**Official** England in New Zealand

[Woodster]

MSP isn't the easiest bowler to go down the pitch to, due to the loop he tends to get. That's one of the biggest reasons for the control he offers, not only does he (on the occasions he isn't dragging too many down, as one or two people point-out he does too often sometimes) bowl in the right areas, he also has a natural attribute that makes it hard for batsmen to make difficult areas into easy ones.

Not to say no-one could do it successfully, obviously, but TBH I think the Kiwis adopted the right approach. This pitch is slow and there is some grip in it, meaning sitting on spinners is do-able, but attacking them is often a recipe for disaster. Additionally, none of How, Sinclair or Taylor are particularly adept at coming down the pitch to spinners. They kept MSP out without great difficulty, but I think he will offer more threat in the second-innings. Might be wrong, though, because I don't see the pitch getting any quicker, and it's already difficult enough for bowlers of any kind to extract that much out of it.

I just feel they allowed him to bowl as he pleased. I am not taking anything away from MSP who was controlled throughout the day, and I appreciate that How and Sinclair may not be the type of batsmen to hit over the top. If, and I know this is totally hypothetical and perhaps an unfair comparison, but if Australia were batting on that track there is no conceivable way that they would have allowed MSP to bowl how he did today without even attempting something to make him think about where he is going to bowl his next ball. I realise that is Aus and not NZ.

Had McCullum faced him longer I have a feeling he would have attempted to dominate. Like I say I'm not suggesting rash strokeplay, but I think they could have used their feet despite, as you say, the loop he manages to get. If players can use their feet to Murali and Warne, then they can use their feet to MSP.

 

[Richard]

I'm sure McCullum (and the likes of Ponting, Symonds, Gilchrist etc. too, naturally) would have tried. But I'm not sure they'd have succeeded TBH. I think too much going down the pitch (other than for someone who is truly exceptional in that department like Michael Clarke) would very possibly have resulted in giving away wickets. And enough of the Kiwis gave their wickets away anyway.

More than ever on the first day of a series, I'm happier to see caution than boldness. I really do believe they played MSP in the right way.

 

[Woodster]

I was more than happy to see their caution! It may be a point we will have to disagree on, and it will be interesting to see how they approach Panesar tomorrow and throughout the remainder of the series. I personally see no harm in skipping down the pitch, he is not going to turn it sharply away from the right handers, on this track on day one. It just makes the bowlers think about what they are doing as averse to plodding in and hitting the spot on auto pilot.

 

[Goughy]

More than ever on the first day of a series, I'm happier to see caution than boldness. I really do believe they played MSP in the right way.

If you are implying that they played Monty in the best possible way and that caution is better than boldness then I think you are confusing boldness with recklessness.

Boldness is positive and proactive. Especially to a spinner the worst thing you can do is allow them to bowl at you and let them settle into their rhythm for a whole day.

Recklessness is bad and foolhardy, but boldness is a virtue.

 

[Richard]

The worst thing you can do, IMO, is think that there's always one best way to play bowlers, and that this never changes. Sometimes, looking to take the game to a spinner is better than letting them bowl. Sometimes, on the other hand, caution is better than boldness.

Someone like Stuart MacGill, for example, was almost always best played with caution. Someone like Shane Warne was usually best played with boldness.

And there are surfaces where you will profit far more from being cautious against spin than being bold. Likewise, there are surfaces where the opposite is true. Some surfaces make it very difficult for spinners to get batsmen out if they look to sit on them, but give great opportunity when they look to come at them. Some surfaces make it easy for a spinner to prey on a batsman who plays him with caution, but less straightforward if he makes bold. Some surfaces give a spinner a very good chance of getting a batsman out however he plays. Some surfaces mean a spinner has negligable chance of getting a batsman out, and thus the bowler is at the batsman's mercy, and the batsman would be foolhardy to pass-up the opportunity to go for him.

And then there are the batsmen themselves. Some batsmen are very good at smothering spin and nudging the ball into gaps, but not particularly good at sweeping, or using their feet. Some batsmen aren't terribly good at nudging the ball into gaps, but play the sweep and the lofted stroke well.

The batsman has to play to his own strengths, as well as trying not to play the bowler's strengths, as well as assessing the pitch. There is much to consider. To suggest one way will always work best under any circumstances is, well, certainly not the way I think.

Someone like MSP relishes batsmen attacking him, as does, for example, Murali. The surface in use this match has made attacking spin difficult, with the slowness and the grip. None of the New Zealand batsmen, bar Fleming who did not face him a great deal, are terribly good at attacking shots against spinners. For these reasons, I believe their approach was the right one.

 

[Woodster]

Someone like Stuart MacGill, for example, was almost always best played with caution. Someone like Shane Warne was usually best played with boldness.

For the simple reason that he is never particularly consistent in his areas and if you do bide your time, most of the time you are pretty sure a four ball will come down. Accuracy with leg-spin is a more difficult skill.

I agree there are several ways to skin a cat, it depeneds on the surface, on the bowler and the batsmans abililty to play spin well.

This surface to me represents a good chance to use your feet, the spin is slow enabling the batsman time to adjust if indeed he is deceived, there is not huge amounts of turn about, therefore the batsman should be able to smother the ball if necessary.

Perhaps the NZ batting line-up are not particularly good players of spin bowling, maybe the NZ fans on here could shed a little more light.

Again, you do not need to charge at the spinner every other ball, it just indicates to Panesar that the batter is prepared to use his feet in an attempt to unsettle the rhythm of MSP who appears willing to just drop it on the same spot ball after ball, imo, because he is being allowed to, and that is not to discredit his performance in any way.

 

[simmy]

Whilst England are ahead and Cook is the new Jonty Rhodes....

Bell being surely unable to bat means that we are effectively 1 down already

Should be a good match... as long as the pitch quickens up a bit.

 

[simmy]

MSP isn't the easiest bowler to go down the pitch to, due to the loop he tends to get. That's one of the biggest reasons for the control he offers, not only does he (on the occasions he isn't dragging too many down, as one or two people point-out he does too often sometimes) bowl in the right areas, he also has a natural attribute that makes it hard for batsmen to make difficult areas into easy ones.

Not to say no-one could do it successfully, obviously, but TBH I think the Kiwis adopted the right approach. This pitch is slow and there is some grip in it, meaning sitting on spinners is do-able, but attacking them is often a recipe for disaster. Additionally, none of How, Sinclair or Taylor are particularly adept at coming down the pitch to spinners. They kept MSP out without great difficulty, but I think he will offer more threat in the second-innings. Might be wrong, though, because I don't see the pitch getting any quicker, and it's already difficult enough for bowlers of any kind to extract that much out of it.

I agree 100% with this...

I was actually watching hoping they would try to attack Monty, as its his best chance of a wicket.

On another note... Cooks catch took the limelight but I actually think that the catch off MSP by PC was even harder. Anyone agree?

 

[BoyBrumby]

On another note... Cooks catch took the limelight but I actually think that the catch off MSP by PC was even harder. Anyone agree?

Nah. Cook's flying take of Fleming was the one; the erstwhile kiwi skipper gave it a fair old whack. Colly's effort was a decent, low catch, but you'd fancy him to take it most of the time.

 

[simmy]

Nah. Cook's flying take of Fleming was the one; the erstwhile kiwi skipper gave it a fair old whack. Colly's effort was a decent, low catch, but you'd fancy him to take it most of the time.

Yeah he was completely unsighted for most of the time the ball was in the air...

Monty's celebrations are getting better fwiw!!

 

[Blakey]

And there's another, more reasonable school of thought that says "Shut Up"



Taylor lambasted for playing slowly? Well, why don't you go and watch another 20:20. They really hit the ball hard at those games. But this match is a test match and the batsman should play the innings that the team requires. Ross comes in with four wickets down for not enough runs and you want him to smash the ball? Yeah, it would have been ****ing priceless if he'd been out attempting one of those patented smears through mid-wicket.

Really, I do wonder about some people. I can only hope you are taking the piss.

Heath, Heath, Heath. I'm merely debating the merits of whether Taylor has played responsibly or not. Whether the team would be in a better position had they played their natural games. I agree with you - it is a test and last's five days so you should play accordingly. The points I made above were from another poster in a different forum who laid into Taylor and Fleming for playing so slowly. This person even ventured to suggest Taylor would be accountable if NZ is bowled out for under 400. They applauded McCullum for his innings and said we would have been in a worse position had he not played as he did - but then said him getting out was just how he played.

Can't please everyone huh.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Heath, Heath, Heath. I'm merely debating the merits of whether Taylor has played responsibly or not. Whether the team would be in a better position had they played their natural games. I agree with you - it is a test and last's five days so you should play accordingly. The points I made above were from another poster in a different forum who laid into Taylor and Fleming for playing so slowly. This person even ventured to suggest Taylor would be accountable if NZ is bowled out for under 400. They applauded McCullum for his innings and said we would have been in a worse position had he not played as he did - but then said him getting out was just how he played.

Can't please everyone huh.

Please forward my comments onto the pillock on the other site. Frankly, he must be either a cretin or have no idea about what test cricket is. Possibly a combination of the two.

 

[Goughy]

Kiwis squabbling when they are in a good position. God knows what they are like when they are actually in bad situations.

 

[Richard]

Bell being surely unable to bat means that we are effectively 1 down already

Should be a good match... as long as the pitch quickens up a bit.

Think Bell is currently reckoned to be likely to bat. Though as I said earlier, I somewhat doubt whether he will be well-equipped to score.

Don't reckon the pitch will get any livelier though TBH.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Kiwis squabbling when they are in a good position. God knows what they are like when they are actually in bad situations.

-ish for me. If we get Taylor or Vettori early doors we could yet be in the box seat.

 

[Richard]

Kiwis squabbling when they are in a good position. God knows what they are like when they are actually in bad situations.

Much happier, so they say.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Much happier, so they say.

Nah. Just ask Wayne Barnes how kiwis take being in a bad position.

 

[Richard]

Sidebottom almost gets Taylor 1st ball of the day. Probably just missing leg.

 

[TT Boy]

BBC does enjoy employing ex-sportsman with shady ‘pasts’. Listening to the football on the weekend I heard serial dogger, 'Stan the Man' and doing the cricket from New Zealand is coke head and Imran Khan Mimic, Dermot Reeve.

 

[Goughy]

This is arse from Hoggard and Sidebottom.

Can barely hit a length and get a forward def shot.