World Cup 2015: Loss against New Zealand unlikely to dent Australia's swagger

Has there ever been a more bizarre ODI game? It was expected that the Australia and New Zealand contest would be a feast for batsmen because of Eden Park’s confines. Some forecasted that 700 runs would be scored. It was going to be barren for the bowlers. The game would resemble one of those cricket video games set to ‘six and out’ mode. But the only thing more regular than fours and sixes were wickets. Nineteen wickets fell in 55 overs. This wasn’t an ODI game, it felt more like a T20 played over five hours. It was ODI cricket on steroids. The match included some of the most frenetic passages imaginable, and had more twists than a Stephen King novel. Australia was seemingly outplayed for the majority of the game but lost by just one wicket and almost snared a miraculous victory. After a fast start by their top three, Australia’s batsmen were outfoxed initially by the wily Daniel Vettori and then eviscerated by mean swing from Trent Boult, who had seemingly drank the same poison that rekindled Mitchell Johnson’s potency last summer. Baffled Australian batsmen were clueless countering Boult’s hostility and late swing. [caption id=“attachment_2128109” align=“alignleft” width=“380”]  Starc’s pitched up bowling – swinging at sheer pace – is virtually impossible to counter when he is in rhythm, which he normally is with the white ball unlike the red. AFP[/caption] Australia endured their worst ever ODI batting collapse – 8-26, which revived those horrendous apparitions from Cape Town in late 2011 when they were scythed for 47 in a Test innings. They only mustered a mere 151, which was probably 200 under par on this Auckland road. It was a pathetic display from a powerful batting line-up. Yet Australia still nearly won the match. New Zealand on multiple occasions appeared to land a knockout blow in their determined bid to dent a sheen from Australia’s aura. After all, many believe the Trans-Tasman teams will meet at a more crucial juncture later in the tournament – possibly the final. Brendon McCullum treated the vaunted Australian attack with disdain. He obliterated Johnson as unmercifully as he had Steven Finn. He had the Australian bowling attack uncharacteristically spooked before he was somewhat limited after being whacked on the arm by Johnson. Australia was set for major embarrassment before Pat Cummins snared McCullum and New Zealand wobbled either side of the dinner break. The Black Caps were coasting to a convincing victory before an unfathomable late collapse due to nervy batting and succumbing to Mitchell Starc, who suddenly morphed into Wasim Akram in his prime. It was a bold, brutal and brilliant match but there was no resounding statement from either team. Had Australia pinched the game, the collective gasp from the rest of the competition would have been audible. It would be hard not to believe Australia was actually impregnable. Importantly, they would have dented New Zealand’s increased self-confidence, who would have sheepishly seized South Africa’s long held dubious ‘chokers’ moniker. But Australia lost and there will be some repercussions because they played woefully for a large part of the match. Question marks continue to abound the batting, which has been lauded as powerful and deep but is stacked with all-rounders. Here’s a perplexing question: Is Shane Watson even a specialist batsman anymore? If the answer is no, than Australia played with just four specialist batsmen. It shouldn’t really be a shock that they were humbled by a potent New Zealand attack. Watson once again is clinging to his position but Australia also looks vulnerable at number six. Glenn Maxwell, and Mitchell Marsh, seem shaky at that position. It is probably a spot too high for both of them, and New Zealand proved that Australia can be exposed when their top order struggles. It reopens the debate whether George Bailey should be recalled. The Tasmanian struggled in the Tri-Series but played well during his half-century against England in the World Cup opener. Bailey brings grit and composure to the team, which would have been invaluable against New Zealand. His experience ensures he’s adept at handling crises. In contrast, Maxwell and Marsh don’t offer that ringing endorsement. Clearly, talented all-rounder James Faulkner has been severely missed and his return from a hamstring injury is still unknown. Australia’s bowling firepower was evident but surprisingly Johnson was the weak link in the team. He was carted for 68 runs in his first five overs, and apart from that one brutish ball to McCullum, Johnson was relatively demure. Worryingly, Johnson has only showed glimpses of his very best during an inconsistent Australian summer. Australia will be hoping he is still working his way back into rhythm after having not played much since the Test series finished in mid-January. His suspect form is looming as a disturbing subplot in Australia’s campaign. Still, there were positives for Australia. It would be remiss not to start with Starc’s virtuoso 6-28 performance. Former England paceman Alan Mullally, a tall left armer who was dominant in the 1999 World Cup, told me recently that Starc was set to become “the best bowler in the world”. I was dubious until he also mentioned that Wasim Akram shared a similar sentiment. “I saw Wasim in Perth, and he believed if Starc worked on his run up and action that he would absolutely dominate world cricket,” Mullally said. “Starc is taller and faster than Mitchell Johnson, who everyone is terrified of. Starc has an unplayable yorker that few bowlers have these days. He should be absolutely devastating in the World Cup.” Mullally is right. Starc’s pitched up bowling – swinging at sheer pace – is virtually impossible to counter when he is in rhythm, which he normally is with the white ball unlike the red. His brutish short ball to dismiss Luke Ronchi was frightening. He is quickly overtaking Johnson as Australia’s main strike weapon. Australia may have won the game had Michael Clarke not rested Starc after he had bowled six overs. Supporting Starc nicely was Cummins – Australia’s precocious but injury prone bowler. His considerable upside is evident and he was admirable under the intensity. Back to the batting. It is hard to imagine Australia playing that poorly again. Perhaps, there was collective rust for a team that had not played in two weeks. Plus, they always play better in their home terrain with less swing evident. They will relish playing in their conditions, where they rarely lose. Australia’s astonishing acts of revival in Auckland proved how difficult they are to defeat. Australia only narrowly lost a match they played largely ineptly and still managed to counter some of New Zealand’s best cricket. They were defeated but not disgraced. It’s a team that continually grinds. Australia’s self-confidence has often felt like bravado at times during the post Warne/McGrath era. But this ODI team is probably Australia’s best team in any format since they won the 2007 World Cup. There is genuine belief in the camp that they are the world’s best. The loss is unlikely to dent their swagger. Still, Australia needs a more complete performance to restore their momentum. Their match against an improving Afghanistan at the WACA on Wednesday – ridiculously deemed a glorified practice game by some cynics – will be of considerable importance.