Cricket: India or OZ, bring 'em on

New Zealand and Australia had parity in batting but the Aussie pace attack had more sting in it. Pictured is Mitchell Starc.

Australia or India? A question that would be quite ambiguous any other time and anywhere in the world but right here, right now, it requires no translation in any language or dialect.

To put the question beyond reasonable doubt: "Would the Black Caps prefer to play the Ockers or the defending champions in the final in Melbourne this Sunday?"

Guess what? A random, unofficial check with the pundits and the great unwashed have delivered a hung jury of sorts on the Mike Hesson-coached New Zealanders.

Well before you read this edition of the HB Today sport back page the verdict will be crystal clear, although those who reached pre-result conclusions that India would struggle chasing a 300-plus total will this morning weigh up the code's adage that "Anything Can happen" has a modicum of substance although the subcontinent side looked gone.

One's background or knowledge of the game didn't matter, everyone had an opinion and a fair reason as to why they chose Australia or India.

A typical response for Australia was better the devil you know than the one you don't.

Because Brendon McCullum and his troops had slain their cousins at Eden Park, Auckland, in pool play, albeit by a wicket, many felt it was a safer bet to go through the motions again.

Some wanting India simply argued it was always better to lose to them than the cocky Aussies.

Some came up with the home-ground advantage to the co-hosts but quickly retreated on realising India have played in predominantly Australian venues but felt like they never left home, considering the hordes of blue-shirt fans who have filled up stadiums.

So what do some of the the former New Zealand internationals with Bay connections have to say about the Australia or India question?

Hawke's Bay-born Shayne O'Connor last night replied: "India, that's the easy answer.

"I think we've been better against their quicker bowlers."

New Zealand and Australia had parity in batting but the Aussie pace attack had more sting in it, the former left-arm seamer said from Clyde, Central Otago.

"We haven't had to go out batting chasing 350. We like batting with the ball coming on."

Come in Jamie How, who retired from domestic cricket early this year. He said from Palmerston North: "Australia, looking at the score now.

"I think we can beat Australia because they play a similar style to South Africa," said the former Black Caps opening batsman, alluding to the four-wicket victory over the Proteas on Tuesday.

No doubt, How said, an Aussie exit in the semifinals would be equally gratifying but to beat the Ockers on their own turf in front of their parochial crowd "would be the pinnacle".

Derek Stirling, of Napier, thought Hesson and his stable would probably prefer India.

"Our batsmen against their batsmen, we'll look better against their pace attack.

"Everyone's looking at Australia but New Zealand will fancy their chances against the India attack," former opening seamer Stirling said.

Mathew Sinclair, of Napier, basing it on Australia's robust innings after the co-hosts won the toss and batted first last night, said anything more than 300 would pose too much of a challenge for the Indians.

"I'd love to see a New Zealand versus Australia, close brotherly neighbourly thing set up to be a great spectacle.

"One thing in favour of the Australians will be the turf but it'll be a great showdown regardless," master batsman Sinclair said.