No Lee

[Sportz]

A bit surprised that Brett Lee is 12th man today. The three pace bowlers Australia has will probably do the job and certainly none of them really deserved to be dropped, but I'm sure a few of the kiwi batsmen will be extremely pleased with the decision. I just feel that if you have a guy bowling as fast as Lee is at the moment and a few of the opposing players don't seem to have any idea against him, why not play him? Hope the decision doesn't backfire against them.

Ponting has won the toss and sent NZ in. Not sure about the pitch or the conditions but if the wicket's fairly good, Australia normally bats first.

[Sportz]

10 overs gone. Still no wicket.

[mug punta]

Fleming out to Warne. I reckon they should have played 5 bowlers and dropped Katich and batted Gilly at 6.

[Sportz]

Well, not going to say I told you so or anything. They may still run through the rest of the lineup and get them out cheaply. But 1-64 is nothing special when you've sent them in and the wicket was taken by a spinner. I just think it was letting the kiwis off the hook big time. If you had asked the kiwis to honestly say which bowler they didn't want us to pick, I'm sure most would have said Lee. Their opener with the interesting name Cumming, had no idea against Lee in the one dayers and he's still there on 36 not out. Your idea of 5 bowlers has some merit, but they don't seem to want to do that unless they're playing 2 spinners.

[mug punta]

They like the security of the extra batsmen but im a firm believer bowlers win matches and the decision to drop Kaspa was obviously 2 hard for the selectors so I personally would have preferred that option. Having said that I still expect them to roll the Kiwi's pretty comfortablly. They have really dried the runs up since the 1st wicket and they invariablly run thru sides when the opposition aren't scoring against them.

[Sportz]

Having said that I still expect them to roll the Kiwi's pretty comfortablly.

Not so sure about that. I can't understand why Ponting sent them in either. That's not the Australian way. Unless the pitch is a minefield, we normally always bat first.

[mug punta]

nz have the honours clearly at the end of day1. I hope the boys can bounce back 2moro.

[Sportz]

Right about now I would normally say that we should back Australia because they've got out past the $2 mark, but I'm just not confident. I had a bad feeling about this game as soon as I saw that Lee wasn't playing and we'd sent them in.

Also kicking myself now because I was thinking of backing Marshall for top NZ batsman but decided against it.

[Neil]

Based on current form Brett Lee had to be in the test team. He bowled fast and accurately and demoralised New Zealand in the one dayers. With no Brett Lee it was an appalling, probably arrogant decision to send New Zealand in to bat. It was like saying to New Zealand, "Go and have a bat first. We'll show you we don't need Brett Lee. We'll still bowl you out cheaply." Well it backfired badly. The batsmen would have felt quite comfortable out there knowing Brett Lee couldn't get at them and it showed in their body language and on the scoreboard.

Without Brett Lee playing, given the choice Australia had to bat first, get off to a flying start with the bat and have New Zealand quickly feeling down and out again after their 5-0 one day whitewash, rather than elated that they wouldn't have to face Brett Lee.