*Official* New Zealand in England 2015

[Pratters]

Wow, well done England. Expected half the day to be washed out, the other half having England trying to survive. I left it early in the day when they were 3 down. And well done Alastair Cook as well.

 

[thierry henry]

I'm very nervous about our batting tonight. Is it just me or has there been a weird discrepancy in this test between the threat posed by the bowlers and the outcome?

I've watched a good portion of the match and at every point there appears to have been some swing (even when the ball is pretty old), erratic bounce (a LOT of balls noticeably staying down or popping) and often quite random and exaggerated seam movement. Most balls seem to be doing something.

Is the exaggerated seam movement partly an optical illusion caused by the slope?

Anyway, I've never felt like batting has been comfortable at all and yet bat has dominated. I have this terrible feeling that whichever side is batting is due for all those seaming deliveries to start finding the edge.

 

[SteveNZ]

Why am I not surprised waking up to that score? NZ stuffed it yesterday by batting like complete muppets, should've been looking for a lead of 175 plus rather than have have the tailenders slog with Watling at the crease. Oh well let's hope the weather doesn't roll in again when we are batting.

Wouldn't use the same language but the premise is correct. Part of being a great side, which we want to be, is putting the foot on the throat and not simply being happy with a 100-run lead, which it appeared we were (BJ apart). 600 was definitely on from 400-3.

I still think it'll be a draw, will be interesting to see how quickly the declaration comes.

Hats off to England too, a bit of backbone and fight, and all that KP ****e is off the back pages. Cook particularly looked like he did at the peak of his powers, Stokes has ticker in spades and Joe Root is world class.

 

[morgieb]

Amazing stuff from Stokes. Gives England a real sniff at victory now.

 

[hendrix]

Brilliant from Cook, Root and Stokes. Hat's off.

 

[Flametree]

Slightly disappointing scorecard but you gotta give credit to the english. We bowled our arses off in the first session, on a different day against two different batsmen we could've been running through them. But Cook and Root produced some of the best defensive batting I've seen. Inevitably, we couldn't quite maintain it since Craig was especially disappointing.

Cook yes, he was extremely solid early on and gave the bowlers nothing (lucky with lbw shouts later on after the damage had been done). But Root was pretty lucky to survive the morning, first hour in particular. At least three flew past the outside edge, including first or second ball, Boult swung one between the gate when the slightest inside edge would have bowled him, there was one genuine French cut, and one late late inside edge when he'd have been plumb. Pus the "catch" to square leg and then an lbw appeal not given just before lunch where a fair chunk of the ball was hitting top of middle. On another day he could have been out several times. But the guy seems to have got into a "ignore the last ball, the next one is all that counts" zone where he'll score runs even if the bowlers might be feeling on top.

I think NZ were decidedly unlucky not to be well into the tail after 75 minutes in the morning, they bowled well enough in helpful conditions to have taken 3-4 wickets. But it's worrying in both innings how little control they've had once a batsman gets on top of them, and if Corey isn't bowling, the balance of the team starts to look a bit off.

Oh, and someone needs to tell the umpires you can give English batsmen out to marginal lbws. You can be 100% sure that SOME of the ball will hit SOME of the stumps, even if it's not hitting halfway up middle stump. They seem to be operating under the illusion that any decision that would be "Umpire's Call" means not out. I think NZ are up to about 7 lbw's turned down where the ball was actually going to hit the stumps and met the other conditions. (I know England had a couple turned down as well, but they also got a couple of lbws that could have been turned down).

 

[wellAlbidarned]

You can hardly say we didn't have our fair share of luck against broad and anderson yesterday

 

[SteveNZ]

Oh, and someone needs to tell the umpires you can give English batsmen out to marginal lbws. You can be 100% sure that SOME of the ball will hit SOME of the stumps, even if it's not hitting halfway up middle stump. They seem to be operating under the illusion that any decision that would be "Umpire's Call" means not out. I think NZ are up to about 7 lbw's turned down where the ball was actually going to hit the stumps and met the other conditions. (I know England had a couple turned down as well, but they also got a couple of lbws that could have been turned down).

I'm a bowler and whilst I would like to have had you standing in the games I played in, the lbw rule wishes to eliminate guessing and marginal calls. And these guys are bowling at 140km/ph, it's not a matter of looking down the wicket and saying yeah that would've definitely hit a small portion of the stumps, off you go.

I've heard Botham etc say you shouldn't lose your review for lbws that are umpire's call and I disagree. The system isn't there for borderline decisions. It's there for the howler. If you want to use it tactically or for 50/50 decisions and you lose it, tough. No trouble of doing that on decisions you feel are clear cut

 

[Spark]

in shock news, umpires don't have the ability to predict with complete accuracy whether a rapidly moving ball is hitting a set of largely hidden wooden objects based on said ball's impact with a constantly moving target whose main visual cues vary in size, and whose distance from said wooden objects tends to be variable as well

 

[Bahnz]

I'm a bowler and whilst I would like to have had you standing in the games I played in, the lbw rule wishes to eliminate guessing and marginal calls. And these guys are bowling at 140km/ph, it's not a matter of looking down the wicket and saying yeah that would've definitely hit a small portion of the stumps, off you go.

I've heard Botham etc say you shouldn't lose your review for lbws that are umpire's call and I disagree. The system isn't there for borderline decisions. It's there for the howler. If you want to use it tactically or for 50/50 decisions and you lose it, tough. No trouble of doing that on decisions you feel are clear cut

I would be interested in a review being done on whether umpires have become more cautious with their decision making since the introduction of the DRS (and in particular since the introduction of its current incarnation where half the ball has to be in line with half of a stump for a decision to be overturned). The system as it currently stands certainly does make it much less likely that a decision will be overturned if they err on the side of caution with their decision making.

 

[Bahnz]

Tend to doubt Cook will be very adventurous with his declaration. Are there any extra overs to be bowled on the final day or is it the standard 90. Either way, I doubt Cook will be interested in declaring for anything less than a 350 run lead (probably with around about 75 overs left assuming it's a standard day). While McCullum and Anderson are dashers, NZ's top 4 are very calm orthodox test players, so I don't think they'll have any interest in seriously chasing it.

 

[SteveNZ]

Tend to doubt Cook will be very adventurous with his declaration. Are there any extra overs to be bowled on the final day or is it the standard 90. Either way, I doubt Cook will be interested in declaring for anything less than a 350 run lead (probably with around about 75 overs left assuming it's a standard day). While McCullum and Anderson are dashers, NZ's top 4 are very calm orthodox test players, so I don't think they'll have any interest in seriously chasing it.

That was my first thought as well, that Cook might tend to be more conservative and look at 380+ off 75/80 overs. In all fairness to him, his job rests on this sort of result - he's much better to be conservative and try and win the next test therefore series, than risk it, lose it and have his head on the chopping block. McCullum would have a lot more leeway on forcing a result in the same situation, I think he'd be looking at 350 as soon as he got it - whether it was in the third or the 10th over of the day.

 

[SteveNZ]

I would be interested in a review being done on whether umpires have become more cautious with their decision making since the introduction of the DRS (and in particular since the introduction of its current incarnation where half the ball has to be in line with half of a stump for a decision to be overturned). The system as it currently stands certainly does make it much less likely that a decision will be overturned if they err on the side of caution with their decision making.

I'm almost certain they are. And you know what, the law says you're supposed to be cautious with lbws. It's a benefit of the doubt thing. So unless it's crashing into it, you give it not out and the fielding side can play Kenny Rodgers with the DRS. LBWs that are initially given out then are shown to be clipping the outside of the stumps are a failure by the umpire. Unless a ball is hitting the whole of leg stump, you're guessing.

 

[hendrix]

Tend to doubt Cook will be very adventurous with his declaration. Are there any extra overs to be bowled on the final day or is it the standard 90. Either way, I doubt Cook will be interested in declaring for anything less than a 350 run lead (probably with around about 75 overs left assuming it's a standard day). While McCullum and Anderson are dashers, NZ's top 4 are very calm orthodox test players, so I don't think they'll have any interest in seriously chasing it.

Mate, we've been ahead most days in this Test, I think if we have an opportunity to go for the win we should.

Pretty much all of this team is in or around the one day squad and they can all play their shots.

 

[Spark]

With the exception of Latham, the entire top six is basically just the ODI lineup rearranged, right?

 

[Bahnz]

Mate, we've been ahead most days in this Test, I think if we have an opportunity to go for the win we should.

Pretty much all of this team is in or around the one day squad and they can all play their shots.

Nah, I'm definitely happy with a draw given how little prep half the team has had. The bowlers will be in much better shape to do some damage in the second test and Kane will be playing at his second home. Would rather kept ourselves in with a chance to take the series than risk it on what will be - realistically - a hopeless chase. Getting 350+ in 75 overs against England's bowling attack is pretty much impossible.

Also, just took a casual glance at Jeet's stats with Warks. 15 wickets at 28. What might have been...

 

[Bahnz]

I'm almost certain they are. And you know what, the law says you're supposed to be cautious with lbws. It's a benefit of the doubt thing. So unless it's crashing into it, you give it not out and the fielding side can play Kenny Rodgers with the DRS. LBWs that are initially given out then are shown to be clipping the outside of the stumps are a failure by the umpire. Unless a ball is hitting the whole of leg stump, you're guessing.

It actually doesn't. It's just umpiring convention.

 

[Prince EWS]

With the exception of Latham, the entire top six is basically just the ODI lineup rearranged, right?

Yeah. Latham in for Elliott, then swap Latham with McCullum in the order.

 

[hendrix]

and Latham is gun anyway.

 

[Riggins]

Only way there's a result is if there's a collapse one way or the other. Cook sucks.