NZ v AUS

Anyone with even half a passing interest in tonight's game would have heard by now the statistic that out of the 17 matches these two sides have played over the last 5 years, New Zealand has won .... errr, two of them. That alone should have the lemmings jumping on the baggy greens and in the 5 hours I've been awake this morning they have indeed shortened from $1.37 to $1.35 and will probably continue to do so.

Statistics are wonderful things, but reliance on them for sports betting purposes ain't one of them. Yes Aussie have won 15 of the last 17, but who won the last one (NZ) is the invariable reply. Yet McGrath and Lee weren't playing that one comes the counter-reply. Neither was Bond comes the counter-counter reply. You get the drift.

The significant contributor to how a cricket game pans out, apart from the players playing it, is the pitch. And so far we have seen at Mohali a pitch with reasonable pace and bounce, with one game ruined by a greentop. Despite putting up some crystal ball-gazing on this blog from time to time, quite often I do not form a cast-iron view on an upcoming game of cricket until I have seen the pitch and the first few overs.

With this tournament and the number of games already played, you can make a fair assumption about pitch characteristics, but as the Pakistan-South Africa game highlighted, always be prepared to change your thinking should evidence be presented that suggests you should do so.

Having said all of that, if the Mohali pitch is similar to the one Australia played India on, I fear a similar result and the current price for an Australian win of $1.35 is not unreasonable, but personally I'd hesitate to back it.

Two key things shape up in my mind as to whether NZ can be competitive or even win:

1. NZ's top order batting. Styris out is a blow, being one of three NZ batsmen who can anchor an innings (Fleming and Astle being the others) and while you'd be sent to the loony bin suggesting one of Vincent, Marshall and Fulton can take up the slack, they are not quite in the no-hopers category. Vincent can look horribly out of form and then produce a quick half-century out of nowhere, Marshall has a reasonable record against the Aussies while Fulton hasn't been given a chance by the umpires in this tourney. Don't completely write them off. For NZ to have a chance, our capable middle-order cannot be spending 15-20 overs resurrecting an early collapse.

2. NZ's strike bowling. I'm not looking at Bond here, although any initial blast that gets rid of a few at the top will be welcomed with open arms. Unfortunately he's not in the form to take 6-23 like he did last time he bowled at Australia. More at Mills - whose accuracy and early doors bowling is under-rated, and (holding breath in great hope) Franklin if he doesn't get carted around the paddock when he comes on. Oram will enjoy the bounce in the pitch just as much as the Aussie change bowlers.

So whoever bats first, the first 10-15 overs will set the scene for either a great game of cricket or a one-sided thrashing. An Aussie win is the probable outcome, but if NZ can prise out a couple of Aussies early, or if we can get through the first 15 only 2 down, game on!

P.S. If you want an interesting statistic, how about the fact that the three teams left in this tournament with Australia have one thing in common: they all beat Australia the last time they played them :-)