Chappell Confesses (the mongrel ! )

[Iafeta]

Against the West Indies. Comprehende? Want a copy of the scorecard? Remember Steve Waugh and Michael Bevan blocking the last ten overs to win in the 50th because New Zealand had already beaten them, meaning if NZ went through and Australia from the same pool, New Zealand would gain 2 points off Australia. Ohhhh, thats right, pass me back my dubie please.

While this is on a completely different level, ask the French people if they all forgave the Germans after world war II. Yes, completely different level, and quite frankly New Zealand doesn't really care anymore except to laugh in the face of the Australians for their ethics, but if you do the moral crime, you do the moral time. Its merely egg on the face of Greg Chappell, rather than a blight on any New Zealander who still remembers.

 

[Anonymous]

Come on get over it. He did it. He was stupid. We get it.

 

[El Diablo]

Actually, it did happen. Against the Windies. Got them out pretty cheaply, and took 40-odd overs to get the runs. Backfired because the Kiwis still made the Super 6's... they were actually semi-finalists from memory.

No, it didn't happen. He is comparing a game Australia won to a game NZ lost. At no stage in the '99 WC did Australia ever give up in a game and decide to block it and lose.

 

[Iafeta]

For your info - it was more like 18 overs.

End of over 22 (5 runs) Australia 73/4 (RR: 3.32 RRR: 38/28 = 1.36)
RD King 4-1-10-1 - Stretford End
SR Waugh 3* (16b) MG Bevan 10* (9b 2x4)

22.1 Dillon to SR Waugh, no run
22.2 Dillon to SR Waugh, no run, bouncer, quite a good one, Waugh arches
the back to avoid it
22.3 Dillon to SR Waugh, no run, stepping onto the back foot, fielded on
the off side
22.4 Dillon to SR Waugh, legbye: one run, glancing square, square leg
runs close to his right
22.5 Dillon to Bevan, no run
22.6 Dillon to Bevan, no run, around the wicket, speared into the legs,
left hander falls over it, big appeal, must have been going down
the leg side

End of over 23 (1 run, maiden) Australia 74/4 (RR: 3.22 RRR: 37/27 = 1.37)
M Dillon 6-1-15-0 - Warwick Road End
SR Waugh 3* (20b) MG Bevan 10* (11b 2x4)

23.1 King to SR Waugh, one run
23.2 King to Bevan, no run, leanign back, chopped to Simmons in the
coversa
23.3 King to Bevan, two runs, poked thru the covers, more super quick
running, Bevan running back is easily home even if there wasn't an
inaccurate throw
23.4 King to Bevan, no run
23.5 King to Bevan, no run, easy defence outside the off stump
23.6 King to Bevan, no run

End of over 24 (3 runs) Australia 77/4 (RR: 3.21 RRR: 34/26 = 1.31)
RD King 5-1-13-1 - Stretford End
SR Waugh 4* (21b) MG Bevan 12* (16b 2x4)

Walsh back on now
Time for a cliche: This is the last throw of the dice for the West
Indies
24.1 Walsh to SR Waugh, FOUR, edging! wide fo the slips though, it was a
deliberate shot but too of he wanted it, and yet he's rewarded
with the boundary
no adjustemnts in the field, the 1 slip stays
24.2 Walsh to SR Waugh, (noball) no run, into the thigh and missing the
clumsy swipe across the line
24.2 Walsh to SR Waugh, (noball) no run, another another, I can hear the
NZers cheering every one of them
24.2 Walsh to SR Waugh, no run, solid defence, and nothing else, ball
goes down to the mdi off
24.3 Walsh to SR Waugh, no run, steppign back, played to the square leg
24.4 Walsh to SR Waugh, no run, nudged onto the on side
24.5 Walsh to SR Waugh, no run, a big appeal, but nothing doing from the
umpire
24.6 Walsh to SR Waugh, no run

End of over 25 (6 runs) Australia 83/4 (RR: 3.32 RRR: 28/25 = 1.12)
CA Walsh 4-0-20-0 (5nb) - Warwick Road End
MG Bevan 12* (16b 2x4) SR Waugh 8* (29b 1x4)

25.1 King to Bevan, no run
25.2 King to Bevan, no run
25.3 King to Bevan, one run
25.4 King to SR Waugh, no run, past the outside edge, thru to the
keeper, this is a real struggle, at least that's the impression
Australia want to give new Zealand
25.5 King to SR Waugh, one run
25.6 King to Bevan, two runs, flicked away off the pads, down to the
long leg

End of over 26 (4 runs) Australia 87/4 (RR: 3.35 RRR: 24/24 = 1.00)
RD King 6-1-17-1 - Stretford End
SR Waugh 9* (31b 1x4) MG Bevan 15* (20b 2x4)

26.1 Walsh to SR Waugh, no run
26.2 Walsh to SR Waugh, no run
26.3 Walsh to SR Waugh, one run, easy push into the covers, they scamper
for another quick and easy single
26.4 Walsh to Bevan, (noball) no run, outsid ethe off stump, late
defence chops down on it
6th no ball for Walsh, a New Zealander's delight
26.4 Walsh to Bevan, one run, pushed away behind the point fielder
26.5 Walsh to SR Waugh, no run, stepping back and pushing onto the on
side
26.6 Walsh to SR Waugh, no run, stepping back and tapped to the covers

End of over 27 (3 runs) Australia 90/4 (RR: 3.33 RRR: 21/23 = 0.91)
CA Walsh 5-0-23-0 (6nb) - Warwick Road End
MG Bevan 16* (22b 2x4) SR Waugh 10* (36b 1x4)

27.1 King to Bevan, no run, outside the off stump, defended down the
pitch
27.2 King to Bevan, one run, angles the bat down to the 3rd man, another
single
27.3 King to SR Waugh, no run, thick edge squirts away into the covers
27.4 King to SR Waugh, wide: no run, way down the leg side
27.4 King to SR Waugh, no run
27.5 King to SR Waugh, no run
27.6 King to SR Waugh, no run, excuse the lack of comms, the Manchester
City penalty shootout is currently flirting with my attention

End of over 28 (2 runs) Australia 92/4 (RR: 3.29 RRR: 19/22 = 0.86)
RD King 7-1-19-1 (1w) - Stretford End
MG Bevan 17* (24b 2x4) SR Waugh 10* (40b 1x4)

28.1 Walsh to Bevan, no run, down the off side, thru to the keeper
28.2 Walsh to Bevan, no run, and we have another jammy Manchester team
as Waugh defends that one
28.3 Walsh to Bevan, no run, defended again
28.4 Walsh to Bevan, no run, wide of the off stump, the umpire thought
about it, but reconsidered
28.5 Walsh to Bevan, no run, defended square, easily fielded at point
28.6 Walsh to Bevan, no run, a shocking over, sprays it all over the
place, but still a maiden

End of over 29 (maiden) Australia 92/4 (RR: 3.17 RRR: 19/21 = 0.90)
CA Walsh 6-1-23-0 (6nb) - Warwick Road End
SR Waugh 10* (40b 1x4) MG Bevan 17* (30b 2x4)

29.1 King to SR Waugh, no run, defended onto the on side, gathered at
mdi wicket
29.2 King to SR Waugh, no run, stepping back and defending it to the
bowler
29.3 King to SR Waugh, no run, defending to Simmons in the covers
29.4 King to SR Waugh, no run, yorker, dug out to the mid wicket area
29.5 King to SR Waugh, no run, firm forward defence outside the off
stump, played to the mid off
29.6 King to SR Waugh, no run, 15 consecutive dots, 15 consecutive nails
in the New Zealand coffin

End of over 30 (maiden) Australia 92/4 (RR: 3.07 RRR: 19/20 = 0.95)
RD King 8-2-19-1 (1w) - Stretford End
MG Bevan 17* (30b 2x4) SR Waugh 10* (46b 1x4)

30.1 Walsh to Bevan, no run
30.2 Walsh to Bevan, no run, squeezes down on soem more defence
30.3 Walsh to Bevan, no run, stepping back and deflecting to the point
fielder
30.4 Walsh to Bevan, no run, driving and missing outside the off stump,
more dots, Australia know what's going on
30.5 Walsh to Bevan, no run, defence and only defence, played to the
cover fielder
30.6 Walsh to Bevan, no run, easy drive for the 3rd consective maiden

End of over 31 (maiden) Australia 92/4 (RR: 2.97 RRR: 19/19 = 1.00)
CA Walsh 7-2-23-0 (6nb) - Warwick Road End
SR Waugh 10* (46b 1x4) MG Bevan 17* (36b 2x4)

Australia are out to right royally screw New Zealand, and ensure
their West Indian buddies join them in the Super 6
31.1 King to SR Waugh, FOUR, lovely cut shot, behind point, ends 21
dots, there was a message from the dressing room at the over break
31.2 King to SR Waugh, no run, I wonder if the message was "don't make
it look too suspicious" rather than "get on with it and win the
game"
31.3 King to SR Waugh, no run, defended again
31.4 King to SR Waugh, no run, down the leg side to the keeper, flicked
the pads, somewhat of an appeal, more out of hope than reason
31.5 King to SR Waugh, two runs, driving to Ambrose, who makes a clanger
of a misfield, he's barely mobile in all the jumpers he has on
31.6 King to SR Waugh, no run

End of over 32 (6 runs) Australia 98/4 (RR: 3.06 RRR: 13/18 = 0.72)
RD King 9-2-25-1 (1w) - Stretford End
MG Bevan 17* (36b 2x4) SR Waugh 16* (52b 2x4)

32.1 Walsh to Bevan, no run, flicking it away on the on side
32.2 Walsh to Bevan, no run, sent wide of the batsmen, to the keeper
32.3 Walsh to Bevan, wide: no run, pushed very wide of the off stump,
Bevan was hopefully jokingly playing a shot at that one
32.3 Walsh to Bevan, no run, more defence, back to the bowler
32.4 Walsh to Bevan, no run, Australia only has to win inside 47.2 overs
to qualify for the Super 6
32.5 Walsh to Bevan, no run, and the longer they leave it, the more
chance it gives WI of qualifying ahead of NZ, and thus Aust will
have 2 super six points rather than 0 super six points
32.6 Walsh to Bevan, no run, batting slowly to your own advantage, ah
cricket is a beautiful game

End of over 33 (1 run) Australia 99/4 (RR: 3.00 RRR: 12/17 = 0.71)
CA Walsh 8-2-24-0 (1w 6nb) - Warwick Road End
SR Waugh 16* (52b 2x4) MG Bevan 17* (42b 2x4)

Match State: Drinks

33.1 King to SR Waugh, no run, dabbed into the covers
33.2 King to SR Waugh, no run, flicked around the corner, quite a bit of
time for a single, Waugh calls "no", and the crowd give him a bit
of a raspberry, they're a little tired fo the gamesmanship
33.3 King to SR Waugh, one run, pushed down to the 3rd man, there's the
ironical cheer
33.4 King to Bevan, no run, pushing away into the covers
33.5 King to Bevan, one run, tapped away into the covers, only 10 runs
needed now
33.6 King to SR Waugh, no run, bat raised high, ball to the keeper, and
you can bet they'll be the slowest 10 runs you'll see

End of over 34 (2 runs) Australia 101/4 (RR: 2.97 RRR: 10/16 = 0.62)
RD King 10-2-27-1 (1w) - Stretford End
MG Bevan 18* (44b 2x4) SR Waugh 17* (56b 2x4)

perhaps even slower than England's chase fo the Zimbabwe target a
week or so agao
34.1 Walsh to Bevan, no run, but at least there's some advantage to
Australia's tactics
34.2 Walsh to Bevan, no run, unlike England, who were just generally
dumb
34.3 Walsh to Bevan, (noball) no run, 9 needed, so how often would you
see the batting team cursing the extras being bowled?
34.3 Walsh to Bevan, no run, thru to the keeper
34.4 Walsh to Bevan, no run, squeezed away square to the point, so who
says ODIs are exciting anyway?
34.5 Walsh to Bevan, no run, more defence, this is fun
34.6 Walsh to Bevan, no run, more tight bowling, it's just *impossible*
for Australia to score

End of over 35 (1 run) Australia 102/4 (RR: 2.91 RRR: 9/15 = 0.60)
CA Walsh 9-2-25-0 (1w 7nb) - Warwick Road End
SR Waugh 17* (56b 2x4) MG Bevan 18* (51b 2x4)

35.1 Simmons to SR Waugh, wide: no run
35.1 Simmons to SR Waugh, wide: no run, and again, wide of the leg
stump, Simmons must be determined to finish his career at
Manchester
35.1 Simmons to SR Waugh, no run
35.2 Simmons to SR Waugh, no run
35.3 Simmons to SR Waugh, no run, more defence, this time to the point
35.4 Simmons to SR Waugh, no run, stretching forward and defending, the
crowd are fed up
35.5 Simmons to SR Waugh, no run, boos and a chant of "boring boring
aussies" is being made
35.6 Simmons to SR Waugh, no run, chance for a single to squar eleg, but
no!!! it was just too close to go for, they might've been only
able to walk it

End of over 36 (2 runs) Australia 104/4 (RR: 2.89 RRR: 7/14 = 0.50)
PV Simmons 1-0-2-0 (2w) - Stretford End
MG Bevan 18* (51b 2x4) SR Waugh 17* (62b 2x4)

36.1 Walsh to Bevan, no run, defending to the mid on, the crowd should
riot
36.2 Walsh to Bevan, no run, stepping back and defending on the on side,
more booos
36.3 Walsh to Bevan, no run, where ever they go, Australia always seem
to manage to annoy the maximum amount of people in the minimum
amount of time
36.4 Walsh to Bevan, no run, bat raised, ball thru to the keeper
36.5 Walsh to Bevan, no run, keeping low wide of the off stump, the
umpire has the chance to be a hero by calling that one wide
36.6 Walsh to Bevan, no run, defending off the stumps, into the covers

End of over 37 (maiden) Australia 104/4 (RR: 2.81 RRR: 7/13 = 0.54)
CA Walsh 10-3-25-0 (1w 7nb) - Warwick Road End
SR Waugh 17* (62b 2x4) MG Bevan 18* (57b 2x4)

only 10 more overs of defence, then a 4 and a 6 and Australia
qualify ahead of the West Indies
37.1 Simmons to SR Waugh, no run, defending down on the on side
37.2 Simmons to SR Waugh, no run, more defence
37.3 Simmons to SR Waugh, no run, guess what? yes, defence
37.4 Simmons to SR Waugh, no run, Simmons must be tickled pink: "Look at
me, I'm bowling and not being belted to all sections of Greater
Manchester"
37.5 Simmons to SR Waugh, no run, defence!
37.6 Simmons to SR Waugh, no run, more defence!!! spectacular stuff

End of over 38 (maiden) Australia 104/4 (RR: 2.74 RRR: 7/12 = 0.58)
PV Simmons 2-1-2-0 (2w) - Stretford End
MG Bevan 18* (57b 2x4) SR Waugh 17* (68b 2x4)

38.1 Dillon to Bevan, no run, Dillon the new bowler to be defended
38.2 Dillon to Bevan, no run, defending onto the on side, Australia just
giving the crowd more overs for their money
38.3 Dillon to Bevan, no run, Dillon should just give up on the run up
lark
38.4 Dillon to Bevan, one run, a single!!! what a shot, a glorious flick
of the pads, beautifully played, the runs to in front of the
square leg, amazing magical batting
38.5 Dillon to SR Waugh, wide: no run, down the leg side
big cheers for the wide
38.5 Dillon to SR Waugh, no run, but of course the action cannot last
forever, Waugh has to defend that one, and perhaps just catch his
breath
38.6 Dillon to SR Waugh, no run, and more defence, the batsmen have to
be careful not to strain themselves

End of over 39 (2 runs) Australia 106/4 (RR: 2.72 RRR: 5/11 = 0.45)
M Dillon 7-1-17-0 (1w) - Warwick Road End
MG Bevan 19* (61b 2x4) SR Waugh 17* (70b 2x4)

39.1 Simmons to Bevan, no run, guess
39.2 Simmons to Bevan, no run, if you said defended, you'd be right
39.3 Simmons to Bevan, no run, back to the bowler
39.4 Simmons to Bevan, no run, tapped down the wicket
39.5 Simmons to Bevan, no run
39.6 Simmons to Bevan, no run, ball keeps very low outside the off stump

End of over 40 (maiden) Australia 106/4 (RR: 2.65 RRR: 5/10 = 0.50)
PV Simmons 3-2-2-0 (2w) - Stretford End
SR Waugh 17* (70b 2x4) MG Bevan 19* (67b 2x4)

40.1 Dillon to SR Waugh, one run, into the gap at cover point
cheers and celebrations in the stands, it's an orgy of jubilation
40.2 Dillon to Bevan, one run, and another one, the crowd is alight
40.3 Dillon to SR Waugh, no run, played to the mid wicket, full credit
there, they actually for the run
it seems 40 overs was the target
40.4 Dillon to SR Waugh, one run, cutting hard, thru the point, fielded
at the deep point
40.5 Dillon to Bevan, wide: no run, down the leg side, scores are tied
40.5 Dillon to Bevan, (noball) no run, shoulder high no ball, normally
it's an anti climax to win a match with a no ball, but on this
occasion it proves very apt

 

[El Diablo]

And we won that game which is the object when you play a ODI.

What was the result between New Zealand and South Africa?

 

[Iafeta]

Actually, it did happen. Against the Windies. Got them out pretty cheaply, and took 40-odd overs to get the runs. Backfired because the Kiwis still made the Super 6's... they were actually semi-finalists from memory.

No, it didn't happen. He is comparing a game Australia won to a game NZ lost. At no stage in the '99 WC did Australia ever give up in a game and decide to block it and lose.

Irrelevant. At no point did I make a point of the outcome. Both innings were motivated to do the same thing. Take away what they both thought were more potent threats. New Zealand slow batted in the World Series, and lost out. They deserved it for doing it. Australia tried to knock New Zealand out who carried through better standings than Australia. They still won the World Cup because they were the best team, and deservedly so.

 

[Iafeta]

Gee still a slow news day in NZ....... actually not surprising. My mate was over there for work and he got the newspaper and would you believe the headline was - "ELVIS - STILL DEAD". Know with those type of headlines its no wonder they can't let it go...... :lol:

He's dead??!! Buzz Aldrin just reached space. We're still celebrating Hillary conquering Everest. :lol:

 

[booeycollector]

kiwi's are wingers. :lol:

 

[El Diablo]

Actually, it did happen. Against the Windies. Got them out pretty cheaply, and took 40-odd overs to get the runs. Backfired because the Kiwis still made the Super 6's... they were actually semi-finalists from memory.

No, it didn't happen. He is comparing a game Australia won to a game NZ lost. At no stage in the '99 WC did Australia ever give up in a game and decide to block it and lose.

Irrelevant. At no point did I make a point of the outcome. Both innings were motivated to do the same thing. Take away what they both thought were more potent threats. New Zealand slow batted in the World Series, and lost out. They deserved it for doing it. Australia tried to knock New Zealand out who carried through better standings than Australia. They still won the World Cup because they were the best team, and deservedly so.

Bullshit it's irrelevant. You're own journalist wrote it best.

From the NZ Herald article here

Cricket: Fleming's shenanigans secure finals spot

04.02.2002
By RICHARD BOOCK in Melbourne
New Zealand claimed a place in the tri-series cricket finals last night after South Africa denied Australia a crucial bonus point in their game in Perth.

Stephen Fleming's team had set up their finals prospects by deliberately conceding a bonus point to the South Africans when the two sides met on Friday.

But Australia failed in a tense game last night to keep South Africa from pushing past the 226-run mark, which meant the home team - even though they won the game - could not add a bonus point to their tally.

The result meant New Zealand and Australia ended the round-robin each with 17 points.

New Zealand earned their spot in the best-of-three finals because they had the better win-loss record (3-1) against Australia in the series.

The first of the finals, on Wednesday, is in Melbourne. The other games are in Sydney, on Friday and, if needed, Sunday.

Fleming flouted one of the most serious laws in cricket last Friday but seems set to escape scot-free.

Not only was the New Zealand captain's order to lose the game against South Africa a flagrant breach of the opening principle of the International Cricket Council's Code of Conduct, it also appeared to fly in the face of a section which deals with corruption.

Part C, section 10 of the code recommends a life ban for any player or team official who, among other things, "was a party to contriving or attempting to contrive the result of any match".

Fleming said afterwards that he deliberately conceded a bonus point to the South Africans in order to improve his team's chances of qualifying for the finals.

"Believe me, it was our last resort ... "

But in concentrating on the bonus point he had first to decide to throw the match completely.

Comparisons have been made with Australia's go-slow at Manchester in the 1999 World Cup, but the reality is that Steve Waugh's actions were not nearly as serious.

At the World Cup, Australia were comfortably beating the West Indies and although they decided to play defensively at the end, they still won, and therefore did little wrong.

Fleming's actions effectively predetermined the result of a match before it had taken its course, and encouraged his team-mates to underperform.

The code of conduct also recommends a life ban for any player who induces or encourages any other player not to perform on his merits.

The other rule which Fleming appeared to contravene was the opening clause of the code, which reminds captains that they are responsible at all times for ensuring that play is conducted within the spirit of the game, as well as the laws.

But ICC chairman Malcolm Gray said yesterday that it was unlikely there would be any serious repercussions for Fleming, as the tri-series format had left him in an invidious position.

 

[Iafeta]

About 3 matches before that match, commentators were saying it was obvious it was a big chance to happen. The rules of the tournament were stupid with the way the bonus points were set up. I would add though South Africa won simply because they were the better side. The New Zealand batting was not good enough. They weren't good enough from the start, where they were trying to go after the runs. It also worth remembering in that match, Andre Adams was promoted to #3 in a genuine bid to go after the runs - Adams is a slogger, nothing else. Craig McMillan made nearly a half century at better than a run a ball. Parore and Vettori, neither noted big hitters played out the final 12 overs from a position of 8-156 to 203-8. About 4 an over. Certainly not the worst. Especially for 9 and 10. Most 9 and 10's around the world would say thank you very much to that.

The rules are set up more or less for betting scandals, something that Australia themselves are not to clean on. Lets not bring that up though, shall we? I mean, your own cricket board didn't give Warne or Waugh life bans. Lets push that one under the carpet though.

Now, on "not to perform on his merits", you could easily argue Steve Waugh and Michael Bevan turning down singles, or defending half volleys are not playing to their merits. With the captaincy on performing within the spirit of the game, Steve Waugh was one of the batsmen involved. Within the spirit of the game? Boring the fans to death? Letting Michael Slater go face to face with an Indian umpire who through the third umpire conclusively showed Slater was a foot off taking a catch? Allowing Glenn McGrath to take to Ramnaresh Sarwan without even moving in to tell him to calm down, and then mouthing off at the umpire? As a matter of fact, please, yes, put that clause into play, while Ganguly has been given a serve here, he's clearly not the only one.

 

[El Diablo]

They won the game easily thus the performed on their merits.

Australia never give up and concede.

The Warne Waugh thing was to do with pitch reports, not match throwing or anything similar.

 

[ozbash]

kiwi's are wingers. :lol:

WTF is a * winger* ?

Iafeta has blown away any oz argument on this one

GO BRO

 

[The Colonel]

Gee still a slow news day in NZ....... actually not surprising. My mate was over there for work and he got the newspaper and would you believe the headline was - "ELVIS - STILL DEAD". Know with those type of headlines its no wonder they can't let it go...... :lol:

He's dead??!! Buzz Aldrin just reached space. We're still celebrating Hillary conquering Everest. :lol:

Good to see you take it in the good humour it was posted in...... ;-)

 

[Anonymous]

Good on Chappell. I t was a great moment and brilliant thinking

He's not in the league of Fleming :-&

This is right up there with the stupidest things I have ever read.

Consider the two situations.

In the VB Series, the only thing NZ had to gain by scoring faster was to DELIBERATELY PLAY THEMSELVES OUT OF FINALS CONTENTION. Are you honestly suggesting that the right thing to do was to put every effort into scoring faster, so that they could miss out on the final? Now THAT would be a case of losing on purpose.

In the World Cup, Australia were already safely through to the Super Six. As opposed to NZ, who wanted a place in the VB series final, Australia only did what they did for the comparatively minor advantage of a few competition points. By doing what they did, Australia were attempting TO PLAY NEW ZEALAND OUT OF THE COMPETITION WHEN THEY WERE ALREADY THROUGH THEMSELVES. Now that's low.

 

[El Diablo]

Good on Chappell. I t was a great moment and brilliant thinking

He's not in the league of Fleming :-&

This is right up there with the stupidest things I have ever read.

Consider the two situations.

In the VB Series, the only thing NZ had to gain by scoring faster was to DELIBERATELY PLAY THEMSELVES OUT OF FINALS CONTENTION. Are you honestly suggesting that the right thing to do was to put every effort into scoring faster, so that they could miss out on the final? Now THAT would be a case of losing on purpose.

In the World Cup, Australia were already safely through to the Super Six. As opposed to NZ, who wanted a place in the VB series final, Australia only did what they did for the comparatively minor advantage of a few competition points. By doing what they did, Australia were attempting TO PLAY NEW ZEALAND OUT OF THE COMPETITION WHEN THEY WERE ALREADY THROUGH THEMSELVES. Now that's low.

Aussies try and win where as Kiwis tried to lose.

I prefer my team trying to win and if any Aussie captain ever instructed the side to lose I hope he'd be sacked and never picked at any level again.

 

[Iafeta]

Its all for fun Colonel Eel. Australians and the us Kiwis have a deep rivalry, but we all love a beer at the end of the day. But like Gallipoli, we'd be there for one another.

I think with both the World Cup and that particularly World Series, the whole points situation was open slather. The best World Cup I remember was the '92 one, you just played everyone else once and the top 4 went through. Blocking wouldn't help you either way. I thought when they brought the bonus points in for the World Series it'd be silly, I'm a bit of a purist and like a tight finish, asking teams to blast the opposition to submission with the bat chasing in less than 40 overs isn't a long, close game to me. That I'd hope is the objective to bring teams closer together, not further apart. Also, it strains the truth of statistics, I would estimate batting averages would have been 3-4 runs less than usual due to increased risk taking. Again, just a purists thought.

And from a purists thought, I like to see good cricket. The section where New Zealand were criticised, going from 8-156 to 203-8 in 12.2 overs is not the worst effort. Nor would I think 4 runs an over from 9 and 10 a case of being too defensive. Realistically, would Jason Gillespie and Andy Bichel got home? Would Murali Kartik and Irfan Pathan? Curtly Ambrose and Ian Bishop? Lets not forget, they bat the same position as Parore and Vettori did that night. They only had Jack to come. If I batted in their position, from my own perspective I'd be happy with 34 not out off 64 balls and 20 off 39 not out. They're good fighting scores from 9 and 10. Remembering the game, there was no backing away and shouldering arms by the first 8 - they were genuine dismissals. McMillan was going for it, and succeeding. Adams was promoted to do the same. There was definite intent to win the game. I don't recall any soft defensive options, just a very fine bowling display from South Africa who at that time had it all over New Zealand like at the time in that series New Zealand had it all over Australia. The one thing I didn't like is Fleming being so candid about it, honestly, from an outside perspective, that is nothing but a good fighting partnership and something you don't have to be ashamed of your lower order for. You should be concerned at the ability of your top order not to lay a good platform and go on with it, but not Vettori and Parore.

Blocking for 22 overs in a One Day International however.... if I were a member of the crowd, I'd ask for my money back. I'd much rather have watched Vettori and Parore bat than Waugh and Bevan. Waugh has often said, moreso his brother actually, that cricketers should be entertainers and consider the crowd when playing. Did Waugh and Bevan? Nope.

Don't forget, tickets to that game would have cost me my Australian weekly dole money :lol:

 

[Anonymous]

Aussies try and win where as Kiwis tried to lose.

Australia already had won. It was a doddle, and Waugh and Bevan slowed down to keep New Zealand out of the Super Sixes.

New Zealand already had lost. Parore and Vettori slowed down to get New Zealand into the finals. All they could have done was reduced the winning margin. All reducing the winning margin would have done was eliminated them from the finals.
[/quote]

 

[simon says]

I think all these arguments are a moot point.All this sportsmanship babble makes me laugh.

I watched Chappell bowl the underarm and laughed when he did it.It was within the rules to bowl the delivery and ensured that Australia won the game......good move and very clever use of the rule book IMHO.

NZ rigging the game to get through to the finals...good move,I think pointing the finger at them is silly.Their main priority was for NZ,not the best interests of the game.Equally,Oz batting slowly is no better or worse than any of these other supposed transgressions...it was dont to secure the best possible position for the Aussies.

When everyone decides to play cricket for the love of the sport,and for fairness and comaraderie,well incidents like these could be frowned upon.But sport is about winning....jobs,lives,nations depend on it.Winning is everything and anything else is second rate....

My advice....get over fair play. ;-) ;-)