**Official** England in New Zealand

[grecian]

Anyway, don't want to keep this argument going on a live thread, so could people not quote Richard's reply please.

Best for all concerned, methinks

 

[Richard]

We lost that match didn't we?

No, won it. By a very considerable margin. It was only a week ago, too.

Tres has a better record then Athers, scored at a much healthier average. He didn't get out early as much, Aths still holds the record for most noughts for England, so he didn't do his job of using up the new ball very often, I couldn't even work out why he opened, tbf. So there are other reasons for preferring him.

Aside from the fact some of this is plain wrong, other parts are not anything, really, that I consider of any importance. And I think to consider it of such is ignorant of the ways of the game.

I Think Boyks was a better opener then Tres, despite him being as slow as plate movements.

No-one could possibly consider otherwise. That'd be like suggesting Flintoff was a better all-rounder than Imran or Miller.

I feel you know nothing about cricket because your blinded by your love of average 90s players, who you clearly idolise. So you invent increasingly odd reasons as to why you think they were better.

I'm fully aware of that, and you're completely wrong, obviously.

 

[Richard]

Richard,

Where do you stand on batsmen that dont take advantage of loose bowling?

That they've wasted opportunities. Would you expect me to think anything else?

 

[Goughy]

Because its not always about beating up quality bowlers. Most of the time bowlers will be ordinary-decent.

The good players take advantage of anything slightly off line or length. Im not talking about bashing the ball ala Gilchrist or Afridi, but easing into shots on anything even slightly loose.

Also, quality bowlers may give you 1 slightly off target ball every few overs. If you dont score off that then you are going to struggle.

What you need to be top quality is a tight technique to prevent issues to the balls in dangerous areas and the ability to take capitalise on something slightly outside this zone.

It isnt aggressive batting, its class batting and it gives the bowler little room for error. A batsman like Ball doesnt "impose" as he allows the bowler a greater margin for error than a top player should. He doesnt make them pay for erring.

 

[Richard]

Because its not always about beating up quality bowlers. Most of the time bowlers will be ordinary-decent.

Or, in recent years, ordinary-poor.

The good players take advantage of anything slightly off line or length. Im not talking about bashing the ball ala Gilchrist or Afridi, but easing into shots on anything even slightly loose.

What you need to be top quality is a tight technique to prevent issues to the balls in dangerous areas and the ability to take capitalise on something slightly outside this zone.

It isnt aggressive batting, its class batting and it gives the bowler little room for error. A batsman like Ball doesnt "impose" as he allows the bowler a greater margin for error than a top player should. He doesnt make them pay for erring.

Unquestionably, one batsman's bad ball is another's decent one. But there is little in the way of correlation, IMO, between "degree of strokeplay-willingness" and class. A batsman like Jacques Kallis has more class than most ever will. Yet someone like Trescothick, who will go after far more than Kallis will, isn't even on the same plane in terms of class. This of course is just one example, but there are millions of others.

I don't think playing shots to all but balls on good length off\middle is an important quality in a batsman. You can be every bit as good by going after only Half-Volleys \ Long-Hops \ leg-stump deliveries. It just depends on how good your selection is.

Bell's problem, IMO, isn't the fact that he doesn't impose on the bowlers enough, it's the fact he plays absent-minded shots like hitting innocuous deliveries back at the bowler which may sound rather familiar.

 

[Richard]

Once again returning to the game for a minute... Strauss gets 50. Not really sure how I feel about that TBH.

 

[Goughy]

50 for Strauss. Well batted in a personal pressure situation

 

[grecian]

50 for Strauss. Well batted in a personal pressure situation

Yeah. Wanted him out, but you have to admire the effort. This innings by England after Vaughn's joke dismissal has really shown what little perils this wicket has had in it. Crazy first five sessions.

 

[Richard]

50 for Strauss. Well batted in a personal pressure situation

Well played, beyond question. Will it be good for the next 6 months and 7 Tests? Like the question of Anderson doing well in the previous game which you yourself asked, I really am not sure. I'd love to see Strauss become a Test-class player (again?) but I remain very much to be convinced that he will, and I'm not sure whether him scoring well here (let's say he ends-up with 134) is good for our immediate prospects or not.

 

[JBH001]

Is it overcast today, as it was yesterday?

Unfortunately will not be watching play today, as I will be camped at University.

Been having an argument with someone as well who reckons that M Bell's problems are all in the mind, whereas my judgement is that he is simply not test class against decent opposition new ball bowling. And his recent poor demeanour at the wicket is not due to mental heebie jeebies, but to simple awareness of that fact.

Also, have to concur with some of the recent remarks on this thread regarding I Bell. He does seem to resemble in his batting (and his career does seem to bear this out) a character with no back-bone and presence out in the middle.

 

[Goughy]

Well played, beyond question. Will it be good for the next 6 months and 7 Tests? Like the question of Anderson doing well in the previous game which you yourself asked, I really am not sure. I'd love to see Strauss become a Test-class player (again?) but I remain very much to be convinced that he will, and I'm not sure whether him scoring well here (let's say he ends-up with 134) is good for our immediate prospects or not.

Well I certainly agree with you. If he is selected then he needs to earn his corn as an opener. The way it is now, it looks like they are protecting him which is obviously bad.

 

[Richard]

Is it overcast today, as it was yesterday?

Nah, bright sunshine and blue skies, best day of the match comfortably.

 

[TT Boy]

Is it overcast today, as it was yesterday?

Unfortunately will not be watching play today, as I will be camped at University.

Been having an argument with someone as well who reckons that M Bell's problems are all in the mind, whereas my judgement is that he is simply not test class against decent opposition new ball bowling. And his recent poor demeanour at the wicket is not due to mental heebie jeebies, but to simple awareness of that fact.

Also, have to concur with some of the recent remarks on this thread regarding I Bell. He does seem to resemble in his batting (and his career does seem to bear this out) a character with no back-bone and presence out in the middle.

His mind seemed to be 'ok' when he was playing Bangladesh... That probably answers it tbh. Doesn’t look like he ‘belongs’ out there.

 

[Zinzan]

My prediction...England 2nd innings 350-5 declared, Set NZ around 440 to win. NZ all out 188, England to win by a huge margin

 

[Richard]

WoW, what a superb catch! Finally Vettori gets another wicket in the series, 8 playing days after his last.

Another chance for Ian Bell to prove he can play his part in putting teams into winning positions.

 

[Silver Arrow]

Great catch from Taylor, saw it late but pulled off a blinder

 

[Richard]

My prediction...England 2nd innings 350-5 declared, Set NZ around 440 to win. NZ all out 188, England to win by a huge margin

Don't see us scoring 200-2 now TBH. Never know though, and I certainly hope Bell gets plenty.

Interesting, Matthew Bell now takes a blow at short-leg. Sadly it was Strauss, rather than Ian Bell in return for earlier in the series.

 

[TT Boy]

230 for 3? That’s some burden of responsibility for Bell considering New Zealand could not even muster 200 first dig. Its hardly squeaky bum time.

 

[GIMH]

This series has been great, play has been pretty poor yet it has been intriguing. Really enjoyed it.

 

[Richard]

Bell looking superb here, which probably means he'll be hitting a nothing delivery straight to a fielder in a minute...

The lead nudges up to 250.