• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

**Official** England in New Zealand

superkingdave

superkingdave

Hall of Fame Member
btw, hopefully England will realise sooner or later that there's little point in a night watchman with our current side, and that there's no point if the night watchman is to be Matthew Hoggard, that's the 3rd consecutive time he's been out before the close when coming in as a night watchman and even if he does survive, his batting style means that the start of play the next day is invariably an attrition fest until he gets out...plus his batting has regressed markedly over the last 2 years anyway.

Presumably if Broad comes in for Harmison next match, then Sidebottom could take up the nightwatchman duties, or better still we could not use a nightwatchman
 
Last edited:
Richard

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
I'm rapidly losing favour in nightwatchmen myself. And while you'd be hard-pressed to miss the fact Hoggard's batting has got worse of late, I didn't realise his recent attempted-nightwatchman duties had been so poor.
 
Richard

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
New-ball taken. 10 overs late.

And I think I'll head to bed TBH. Still, I expect to wake and find us in something of a precarious position. Shouldn't be following-on (only need 83 to avert that) but could well be a fair bit in arrears.
 
superkingdave

superkingdave

Hall of Fame Member
Anderson has 12-7-14-1 for Auckland, suprisingly economical from him. Think he has bowled 6 consecutive maidens. Wonder whether he's bowling well or just economically
 
Goughy

Goughy

Hall of Fame Member
England getting themselves into a mess here with the speed of the batting.

You cant just expect to bat for over 3 days and occupy the crease. Runs are still very important.

Its not as if they have to be aggressive, they just need to be looking to score. TO just stand there asks for trouble.

Their current run rate is 2.13. If they had scored at 2.63 RPO (which is still pretty slow) they would have approx an extra 70 runs and be far closer to being out of trouble.

Given the fact they have batted roughly the same number ove overs as NZ and have 180 runs less is terrible. If you sit back and wait in Test cricket it will bite you on the arse.

At the current rate they are going to bee abother day before they match NZ first innings total.
 
Richard

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
superkingdave said:
Anderson has 12-7-14-1 for Auckland, suprisingly economical from him. Think he has bowled 6 consecutive maidens. Wonder whether he's bowling well or just economically
Click to expand...
Well either is probably better than expensive. Anderson, also, tends not to be the type of bowler (unlike, for example, Harmison) who can bowl waywardly and not go for runs. Usually his economy-rates tend to reflect his accuracy. If so, one vaguely encouraging sign.

Either way, hope the slow day today - not all of which was exclusively down to lack of ambition, I maintain - doesn't cause trouble later on. Does anyone know if we're scheduled to lose any play to rain the next 2 days? If not and this match was drawn, it'd be the first drawn Test without interruption I can remember for a long time. Last one I can think of that involved England would've been, what, Old Trafford 1998?
 
Prince EWS

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
Awesome day's Test cricket. Absolutely loved it - so absorbing. I was astonished how well Patel bowled but England did really well to keep him out for the most part. I hope he picks up the tail though as he really deserves a lot better than 1/90.

For those whinging about the speed of England's batting, all I have to say is GTFO. The pitch was slow and the New Zealand bowlers were actually bowling really well even if not always threatening. I didn't see England blocking back half volleys or long hops - they just played each ball on its merits and that resulted in the rate we got. I disagree completely with those saying England would be in a better position had they attempted to score more quickly, as the way NZ were bowling, England just would have lost wickets. 286/6 (134 overs) >>>>> 286 all out (100 overs). New Zealand bowled well and were treated with the respect they deserved. Instead of just throwing their wickets away at any sight of decent bowling as England have in the recent past, they dug in a built a total.
 
Last edited:
Goughy

Goughy

Hall of Fame Member
Prince EWS said:
Awesome day's Test cricket. Absolutely loved it - so absorbing. I was astonished how well Patel bowled but England did really well to keep him out for the most part. I hope he picks up the tail though as he really deserves a lot better than 1/90.

For those whinging about the speed of England's batting, all I have to say is GTFO. The pitch was slow and the New Zealand bowlers were actually bowling really well even if not always threatening. I didn't see England blocking back half volleys or long hops - they just played each ball on its merits and that resulted in the rate we got. I disagree completely with those saying England would be in a better position had they attempted to score more quickly, as the way NZ were bowling, England just would have lost wickets. 286/6 (134 overs) >>>>> 286 all out (100 overs). New Zealand bowled well and were treated with the respect they deserved. Instead of just throwing their wickets away at any sight of decent bowling as England have in the recent past, they dug in a built a total.
Click to expand...
GTFO? Right. 8-)

Its not whinging, its how they approached the game. Scoring at 2.6 an over isnt being aggressive or thowing wickets away, its keeping yourself in the game. Its sensible responsible batting.

As it is, England could bat for more than 150 overs and still be in trouble.

The simplicity of some people to think its either block, block or slog slog.

England are batting themselves into a hole due to the runrate. You may like it but its bad cricket.

I hardly think asking for what is an extra single every 2 overs is excessive. And something as small as that with the runrate as low as it is makes all the difference.

England are making it hard on themselves. Sure 286/6 (134 overs) >>>>> 286 all out (100 overs) but its a pretty easy track to bat on and what makes you think 286 all out would be likely. Its like saying 550/4 (100 overs) >>>>>>>>>> 250 all out (120 overs). It means nothing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top