**Official** New Zealand in England

[SpaceMonkey]

Absolutely - unusual to see it given to a bowler under these sorts of circumstances, though.

Even given the conditions it was a magic spell. It wasnt just the fact he got 6 wickets, i think most spinners would have got 6 given enough time. It was how quickly he got them, a great strike rate which just didnt give NZ any time to breath at all.

 

[Richard]

Those few more run can add up. Just like you've said before, the difference between 30-40 runs is huge and in this match had the target been 300+ then it may have been very different.

I'm far from convinced they'd have got any more by playing differently. How tried attacking - got a few but was out. Marshall tried defending - lasted a little while but barely scored a run and was out. McCullum tried attacking - was out instantly. Taylor tried defending - lasted a little while but barely scored a run and was out. Vettori tried attacking - was out instantly. Mills defended for a little while, didn't score, first expansive stroke he played he was out.

It didn't matter - with the help he was getting from that pitch, he was just too good. Sometimes as a viewer you have to accept that as the bowler controls the game, he can be too good for the batsmen, and they have next to no power to resist.

 

[Richard]

DWTA, IMO HDI.

Random car references, ITSTL.

 

[social]

Apart from the fact they actually weren't (had the pitch continued to play as it did on Sunday NZ would've won easily) I love the way all these people are judging him having almost certainly never experienced the injury in question.

I've had front 2 broken of like Flynn and that is faaaaaaar worse than getting them knocked clean out - nerve gets exposed and every breath feels like a pin is being struck into your gums,

To make matters worse, they then have to remove the root and if it happens to be shattered inside the gum, that's a whole lot of digging around with a sharp knife.

Doesnt matter how much anaesthetic they give you, it eventually wears off

I've had dislocated shoulders, broken fingers etc but I've never felt pain like that

Add to the general facial lacerations and headaches and he'd be sick as a dog

 

[Richard]

Even given the conditions it was a magic spell. It wasnt just the fact he got 6 wickets, i think most spinners would have got 6 given enough time. It was how quickly he got them, a great strike rate which just didnt give NZ any time to breath at all.

Absolutely - as I said earlier this thread, he turned the game on its head. But unless a bowler has taken 15 wickets or no batsman has scored more than 30, the batsman normally gets MOTM.

 

[Days of Grace]

I've had front 2 broken of like Flynn and that is faaaaaaar worse than getting them knocked clean out - nerve gets exposed and every breath feels like a pin is being struck into your gums,

To make matters worse, they then have to remove the root and if it happens to be shattered inside the gum, that's a whole lot of digging around with a sharp knife.

Doesnt matter how much anaesthetic they give you, it eventually wears off

I've had dislocated shoulders, broken fingers etc but I've never felt pain like that

Add to the general facial lacerations and headaches and he'd be sick as a dog

Cheers for that, mate.

I think now we should respect Flynn's decision not to bat.

Hard to know what he would have done in his condition against Panasar in the second innings, anyway.

 

[Goughy]

There you go. England win.

An amazing Test match with 2 ordinary teams playing (I know I said that earlier as well).

I was thinking if Id grade any of the NZ players as above a 3 on a 1-5 scale and my conclusion was 'No!'.

Low standard of cricket but that sometimes means good entertainment.

Not even Taylor? He batted very well and took a number of good catches.

He'd be the only one to escape criticism from me.

I didnt mean in this game. I meant as cricketers. Not one Id rate as a 'good' Test player as things stand at the moment.

 

[Richard]

I'm beginning to be quietly hopeful that Strauss is on the way back to being one. Not there yet, of course not, but certainly plenty of positive signs on that front.

Vaughan, too, had he not opened in the winter, I'm fairly confident would now irrefutably be so too.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Well done to Panesar, deserves it tbh.

Can't argue too much, but would've been Strauss if I'd been choosing. If we'd been rolled for 150ao I doubt Monty would've got it. Monty's was match-turning, but Strauss's match-winning.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Taylor deserved it IMO, top class innings.

 

[Richard]

Can't argue too much, but would've been Strauss if I'd been choosing. If we'd been rolled for 150ao I doubt Monty would've got it. Monty's was match-turning, but Strauss's match-winning.

Had MSP not got those wickets, Strauss would've had no chance to play an innings to chase the total.

Bowlers win matches.

 

[Jono]

Can't argue too much, but would've been Strauss if I'd been choosing. If we'd been rolled for 150ao I doubt Monty would've got it. Monty's was match-turning, but Strauss's match-winning.

Had MSP not got those wickets, Strauss would've had no chance to play an innings to chase the total.

Bowlers win matches.

Interesting comments. How about Ind vs. Aus Kolkata 2001?

Laxman turned the match, but Harbhajan won it with his bowling on day 5. Yet Laxman obviously won MOTM (yes he scored 50 in the first innings, but Harbhajan took wickets in the 1st innings as well) and no one would argue with that choice.

I think the 'match turning, match winning' criteria is interesting, and MOTM will sometimes deserve to go to the one who turned the match, even if someone else did something great in teh 4th innings to ensure victory.

In Kolkata it was a batsman (Laxman), here it was a bowler (Monty).

 

[Dempo]

Excellent comeback by England, but let's not forget we were effectively playing a ten-man side (sometimes nine) on a wicket which suited our bowling attack. If we hadn't won, it would have been the most humiliating defeat for some time.
I'm still worried by Monty's poor record in first innings, whether Broad is ready and whether Ambrose is another false dawn.

 

[Swervy]

I'm still worried by Monty's poor record in first innings, whether Broad is ready and whether Ambrose is another false dawn.

I wouldnt be too worried about Monty in the first innings, that is what the pace bowlers are for, and to be fair, they are doing ok.
I think Broad is getting there, and yeah Ambrose I think is just another in a long line since Stewart

 

[Richard]

Interesting comments. How about Ind vs. Aus Kolkata 2001?

Laxman turned the match, but Harbhajan won it with his bowling on day 5. Yet Laxman obviously won MOTM (yes he scored 50 in the first innings, but Harbhajan took wickets in the 1st innings as well) and no one would argue with that choice.

I think the 'match turning, match winning' criteria is interesting, and MOTM will sometimes deserve to go to the one who turned the match, even if someone else did something great in teh 4th innings to ensure victory.

In Kolkata it was a batsman (Laxman), here it was a bowler (Monty).

Laxman saved the game at Eden Gardens, Harbhajan won it.

Obviously, the simple thing is that whoever acted last will have been the one to have "won" the game. Personally I'd always say, of course, that bowlers win games only - no batsman can ever do anything but save a game unless his bowlers have done well (barring poor declarations).

Of course, I've always said "matchwinning" is a term I dislike intensely. "Match-turning" is much better. MSP did indeed turn the game considerably; Strauss then ensured the turn would not be turned back. (And if puns were intended, they'd have been italicised)

Truth is, MOTM awards often force worthy performances to be overlooked, never more so than in the case of Eden Gardens 2000/01.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Oh my god, which bunch of complete and utter morons gave that average performance man of the match?

He took 1-101 in the first innings which helped virtually put England out of the game before NZ batted like a Geraint Jones lowlights reel in their second.

Unbelievable. Just unbelievable.

 

[Richard]

I wouldnt be too worried about Monty in the first innings, that is what the pace bowlers are for, and to be fair, they are doing ok.

Not really. Anderson was shocking, obviously, Broad was pretty poor, and Sidebottom was far below his best later on in his spell (was decent at the start), extracting neither reverse- nor conventional-swing.

MSP should have done better in the first-innings, really. Fortunately, it didn't matter. But we were flogged in that innings, on a pitch offering not-inconsiderable amounts to spin, and not really all that much to seam (uneven bounce materialised for a while later on).

I think Broad is getting there, and yeah Ambrose I think is just another in a long line since Stewart

Broad is getting nowhere. He's still a very poor performer at the current time, nowhere near Test-class, and there are several bowlers who should do be ahead of him in the side.

The "he's getting there" attitude will hold things back.

 

[TheEpic]

Oh my god, which bunch of complete and utter morons gave that average performance man of the match?

He took 1-101 in the first innings which helped virtually put England out of the game before NZ batted like a Geraint Jones lowlights reel in their second.

Unbelievable. Just unbelievable.

I'd like to believe in a global conspiracy orchestrated by every major test playing nation apart from England that regularly gift hatfuls of wickets to MSP just to piss Scaly Piscine off.

I really would.

 

[steds]

 

[Swervy]

Not really. Anderson was shocking, obviously, Broad was pretty poor, and Sidebottom was far below his best later on in his spell (was decent at the start), extracting neither reverse- nor conventional-swing.

MSP should have done better in the first-innings, really. Fortunately, it didn't matter. But we were flogged in that innings, on a pitch offering not-inconsiderable amounts to spin, and not really all that much to seam (uneven bounce materialised for a while later on)..

I am talking in general here,not just this match. I wouldnt really be too worried (although not overly excited) by having Anderson and Sidebottom averaging 26 and 23 respectively during this series, at a pretty decent srike rate. Broad, well I can see that there is something there, most definately, and I think he is worth a place right at the moment, given the situation with other players injured or not performing.. The wickets will come, I dont think it means he is bowling badly

Broad is getting nowhere. He's still a very poor performer at the current time, nowhere near Test-class, and there are several bowlers who should do be ahead of him in the side.

The "he's getting there" attitude will hold things back.

who, Caddick? Cork?