Why are aussies vulnerable to NZ at home ?

[DarkKnight]

NZ drew a test series with australia 1-1 last time they played
In a tri series 2 years ago , when south africa and new zealand played the final while australia were eliminated

[Zainub]

Hmmm, not sure if vulnerable is quite the right word, NZ just played well yesterday, and Aus might have been a little unlucky last time around. And there are still 2 games to go. Aus should be able to bounce back.

[DarkKnight]

But head to head , the aussies are far better in their over all record against new zealand

[Beny]

We won the test series 2-0. Anything can happen in ODI's. They bring teams closer together and so you have to excpect a few loses.

[vvvrulz]

That is a good question, I never really thought about it. Australia for some reason seem to lose to the Kiwi's at home, only in ODI's. Very strange really.

[Beny]

ODI's bring teams much closer togaether and 'luck' starts to play a huge part. Let's not forget that NZ have the best ODI win:loss ratio in the world (not counting Aus who havent played many) for the past year.

[Rachael]

Surely, Beny, you accept that the NZ success in the ODI format comes down, in a large part, to making their own luck: they don't just wait for lady luck to look there way.. they do everything possible to ensure that she's on their side.

Any team could follow the NZ example.. but most get lost en-route.. mostly through poor judgement and preparation: this NZ lot never seem to lose their way.. they always seem to understand what they can achieve and how they can achieve it. They challenge themselves but don't aim stupidly high.. and prove the old adage that a team of mortals who punch their weight and give themselves the best chance they CAN give themselves will rarely find themselves having to complain about "luck".

Add in the fact that they've got a lot of very versatile players who've worked out that they each need to contribute in more than one way to do themselves justice.. and a format that means games are usually decided by the weak links (the no 7 and 8 batsmen, the 5th / 6th bowler) and I think New Zealand's stature in ODI cricket is well deserved.

[Beny]

No doubt Rahael. I'm simply pointing out that NZ beating Aus at ODI level is not a huge and shattering victory. They played well and 'made their own luck'.

[Django]

It was good to see the "human" cricketers from New Zealand the "robot" cricketers from Australia (manufactured by the Australian sports academy under the supervision of the engineer John Buchanan). Quite frankly the situation has reached a stage where watching the Australian cricketers is boring. It is like seeing the machines doing a regulation job. The entertainment and the "sport" factor is missing when the Australians are playing.

[Rachael]

Interesting angle... and worth pursuing.

A former Test bowling great complained some time back that Aussie bowlers are a new breed.. rarely showing any serious concern with getting a batsman out (finding the unplayable delivery)... and basically resorting to almost robotic consistency to pressure batsmen into getting themselves out.

I've also complained that a lot of the modern batsmen are robotic: the cricketing equivalent of Andy Roddick in tennis... very limited in repertoire.. but with such an ability to dominate with their limited range of big weapons... that the more "complete players"... unless they are as sensational as Federer... struggle to compete.

I think you could make the same case with Rugby: the Aussies line up like robots in that as well.. with half of them being seemingly interchangeable in terms of what they offer.. and few bringing a buzz to the game in the way that some of the key French players do... or in the way Mike Catt does.

All very effective.. but perhaps not what the game is about.