***Official*** New Zealand in England series 2013

[Viscount Tom]

Can Adders enlighten us on how the great Ian Bell went last night?

Fmd sounds a slow old day. Saw the first session but then Trott was in at lunch so like most reasonable people I fell asleep.

With your years you'd nod off watching Viv.

But yeah it was a slow day. Hopefully it'll pick up as and when Prior gets to bat tomorrow; Bell basically just resumed where he left off against NZ in NZ.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

The ball swung pretty much all day so England have done pretty well in my books. Backing Anderson for a big haul.

Also boult

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

What ****?

Haha. Couldn't be arsed to find the post and confused you with Mr. KungFu, clearly. Whoops!.

 

[Adders]

Can Adders enlighten us on how the great Ian Bell went last night?

You know that's a really silly comment Burgey and does nothing to enhance your argument on Ian Bell.

Firstly, I've never said Bell was "great" I've simply said he is a lot better than "a dud" or "not worth a squirt of piss" or whatever other nonsense you used to describe him. And secondly, are you really going to rest your case based on one innings??

I only watched the first session so can't say I saw Bells innings, just catching up on the days play now. But it looks very much like Bell, the same as Cook, Compton and Trott grafted out an innings and gifted their wickets when things should have been getting easier for them.......

Why single out Bell??

 

[BeeGee]

Haven't seen any of the play yet so hard to judge, but the fact that England won the toss, batted, then proceeded to score at 2 rpo seems strange to me. Bad call or some other factor?

 

[hendrix]

You know that's a really silly comment Burgey and does nothing to enhance your argument on Ian Bell.

Firstly, I've never said Bell was "great" I've simply said he is a lot better than "a dud" or "not worth a squirt of piss" or whatever other nonsense you used to describe him. And secondly, are you really going to rest your case based on one innings??

I only watched the first session so can't say I saw Bells innings, just catching up on the days play now. But it looks very much like Bell, the same as Cook, Compton and Trott grafted out an innings and gifted their wickets when things should have been getting easier for them.......

Why single out Bell??

In what way did Cook and Trott gift their wickets?

Even Compton's shot was understandable.

 

[Viscount Tom]

Slow outfield didn't help but its hardly the most dynamic top 4 to have.

Tbf NZ bowled well as well but under 2RPO isn't acceptable really.

 

[hendrix]

Only one who looked at ease was Root. Understandable given his form coming into the game. Not sure if it is the pitch or NZ being far better than they are given credit for, time will tell once we bowl.

I know I'm an NZ cricket fan so you'll take everything with a grain of salt, but Southee and Boult are genuine test quality bowlers who would not be out of place as part of any of the top 2 test side attacks (was going to say 3, but lol India...)

This wasn't quite their best effort but if you look at the balls that got Cook and Trott and some of Southee's deliveries that went past the outside edge early or his change-up that comes back in, it is demanding stuff. They have accounted for some very, very good batsmen in the past year or two. Players like Virat Kohli in good form, Pujara, Sangakkara, Michael Clarke. Cook and Trott are a couple more high quality scalps that I'll add to that list of good, technically sound batsmen being un-done by good bowling.

This is them at top form:
Tim Southee and Trent Boult | Terrific spell of swing bowling v Sri Lanka - 1st Test, Galle 2012. - YouTube

 

[Adders]

Haven't seen any of the play yet so hard to judge, but the fact that England won the toss, batted, then proceeded to score at 2 rpo seems strange to me. Bad call or some other factor?

From what I saw of the first session all credit must be given to the Kiwi bowlers. The ball was doing plenty and when the wickets didn't come they stuck to their plans, kept the ball up and kept the pressure on.

Outfield was the slowest I've ever seen at Lords, so boundaries were always going to be a rarity. I can accept the 2 rpo, it wasn't an easy day for batting........but 160 for the day would have been OK if we were 1 or even 2 down. 2 quick wickets tonight though and we end up 6 down in a hurry and we're right behind the eight ball.

As always though until we have a bowl it's hard to judge this first days play.

 

[Adders]

In what way did Cook and Trott gift their wickets?

Even Compton's shot was understandable.

Comptons shot was horrendous. I know score board pressure and all that, but you don't battle through some fine seam bowling with the ball hooping around and then hole out to the spinner first ball. He didn't even give himself a chance to have a look at Martin.

I may have been harsh on Cook and Trott, haven't seen their wickets yet. I always get frustrated though when you see a scorecard like that......top order all facing plenty of balls for 30's and no one going on.

 

[hendrix]

I may have been harsh on Cook and Trott, haven't seen their wickets yet. I always get frustrated though when you see a scorecard like that......top order all facing plenty of balls for 30's and no one going on.

They got unplayable deliveries.

Compton would have got an unplayable delivery at some stage too.

Bell played at one he could have left. Far less excusable than trying to be positive, IMO.

 

[Burgey]

You know that's a really silly comment Burgey and does nothing to enhance your argument on Ian Bell.

Firstly, I've never said Bell was "great" I've simply said he is a lot better than "a dud" or "not worth a squirt of piss" or whatever other nonsense you used to describe him. And secondly, are you really going to rest your case based on one innings??

I only watched the first session so can't say I saw Bells innings, just catching up on the days play now. But it looks very much like Bell, the same as Cook, Compton and Trott grafted out an innings and gifted their wickets when things should have been getting easier for them.......

Why single out Bell??

He's your favourite. I thought it'd be a good time to play one of those clutch innings he's famous for.

 

[Burgey]

Comptons shot was horrendous. I know score board pressure and all that, but you don't battle through some fine seam bowling with the ball hooping around and then hole out to the spinner first ball. He didn't even give himself a chance to have a look at Martin.

I may have been harsh on Cook and Trott, haven't seen their wickets yet. I always get frustrated though when you see a scorecard like that......top order all facing plenty of balls for 30's and no one going on.

Agree that seeing a scorecard with lots of starts but no one going on is very frustrating. NZ must take a lot of credit though. 80 overs for 160 runs shows they must have bowled with very good discipline.

Prior is still to come, so England's position isn't irretrievable. But 4/160 seems a top day for a bowling side at Lords day one.

 

[hendrix]

I don't get why Cook and Trott's innings should be so frustrating though. They didn't throw it away, they got out to good bowling.

Look at the actual wickets, not the scorecard.

Ian Bell's shot was by far the worst. It's pretty fair to single him out tbh.

 

[Burgey]

Tbf I didn't see any of the dismissals. I just singled Bell out because he's Ian Bell.

 

[Adders]

He's your favourite. I thought it'd be a good time to play one of those clutch innings he's famous for.

LOL, He's not my favourite, not by a long shot. But I'll defend any cricketer who gets an unfair rap.

 

[Days of Grace]

Love it how Sky and cricinfo list Boult as a medium-fast little kiwi-battler trundler.

 

[Blakey]

The ball swung pretty much all day so England have done pretty well in my books. Backing Anderson for a big haul.

Also boult

Yup Anderson to murder them.

If Southee and Boult are getting that much swing and the odd ball moving off the seam, imagine what Jimmy will do. 160 maybe their lot tbh.

 

[Blakey]

Also regarding speed...

The NZ bowlers were barely getting it above 83mph. What gives? Bowling within themselves? Boult was regularly hitting 140 in NZ.

 

[hendrix]

If Southee and Boult are getting that much swing and the odd ball moving off the seam, imagine what Jimmy will do. 160 maybe their lot tbh.

When are people going to actually realise that Southee and Boult are also swing bowlers, not just blokes who lob the ball up and hope the wind catches it? I don't understand why it's so surprising that swing bowlers are getting swing in swinging conditions.

Of course Anderson will get it to swing if he pitches it up and has decent seam position.