COMMENT
The Silver Ferns' disappointing lack of belief in themselves in the first quarter of Saturday's test opened the door for Australia's revenge.
It was an interesting game but the difference overall was the feeding of the shooters. Australia did it very well, New Zealand didn't.
But to really analyse New Zealand's performance you have to look at how the whole game unfolded.
New Zealand looked unsure of themselves in the first quarter and there was a definite lack of confidence in passing outside the goal circle.
Remembering that Adine Wilson wasn't in the lineup that won the world championship, she didn't really have the confidence to feed Irene van Dyk quickly and in the right space.
The Australians broke down our attacking momentum by menacing Temepara Clark ... how many times did you see her on the floor with someone on her back or an Australian midcourt player deliberately go offside in our shooting circle?
By the time Clark got up and the penalty was taken all their defences were set up.
Wilson and Clark play a similar style of floating game and the Australians knew that and could read their play. New Zealand found it hard to get the ball to Clark on the circle edge and this affected their passing options on attack and the feeding to the shooters.
Our outside shooter was forced to take the long shots even though van Dyk was available in there. But we didn't let her have it.
Van Dyk is a marvellous player but she can't hold space forever, especially against Australia. New Zealand shut van Dyk down - not Australia.
The game changed significantly in the second half when Australian captain and goal keep Liz Ellis went off injured. Australia's defence did not work as well so in the second half we found it easier to set up the passes to the shooters.
Ellis was aggressive, moved differently and called the shots in there. She was the general. The others were aggressive but not to the same extent.
Jodi Te Huna shot particularly well but that was a different defence circle than that of the first half.
As goal defence, Anna Scarlett did a great job. She strengthened the feeding through court.
But were we looking for these new people to win the game for us? Other people have to stand up and be counted. I don't think Sheryl Scanlan stepped up, I don't think Vilimaina Davu stepped up and I don't think Adine Wilson stepped up.
Our defensive circle, certainly in the first half, didn't look as if they played as a team. Davu packed back in the circle and the Australian shooters pulled the New Zealand defence out of the circle and cut back fast to find good space.
I thought Australia's key strategy was to upset our flow through court and we let them do it.
In other words, they outmuscled New Zealand.
New Zealand have to be clever, they have to stand up and get the ball through, regardless of Australia's aggression.
For Australia, Catherine Cox and Natalie Avellino played very well. The hard balls Avellino sent into her shooting circle were a real problem for New Zealand. She lets the ball go with confidence and she is prepared to make the odd mistake.
The umpiring was interesting. They often missed the first phase of an infringement and called what they saw a little later. This was disappointing for both the players and the fans. We want to see a good game umpired well for both sides.
Looking ahead to the second test, things are easily fixed for New Zealand. They must start off with confidence and drive aggressively into every ball.
We must have three options open to the passer. Increasing the passing options to the ball will cut out the Australians' disruption to our midcourt flow.
We also have to work as a tighter unit on defence.
* Lois Muir is a former New Zealand coach
<i>Lois Muir:</i> Shortcomings easily fixed for next test
AdvertisementAdvertise with NZME.