New Zealand v Sri Lanka, 2nd T20I, Auckland January 10, 2016

Guptill sets fastest NZ fifty record, Munro breaks it five overs later


New Zealand 147 for 1 (Guptill 63, Munro 50) beat Sri Lanka 142 for 8 (Mathews 81*, Elliott 4-22) by nine wickets
Scorecard and ball-by-ball details

Play 01:28
WATCH: New Zealand's fastest fifties

An abject Sri Lanka collapse full of witless batting, a clinical performance by New Zealand's seamers, and a fast start from Martin Guptill, all featured in Sri Lanka's final heavy defeat of the tour. Their embarrassment was enhanced a little here for having come in front of an Auckland crowd of over 17,000, and by Colin Munro, who bludgeoned the second-fastest half-century in T20s to close out a match that had never really been in doubt for New Zealand. He was unbeaten on 50 from 14 balls, having hit seven sixes and a four. Sri Lanka's 142 for 8 on a flat track, and on one of the smallest grounds in the world, was gunned down with nine wickets and ten full overs to spare.

Seduced by the short boundaries, Sri Lanka's batsmen aimed slog after slog at the straight fence, and fell predictably, and in quick succession. New Zealand put zippy balls just short of a length - a clear bowling plan, given the ground's odd dimensions - and the visitors just failed to adapt. Grant Elliott was the most accurate bowler, and took 4 for 22 from his full quota, but so intent did Sri Lanka's batsmen seem on holing out, almost anyone could have taken those wickets.

Angelo Mathews played a familiar lone hand, sporting a familiar look of frustration at his teammates' incompetence. His 81 not out from 49 balls comprised well over half of Sri Lanka's score. He was the only batsman to attempt to build an innings, instead of bash one.

It's not often that a batsman hitting 63 from 25 balls in a modest T20 chase will be outshone, but a rapid Guptill was made to look almost pedestrian by Munro. Having arrived at 89 for 1 in the seventh over, Munro blasted his second ball, off Thisara Perera, into the stands beyond wide long on, then savaged the legspin of Vandersay. Kane Williamson gave Munro the strike in the first ball of the eighth over, and he sent the ball hurtling over the deep midwicket boundary three times in four balls. That over cost 27. Having already been at the end of Guptill's brutality, Vandersay had earlier bowled an over that conceded 20. His two overs went for 41. None of Sri Lanka's four bowlers had an economy rate of less than 11.

Munro wrapped up the victory with a four and two more sixes in Dushmantha Chameera's third over. He reached fifty and moved New Zealand to their target with his last six, over deep midwicket. His 14-ball half-century is only slower than Yuvraj Singh's 12-ball fifty against England, in the 2007 World T20.

Sri Lanka's spectacular nosedive began in the second over. Danushka Gunathilaka had earlier made room to scythe Adam Milne through the offside, but aimed an ungainly heave across the line soon after. The ball passed some distance from the bat and splayed his stumps.

At the other end, Dilshan was playing his own ugly innings, mistiming and top-edging slogs, and missing attempted scoops over the shoulder. But he survived longer than two incoming batsmen, which is to say, until the 10th over. Before Dilshan was out reverse-sweeping, for 28 from 26 balls, Dinesh Chandimal and Shehan Jayasuriya had both been caught attempting expansive strokes for 2 and 3 respectively.

Milinda Siriwardana - who has usually been an intelligent reprieve from Sri Lanka's batting madness this tour - could not resist a slog himself as he was out first ball. He was caught just outside the circle at long on. With the score at 66 for 5 in the 11th over, Mathews might have expected a little help for rebuilding from Kithuruwan Vithanage and Thisara. They were both caught at the straight boundary for single figure scores, off Elliott's bowling.

Mathews had moved his innings into gear with two straight sixes off the spin of Mitchell Santner, but largely respected the quicks until the back end of the innings. Even then, he picked the hittable deliveries intelligently. He launched Trent Boult down the ground in the 15th over, then when Boult return to close out the innings, Mathews made room and slapped him through the offside twice. By far the largest partnership of the innings was Mathews' 39-run stand with no. 10 batsman Vandersay.

Andrew Fidel Fernando is ESPNcricinfo's Sri Lanka correspondent. @andrewffernando

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • Dilan on January 16, 2016, 4:46 GMT

    we have to find more left arm bowlers fast bowlers and spin & train them to ball right line and length if some one plan to ball in match they have to pratice lot to ball too many loose ball when they giving to ball dilshan samaraweera rest

  • Weeramuni on January 13, 2016, 16:22 GMT

    AJITHABEY ON JANUARY 12, 2016, 3:54 GMT ......I totally agree with him statistic

  • Jacques on January 12, 2016, 20:10 GMT

    It's a problem when grounds are not a standard size.. Surely you can't compare a fast 50 on a ground like this to a fast 50 at a normal sized ground. It sort of defies the idea of a record.

  • Ajith on January 12, 2016, 3:54 GMT

    What a nightmare tour for Sri Lanka .The inept batting and a very unprofessional approach in all games except the 3rd One day match proved that Sri Lanka have really hit the bottom of the barrell. Only some individual performances by Chameera,Siriwardena,Mathews & Gunatilleke saved them from total humiliation.The statistics reveal that the Sri Lankan batsmen were out for catches (15) in T20 cricket, (25) in 1 day matches and (32) in the tests, a total of 72 catches given by the batsmen which speaks volumes on the attitude,application, commitment and lack of discipline to play the ball according to its' merits by these players during this tour.Congrats to NZ for a truly magnificent allround performance throughout the tour.

  • Garry on January 11, 2016, 21:41 GMT

    Awesome effort, NZ are continuing to produce some exciting players. This talk of ground sizes is pretty amusing, the ropes are in the same positions for both teams.

  • terry on January 11, 2016, 20:15 GMT

    all the whingers,,,,asian team fans are great cricket lovers but so bias...all this they cant play good away from home blah blah blah,,no team consistently plays well away from home. but thatnks staguru/ the last 2 years india's "AWAY" form is way worse...oh and would you look at that sri lanka's is EVEN worse than theirs lol aus: played 10 w:6 lost :4 d: 0 ind: played 15. won : 3 lost 7 drawn 1 nz played 8 won 3 lost 3 drawn 1

    so i dont see to many small grounds in those odi's played either. you play the hand dealt to you, not nz's fault teams fold their hands on the same ground, were many of you moaners at the game????looked like it was a success to me,17,000 people for 10 overs of fun. finally only 2 of the 12 sixes nz hit were under 75 metres actually, and the rest would have cleared any boundary in current format played... so get a life sore losers ,20/20 cricket is about this.maybe

  • Dramit Singh on January 11, 2016, 17:27 GMT

    No doubt that on any cricket ground of the world this newzealand would have defeated srilanka but my serious concern that small sized cricket grounds and in particular newzealand doesn't give a good balance between a good spin bowler and a batsman because the batsmen knows that even he mistimes the shot the ball will still go over the ropes.for example edenpark in Auckland has one side of the boundry only 50_55 meters.only basin reserve in Wellington and hagley oval in Christchurch have proper sized even icc has made it mandatory to all the centres that there has to be a minimum boundry size of 75 meters from the pitch.i really wonder that despite Auckland being the largest city in newZealand they don't have a proper ground for cricket.

  • Adinic on January 11, 2016, 14:22 GMT

    It didn't matter on what type of pitch or ground this game was being played, NZ still would have annihilated Sri Lanka. They are simply a much better side, that's all there is to it.

    Although, I do agree that the NZ grounds are too small. Players like Guptill(I do consider him a good player but this is ridiculous) are being made to look better than someone like de Villiers. Even their mishits are going for sixes. I will concede though that the pitches in Aus these days are no better, but that's a different story.

  • jared on January 11, 2016, 10:27 GMT

    OK so most of us agree that edan park is a bit too small but bigger grounds can be more batter friendly than smaller ones as there is more area to hit the ball into, seen on plenty of occasions on big grounds batsmen miss hitting a short ball and it dropping into open space, if you miss hit a ball on Eden park 9 times out of 10 you are out as the guy on the rope can usually get to it, so while there might be more boundaries on the smaller grounds there is smaller margin for error with bad shots punished more regularly and there are more twos and threes on the bigger grounds to compensate for less boundaries so there are pro's and con's for both but without looking at the stats my bet is the average score at Eden park would be no more than the average score at the MCG, you just have to adjust your game plan according to the size of the ground something nz didn't do well at the world cup final.

  • Bhagya on January 11, 2016, 8:28 GMT

    i did not see any issue with chandimals captaincy at first t20..but in the second was ridiculous...but i guess he will learn and he is attacking captain..better than matthews...

  • No featured comments at the moment.