*Official* New Zealand in England 2015

[Frost]

Boring

 

[sledger]

muh bowlers

 

[Immenso]

Game was played at an ideal hour for me to watch an hour or so during breakfast. Checked cricinfo and saw that England was batting and just wasn't interested and didn't turn the TV on.

Where as if my team was batting with the game at that stage I would have been mildly interested. So for me, ODIs are no longer cricket, just batting.

I momentarily got interested in ODIs for a month or so during the World Cup, because my team's bowlers could take early wickets - and it was like watching a cricket game.

 

[Immenso]

However, I do fully understand England fans enjoying it for a year or two, as a new approach/era after the conservatism of the Flower, Strauss, Cook years.

But it will get old.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Never saw a ball.

Must admit I forgot it was on until 5pm and had to go out then anyway.

Least it sets up a decent finale. Hope it not rained off.

 

[jonbrooks]

I fear for the art of bowling, I really do. It has become peripheral to the game of cricket. Enhancements are made to batting, but never to bowling. Uck - I should have been born a batsman.

It's not the bowlers fault. Typically ODI pitches were supposed to be like day 3 test pitches i.e. something for both bowlers and batsmen. Now all we get are roads which offer bugger all for the bowlers.

 

[GIMH]

Yeah look I understand the complaints but the problem for us circa 11-13 was we were pretty damn good in ODIs...at home, on tracks/in conditions that didn't match anywhere else

 

[hendrix]

Very impressive chase.

 

[Skyliner]

I'm not sure what is going on. We have people decrying one day cricket now, seemingly in absolute disgust. Is this series being played under the same rules as the WC? In the WC, we saw low scoring matches between top nations, such as the Eden Park match between Australia and New Zealand, the match between England and NZ, and the final. This is NZ vs England; I'd like to see some other series's between other nations before I join the bubbling, wailing and gnashing teeth brigade who think we are on the cusp of seeing 500 scored - the shock, the horror - unless the ICC take drastic action.
If the ball is swinging and seaming, surely it's 'poor batsmen' - but you never hear anyone saying that.
If it's not swinging then bowlers need to come up with strategies and variations, or they just aren't good bowlers at all. "Good bowlers" are getting hit...is McClenghan really that good a bowler if his career economy rate is so poor? Sure, he takes wickets - or has done in the past - but he is not bowling accurate fasting Yorkers as he used to do. When the pressure is on, you find out what people are made of. We have established beyond all doubt that Boult is an excellent ODI bowler. Do we now need some rule changes to make average bowlers look like they are of international quality?
I also think we are seeing a pissing contest between Baz and Morgan as to who's team will be the true exponents of "attacking cricket", and we are seeing some exceptional batting from the axis of Williamson / Taylor and Root / Morgan. Without the superlative performance of NZs dynamic duo - in particular Williamson - who knows if NZ would have stayed with England in this series. Baz and Ronchi have done bugger all, Guptill / Elliot / Santer have been patchy.
If NZ made 357 today and England collapsed in a heap, we wouldn't even be wringing our hands about the state of ODI cricket. All that has happened is that England have adopted the attacking mindset with a vengeance, and have a line up of batsmen that have the skills to excel at it.

 

[Immenso]

Skyliner; the world cup was full of single high scoring blow outs.

There was huge complaints / grumbling in non-nz media.

Except for nz games as we usually bowled first and got wickets, or games between associates which tended to be close.

But in the games between full members it was typically 370 bat first versus blowout under scoreboard pressure bat second.

So, this series is actually progress from the typical World Cup game. In terms of the contest between teams. Just a yawn if what keeps you watching for 7 hours is a contest between bat and ball.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

If it's not swinging then bowlers need to come up with strategies and variations, or they just aren't good bowlers at all. "Good bowlers" are getting hit...is McClenghan really that good a bowler if his career economy rate is so poor? Sure, he takes wickets - or has done in the past - but he is not bowling accurate fasting Yorkers as he used to do. When the pressure is on, you find out what people are made of. We have established beyond all doubt that Boult is an excellent ODI bowler. Do we now need some rule changes to make average bowlers look like they are of international quality?

yes, because average bowlers, by definition, make up the bulk of international bowlers. You don't judge success on the basis of an exceptional few, that's like looking at a third world country and pointing out the rich people to prove that it's not such a bad place to live.

 

[SteveNZ]

Yeah...before I go on I should say I haven't enjoyed this series at all, but then again I'm a bowler who fast forwards the highlights for the wickets.

I wouldn't be decrying ODI cricket just yet, however. The new rule changes will hopefully redress any widening chasm between bat and ball, and we've only got to look a few months back at a World Cup where none of us came away saying it was solely a batsman's domain.

We saw that when it swung in the World Cup, sides could put on real pressure by knocking the opposition's top 6 over then meaning they couldn't go hard from 35 on wards. Two new balls is a double-edged sword - when it swings, you're in the game. When it doesn't, you're just going further for longer.

What this series has been is two powerful top sixes on really flat decks with boundaries often brought in, with captains who know you have to take wickets up front or you're toast. It hasn't swung, so no one really has put pressure on batting sides.

Another point would be scoreboard pressure. That existed in the World Cup, but it's not a great factor in a meaningless (for all intents) ODI series. If you posted 300+ in the WC, chances are the other team didn't get it. Here, you have a dip and just move onto the next city if you don't get it. What we're seeing is basically pressure-free cricket from a bunch of guys who have solidified their spots in the side and are playing freely. Guys like Hales, Roy etc have had a bit less fortune with more to lose (I realise they did score a few runs today)

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Yeah...before I go on I should say I haven't enjoyed this series at all, but then again I'm a bowler who fast forwards the highlights for the wickets.

Yes! I want to love this part of the post rather than just like it.

 

[SteveNZ]

Kinda bored of the criticism of Mitch, too. We've got a genuine wicket-taker who's gone for a few on a flat one a couple of times and all of a sudden he's brown bread as an international cricketer (as per the NZ Herald today)? We're accepting of 320-350 as a par score nowadays but someone going at that rate is going awfully? We love to be reactive sometimes don't we.

 

[social]

Havent watched much of this series but I thought that bowling conditions at the Rose Bowl were quite good

Unfortunately, much of the bowling was crap and the batting very good

When coupled with short boundaries, that'll generally result in big scores

 

[straw man]

Well that's quite a score... well done England, especially Root as usual and Morgan too (it was news to me at the World Cup that he hadn't been scoring runs for a while and then continued to struggle - was always a top ODI batsman in my memory).

Wtf is with Taylor dropping another catch in slips though - that's three or four off poor ol McGlagaglag now.

Pitches may be batting friendly but our ODI bowling is not great - inexperience, Mitch being shown up, and opposition batsmen continuing to show how hittable Southee is.

 

[Skyliner]

Another point would be scoreboard pressure. That existed in the World Cup, but it's not a great factor in a meaningless (for all intents) ODI series. If you posted 300+ in the WC, chances are the other team didn't get it. Here, you have a dip and just move onto the next city if you don't get it. What we're seeing is basically pressure-free cricket from a bunch of guys who have solidified their spots in the side and are playing freely. Guys like Hales, Roy etc have had a bit less fortune with more to lose (I realise they did score a few runs today)

Yes, ODI cricket is essentially meaningless. It is a contrived game designed to appeal to a broader cross-section of people that those who can appreciate the nuances of the vastly superior test cricket. A pitch can evolve over 5 days, it can't do much over the course of 100 overs, except either get slower or flatten out more.
These higher scoring games probably appeal most to the people this kind of cricket was supposed to appeal to, the ones who love constant 4s and 6s, T20, 'hit and giggle'. So the evolution of the game is going in a desirable direction, from that point of view.
So I wonder if it's anything to get too worried about, whether ODI cricket is predominantly low scoring, mid scoring or high scoring. It just doesn't matter.

 

[JediNudist]

Just got out of bed here in Perth just seen the score . I feel cold inside , soooo cold . I need comforting

 

[Skyliner]

yes, because average bowlers, by definition, make up the bulk of international bowlers. You don't judge success on the basis of an exceptional few, that's like looking at a third world country and pointing out the rich people to prove that it's not such a bad place to live.

Say your international team has 5 bowlers, that's 5 bowlers drawn from the entire pool of first class cricketers, who are drawn from the entire pool of club cricketers i.e. the 5 top bowlers are the exceptional few.
If your attack is Starc, Johnson, Hazlewood, Faulkner etc....who is the average bowler? Will average bowlers reach the pinnacle of elite sport?

 

[wellAlbidarned]

Say your international team has 5 bowlers, that's 5 bowlers drawn from the entire pool of first class cricketers, who are drawn from the entire pool of club cricketers i.e. the 5 top bowlers are the exceptional few.
If your attack is Starc, Johnson, Hazlewood, Faulkner etc....who is the average bowler? Will average bowlers reach the pinnacle of elite sport?

I'm talking about average relative to other international bowlers.