New Zealand v Australia, 1st ODI, Auckland February 3, 2016

New Zealand crush Australia by 159 runs

599

New Zealand 307 for 8 (Guptill 90, Nicholls 61) beat Australia 148 (Boult 3-38, Henry 3-41) by 159 runs
Scorecard and ball-by-ball details

Play 03:56
We dealt with slower track nicely - Boult

At Eden Park last February, New Zealand secured the Chappell-Hadlee Trophy with a tense one-wicket victory in a low-scoring contest, one of the most thrilling matches of the World Cup. At Eden Park this February, New Zealand have gone one step towards retaining the Chappell-Hadlee Trophy with a much more comfortable win. This time only half the match was low-scoring: Australia were bundled out for 148 inside 25 overs. They were only 160 short of their target.

It was New Zealand's second-biggest ODI win over Australia in terms of runs; the only larger victory was the 206-run margin secured at Adelaide Oval in 1986, when Richard Hadlee and Ewen Chatfield ran through the Australian top order. This time it was Trent Boult and Matt Henry who reduced Australia to 41 for 6. From there, Australia's all-time ODI low total of 70 was in danger, until James Faulkner and Matthew Wade nudged them into triple figures.

Chasing scores around 300 might have proved simple for the Australians against India last month on the flat pitches of home, but on a slowish Eden Park surface and against a quality pace attack, it was not so easy. In fact, Australia had done well to even drag New Zealand's total back to 307 for 8, after Martin Guptill started the innings off with 90 before the 25-over mark. But Australia's attack, missing Mitchell Starc who had taken six wickets in last year's game, lacked penetration.

Their chase was doomed from the first few overs. Henry and Boult found just enough movement to cause trouble and hit the right lengths, whereas Australia's bowlers had taken too long to find the clichéd "good areas". Henry had Shaun Marsh caught at slip for 5 in the second over, a dismissal that may serve to convince Australia's selectors at last that Usman Khawaja is a necessary inclusion for the second match in Wellington.

Steven Smith played on to Henry for 18, David Warner was lbw to a Boult ball that would have cleared the bails for 12, George Bailey flicked Henry to midwicket for 2, Glenn Maxwell was brilliantly taken by Kane Williamson at mid-off off Boult for a duck, and Mitchell Marsh was snapped up at second slip off Boult, also without scoring. That probably took about as long to read as it to happen. It meant that Faulkner, Australia's designated finisher, was at the crease inside ten overs.

A 79-run partnership between Faulkner and Wade followed, but it was all academic, and served only to push Australia's total up to almost exactly what they had made in the World Cup game at Eden Park last year. Wade (37) and Faulkner (36) fell in consecutive overs and, on a pitch the New Zealanders had expected to take spin, Mitchell Santner finished the match with two wickets from his only two deliveries.

It was a humiliating result for the Australians, who have only two more ODIs in which to attempt to win back the Chappell-Hadlee Trophy, while also using these games as the only opportunity for several of their Test players to acclimatise ahead of the Trans-Tasman Trophy series. One of those men is the captain, Smith, who perhaps misread the pitch when he sent New Zealand in: McCullum said he would have batted in any case, expecting the wicket - the same one used in Sunday's ODI against Pakistan - to slow as the game went on.

There was nothing slow about the start - at least, after the first 14 balls brought just one run. McCullum then went bang, taking 20 off four balls from Josh Hazlewood, and in the next over Guptill launched Kane Richardson onto the roof for six more. The opening stand of 79 from 10.5 overs ended when McCullum was bowled trying to smash Faulkner through the off side on 44 from 29 balls, and when Kane Williamson was out for a rare duck Australia felt they had a chance.

But Guptill found an ally in Henry Nicholls, and their 100-run stand pushed New Zealand well past the total that Australia eventually made. Australia had been a difficult opponent for Guptill in the past - in 33 innings against them across all formats this was just his third half-century - but he enjoyed the absence of Starc and Mitchell Johnson, and struck eight fours and five sixes.

He looked set for a century until he took off for a quick single when Nicholls bunted to the off side; Guptill was sent back and Maxwell's direct hit had him well short on 90. From there New Zealand lost momentum, but they were already 181 for 3 inside 25 overs, so it's all relative. Nicholls steered himself to 61 from 67 balls and there were contributions from the middle and lower order, including an unbeaten 35 from Santner.

Only 32 runs came from overs 31 to 40 and Australia might been pleased with their efforts. But in the end, they were the only team who replicated the low-scoring World Cup contest at Eden Park nearly a year ago. And the end result was a reminder that this tour will be much tougher than their recent home summer.

Brydon Coverdale is an assistant editor at ESPNcricinfo. @brydoncoverdale

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • Mohammad Zamin on February 10, 2016, 2:13 GMT

    And i thought Pakistan played badly. Truth is this Kiwi side is on fire, i knew it when they toured the UAE and drew against Pakistan.

  • Harmony111 on February 5, 2016, 12:54 GMT

    @Behind_the_bowlers_arm: As expected, you have missed the point. You still don't know what words like Ind A or Aus A mean and you keep arguing that the WC SF was Ind A vs Aus A (Facepalm). You are repeating the same point that Aus did not get time to *PREP* for NZ ODIs due to busy schedule but --- Aus played poorly in the Ashes, got 60 a.o. and that was after all the *PREP* --- This is my point but you just don't get it. I hope using caps & asterisk will make you get the point. And why do Aus need time for a NZ tour, Why why why? The Aussies routinely boast they are experts on Fast/Bouncy/Seaming/Swinging wickets & dismiss Spin/Flat wickets as easy. If NZ wickets are former type, then it is right down Aus alley & if latter type then do Aus need to prep for even easy matches? Nor is NZ so far from Aus to cause jetlag, In any case ~48 hours of rest after playing 9 hrs of 3 T20s is more than enough for these pro players...

  • Harmony111 on February 5, 2016, 12:35 GMT

    @Behind_the_bowlers_arm: As expected, you have missed the point. You still don't know what words like Ind A or Aus A mean and you keep arguing that the WC SF was Ind A vs Aus A. This is a facepalm moment really. You are repeating the same point that Aus did not get time to *PREP* for NZ ODIs due to busy schedule but but but --- Aus played poorly in the Ashes, got 60 a.o. and that was after all the *PREP* --- This is my point but you just don't get it. I hope using caps & asterisk will make you get the point. And why do Aus need time for a NZ tour, why why why? The Aussies routinely boast they are experts on Fast/Bouncy/Seaming/Swinging wickets & dismiss Spin/Flat wickets as easy. If NZ wickets are former type, then it is right down Aus alley & if latter type then do Aus need to prep for even easy matches? Nor is NZ so far from Aus to give them jetlag, in any case ~48 hours of rest after playing 9 hrs of 3 T20s is more than enough for these pro players...

  • CanBatifWeWant on February 5, 2016, 11:06 GMT

    Oz will win the next game... All or nothing for them is when they are at their best...

  • Behind_the_bowlers_arm on February 5, 2016, 9:49 GMT

    The World Cup semi final was a major match. That's all. A random t20 or an Under 19 match .... not so much. Australia played poorly when it mattered in the Ashes and lost. That's also all. What would your strategy have been if you were an Australian selector given 3 t20 matches with the last on the evening of Jan 31st and an ODI series starting on Feb 3rd in NZ? The way of modern cricket is shortened tours and minimal lead up. An attempt to arrive in NZ on Feb 1st and play 2 days later in an international match is hardly conducive to good cricket is it? I expect India gave themselves a bit longer than that before their first ODI in Australia . Not that that saved them from a 4-1 tonking.

  • Harmony111 on February 5, 2016, 7:54 GMT

    @Behind_the_bowlers_arm: Oh my god, Oh my god. You are now saying that the WC SF was Ind A vs Aus A? Do you even know what 'A' means? Wasn't Aus playing 2 teams, Aus & Aus A in the B&H tri-series in the 90s? Blimey indeed. If workload and busy schedule is your excuse then I hope you would say the same if Ind do badly or have injured players. Your last sentence is funny. During the Ind ODIs/T20s we were told that Aus are already prepping for the NZ tour as that is the real deal. Warner & co had already gone to NZ while Ind were still playing in Aus. I think CA are holding a Sheffield Shield FC match in Christchurch for helping the Aus players but cos your WORLD CHAMPS 'AT HOME' got thrashed the moment they stepped out of home, you are saying "Oh lack of prep". How do you explain Aus's 60 a.o. in 18 overs BANG in the middle of an Ashes Series? Were Aus short of prep even in that case or was it a clear case of lack of the particular skill that your lot so loudly proclaims to possess???

  • hris on February 5, 2016, 5:53 GMT

    @BLACKCAPSBESTINTHEWORLD It would be (avg) Milne(38)/Bracewell(33)/Mclanaghan(28)/Wagner(hasn't played an ODI yet) vs Hazlewood(25)/Pattinson(42)/McKay(24)/Hastings(33). How does that say NZ have better depth? And your first choice Southee avg 32 in ODI's.

  • BlackCapsBestintheWorld on February 5, 2016, 1:18 GMT

    Ok take out Boult Henry and Southee. We still have depth. Milne, Bracewell, and Mitchell Mclenaghan can still do a hell of a lot better job than Hastings and all of the other seamers. We could even call up Neil Wagner if we wanted to. Ben Wheeler also isnt too bad either. So yea we have way more depth in our bowling than you Aussies.

  • Outside-off on February 5, 2016, 0:02 GMT

    No team in the world knows better than New Zealand not to get ahead of itself. We are not trumpeting a series win or anything other than A great win. And it was.. The most sickening thing with comments is the quick change of heart the big talkers have. But talk is just that. It doesn't change a thing. Australia have the power and to reverse this result immediately & every New Zealander knows that. Faulkner talked about scores of 400 being more of a par score for teams now. I think he was right. New Zealand fell well short of it's potential during the 1st game. There's no doubt we could have made something around the 400 had everything gone perfectly. But that's cricket. The point is this. It is easier said that done. He was correct to say 400 is achievable, but that's only in theory. Look how many games at the MCG have historically been low scoring affairs. Eden park with it's small dimensions should mean you can fart the ball over the boundary. But reality is not like that.

  • Behind_the_bowlers_arm on February 4, 2016, 22:11 GMT

    Harmony, You class an U19 match as A v A? Blimey. Not the World Cup semi final at Sydney? You chaps seemed very keen and very confident on that one. Australia have had a muddled selection policy recently whatever the talk of strings as they have played 6 Tests, 5 ODI's and 3 t20's since November in a schedule which seemed to almost overlap with a trip to NZ for 3 ODI's and 2 Tests. This will be followed by a trip to S Africa to prepare for the t20 World Cup. UNDERSTANDABLY they have managed workloads even moreso given the multiple injuries to potential players (Starc, Pattinson, Cummins, Coulter-Nile, Behrendorf, Henriques, Finch etc). Even the coach is ill. In an ideal world the best players would be played in every match but the current scheduling doesn't allow that. If CA conducted their business in the interests of cricketers the Indian ODI's and t20's wouldn't have been scheduled. They happened because of money and as a result we have a cramped NZ tour with no Test preparation.

  • No featured comments at the moment.