it fare? At least in future, the concerned authorities should bear in mind to allot sufficient reserve day to have a result.

  • gsingh7 on June 12, 2013, 18:44 GMT

    australia got their first points since defeating sl in aus 3-0. that too without their regular world class opener warner. well done aus , now win lastt game with big margin to meet india in semis. hope u will score more than 65 this time.

  • spot_on on June 12, 2013, 18:38 GMT

    Should've been a DL, total 65 overs bowled.. they could've made a result out of it... tough luck Oz.. hope you win against the Lankans...

  • kc69 on June 12, 2013, 18:35 GMT

    Its fair to say Australia is a talented side but the problem is they are lacking motivation. Especially from senior players (like Watto) among whom someone has to stand up and perform. George bailey looks like a good middle order batsman but not good enough for a captain. Its high time Aussie's need a different captain in Clarke's absence (with Bailey in playing 11 as a middle order batsmen)

  • TheBigBoodha on June 12, 2013, 18:29 GMT

    Did you actually watch the game, SirViv1973? I did, and NZ's bowlers bowled almost all their stock deliveries between 126-129 km/hr. the fastest ball in the opening ten overs I saw was 132. Johnson reached 147, Watson 139, Faulner 141 - and I didn't watch too many of heir speeds. I am not making this up. So you can be as miffed as you want. The speed gun isn't set different for one side.

    This was absolutely rotten luck for Australia. As we saw with all three games at Edgbaston scoring in the second innings on this pitch is almost impossible. And every game it is getting worse. NZ were scoring at 2.5 runs an over in the last 5 overs, and they were next to no hope of scoring at 5.5 for the next 35 with the ball getting even older and softer. The game was heading exactly the same way as the previous two games when the rain set in - a big win to the team batting first. I can't believe they are holding the final here. The game is effectively decided by the toss.

  • bingster on June 12, 2013, 18:26 GMT

    If Sl beat England and Nz beats england then Nz and winner of Aus SL game will go through..So Eng SL game is a big one for the group..

  • samincolumbia on June 12, 2013, 18:21 GMT

    Australia get a point finally...thanks to rain.

  • StevieS on June 12, 2013, 18:08 GMT

    Jordanious77 Sri Lanka will still have to beat Australia, if they win tomorrow they will still be behind New Zealand. England win tomorrow then most probably England and New Zealand will go through unless there are some very one sided matches for Australia/ Sri Lanka to catch NZ's run rate.

  • Jordanious77 on June 12, 2013, 17:40 GMT

    If England win tomorrow. England/NZ go through. (unless Australia destroy SriLanka) If SriLanka win tomorrow.. Sri Lanka and the winner between NZ and England will go through IF Lanka beat Australia. If Australia win (unless a thrashing) it will still be England and NZ.

    So my moneys on a NZ and England semi.

    PS. 191 from 33 overs?? Thats an insane scoreline... NZ were chasing 240, NOT 350!! Duckworth is confusing.. NZ require 140 runs from 18 overs, but only lose 40 runs from the 17 overs lost. D&L acting asthough nz would score at 2.5 runs per over for the last 17?? Unlikely..........

  • on June 12, 2013, 17:33 GMT

    What is the logic behind holding this major tournament in England where supposedly rains all year round? What a waste of a game!!

  • RandyOZ on June 12, 2013, 17:19 GMT

    Wade and Warner are toast, send them home.

  • SirViv1973 on June 12, 2013, 15:30 GMT

    @TheBigBoodha, I'm a bit miffed why you think this Aus attack is so much quicker than that of NZL. MJ is the only bowler on either side who is bowling anywhere near 140 Ks. The likes of Faulkner, Watson & McKay are no quicker than their NZL counterparts. Aus did actually win the toss today & had the opportunity the bat first & choose not too. I'm also not sure the ball was seaming around too much McClenaghan bowled particularly well early on & again at the end but I don't think there was an awful lot in it for the pacers as has been the case throughout the tournament.

  • Cpt.Meanster on June 12, 2013, 15:21 GMT

    This is why you must not hold ICC events in England at this time of the year. Their weather is just not good enough for such high profile tournaments. Australia or the WI would have been ideal. It is also the monsoon season in Asia so we can rule that region out too. Anyway, coming to the game. Australia batted decently. It's up to NZ to win this game. I think they very capable of chasing this down. Hopefully, we get a full game today without any D/L nonsense.

  • Cover_drive_55 on June 12, 2013, 15:20 GMT

    Australia will win this match. With rain, and if D/L comes into play the chase may be even more difficult for NZ.

  • SirViv1973 on June 12, 2013, 15:18 GMT

    @TheBigBoodha, I wouldn't go as far as to say Hughes dosen't have the temperament or talent to play ODI's but I would say his current ave which now stands at 44.6 is a bit inflated. He has only had 11 inns, 9 of which have been at home. If going forward he is able to ave high 30's to low 40's and have a SR in the high 70's then he will be worth his place in the side. I think the Jury is still very much out on Hughes in this form of the game.

  • Tomcat3 on June 12, 2013, 15:07 GMT

    Out of interest can any Aussie fans explain why Vosges doesn't play in the test side ?.ive watched him play a few times seems very correct and a good player .with all the current top 6 problems for Aus .seems strange he hasn't been given a chance

  • TheBigBoodha on June 12, 2013, 14:45 GMT

    The D/L system is clearly totally out of touch with reality. Australia scored 242, probably a little above par on this sluggish track. But if the game is reduced to twenty overs, NZ only need 54 runs. Hand up all those people who agree that 54 runs would represent a slightly above par score in a T20 game on this track? There really has to be major changes to D/L. This is a complete joke.

  • TheBigBoodha on June 12, 2013, 14:19 GMT

    @gjando, so as a matter of interest, if Hughes doesn't have the talent or temperament for international cricket how does he average 50 in ODIs, T20s and List A? He got run out today, and in case you didn't notice it wasn't his fault. You don't just ditch guys with a 50 average after 2 games.

  • gjando on June 12, 2013, 13:52 GMT

    Your best batsman is supposed to come in at No.3 and we send in Hughes. There is Australia's problem. Hughes does not have the technique or temperament for international cricket but no matter how many times he demonstrates this, he seems to still get picked.

  • on June 12, 2013, 13:34 GMT

    Australia are the favourites because even before the start of the match,the experts had asserted that 240 was going to be a very competitive total on the Edgbaston wicket.If the Aussie new-ball bowlers can snare a few wickets early,they could well make a match out of it.Overall it will be a good contest,perhaps even a nailbiting one.But still you get the feeling that Australia have batted with a lot of purpose today and will come out on top against the Kiwis.But to do that,they will have to take Martin Guptill and Ross Taylor out of the equation as quickly as possibly.If they can do so,they can put some serious pressure on an otherwise inexperienced Kiwi middle order.I do hope Australia can beat their neighbours here because if they do,they will definitely become the favourites from their group to make it to the semis alongwith England.

  • on June 12, 2013, 13:23 GMT

    @TheBigBoodha 125-128kph NZ seamers? I think you're a few years behind the times, Chris Harris hasn't played international cricket for years... Might want to watch the screen for bowling speed readouts rather than making numbers up.

    That said, could be a really good game. Black Caps batting is always a bit hit and miss, a lot will ride on Guptill, Taylor and Williamson not throwing away their wickets. If that happens, game on...if not, another win for the Aussies. I think the Aussie score is slightly above par if anything, not going to be an easy wicket to bat on.

  • R_U_4_REAL_NICK on June 12, 2013, 13:21 GMT

    I've just joined the game and not really read through the commentary, but I can't help thinking why the heck has Williamson been overused, and not Mills? O.K. 18 runs came off Williamson's last over, thus inflating his end figures - but surely the reliable Mills would have been a safer option for the closing overs?

  • AhmedEsat on June 12, 2013, 13:09 GMT

    The match is evenly poised. Pity we don't have quality spin bowlers. This match should be a thriller!

  • on June 12, 2013, 13:07 GMT

    Aside from the runout of Hughes (what is it about Wade and runouts?) the team did alright and posted a competitive score. It's not ideal but it is par. New Zealand deserve to win against what I believe is a better, more disciplined bowling attack (with Starc rested) IF they are good enough.

  • TheBigBoodha on June 12, 2013, 13:05 GMT

    So, @Mitty, given how they can't play, how did they get the number two ranking? The reality? 240 will win more games than not on this doughy wicket. MCCallum was doing a good PR job in saying it is 20 under par. The ball was seaming everywhere in the first ten overs, and NZ's 125-128km/hr seamers looked like geniuses. Australia did a great job of only losing one wicket to a bowler. Give some credit where it is due. Australia's 140+ bowlers would have run through the NZ bats like a hot knife through butter if they'd bowled on that seaming surface first. But the wicket has completely changed now, so it will be the medium pacers and spinners who will have to do the job. Good option in leaving out Starc (though if they'd bowled first, he would have cleaned up a few).

  • SirViv1973 on June 12, 2013, 12:57 GMT

    I think Aus will be slightly disappointed with that. When Voges & Bailey were going along they looked well capable of posting 260 - 270, which would probably have been too many for NZL. As it stands this looks very evenly poised if NZL can keep wickets in hand they only need to go along at around 4 an over for the first 40 then 80 odd of the last 10 shouldn't be a problem, but the big question is can they keep the wickets in hand?

  • Haiphong on June 12, 2013, 12:14 GMT

    Ok. 50-50 chance of winning this one: Warner NOT in the team (for Australia's sake, hope he gets sent back home). As can be seen, the other "hero" (Hughes)had another invaluable contribution (truly hope he gets to fly home soon also). Let's see how it goes.

  • spot_on on June 12, 2013, 12:06 GMT

    Oz gotta win this and take down Lankans

  • Smash42 on June 12, 2013, 12:04 GMT

    @NP-NY

    Don't worry. At least Australia will defeat NZ easily today.

  • Mitty2 on June 12, 2013, 11:54 GMT

    Watching us attempt to play spin is absolutely excruciating. Whilst I harbor more hope than others for the ashes purely because any combination of siddle, patto, bird and Harris is world class, and we have the worlds statistical best opening partnership and the worlds best batsman, we have absolutely no chance in this champions trophy. Vettori only got scored 23 runs against him in 10 overs, regardless to how well he bowled, that is absolutely despicable. We are weak against pace and spin, have a failing top and middle order with ALL batsmen simply unable to score quickly.

    @jayzuz, I was more positive than you were once, but do you honestly accept that we are playing like the number two team? Far from it.

  • Jayzuz on June 12, 2013, 10:50 GMT

    ANP_NY. No good quality players? This is just false. The team is chock full of talent. Just check out the top 5 batters and bowlers in the 2013 IPL - 40% Australian, WAY more than any other country.

    Or maybe they lucked their way to #2 in ODIs.

    And maybe you should wait till the game - and the series - is over before casting judgment. 1 game and 4 overs is hardly enough evidence to make the wholesale condemnations you are making.

    By the way, Australia's ODI ranking rose two places AFTER Hussey left the team, and they finished third in the T20 WC not long ago without him. Doesn''t quite fit your "talentless" description, does it?

  • NP_NY on June 12, 2013, 9:57 GMT

    Warner out due to off-fiield issues. Aussies 10 for 2. Complete disarray. When you don't have good quality players, why not get Mike Hussey back for a couple of years? Even Hodge is miles better than any of these batsmen. Time for the Aus selectors to swallow their pride and send an SOS to these guys? They can be of immense help to the less experienced players in the dressing room as well.

  • NP_NY on June 12, 2013, 9:57 GMT

    Warner out due to off-fiield issues. Aussies 10 for 2. Complete disarray. When you don't have good quality players, why not get Mike Hussey back for a couple of years? Even Hodge is miles better than any of these batsmen. Time for the Aus selectors to swallow their pride and send an SOS to these guys? They can be of immense help to the less experienced players in the dressing room as well.

  • Jayzuz on June 12, 2013, 10:50 GMT

    ANP_NY. No good quality players? This is just false. The team is chock full of talent. Just check out the top 5 batters and bowlers in the 2013 IPL - 40% Australian, WAY more than any other country.

    Or maybe they lucked their way to #2 in ODIs.

    And maybe you should wait till the game - and the series - is over before casting judgment. 1 game and 4 overs is hardly enough evidence to make the wholesale condemnations you are making.

    By the way, Australia's ODI ranking rose two places AFTER Hussey left the team, and they finished third in the T20 WC not long ago without him. Doesn''t quite fit your "talentless" description, does it?

  • Mitty2 on June 12, 2013, 11:54 GMT

    Watching us attempt to play spin is absolutely excruciating. Whilst I harbor more hope than others for the ashes purely because any combination of siddle, patto, bird and Harris is world class, and we have the worlds statistical best opening partnership and the worlds best batsman, we have absolutely no chance in this champions trophy. Vettori only got scored 23 runs against him in 10 overs, regardless to how well he bowled, that is absolutely despicable. We are weak against pace and spin, have a failing top and middle order with ALL batsmen simply unable to score quickly.

    @jayzuz, I was more positive than you were once, but do you honestly accept that we are playing like the number two team? Far from it.

  • Smash42 on June 12, 2013, 12:04 GMT

    @NP-NY

    Don't worry. At least Australia will defeat NZ easily today.

  • spot_on on June 12, 2013, 12:06 GMT

    Oz gotta win this and take down Lankans

  • Haiphong on June 12, 2013, 12:14 GMT

    Ok. 50-50 chance of winning this one: Warner NOT in the team (for Australia's sake, hope he gets sent back home). As can be seen, the other "hero" (Hughes)had another invaluable contribution (truly hope he gets to fly home soon also). Let's see how it goes.

  • SirViv1973 on June 12, 2013, 12:57 GMT

    I think Aus will be slightly disappointed with that. When Voges & Bailey were going along they looked well capable of posting 260 - 270, which would probably have been too many for NZL. As it stands this looks very evenly poised if NZL can keep wickets in hand they only need to go along at around 4 an over for the first 40 then 80 odd of the last 10 shouldn't be a problem, but the big question is can they keep the wickets in hand?

  • TheBigBoodha on June 12, 2013, 13:05 GMT

    So, @Mitty, given how they can't play, how did they get the number two ranking? The reality? 240 will win more games than not on this doughy wicket. MCCallum was doing a good PR job in saying it is 20 under par. The ball was seaming everywhere in the first ten overs, and NZ's 125-128km/hr seamers looked like geniuses. Australia did a great job of only losing one wicket to a bowler. Give some credit where it is due. Australia's 140+ bowlers would have run through the NZ bats like a hot knife through butter if they'd bowled on that seaming surface first. But the wicket has completely changed now, so it will be the medium pacers and spinners who will have to do the job. Good option in leaving out Starc (though if they'd bowled first, he would have cleaned up a few).

  • on June 12, 2013, 13:07 GMT

    Aside from the runout of Hughes (what is it about Wade and runouts?) the team did alright and posted a competitive score. It's not ideal but it is par. New Zealand deserve to win against what I believe is a better, more disciplined bowling attack (with Starc rested) IF they are good enough.

  • AhmedEsat on June 12, 2013, 13:09 GMT

    The match is evenly poised. Pity we don't have quality spin bowlers. This match should be a thriller!