**Official** England in New Zealand

[Goughy]

So what happened after lunch?

Obv NZ were 2 down then and Anderson was getting it right.

NZ bowled out for under 200 seems a great performance but judging only from the scorecard, Anderson became a lot more expensive and Broad was inaccurate ans ineffective. Then you have the curious case of Collingwood being given the ball to clean up the tail ahead of frontline bowlers on a seaming track.

What happened?

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Saw the incident...its a shame they don't have those "Moments like these you need Minties" ads anymore, would be a certainty for one. No idea what you look like though so had no idea you got on tv.

Hopefully someone will put it on yoooo toooooobe. Disappointingly, Sky were going to show the last 3 hours of the match on Sky Sports 3. I'd set up to record it, and 5 minutes before it was due to start, the EPG changed and it was replaced with some crappy basketball!!!

 

[TT Boy]

The Basin Reserve generally flattens out on day three IIRC over the course of the day. Cook and Vaughan must stay in otherwise I have a feeling they will struggle a bit as Strauss and Pietersen are not in the best of touch.

The batting wars will be between How/Fleming and Cook/Vaughan and Taylor/Vettori vs Collingwood and Ambrose. Those eight have been the best batsmen by far.

It all depends on the mindset of both teams in the fourth innings as well. If one team comes out negative and the other positive then because both sides have all the time in the world to win mindset will be extremely important. The team with the most belief and the most desire to win will win. NZ have to score hundreds and pace the chase nicely, England have to accept they might be in the field for 150+ overs so have to keep themselves up and positive and bowl as well as the first innings.

Anyones game, can't wait. We need to speed up the clock and make it 10am tommorrow already.

How did you work that one out? England is 150 runs ahead and has ten wickets in hand and even if the Basin does flatten out, New Zealand has practically no pedigree in batting for long periods. They are currently staring down the barrel, big time.

 

[Somerset]

Hopefully someone will put it on yoooo toooooobe. Disappointingly, Sky were going to show the last 3 hours of the match on Sky Sports 3. I'd set up to record it, and 5 minutes before it was due to start, the EPG changed and it was replaced with some crappy basketball!!!

Sums up Sky...you never know, it might make the daily highlights (to be fair it was a definite highlight in my opinion!)

 

[_Ed_]

It sounds absolutely hilarious, wish I'd seen it.

 

[JHutch]

And as I pointed out before, following a similar path to Prior with the bat really shouldn't be viewed as a bad thing anyway, as he did quite a good job with the bat. Ambrose actually looks quite similar with the bat to Prior for mine - if he can stay up to Prior or above standard with the bat and keep as well as he did in the first Test, he'll have a long Test career.

A bit off-topic perhaps but i thought that, given Prior's form with the bat england could almost have had him in as a batsman rather than a wicketkeeper! During the Sri Lanka series Test Match Special wondered what effect england's fielders flinging the ball in all the time was having on the keeper. Certainly must have some influence when it comes to a sharp chance at the end of the day? Does anyone know if england are still hurling the ball in during this series?

 

[JHutch]

Then you have the curious case of Collingwood being given the ball to clean up the tail ahead of frontline bowlers on a seaming track.

What happened?

Didnt see it but collingwood managed to get vettori out in the first innings of the previous match when he got 88. Maybe as vettori had got in again the captain was worried that broad/anderson might get hit around all over the place so he turned to the bloke who got him out last time in a similar situation? In the end though he managed to do the job by getting the others out

 

[BoyBrumby]

The English CWers seem very quite about Anderson's five-for. Obviously conditions were made for him, but taking out the top 5 is a good effort in anyone's book. So far, you'd have to say that Moores got it right, but there is a long way to go, and all the pressure's on England really. We'll have to see how they handle it.

I only saw the first session & about twenty mins of the afternoon before sleep bested me, but Anderson did bowl well. A bit wide on occasions, but when he pitched the ball up he looked the mutts'.

That said, given the extravagent swing there's a pretty sporting chance Hoggy would've prospered too.

Then you have the curious case of Collingwood being given the ball to clean up the tail ahead of frontline bowlers on a seaming track.

Interestingly (or perhaps not, but we're here to talk about cricket so that's what I'll do) since the turn of last year Collingwood has taken his test wickets @ 23.69 (cricinfo). It doesn't prove a lot as he generally only gets a trundle in favourable conditions, but it does seem to suggest he's finally performing the role of a creditable part-timer (which IIRC you yourself have bemoaned the lack of) of the kind we haven't had since, well, Butcher at a stretch? But Gooch or Hick before him if not.

 

[Goughy]

Interestingly (or perhaps not, but we're here to talk about cricket so that's what I'll do) since the turn of last year Collingwood has taken his test wickets @ 23.69 (cricinfo). It doesn't prove a lot as he generally only gets a trundle in favourable conditions, but it does seem to suggest he's finally performing the role of a creditable part-timer (which IIRC you yourself have bemoaned the lack of) of the kind we haven't had since, well, Butcher at a stretch? But Gooch or Hick before him if not.

Absolutely. I love the fact there is a batsman that can contribute with the ball. However, as a bowler Id have been demanding explaintions from the skipper over how I was denied opportunities to take easy wickets in favourable conditions and Tommy Trundler was given that preference.

 

[Richard]

I love how we finally pick a keeper than can bat (rather than the other way around) and he instantly scores 100!

Hmm, not sure about that TBH, Ambrose is no more batsman than wicketkeeper or wicketkeeper than batsman.

Prior clearly is, but as I've always said - I think his batting's overrated.

 

[Richard]

Was there, got a pic with Jeeves. Awesome.

Make sure you post that.

Could even avatar it, Andre-esque (only very long-term members will remember).

 

[Richard]

All that being said, I'd have settled for this 24 hours ago. The English CWers seem very quite about Anderson's five-for. Obviously conditions were made for him, but taking out the top 5 is a good effort in anyone's book. So far, you'd have to say that Moores got it right, but there is a long way to go, and all the pressure's on England really. We'll have to see how they handle it.

I don't think you can say a decision is right because the player you picked performed. Hoggard could easily have performed even better.

Either way, I was quiet because I was asleep! I only saw the first 3 wickets, and Anderson's first 9 overs (3-20) in which he certainly bowled superbly. Not sure how he went after that, just that he took 2-53 in 11 more overs. About to watch the highlights as of this post, so will know more then.

I now wish, really, that we'd picked Hoggard instead of MSP, but obviously that was never going to happen - I don't recall one person considering it pre-game.

 

[_Ed_]

Apparently, you should have all seen me on the tv coverage today. Some drunk guy fell over on his face and slid down the bank and it was all caught on camera. This was all going on next to me. Must have been quite obvious as I got half a dozen texts about 30 seconds later, and a couple of phone calls.

Good day for England it seems.

Here it is:
http://www.tv3.co.nz/News/SportsNew...317/articleID/49354/cat/71/Default.aspx#video

About half way through.

 

[Richard]

Well spotted dear namesake.

Now just to find an ex-Kiwi in a Wellington Lions shirt nearby...

EDIT: might work purely as this but might not, knowing WMP.

 

[Flem274*]

How did you work that one out? England is 150 runs ahead and has ten wickets in hand and even if the Basin does flatten out, New Zealand has practically no pedigree in batting for long periods. They are currently staring down the barrel, big time.

Quite easily. England aren't renowned for batting either atm, nor are they renowned for bowling, in fact, recently only their fielding has been any good. As for "no pedigree in batting long periods" are you basing that assumption on this summer? We are always a force at home, our batting has been brittle but we can also bat excellently but sadly, we're NZ so obviously we must collapse al the time.

It is very true we may collapse in a heap, I'm very worried it might happen but we're at home and not in SA, an absolutely **** place to tour when you haven't had any cricket in the lead up to the series and because SA are so damn good at home.

I don't think that after just two days we can make knee jerk assumptions on the outcome of the match, look at Hamilton, everyone was going for a draw but there was a result. Call me biased but IMO both sides have a good chance at winning and looking at the big picture, England are under more pressure, they must win or they will be crucified for ****ing up against us. We can do whatever we want when we bat bar throw wickets away, which on a flatter pitch even us on an average day shouldn't manage. If we think we have a sniff and England aren't bowling well, go for it. If England are bowling well, respect it, look at the big picture and take it to Napier.

So IMO we should wait and see. From an NZ viewpoint hopefully they see the big picture and don't panic, same for England really. No need to be glory boys with the bat and fall cheaply, bat well and have a crack with the ball and hope there's still a bit in the surface because otherwise, bar Sidebottom and Panesar, I feel they might be a bit expose on a dead wicket. Anderson bowled well but he hasn't proven himself on less seam friendly wickets yet, he doesn't want to be just a green top bully like Martin was early on in his career.

 

[Richard]

O0o0o0o0h, yeah, something I haven't yet mentioned 'cos I turned the computer off just before it happened... that Collingwood miss off Taylor (aside from potentially being costly) was truly bizarre. I don't think I've ever seen a slip fielder completely fail to pick the ball up like that. Wonder why that happened.

 

[wpdavid]

I don't think you can say a decision is right because the player you picked performed. Hoggard could easily have performed even better.

Either way, I was quiet because I was asleep! I only saw the first 3 wickets, and Anderson's first 9 overs (3-20) in which he certainly bowled superbly. Not sure how he went after that, just that he took 2-53 in 11 more overs. About to watch the highlights as of this post, so will know more then.

I now wish, really, that we'd picked Hoggard instead of MSP, but obviously that was never going to happen - I don't recall one person considering it pre-game.

Me neither. It did occur to me whilst MSP was batting that he'd better make the most of it, as I couldn't se him having much opf a bowl if the seamers did their job.
However, the 2nd innings may well be another matter if conditions ease up, and we'd look pretty stupid then without a spinner.

As for the first point, it's all about probabilities, I suppose. I'd certainly expect Hoggard to have done better than, say, 2 for 73. However, I think it's stretching things to say he could 'easily' have outdone 5 for that amount. Obv he might have done, but who knows.

btw as I didn't see any of it, how did Sidebottom bowl in the session that you saw?

 

[GIMH]

I don't think either team needs to panic. Say England have a good day tommorrow and are all out after setting 500 odd they have two days to get rid of us and likewise we have 2 days, ages, to get the runs.

If we skittle them however, then we have 2-3 1/2 days to chase down whatever, say 300.

But likewise, they could still skittle us on this pitch. Love it, we have a result coming.

500 in the 4th innings pretty much just doesn't happen as a rule, well it's never happened in a Test, so on a ground like this I think time becomes irrelevant.

I think that if we bat through tomorrow then we will win this test.

 

[wpdavid]

I don't think that after just two days we can make knee jerk assumptions on the outcome of the match, look at Hamilton, everyone was going for a draw but there was a result. Call me biased but IMO both sides have a good chance at winning and looking at the big picture, England are under more pressure, they must win or they will be crucified for ****ing up against us. We can do whatever we want when we bat bar throw wickets away, which on a flatter pitch even us on an average day shouldn't manage. If we think we have a sniff and England aren't bowling well, go for it. If England are bowling well, respect it, look at the big picture and take it to Napier.

That's exactly how I see it. NZ are in something of a no-lose situation in this game. They'd like to sew up the series, but if not they can still win it next time, which is a lot more than was ever expected of them. In a sense, thre's no pressure on them in the 4th innings. If they chase down a big total, then great. If not, no one expected them to anyway.

England, otoh, have a heck of a lot resting on the next 3 days. Mess up, and the series is gone, and they'll be back to where they were in 1999, give or take. They simply can't afford to lose, which isn't the case for the black caps. And if NZ do make a decent stab at chasing down a big target, especially if conditions ease up as predicted, there will be a lot of pressure on an inexperienced attack, and I know where my money would be.

 

[Richard]

As for the first point, it's all about probabilities, I suppose. I'd certainly expect Hoggard to have done better than, say, 2 for 73. However, I think it's stretching things to say he could 'easily' have outdone 5 for that amount. Obv he might have done, but who knows.

Had he bowled as we know he can, he would've, for my money. And I don't see any particular reason to believe he wouldn't have - it was only 2 Tests ago that he opened the game at Galle with one of the best new-ball spells I imagine that ground's ever seen. And not much has changed since then other than having 2 very poor games, which isn't exactly something he's never done before, never mind when 1 of them was essentially his first bowl for months.

btw as I didn't see any of it, how did Sidebottom bowl in the session that you saw?

Pretty well. Was swinging it as much as Anderson, if not quite as late. Didn't look as dangerous as Anderson, but certainly far from causing the Kiwis to want to get down his end.