• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

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

Spark

Global Moderator
Agree, but this is day 2.

(and additional context is that we've played 4 seamers on a relatively flat wicket down 0-1 in the series)
You know what I mean. One session into the match, if you've taken 3 wickets and not gone at 4+ an over, you've had a very good time of it.
 

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
In the first session? Is there?
I think hendrix showed exactly what the difference is with his posts about it tbh.

New Zealand clearly had the better of the session; they knocked over England's top three for 67. The fact that the game has already lost a day and that NZ are 1-0 down in the last Test means they still aren't in what you'd call a particularly good position but that's due to factors independent of the cricket played during that session. Especially once he added team composition and quality into the mix.

New Zealand were behind the eight ball before a ball was even bowled, and those factors don't really come into deciding who won the session because they happened outside it.
 
Last edited:

hendrix

Hall of Fame Member
yeah, that's correct I suppose.

I should have said initially that while it's a good session, it doesn't put us on top because of the match and series situation.
 

Pothas

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I think hendrix showed exactly what the difference is with his posts about it tbh.

New Zealand clearly had the better of the session; they knocked over England's top three for 67. The fact that the game has already lost a day and that NZ are 1-0 down in the last Test means they still aren't in what you'd call a particularly good position but that's due to factors independent of the cricket played during that session. Especially once he added team composition and quality into the mix,

New Zealand were behind the eight ball before a ball was even bowled, and those factors don't really come into deciding who won the session because they happened outside it.
Yeah I see what you are saying but I would still say that New Zealand are clearly in the ascendency here. The fact that the weaknesses in their side means that they might not capitalise on it does not change the fact. If Bangladesh took 5 wickets on the first morning of a test they would be in the ascendency, even if we all know they are still going to lose.
 

wpdavid

Hall of Fame Member
You know what I mean. One session into the match, if you've taken 3 wickets and not gone at 4+ an over, you've had a very good time of it.
Well quite - I don't really see why anyone is arguing with that. To add some context, our two most adhesive batmen have departed, two of the remainder of the top 6 are new to the side and the other one is Ian Bell. Throw in the fact that, apart from Prior, out lower middle order haven't lived up to reputation for some while now and this is as good as NZ could reasonably have expected. They have a more than decent chance of dismissing us for under 250 and then we'll see if their batmen can seal the deal this time.
 

Bahnz

Hall of Fame Member
He still has his off days. He was dreadful at Wellington back in March, and was equally wayward on day 1 at Cape Town. That last over was particularly dreadful though.
 

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
I actually wouldn't have given it live, due to height, but I had a feeling it might end up Umpire's Call. Right outcome anyway IMO.
 

Top