New Zealand

New Zealand were the ones who beat South Africa

Exceptional cricket. That is how you exploit a weakness.

At 108-2 chasing 222, South Africa seemed untroubled, but there was a spot on their face. It was very small, but it was there. With the dismissal of Jacques Kallis, they gave it a little bit of a scratch and took the top off it, drawing a faint speck of blood.

What New Zealand did then was magnificent. They sawed off Mount Everest, tipped it over, inserted the tip into that blemish and pushed. Bringing the field in, surrounding the South Africans, they pushed and they pushed and they pushed until that tiny break in the skin was a wound and then they pushed some more until South Africa split in two.

That is how you win big cricket matches. Full marks to New Zealand. References to South African mental frailty do them a grave disservice.

Cricket World Cup storylines

The great thing about actual, proper tournaments is the way that narratives develop. Every remaining team already has a good story in place if they eventually go on to become World Champions.

Pakistan - Would defy what was a catastrophic build-up to the tournament even by their standards. Being as Pakistan cricket has a higher staff turnover than the active squad in Cannon Fodder, that’s quite some preparation.

India - Would see Sachin Tendulkar claim the trophy in his home city.

Australia – Like an old codger urinating in a rich man’s swimming pool, they would have found a way to rage against the dying of the light.

England – Would have shrugged off a triviality like seeming to be really, really bad at cricket to register a first World Cup win which would also complete their best year ever.

Sri Lanka – Could wave goodbye to Muralitharan having repaid about 0.01 per cent of the debt they owe the man.

South Africa – Would have demonstrated a newfound ability to ensure the flow of air from the environment into the lungs.

New Zealand – Would have won the World Cup. They haven’t done that before.

Kamran Akmal helps Ross Taylor to a hundred

Pakistan’s last five overs went for 100, largely thanks to Ross Taylor. Earlier in his innings, Taylor had been given a couple of lives by – who else – Kamran Akmal.

Kamran Akmal amazes us. We hope he never goes away. You’d think the ability to catch might be an entry requirement for wicketkeepers – particularly international ones – yet Akmal seems to have footballs made of ice instead of hands – slippery, round, smooth things wholly unsuited to capturing a lofted cricket ball.

Asking Kamran Akmal to keep wicket is like asking a clouded leopard to look after your chickens while you’re on holiday. Day one, he comes round and he scatters some grain for them. Day two, he comes round and he scatters some grain for them. Day three, he comes round and he scatters some grain for them. Then he stops.

‘Hang on,’ he asks himself. ‘Am I a clouded leopard?’ He takes a look down at himself and sees a distinctive cloud-like pattern. ‘That proves nothing,’ he thinks, eyeing the chickens. ‘Although then again, I do have powerful legs equipped with rotating rear ankles that allow me to safely climb downwards in a head-first posture, much like a common squirrel.’

‘Sod it,’ he says. ‘I am going to eat those chickens.’

You see, it’s not that Kamran Akmal isn’t trying. He’s just doing a job for which he is entirely unsuited.

Daniel Vettori just wants to be ‘the guy with the glasses’

Everyone’s got a thing. Whether you’re Overreaction Girl, Super-keen Man or even if it’s simply that you look like a toad wrapped in human skin, it’s important to give people some sort of a handle; something they can grip onto so that they can more easily know who you are.

Daniel Vettori’s thing was that he did everything in New Zealand cricket. He was their best bowler, arguably their most consistent batsman and effectively the captain, coach and selector as well. After the World Cup, he’s not bothering with the last three, so he’ll lose his thing.

Originally, he was ‘the guy with the glasses’ so we suppose he’ll have to go back to that.

Chris Martin loses the knack

Chris Martin has always struck as being a good bowler with a knack for not taking wickets. Opening the bowling in India and dismissing Gambhir, Dravid, Tendulkar, Raina and Dhoni in no time at all, it’s safe to say he no longer has that knack.

Or perhaps he now has a very specific knack – a knack for dismissing Gambhir, Dravid, Tendulkar, Raina and Dhoni in no time at all in the second innings of Test matches taking place in Ahmedabad. This is not a knack he’ll ever be able to make use of again, but it’s better than having a knack for slipping on rocks and landing on a particular part of your upper thigh again and again and again.

No-one wants that knack – least of all us.

Mark Greatbatch assesses New Zealand’s performance in Bangladesh

“We played like dicks really.”

Punditry is far from dead.

Ross Taylor hits fastest Test hundred by a New Zealander

Are breathtaking innings all about how many sixes are hit and how few balls are faced?

Ross Taylor’s 81-ball hundred against Australia wouldn’t even be half as good as Yusuf Pathan’s 37-ball IPL hundred if that were the case. Clearly, it’s all about context.

A DLF Maximum is commonplace. In Twenty20, batsmen are obliged to score very quickly. In Test cricket, you have a choice – which makes innings like Taylor’s more audacious and more absorbing.

It’s been a low-scoring match and Taylor wasn’t short of time. He was also up against five international bowlers, rather than the one or two you get in the IPL. What does he do? He chances his arm. There’s such a broad scope as to what a player might do in a Test match – that’s the context.

Napier groundsman in saying New Zealand batsmen are shit SHOCKER

Napier groundsman Phil Stoyanoff was asked if there will be a result in the current Test between New Zealand and Pakistan:

“Yes, because both sides have such bad batsmen. That’s my honest opinion, they’re useless.”

As this might be considered a bit inflammatory, New Zealand Cricket public affairs manager Stephen Hill said to the media:

“Ideally it would be nice if you didn’t use [the quote] but I recognise that is not going to happen, so I hope you use it in context and use it with restraint.”

We’re pretty sure we’ve fulfilled that brief.

ICC Test rankings system

India have risen to be number one in the rankings and many people will say that the rankings are questionable. Are India the best Test cricket team?

A lot of people say the rankings are meaningless. When they make this criticism, they always do it according to a team’s position. The statement is usually something like ‘there is no way on earth that Australia are only the fourth best’.

Australia are actually third now, but these people should look at the points that the positions are based on rather than the positions themselves. It’s like batting averages. One run here or there doesn’t mean a thing (except to Don Bradman maybe). Similarly, one point in the Test rankings doesn’t mean a lot.

Back when Australia were clearly the best Test side, they were generally ahead by about 15 points. That’s enough. You’re definitely ahead there. Back then, being fourth meant you were a distant fourth. Not so long ago, when Australia were ranked fourth, they were fourth by about a point. That doesn’t really mean anything.

Test cricket’s hierarchy and why shades of grey are good

One of the best things about Test cricket is that the same two teams can produce wildly differing results if they play each other in different countries, on different grounds or even in different weather conditions.

It’s not like Team A are the best and they’ll always beat Team B, who’ll always beat Team C and so on. There are so many different factors that there’s frequently a healthy amount of grey to the answer to any ‘which side is better?’ question.

Look at the rankings in the same way. A point here or there means next to nothing.

Innings victories in cricket – good or bad?

It’s good if it’s your side that’s won, but if you’re impartial, it means that a Test has been one-sided. Australia’s innings victory over West Indies also raises uncomfortable and unwelcome questions about the future of the West Indies as a Test team, even if their best player, Adrian Barath, does have a few years left in him.

India’s innings victory over Sri Lanka is more welcome. Firstly, Sri Lanka scored 760-7 in the first Test, which was good batting, but not good cricket. By actually seeing some wickets, Indian fans might not be driven further towards the shorter formats and by seeing their team gaily prance to victory without a care in the world, they might even warm to Tests a bit. Plus, India should win at home. A tour of India being as hard as diamonds is one of the defining features of cricket.

But if you really want good cricket, look to New Zealand v Pakistan. No declarations, tough batting in the second innings and a tight finish. The balance between bat and ball changed as the match progressed and the players who did well can feel damn pleased with themselves. New Zealand didn’t just win; they earned victory.