*Official* New Zealand in England 2015

[Prince EWS]

McCullum has lost the right to be aggressive now. A sad, sad day.

 

[SteveNZ]

This might've been covered but anyone find it interesting that Latham took the gloves not Ronchi, given Ronchi was already in the field before this time? Possibly geared towards giving Latham a decent look down the guts of the pitch to see how Lord's performs? I wouldn't have thought it ideal otherwise to burden an opening batsman with more work.

 

[BeeGee]

This might've been covered but anyone find it interesting that Latham took the gloves not Ronchi, given Ronchi was already in the field before this time? Possibly geared towards giving Latham a decent look down the guts of the pitch to see how Lord's performs? I wouldn't have thought it ideal otherwise to burden an opening batsman with more work.

A sub isn't allowed to keep. Has to be one of the starting 11.

 

[Prince EWS]

This might've been covered but anyone find it interesting that Latham took the gloves not Ronchi, given Ronchi was already in the field before this time? Possibly geared towards giving Latham a decent look down the guts of the pitch to see how Lord's performs? I wouldn't have thought it ideal otherwise to burden an opening batsman with more work.

Replacement fielders aren't allowed to keep unless it's agreed upon by the captains. As such, I think it's basically become an unspoken rule that if you've got someone else in the lineup who is a competent keeper, you use him rather than bringing one on from outside the side.

Maybe I'm just a **** but if I was Cook and McCullum asked me if Ronchi could come on and keep, I'd definitely have told him to **** off given Latham and himself were in the side.

 

[SteveNZ]

A sub isn't allowed to keep. Has to be one of the starting 11.

Gee right, that's not a rule I was ever aware of. Guess that explains why replacement keepers don't follow the squad around in home series'.

And yeah as PEWS said, there's no chance in hell Cook would've allowed Ronchi to take them. Not the same bloke who apparently said 'it's irrelevant what I would've done' when asked if he would've bowled at the toss There's a man under fire from all angles.

 

[Goughy]

Managed to catch bits and bobs of today. I hope it doesn't offend anyone that this series doesn't exactly capture my imagination but it was an entertaining day of cricket. England ahead but NZ not out of it.

 

[Goughy]

Gee right, that's not a rule I was ever aware of. Guess that explains why replacement keepers don't follow the squad around in home series'.

And yeah as PEWS said, there's no chance in hell Cook would've allowed Ronchi to take them. Not the same bloke who apparently said 'it's irrelevant what I would've done' when asked if he would've bowled at the toss There's a man under fire from all angles.

Opposition captain has no right to object (specifically stated in the laws) if it is within the rules and the umpires allow it.

 

[Prince EWS]

Opposition captain has no right to object (specifically stated in the laws) if it is within the rules and the umpires allow it.

It's actually not within the rules though.

2.Objection to substitutesThe opposing captain shall have no right of objection to any player acting as a substitute on the field, nor as to where the substitute shall field. However, no substitute shall act as wicket-keeper. See 3 below.


3.Restrictions on role of substitutes
A substitute shall not be allowed to bat, bowl or act as wicket-keeper.

If the captains agree then this restriction is waived (has happened in the past) but without a concession from the captain, that's the rule.

 

[Riggins]

When's it happened in the past? I can't imagine ever allowing it in a test match.

 

[RxGM]

When's it happened in the past? I can't imagine ever allowing it in a test match.

This game here

1st Test: England v New Zealand at Lord's, Jul 24-29, 1986 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

Ian smith was remincing about it yesterday

 

[Goughy]

It's actually not within the rules though.



If the captains agree then this restriction is waived (has happened in the past) but without a concession from the captain, that's the rule.

My point exactly though I guess I wasnt clear. I was talking of a sub fielder in general rather than sub keeper specifically. A captain cant object if a sub fielder is within the rules. A sub keeper isnt within the rules so a captain cannot object as it cannot happen.

 

[Prince EWS]

Yeah, it has actually happened though, despite that. So the captain can't object, but he can choose to roll over and let the opposition break the rules, so it seems.

 

[Flem274*]

I loved his claim his voice was the opposite of falsetto. Pull the other one, Phlegm.

I didn't claim it was a good low (b bbreathing tubes in newborns are great for vocal chords) I'll jump on comms and prove it. So what do I need apart from skype? A microphone im guessing?

 

[Athlai]

I didn't claim it was a good low (b bbreathing tubes in newborns are great for vocal chords) I'll jump on comms and prove it. So what do I need apart from skype? A microphone im guessing?

Headphones and a mic will be all you need.

 

[Flem274*]

Cool will buy one at the shops tomorrow

 

[hendrix]

Ronchi's keeping has regressed significantly anyway and Latham was pretty decent.

 

[Bahnz]

Hmmm, Bet365 offering $5 for an NZ win. Yes, England are on top but that seems a little generous. Given the recent form of Broad and Anderson with the bat, NZ could easily dismiss England for less than 400 tomorrow leaving them with the best of the batting conditions on a pitch that is already offering some turn.

 

[Niall]

Hmmm, Bet365 offering $5 for an NZ win. Yes, England are on top but that seems a little generous. Given the recent form of Broad and Anderson with the bat, NZ could easily dismiss England for less than 400 tomorrow leaving them with the best of the batting conditions on a pitch that is already offering some turn.

Could be cloudy in the weekend, and Broad, Wood and Ali all capable of quick runs and getting it past 400. Then you got Latham who has yet to prove himself against top class seam bowling (to be fair neither has Ballance) a test meh player in Guptil and in between Taylor an undercooked Kane and Mc Cullum.

Not saying England will definitely win or anything absurd like that, but I dunno, it seems a nothing sort of price for me, if it was close to 7/1 or 8/1, I'd be excited.

I haven't backed a winner in ages though, so probably best to follow your own hunch.

 

[Dan]

Ronchi's keeping has regressed significantly anyway and Latham was pretty decent.

Latham was passable, but very, very rusty. Did not look sure of himself at all, ended up wrong-footed more than you'd want from a Test match 'keeper. In fairness to him, England isn't an easy place to 'keep, let alone when he's probably been doing a bare minimum of practice and never expected to take the gloves.

 

[Athlai]

Hmmm, Bet365 offering $5 for an NZ win. Yes, England are on top but that seems a little generous. Given the recent form of Broad and Anderson with the bat, NZ could easily dismiss England for less than 400 tomorrow leaving them with the best of the batting conditions on a pitch that is already offering some turn.

Don't you dare bet on us.