South Africa v New Zealand, 1st ODI, Paarl January 19, 2013

Franklin steers NZ to unlikely win

94

New Zealand 209 for 9 (Franklin 47*, Watling 45, McLaren 4-46) beat South Africa 208 (du Plessis 57, McClenaghan 4-20, Williamson 4-22) by one wicket
Live scorecard and ball-by-ball details

After seven days of the most one-sided Test cricket you could witness the first one-day international produced a thriller as James Franklin proved New Zealand's hero to secure a one-wicket victory with an unbeaten 47.

Chasing an undemanding 208 the game had appeared to have gone when they were eight down still needing 69, but Kyle Mills helped add 47 for the ninth wicket before Mitchell McClenaghan survived six deliveries to allow Franklin to pick off the remaining 22 runs.

Until the final moments it always felt as though South Africa had their noses in front and there was a chance for them to win the match when Franklin, taking a risk in Dale Steyn's final over, edged just wide of Quinton de Kock, the debutant keeper, who went with two hands when one might have given him a better chance.

Franklin managed to keep the strike to face Ryan McLaren, another who had an impressive match, and ramped a short ball brilliantly over the keeper before carving the winning boundary through the off side. There was plenty of emotion in New Zealand's celebrations.

It was a game low on batting quality but high on tension in the closing stages. The required rate was never out of hand for New Zealand, which enabled Franklin and Mills to just take whatever runs were on offer and protect their wickets. When McLaren took out three middle-order wickets he seemed to have decided the match but Mills showed up some of the top-order batting and Franklin offered a riposte to those who feel he should not be playing.

McLaren's fourth, to give him a career-best haul to follow his useful 33 with the bat, swung the game back South Africa's way but McClenaghan kept his cool and kept in line to ensure his figures of 4 for 20, the best by a New Zealand bowler on ODI debut, contributed to a victory rather than a consolation.

That had not appeared likely after another stuttering display from the top order. Martin Guptill was run out without facing after AB de Villiers, having passed away the keeping gloves, swooped at cover. Lonwabo Tsotsobe struck twice, having Rob Nicol taken at slip and Kane Williamson at point to leave New Zealand 21 for 3. A familiar collapse was on the cards.

BJ Watling and Brendon McCullum gave the innings some foundation with a stand of 52 before another slip. Rory Kleinveldt trapped McCullum lbw in curious fashion; a power outage had struck the ground which meant no DRS was available and McCullum had wanted to review the decision. Kleinveldt, another of the debutants in the game, claimed a second when Grant Elliott flashed to slip to hand Graeme Smith his 100th ODI catch.

When McLaren struck twice in three balls - Watling dragging on and Jimmy Neesham lbw - New Zealand were 105 for 7 but Nathan McCullum offered hope with a punchy innings and that mood was carried forward. South Africa will reflect that they were not at their best, conceding 15 wides and three no-balls.

Their innings was a curious display, perhaps with a hint of complacency after their dominance in the Tests, with the tone set by Hashim Amla's ugly shot across the line. When de Villiers was lbw to the impressive McClenaghan they were 37 for 3 and forced to rebuild, but each time a partnership started to form New Zealand broke though. McCleanaghan later returned to add two more scalps, including a beauty from round the wicket to take Steyn's off stump.

Williamson was the surprise package with the ball, claiming a career-best 4 for 22 with his part-time offspin after New Zealand filled their side with allrounders. His first three scalps were all set batsmen: Colin Ingram, brilliantly caught off a top-edged sweep, McLaren who probably did not get an edge and the key figure of du Plessis taken at deep midwicket.

Du Plessis and McLaren formed the best stand of the innings, adding 59 for the sixth wicket, which included taking 41 off the Powerplay but South Africa felt a frontline batsman light as they did in the one-day series against England last year. The stand had given them hope of pushing towards 250 but Williamson derailed those ambitions with wickets in consecutive overs, although HotSpot supported McLaren's frustration at his dismissal. That was nothing compared to the frustration he felt a few hours later.

Andrew McGlashan is an assistant editor at ESPNcricinfo

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • Sinhaya on January 21, 2013, 16:25 GMT

    @Harmony111, yes I agree. All 3 formats are important. But to be called great cricketer, test cricket is the way to achieve that label. T20 cricket is for the slogger. Cricket is a game where you need to be tested a lot over a longer period. Of course the shorter format is also essential regardless. After all, a T20 or ODI specialist will never be in the all time greats. Looking at the last 20 years, fellows like Bevan being ODI specialist are forgotten. Even Malinga too will be forgotten once he retires.

    It is upto the ICC to ensure that all 10 countries play a fair amount of all 3 formats in a given year.

    A player who can excel in all 3 formats is a genius. But I feel Gayle and Warner are still 50-50 and can be inconsistent. If Kohli can excel in tests, he will be a genius. So far Kohli has excelled in ODIs and T20s. Sanath Jayasuriya too could have excelled in all 3 formats but he had his day and turned out to be inconsistent as his average shows.

  • Sinhaya on January 21, 2013, 15:45 GMT

    @Soso_killer, I agree. But well one thing I have to remind you is that South Africa's ODI record against Sri Lanka in Sri Lanka is forgetful. They have only won just one ODI and that too in 1993. In the 2000 and 2004 tours, you all failed to win a single ODI against us. In the 2006 tour, only tests were possible. Well I am sure this team is better than the teams which came to Sri Lanka before so we will find it tough.

    But one thing. Last year, when we came to SA we could have won the 3rd as rain hampered our hopes a lot if you recall the Blomfontein game.

  • LestatdeLioncourt on January 20, 2013, 23:57 GMT

    @ Min2000 - I think you are a bit misinformed re Jimmy Franklin. He is actually on the comeback from a serious knee injury (not the first time either). He will never bowl fast again (I don't think he ever bowled 145K tho) as he can't plant the foot anymore and just sort of runs through the crease. Hence he is considered a batting allrounder now.

    @ Neuen - Because SA are ranked number 1 and NZ number 9?? Also missing 4 of their best players?

  • nickcarter on January 20, 2013, 23:13 GMT

    Well done franklin you have shown while u are a t20 odi player . Was unfair for u to be thrown into the test squad . But uv proven ur worth keep it up

  • sirviv on January 20, 2013, 17:56 GMT

    Oh Franklin. You know you have it in you. Keep going and take your team home with (at least) the odi trophy

  • Harmony111 on January 20, 2013, 15:20 GMT

    @Sinhaya: Ofc the 3 formats of the game are different but equally imp. When Gayle or Warner hit 18 runs in an over it requires skill not some luck and neither is this skill some inferior skill. It is power, timing and clean mindset. When Malinga bowls his yorkers into the stumps it requires skill and not luck and this skill too is special. It comes from practice and confidence.

    An Engg does not say that the medical profession is inferior. A tax consultant does not say that policing is an inferior job. They all know that the other things are different. More imp, an Engg knows he is good as an Engg and did not have the req skills to become a doctor or even a medical attendant. It is about identifying what you have and what you don't.

    Those who say Tests are the Only/Real/Superior format must also admit that they do not have the skills to play ODIs/T20s. But they chose to call them inferior as if its beneath their dignity to play ODIs/T20s --- Yet they play it, never win or get 74 a.o.

  • bearface on January 20, 2013, 14:20 GMT

    Well done NewZealand i'm happy to see NZ pull off a win here SA is a very strong ODI side but simply screw up when it matters hence the tag chokers.

  • Neuen on January 20, 2013, 11:11 GMT

    Amla opening Ingram at 3 no Kallis no Morkel, a transformation bowler conceding 6 a over I do not see how this is a unlikely victory?

  • Sharky.omarhenry on January 20, 2013, 10:02 GMT

    Well played New Zealand, and especially Franklin. We all knew that New Zealand would be a stronger competitor in the shorter formats of the game. They could have been favorites going into the test series if they had an inform 1 - Stephen Fleming (Capt.), 2 - Ken Rutherford, 3 - Martin Crowe, 4 - Ross Taylor, 5 - Nathan Astle, 6 - Chris Cairns, 7 - Richard Hadlee, 8 - Brendon McCullum (WtKp), 9 - Chris Harris, 10 - Daniel Vettori, 11 - Shane Bond - squad. But they actually only needed Ross Taylor, Daniel Vettori, Jesse Ryder, Tim Southee, Chris Martin, Kyle Mills, Jacob Oram and especially the calm fighting spirit of James Franklin.

  • Harmony111 on January 20, 2013, 9:46 GMT

    @Tayloruss:

    Rankings are calculated on the basis of matches a team plays over a certain time window. Assume it is 104 weeks & suppose current points are from Feb 2011 1st week to to Jan 2013 1st Week. As times passes, this window's beginning slides from Feb 2011 1st week to Feb 2011 2nd week. Thus matches played in Feb 2011 1st week go out and are not considered any more while the new matches played in Jan 2013 2nd week enter the equation.

    Net result? All teams lose the points earned in Feb 2011 1st Week. Now they have to compensate for this by 1stly playing matches in Jan 2013 2nd Week & 2ndly winning them. Eng played a match but lost it, SA played a match but lost it. For them the loss was double cos not only did they lose x points earned in Feb 2011 1st Week but also cudn't win the new y points they cud've earned in Jan 2013 2nd Week.

    Keep in mind that Rating is calculated by Points Earned/Matches played. You play 1 more match but lose it - your RATING goes even further.