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

[Jarquis]

It wasn't at all Catherine Tate esque though

 

[Spikey]

So according to Flower, Trott could indeed have batted with more urgency.

It ain't easy being Jonathan Trott

 

[luckyeddie]

TV shows take a while to get to the colonies.

They've got TV there now?

I thought they just upended a cardboard box and watched the funnel web spiders.

"Hey Bruce. This here nature programme's bonzer"
"Too flaming right, Bruce"

 

[Howe_zat]

“Get on with it,” shouted the angry cricket journalist. This was before play. But during play, at breaks, as people ate lunch or went about folding clothes, many people said the same thing. Why won’t England get on with it? Or declare? Or both? And why didn’t they enforce the follow-on yesterday? Why, why?

England have, as of yet, decided not to run their cricketing decisions through a committee of media and fans. The media and fans may have suggested that not enforcing the follow-on when you’ve only taken 43.4 overs to bowl a side out is a defensive option. Team England may suggest that they could see how flat the pitch was and that their best chance of bowling New Zealand out again would be a Graeme Swann fourth and fifth day attack.

The media and fans could point to the fact that England scored at 3.77-an-over when pushing for a declaration, which was only slightly quicker than their first innings total, and slower than New Zealand’s first innings. Team England could answer that this is their last Test before the Ashes, and they had a chance to get a couple of players back into form.

The media and fans might wonder if the added gate receipts of a fourth or fifth day could have persuaded England to bat on and on. Team England might ask which ECB employee would tell Andy Flower that he has to base his and Alastair Cook’s decisions on financial concerns.

The media and fans will probably say that no matter what reasons you think 468 is a good total to chase, it’s still 19 more runs than New Zealand have scored in the entire series. Team England will probably say better to be safe than sorry.

The media and fans have been looking at the weather updates for days wondering why England haven’t rushed things along. Team England have never trusted two day forecasts.

England probably should have enforced the follow-on. Nick Compton and Jonathan Trott shouldn’t have batted like Han Solo in carbonite and batting on beyond lunch was an odd decision, if you’re being nice.

But Team England hasn’t been overtaken by an alien life form. This is a conservative team. Replacing Andrew Strauss with Cook wasn’t going to upset the careful, careful, softly, softly approach that once made England the No. 1 Test team on earth.

England weren’t going to declare 300 in front, or 400 in front, they were going to bat until any total was notional. Not notional for people sitting in the press box, or on a couch, who seem to think every single declaration is too late, but notional for cricketers who understand how the pitch is playing. 468 for a team with batsmen as out of form as New Zealand is quite notional.

But even with this mythical chase being set, England kept being conservative. Despite some variable bounce, Hamish Rutherford was given a deep point. A run-saving position when runs just couldn’t have mattered less.

Yet England would say that Rutherford is a confidence batsman. And that statistically he scores the majority of his runs where they put their man. They were trying to drain his mojo but Rutherford still scored quicker than the England batsmen even with a sweeper out. His eventual wicket was to a bat-pad.

Later on, Brendon McCullum faced the penetrating spin of Joe Root. New Zealand had lost six wickets by this stage. They needed more than 300 runs to win. The over started with Cook having three men on the boundary. England would point out that McCullum is more likely to be caught by a deep set fielder than anyone in the circle as their statistical analysis can prove.

While some seem to see events like this as momentary lapse in judgment, it is really a deep seated ideology. It may not be one that is popular with fans, but it is one that this team truly believe in.

A running joke in this series is how attacking McCullum can be with his fields. His slips cordons are filled with bodies even when his team is not doing well. McCullum’s field this morning often had as many catching fielders as some of those from Cook in the afternoon.

Drawing this Test will not be the end of the world for England. They’ve won the series. This Test means very little in the larger picture. Even if by ignoring weather forecasts they’ve not left themselves the 30 to 120 minutes they will probably need tomorrow, it’s not a massive problem.
What a full day’s rain might mean is that in future England slightly change their outlook to a more aggressive way of thinking the next time a similar match plays out.

What is more likely is that England win this series 2-0 and they continue to play the way that they believe is best for them. I would also assume that England will continue to make their own cricket decisions and not be swayed too much by the opinions of the media and fans.

yesssssssssssss

 

[Burgey]

Err no.

You do realise England have been playing against New Zealand as though it is an audition and warm-up for The Ashes?

The thing that most bothers me about it is they should be treating it as an opportunity to claw back ground on the number 1 spot and to improve. The mid term focus should be on that, the short term focus should be on beating whoever is in front of them in the most ruthless and professional way possible.

It seems like England have gone back to 5-10 years ago when they were content just to beat Australia.

They're not that good

 

[Flem274*]

Completely disagree with PEWS. It's not like Cook set them 400 to make it completely safe from a freak batting effort; he set 468 with rain on the way to a team that can't bat.

He got away with it, but I think everyone who criticised it was justified in doing so at the time.

350 is dangerous, 400 is safe, 450 with rain on the way might make 1-0 certain but come on, it was gutless and crucially it helped New Zealand and worked against Cook because it ate into his time to bowl NZ out without really adding any advantage because England already had all the cards. NZ would have been quite happy for Cook to bat as long as he liked.

 

[Jono]

Everybody can STFU now. 2-0 and that was simple.

This attitude is pretty weird.

1. The fact England ended up winning isn't the point, you judge the decision objectively not in hindsight.

2. Its a cricket forum full of cricket nerds who think they would all be awesome cricket captains. Debating captaincy decisions, particularly in a rain affected game, is just natural.

3. Other than the few who are saying England are pussies etc. the majority haven't gone over the top with their criticisms of Cook. The point isn't that he should have risked losing to win. The point is the loss was already impossible an hour before he declared.

 

[Jono]

What I find interesting is that some of the people who have been very critical of Cook's declaration timing here are the same people who would've applauded Smith's declaration here under the logic of "there's no difference between 2-0 and 1-0." The overall series result is either infinitely more important than the scoreline or it's not; it's not a theory that should change depending on whether it backs up what you want to see as a spectator or not. If there was no difference between 2-0 and 1-0 there then the same logic applies here.

Its not a bad point, and if someone sees every test series with every team as meaning the same thing - then yes, your point would apply.

But its quite clear that SA drawing 1-1 in Australia would have meant a lot in 2005/06. It would have been huge for their rankings, and it would have been an excellent achievement as Australia were the top team then. So that is worth risking 2-0 to achieve 1-1. That means a hell of a lot more than England beating NZ 1-0, which would not have meant as much (see the reaction of the England fans here).

 

[Burgey]

This attitude is pretty weird.

1. The fact England ended up winning isn't the point, you judge the decision objectively not in hindsight.

2. Its a cricket forum full of cricket nerds who think they would all be awesome cricket captains. Debating captaincy decisions, particularly in a rain affected game, is just natural.

3. Other than the few who are saying England are pussies etc. the majority haven't gone over the top with their criticisms of Cook. The point isn't that he should have risked losing to win. The point is the loss was already impossible an hour before he declared.

Yeah but he's just being a turd.

 

[KungFu_Kallis]

They're not that good

There's only one Burgey

 

[the big bambino]

What I find interesting is that some of the people who have been very critical of Cook's declaration timing here are the same people who would've applauded Smith's declaration here under the logic of "there's no difference between 2-0 and 1-0." The overall series result is either infinitely more important than the scoreline or it's not; it's not a theory that should change depending on whether it backs up what you want to see as a spectator or not. If there was no difference between 2-0 and 1-0 there then the same logic applies here.

I agree with Howe a bit in that there's an overwhelming discontent among armchair fans about any captaincy decision that isn't aggressive or ballsy. Fans look for any excuse to go for the win, probably because it's more exciting and/or domineering, but they apply completely inconsistent logic to their arguments regarding it.

More than anything though I actually agree with Goughy. England should've gone for the win here but once they didn't enforce the follow on, the pace they batted and the length of time they batted on were completely consistent with that decision. With an uncertain forecast, if you're pushing for a win you should always enforce the follow on as there's then absolutely no risk of batting too long or not batting long enough. You automatically stop batting at the precise moment you've batted long enough if you chase in the second innings - because you've won the game. If England decided to really press for a win after batting again then it'd make little sense as they'd have to declare with a lead that could be hauled in should the weather hold up, just on the chance that it didn't hold up. The best and easiest way to take the weather and the declaration timing out of the game was to just bowl again. If they couldn't get the runs in time after that then so be it.

There was actually a much greater chance of losing by batting again and pressing for a win than there was by enforcing the follow on and pressing for a win, so once they batted again their intentions were clear.

My opinion on the follow on is that its just not worth it for any number of reasons. Bowler fatigue and forfeiting good batting conditions for the possibility of chasing an awkward total on a wearing last day pitch being foremost.

The only qualification I can think of atm are presented by weather conditions. They applied in this match though I still supported Cook's decn to bat again. With 180 runs on England's only problem was deciding on a time to declare that was considerate of the final day forecast. The only forecast you shouldn't trust in Eng is one that says it wont rain.

The security Cook sought against defeat can be offset against expected time lost on the last day rather than paying it with a premium of runs when the sun is shining. He then has to decide to score quicker or declare earlier. I can see why you'd want to consolidate your 2nd innings and begin slowly. When you reach a tipping point (say 320 ahead) you can accelerate. Personally I think he went 67 runs too heavy. Given the historical precedents, the state of the pitch, his bowling attack, the opposition, the difficulty in maintaining batting momentum btwn suspensions of play I think 400 was enough.

Cook won but I think it would be kind to credit his timing to judgment when its obvious the longer he batted the more he trusted his chances of victory to luck.

 

[Burgey]

There's only one Burgey

You think England is good enough to treat a test series against a side they struggeld to draw with two months ago as nothing more than a warm up for another series?

I thought there was only one Scaly.

 

[GIMH]

You think England is good enough to treat a test series against a side they struggeld to draw with two months ago as nothing more than a warm up for another series?

I thought there was only one Scaly.

All Test series are Ashes warm ups

 

[Burgey]

Of course they are for us, but they don't get treated as such by the teams.

 

[Days of Grace]

All Test series are Ashes warm ups

Not for the past 50 years or so, tbh.

I know you're not being serious anyway.

 

[fredfertang]

I suspect he was being serious

 

[Jono]

Both teams getting bitchslapped by South Africa is a good way to warm up for the Ashes. Battle for 2nd.

 

[straw man]

Ashes series 1989-2003 were just England warming up for the Ashes too

 

[LongHopCassidy]

Ashes series 1989-2003 were just England warming up for the Ashes too

Sadly, only their spines managed to catch fire.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Had to laugh at Boring Bob on Sky Sports News last night, bigging up how England will thrash Australia and once more claiming Swann was clearly the best spinner in the world because he had taken 10 in the match. Did he not see Ajmal spin us into oblivion in the last series then?

I don't mind people bigging up the team or players but ridiculous false statements like Swann is number 1 do my head in.