Australia vs NZ, Hobart

My brain knows that we lost by 105 runs. And it knows that we lost our last 7 wickets for only 23 runs. But somehow yesterday's loss doesn't seem as bad as all that. Perhaps it is because I only caught snippets of the collapse on the radio while at a friend's barbeque. And perhaps it is because New Zealand's inexperienced brigade all put in good performances (Gillespie and Patel both bowled well, although Patel's figures were ruined by a late surge - while Taylor and Fulton provided the batting highlights). And perhaps it is because Shane Bond's hat-trick added a fair amount of gloss.

But the major reason I suspect I don't feel that down about the result is because I was expecting it. And that probably doesn't say too much about the state of New Zealand cricket.

Still. As I noted above, there were positives. And if you compare the performances of New Zealand's new faces to the Australian new boys you do have something to be cheerful about. I thought Hilfenhaus was very average, displaying very little of the pace and aggression he was said to have had. He was particularly lucky to get a wicket, Brendon McCullum was sawn off thanks to a terrible lbw decision. And speaking of bad decisions, Cameron White only prospered after surviving a very close appeal first ball. Nice to see umpiring in Australia is still as good as ever. White might have done well with the bat, but he really didn't look like much of a threat with the ball. He is certainly no new Shane Warne.

I would certainly pick Taylor and Gillespie in my side over those two any day. I suspect Peter Roebuck might agree.

Actually, Roebuck's piece is an interesting one. While the New Zealanders "played superbly in patches" and Gillespie and Taylor made "fine impressions", much less direct language is used to describe the new Australians. "Ben Hilfenhaus has followed in his captain's footsteps. Happily, he has been chosen when his confidence is high. Like Ponting, he comes from an unfashionable part of town. Already, he has managed to reduce his bowling to its simplicities..." Meanwhile, two paragraphs dedicated to Cameron White describe one stroke and fail to mention his bowling at all. Roebuck's praise of these two appears all puff and smoke, with very little genuine admiration shining through. The best he can manage is to say that Hilfenhaus' bowling is simple and White plays a nice slog over mid-wicket.

I am probably imagining it. But it seems to me that the Age expected Peter Roebuck to write an article praising the Australian youngsters, and he obliged despite a lack of conviction.