**Official** England in New Zealand

[Richard]

It's certainly the worst England performance, catching aside, that I've come across for a very long time indeed. By that, I mean taking into account the supposed quality of players available, standard of opposition and playing conditions. I ca't be arsed to check the last few pages, but I hope no-one's gone down the 'lets blame the selctors for chopping &chaging the side' line. Apart from Ambrose, the guys who didn't perform have played a heck of a lot of test cricket and have virtually been fixtures in the side. As ever with English cricket, compacency begat underperformance, which in turn begat abject surrender, and now we're looking well and truly stuffed yet again.

Thanks to all these bloody Kiwi quickfire posters... ...

As I said here (recommend you read that post TBH, and my few before it ), I think the most accurate way to put it would be "taking into account the assumed standard of opposition". What pretty much everyone in this corner of the Atlantic seems to have neglected to notice is that New Zealand performed a damn sight better than pretty much everyone from over here was expecting.

Honestly, some of our performances in the summer of 2001 were worse than this one. Don't just look at the names on the card, look at the actual performances FFS.

Astonishly, there are still people with any sort of faith in Harmison. The one good thing to come out of his particular horror show is that it should immediately bring about his departure from the side rather than continuing to hold up the development of someone who actually wants to be there. Surely the fact that Vaughan only gave him four overs as 2nd change in the 2nd innings says it all, despite the captain's vaguely supportive noises in the post match interview.

All something we've thought before, is it not?

 

[Richard]

Behold, teh first ever lolmills:

Very good.

 

[Richard]

Richard-esque. That's all I'll say.

How many times? It was not me who first, or even fourth or fifth, used that term.

 

[Richard]

Yes, "poor umpiring" played such a huge role.

1 LBW on Peitersen which could have gone either way, was by no means a "poor" decision. A poor decision is if it's clearly sailing over, not actually...you know, hitting.

So an umpire dared go against Kevin Peitersen in what was one 50-50 call out of 10 dismissals. How significant, maybe next time he'll use the bat in his hand and do himself a favor.

Speaking of him and LBW's. I remember him trying to stare down the umpire for giving him to a ball which was virtually hitting middle half way up during the ODI series. I've noticed before that the guy seems to think he has a divine right to be immune to LBW's. He came off looking rather foolish after it was clearly shown to be plumb enough on replay to the naked eye, let alone Hawk-eye.

Simple truth is, the correct decision off that particular ball was not-out. There is no way any batsman should be given out - stroke or no stroke - when there is so little to suggest solidly that the ball was hitting the stumps. If it's 50:50, the Umpire should always rule not-out. Given that the decision which should have been given was not-out, and the decision that was was out, it was poor Umpiring.

The notion that "luck evens itself out" is arrant nonsense. Yes, Pietersen does sometimes have something of a complex - of times embarrassingly so - about being given out lbw. This doesn't change the facts of this case. Pietersen has had a fairly extraordinary amout of good fortune in his Test career, but each case is a new one. If a piece of ill-fortune is "deserved", it doesn't change the fact it's a piece of ill-fortune.

And had that decision been made correctly, it's possible - not neccessarily likely, but possible - that the game would have had a different outcome.

 

[wpdavid]

Thanks to all these bloody Kiwi quickfire posters... ...

As I said here (recommend you read that post TBH, and my few before it ), I think the most accurate way to put it would be "taking into account the assumed standard of opposition". What pretty much everyone in this corner of the Atlantic seems to have neglected to notice is that New Zealand performed a damn sight better than pretty much everyone from over here was expecting.

Honestly, some of our performances in the summer of 2001 were worse than this one. Don't just look at the names on the card, look at the actual performances FFS.

Yes, of course NZ were better than expected, but not sufficiently to justify 110ao or the vast majority of our bowling in their first innings. And I know that I'm in danger of patronising the kiwis, but I don't honestly see how our performances against McWarne & co can really be compared.

That, by the way was my considered view after 24 hours. I thought it better not to post on a family forum immediately after the game.

 

[Richard]

That's the thing - too many people look at the names first. Because it was Warne, McGrath, Gilchrist, Stephen Waugh, Inzamam-ul-Haq, Waqar Younis, whoever, that means losing to them must have been more forgiveable.

The way to analyse sporting performance is to look at how the players, to use sports-psychology-speak, "controlled the controllables".

The most important of these, of course, is catching your catches. Had England caught their catches in the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Tests of the summer of 2001, they could easily have won them. It's as simple as that. And the calibre of the Australian and Pakistani players has absolutely no impact whatsoever on how England catch.

There also seems to be the suggestion that because Kyle Mills is Kyle Mills, he can't possibly ever bowl better than Glenn McGrath or Jason Gillespie. Well I'll tell you one thing, Mills' spell on the fifth morning was substantially better than any of McGrath's in the First Ashes Test in 2001. Looking at what the England batsmen could control rather than the name of the bowler their wickets went to, their performance was worse at Edgbaston in 2001 than it was at Hamilton in 2007\08.

Equally, England bowled (and most certainly caught) far better in the latter Test than the former. Are Jamie How, Ross Taylor and Daniel Vettori better batsmen than Michael Slater, Damien Martyn and Adam Gilchrist? No. Did they play better in the Hamilton Test in 2007\08 than Slater, Martyn and Gilchrist did at Edgbaston in 2001? Damn bloody right they did.

I'll probably have to say it a lot - but there have been quite a few worse England performances than that in my time. The only difference is the fans' misguided expectations prior to it.

 

[aussie]

damn yo, 100% agree with you there Rich, you are so right it aint funny..

 

[pasag]

Haha, wow. Didn't see this coming in a million years. Well done Sidebottom, what a champ. Won't expect too much from the English batsmen tomorrow though, whilst they have the momentum, they aren't the best pressure-handling side in the world. Should be fantastic day's cricket either way.

Indeed.

Nice work NZ.

 

[Swervy]

That's the thing - too many people look at the names first. Because it was Warne, McGrath, Gilchrist, Stephen Waugh, Inzamam-ul-Haq, Waqar Younis, whoever, that means losing to them must have been more forgiveable.

The way to analyse sporting performance is to look at how the players, to use sports-psychology-speak, "controlled the controllables".

The most important of these, of course, is catching your catches. Had England caught their catches in the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Tests of the summer of 2001, they could easily have won them. It's as simple as that. And the calibre of the Australian and Pakistani players has absolutely no impact whatsoever on how England catch.

There also seems to be the suggestion that because Kyle Mills is Kyle Mills, he can't possibly ever bowl better than Glenn McGrath or Jason Gillespie. Well I'll tell you one thing, Mills' spell on the fifth morning was substantially better than any of McGrath's in the First Ashes Test in 2001. Looking at what the England batsmen could control rather than the name of the bowler their wickets went to, their performance was worse at Edgbaston in 2001 than it was at Hamilton in 2007\08.

Equally, England bowled (and most certainly caught) far better in the latter Test than the former. Are Jamie How, Ross Taylor and Daniel Vettori better batsmen than Michael Slater, Damien Martyn and Adam Gilchrist? No. Did they play better in the Hamilton Test in 2007\08 than Slater, Martyn and Gilchrist did at Edgbaston in 2001? Damn bloody right they did.

I'll probably have to say it a lot - but there have been quite a few worse England performances than that in my time. The only difference is the fans' misguided expectations prior to it.

you know, that is 100% right

 

[TT Boy]

That's the thing - too many people look at the names first. Because it was Warne, McGrath, Gilchrist, Stephen Waugh, Inzamam-ul-Haq, Waqar Younis, whoever, that means losing to them must have been more forgiveable.

The way to analyse sporting performance is to look at how the players, to use sports-psychology-speak, "controlled the controllables".

The most important of these, of course, is catching your catches. Had England caught their catches in the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Tests of the summer of 2001, they could easily have won them. It's as simple as that. And the calibre of the Australian and Pakistani players has absolutely no impact whatsoever on how England catch.

There also seems to be the suggestion that because Kyle Mills is Kyle Mills, he can't possibly ever bowl better than Glenn McGrath or Jason Gillespie. Well I'll tell you one thing, Mills' spell on the fifth morning was substantially better than any of McGrath's in the First Ashes Test in 2001. Looking at what the England batsmen could control rather than the name of the bowler their wickets went to, their performance was worse at Edgbaston in 2001 than it was at Hamilton in 2007\08.

Equally, England bowled (and most certainly caught) far better in the latter Test than the former. Are Jamie How, Ross Taylor and Daniel Vettori better batsmen than Michael Slater, Damien Martyn and Adam Gilchrist? No. Did they play better in the Hamilton Test in 2007\08 than Slater, Martyn and Gilchrist did at Edgbaston in 2001? Damn bloody right they did.

I'll probably have to say it a lot - but there have been quite a few worse England performances than that in my time. The only difference is the fans' misguided expectations prior to it.

It’s a fair point you make Richard, New Zealand performed well but England didn’t even turn up on the last day, that’s what got me. This performance was beyond abject considering the surface and the rather rudimentary rationale. And as Jeremy Coney said, New Zealand is the 7th best test team for a reason and we made them look infinitely better than that.

For I remember when South Africa beat them in nigh on two days everyone on here said the performances of the likes of Steyn and Amla are pretty worthless for New Zealand are ****, almost comparable to Bangladesh even. However, aside from a couple of cosmetic touch ups their core is still the same yet, England losing in such a manner is almost acceptable, when plainly its not.

This England team has no right to win anything but we should at least expect a 'performance'.

 

[wpdavid]

Yup, that would be my take on it. Clearly NZ are going to win from time to time, and I totally take Richard's point about not writing off Mills' performance simply because he isn't Dale Steyn. But 110ao on that track was a nonsense for any side that has any pretensions at all. Ditto most of the bowling in NZ's first innings. Yes the catching was great, which is why I specifically listed the other disciplines.

Anyway, it's all very depressing from an English pov. Not exactly a ringing endorsement for the quality of players we're producing right now, especially when most of us would struggle to name many viable alternatives.

 

[Goughy]

Some of the posts in this thread are strange and some interesting, but then again it wasnt a usual game.

Simply Englands performance was not of an acceptable standard.

Now it was only 1 game and teams are allowed to play badly for a game and the opposition is allowed to play well. That aside it was still a horrible performance.

It was timid and scared and they were schooled by a disciplined and professional New Zealand team.

England were 2nd best in all areas and looked a level or two below the Kiwis.

New Zealand are an ordinary Test Team. As I said, the are disciplined and work well to plans but any team with a pretention of being good should be looking to beat them.

The England performance was only 1 game. And I will always forgive 1 bad game. However, if this next Test isnt convincingly won then there are issues that need to seriously be addressed.

I find it curious that the fact they didnt drop catches is a plus when Id be more worried by the fact they struggled to crerate chances in the first place.

There is talk of there being an overreaction to this performance, but it depends on how you set your standards and what is acceptable for the team.

As I said though, Ill forgive 1 bad performance but the pressure is on not to repeat it.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

I'll throw this one out there: England only losing so they can ensure John Bracewell is still in his job when NZ arrive in the UK??

 

[Richard]

I find it curious that the fact they didnt drop catches is a plus when Id be more worried by the fact they struggled to crerate chances in the first place.

Given the fact that I can only remember brief periods in the last decade when dropping catches has not been a regular problem for England, a game like this where not merely the simple and not-simple-but-should-be-caught catches were taken, but 2 absolute stunners to boot, is something to cherish. Creating chances is no use unless they are taken. Do not underestimate the potential of even a single missed chance to completely change a game.

As regards the not creating chances... well, TBH, is there anyone out there who would see a pitch and see the bowling-attack we had that game and expect to create enough chances to bowl-out a highly competant batting side (which is what NZ had this game - we wait to see if that continues in the next two) cheaply?

I certainly wouldn't.

Sidebottom's performance was far beyond my expectations, TBH - I'd never expect him to take 10 on a pitch like that and with balls that were swinging as little (conventionally and reverse) as they were this game. Hoggard's performance was disappointing, but I'm honestly amazed if there's anyone who would have been expecting him to run through NZ on that. His economy-rate was the only thing that disappointed me. MSP, as I've said hundreds of times, is a fingerspinner. And provided the batting was good, and not too aggressive, fingerspinners were never going to offer a threat on such a slow pitch that turned so little. And they didn't. All three fingerspinners bowled well this game, about as well as you could really expect a fingerspinner to bowl for my money, but their combined figures were 12-401. Vettori and Patel unquestionably played a considerable part in NZ's victory, but they didn't do it by running through England at all.

As for Harmison - well, I've said it more times than I can remember, but I'll probably have to say it many more - anyone who was expecting something from him was expecting a lot, for my money.

Am I worried by the fact they failed to create chances this game? No more than I was before the game, because I was fairly certain that was exactly what would happen. It's not the performance this game, but the wider reality, that worries me. And it's why I hope against hope we'll see Flintoff in England whites again soon, because currently he is the only bowler in the country who is proven to offer a threat in such conditions. And while he is out of the side, I can only see problems against good batting on pitches of this ilk continuing. Whether, as I say, New Zealand continue to put in batting efforts this good all series waits to be seen. But if they do, there's nothing as is going to change.

 

[Richard]

But 110ao on that track was a nonsense for any side that has any pretensions at all. Ditto most of the bowling in NZ's first innings. Yes the catching was great, which is why I specifically listed the other disciplines.

I wouldn't say 110ao wasn't poor (at least) really. But when you pick 4 at the end of your order who, for all intents and purposes, have no skill with the bat, it means that when your top-order get knocked-over by excellent bowling (which happened in this second-innings) there's very little potential for comeback.

If you want to call something pathetic, call it the lower-order, not the top-order, who didn't really do that much wrong - as I've said ad nauseum now, I've seen any number of worse performances from English top-orders. Only Collingwood's was an out-and-out shocking dismissal. But as long as we have such a ridiculously weak lower-order, very low scores like this are going to happen from time to time. Teams do get reduced to 100-150 for 5 from time to time, especially by good bowling performances and especially especially when you get very seam-friendly conditions... like Galle in our very previous Test. And with a lower-order like our current one, that's always going to result in not-much-more all-out.

The trouble is, there's no question whatsoever that Hoggard, Sidebottom and MSP - who are never going to get any better - have to be in the side. You cannot pick much weaker bowlers because they can average 18 instead of 8. Stuart Broad replacing Harmison may offer a small amount of help, but I'll say again in this post what I did in my above one - what we really, really need is someone who can bat at eight and has the ability to play like a proper batsman (even if he doesn't do it all that often). Craig White was fantastic for England for a time, and things were even better at that time because Dominic Cork, Andrew Caddick and Darren Gough were below him. And Flintoff is no Test number-six - I'm far from confident in his ability at number-seven. But to have him at eight would make picking three non-batsmen a slightly more viable option.

Also, it shouldn't be missed that, as Kev alludes to, this is nothing but one performance. It's fairly unlikely New Zealand's attack will bowl that well again in the next 5 games, IMO, though I won't be so foolhardy as to rule it out. That was actually, for my money, the sort of bowling performance all but the very best attacks will only pull-out once in a while. If that match was replayed on that pitch 10 times, I reckon we might survive - easily - on quite a few, if not all, of them. But New Zealand put in a superb performance on this occasion, and the only thing about England that really should be trashed is the phenomenally weak lower-order.

 

[Bahnz]

Simple truth is, the correct decision off that particular ball was not-out. There is no way any batsman should be given out - stroke or no stroke - when there is so little to suggest solidly that the ball was hitting the stumps. If it's 50:50, the Umpire should always rule not-out. Given that the decision which should have been given was not-out, and the decision that was was out, it was poor Umpiring.

The notion that "luck evens itself out" is arrant nonsense. Yes, Pietersen does sometimes have something of a complex - of times embarrassingly so - about being given out lbw. This doesn't change the facts of this case. Pietersen has had a fairly extraordinary amout of good fortune in his Test career, but each case is a new one. If a piece of ill-fortune is "deserved", it doesn't change the fact it's a piece of ill-fortune.

And had that decision been made correctly, it's possible - not neccessarily likely, but possible - that the game would have had a different outcome.

I always thought that when a batsman doesn't play a shot and is hit on the pad, he surrenders the benefit of the doubt. Then, to paraphrase using legal terminology, the burden of proof on the umpire switches to whether on "the balance of probabilities" the ball would've gone on to hit the stumps, rather than whether there is "reasonable doubt". Or is this just the result of sitting through too many law lectures whilst listening to the cricket with a well hidden earphone?

 

[Bahnz]

What the heck? How can you say a guy is out of form when he had the scored the most recent test century before Taylor scored his in this test match?? Yes, he hasn't been that convincing in scoring since then but he had a dubious decision in the 2nd test against Bangladesh, played an awful shot in the First Innings in this game and came out to a brilliantly bowled hat-trick ball in the Second Innings.
Main problem is foot work early on - not a form issue!

That century was against Bangladesh, so I'm not sure how much you can read into that. His last decent knock against quality opposition was that 100 he scored against South Africa back in 2006, although that may partly be due to the fact that since then, New Zealand has only played 5 tests against decent opposition. But yes, whether it be form or a technical issue, he does need to sort it out soon. His bowling isn't good enough to keep him in the side during sustained periods of poor form with the bat. And with Ryder and Elliot, both useful medium pacers with better control of conventional swing, increasingly showing their talents in other forms of cricket, he may need to score some runs soon if he's to avoid having his place in the team being called into question.

As for the side in the next test, I'm not entirely certain about playing two spinners at the basin, which traditionally has plenty of life in the pitch for the seamers. But if O'Brien, Gillespie and Mason are all out injured, we may not really have a choice, and Patel did bowl excellently for little reward at Hamilton. Could've easily had 6 wickets in the first innings with a bit more luck.

 

[Athlai]

How (selects himself)
Bell (score something above 25 at least once or your axed no questions asked IMO)
Fleming (see How)
Sinclair (see Bell) or if you flip a coin and it lands heads then Fulton, tails then Elliot (if in the case of Elliot bring Taylor up and send him down)
Taylor
Oram
McCullum (vc)
Vettori
Mills
Jeetan
Martin

Classy side, the only flaws being possibly Sinclair, Bell and the lack of the variation Franklin brings. This could beat an English team that isn't operating well on any given day. A team of scrappers.

 

[Halfpast_Yellow]

Bell (score something above 25 at least once or your axed no questions asked IMO)

Classy side, the only flaws being possibly Sinclair, Bell and the lack of the variation Franklin brings. This could beat an English team that isn't operating well on any given day. A team of scrappers.

Worst call to hover the Axe over a guy with experience, who if I'm not mistaken scored 700 runs in the latest season of domestic first class cricket, earned a recall and scored a 100 in his return test which was just two matches ago.

I'm sorry but there is no one banging down the door for his spot, we've just replaced the incumbents with the ones who were doing the banging.

Anyways it is very good to see a measure of consistency with an unchanged side being named for wellington.

 

[sportychic33]

That century was against Bangladesh, so I'm not sure how much you can read into that. His last decent knock against quality opposition was that 100 he scored against South Africa back in 2006, although that may partly be due to the fact that since then, New Zealand has only played 5 tests against decent opposition. But yes, whether it be form or a technical issue, he does need to sort it out soon. His bowling isn't good enough to keep him in the side during sustained periods of poor form with the bat. And with Ryder and Elliot, both useful medium pacers with better control of conventional swing, increasingly showing their talents in other forms of cricket, he may need to score some runs soon if he's to avoid having his place in the team being called into question.

As for the side in the next test, I'm not entirely certain about playing two spinners at the basin, which traditionally has plenty of life in the pitch for the seamers. But if O'Brien, Gillespie and Mason are all out injured, we may not really have a choice, and Patel did bowl excellently for little reward at Hamilton. Could've easily had 6 wickets in the first innings with a bit more luck.

Totally agree with you regarding Oram and that technical issue. I believe that he can definitely improve on this issue especially with the coaching structure we now have with a decent batting coach in Mark O'Neill and John Wright in there as well. There are basically two spots there for a mixture of Ryder, Elliot and Oram in my opinion as with Styris leaving the test game one fo those three can step into that role - I can see Oram doing this as he wants to prolong his career and bowl less and less. Oram's bowling through out the test was quite impressive especially with the Reverse Swing he was getting and how he can effectively bowl in partnerships creating pressure at one end for a Strike Bowler at the other end - I think his role with the ball in the test has been under-rated.