*Official* 2022 New Zealand Tour of England, Ireland, Scotland & Netherlands

[Skyliner]

Tom Latham overheard speaking to Gary Stead in the Lords dressing room:
"Gary, when are we playing the Lankans or Bangas next at Hagley?"

 

[Skyliner]

The BC's see Baz / Stokes in charge and they think "these guys are going to play like Australia".
Hence the mental capitulation and a comfortable win to England in 3 and a bit days.

 

[SteveNZ]

what are the chances of wagner getting a go at trent bridge? is he considered a risk because he might be past it?

it felt very england-y watching new zealand bowl from the root/stokes partnership onwards. a bunch of lads bowling the same fast medium with little to no movement. just waiting for the new ball.

There's a feeling that he's lost a yard of pace, and isn't as effective doing what he used to do so well. He's pretty rusty in terms of match fitness as well. I don't think Wagner is in the frame, really. Matt Henry would probably be considered ahead of him, being a guy who bowls well with Dukes and in English conditions.

I'm not so sure we were samey - more so that the pitch was heavily new ball dependent as 4-12, 4-96, 4-56 and 4-69 suggests. There's variety in the attack in that Jamieson brings height, Southee subtle movement, Boult the LH variation, CdG (if fit) etc.

I'm not sure it made a blind bit of difference, but the decision to play Patel then not use him much at all in the fourth innings is really questionable. Doull said in commentary that Stead didn't want him but Kane did, which I call bullshit on. Kane is a noted non-backer of spinners, for a start. Then having played him, he bowls two overs, gets collared by Stokes - fair enough they take him off - but in flat conditions, he never bowls again despite the fact the ball isn't doing an inch for the seamers. Kane just couldn't trust him, apparently. Which is a self-fulfilling prophecy, because if he keeps not backing Ajaz, his lack of progress will respond in kind.

Also, and I hate to say this about my own side, but sucked in to us for opting to change the ball to something that proved to swing even less. It's a weak tactic, and we tried it with something that was doing a bit into a ball that never moved off the straight. We deserved that.

 

[ashley bach]

what are the chances of wagner getting a go at trent bridge? is he considered a risk because he might be past it?

it felt very england-y watching new zealand bowl from the root/stokes partnership onwards. a bunch of lads bowling the same fast medium with little to no movement. just waiting for the new ball.

It's impossible to know exactly where Wags is at. Given the amount of overs he bowled in the warm ups, he may not take part in the series at all.
With what's transpired over the last year or so, reckon the selectors would be MAD not to give MATT HENRY a trot.

 

[Flem274*]

The bowlers were good. They dragged us back into the game from a certain loss.

This is on the top 4

Young - good player, not an opener
Latham - sucks in SENA against good attacks (good in asia)
KW - first game back in 8-9 months
Devon - Very good over summer, inevitably had to have a quiet game some time

 

[thierry henry]

The batting was very bad, but not winning against England when you have them 69/4 chasing 277 in the 4th innings is a seriously big **** up. Can’t just say ‘the bowlers were fine’ cos that’s basically a catastrophic bottle job.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Stokes’s innings was spawny as they come, but I’m not having a wicket off a no-ball as some kind of let-off. Anyone can take wickets if they overstep by far enough.

Yes this. I always get a bit annoyed with the implication that the no-ball wicket is somehow really unlucky or a huge let-off. Cricket is a game of millimetres and milliseconds. If he bowled the same ball an inch or 2 back from the crease it would have had a completely different result.

The batting was very bad, but not winning against England when you have them 69/4 chasing 277 in the 4th innings is a seriously big **** up. Can’t just say ‘the bowlers were fine’ cos that’s basically a catastrophic bottle job.

A lot of that comes down to being 2 bowlers short due to 1) injury and 2) picking a useless spinner for conditions. Not always easy bowling a side out with 3 bowlers, even if it is England

 

[SteveNZ]

Yes this. I always get a bit annoyed with the implication that the no-ball wicket is somehow really unlucky or a huge let-off. Cricket is a game of millimetres and milliseconds. If he bowled the same ball an inch or 2 back from the crease it would have had a completely different result.

A lot of that comes down to being 2 bowlers short due to 1) injury and 2) picking a useless spinner for conditions. Not always easy bowling a side out with 3 bowlers, even if it is England

Mmmmm...it's pretty much a let-off as far as Stokes is concerned. He played a **** shot so early in his innings, and dragged it on - only to be reprieved. It's not unlucky for CdG, who bowled a massive no ball. But it is lucky for Stokes (IMO) given CdG bowls 120km/ph - it wasn't like he gained any major advantage that did in for Stokes. I hear what you're saying, it's never unlucky for the bowler but it is a bit of luck for a batsman who played a poor shot.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Mmmmm...it's pretty much a let-off as far as Stokes is concerned. He played a **** shot so early in his innings, and dragged it on - only to be reprieved. It's not unlucky for CdG, who bowled a massive no ball. But it is lucky for Stokes (IMO) given CdG bowls 120km/ph - it wasn't like he gained any major advantage that did in for Stokes. I hear what you're saying, it's never unlucky for the bowler but it is a bit of luck for a batsman who played a poor shot.

Wouldn't be the first time Stokes got away with swinging when he shouldn't

 

[Flem274*]

Ajaz's last outing in England was good. Two overs in the match is not a sample size.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Ajaz's last outing in England was good. Two overs in the match is not a sample size.

The point is he wasn't used

 

[jcas0167]

Yes this. I always get a bit annoyed with the implication that the no-ball wicket is somehow really unlucky or a huge let-off. Cricket is a game of millimetres and milliseconds. If he bowled the same ball an inch or 2 back from the crease it would have had a completely different result.

This seems like an interesting philosophical point. With a dropped catch, or missed run out, it's a clear let off. But in the counterfactual where the bowler *doesn't* overstep you necessarily have a different delivery. It may have lead to a dismissal but statistically it's unlikely.

 

[grecian]

This seems like an interesting philosophical point. With a dropped catch, or missed run out, it's a clear let off. But in the counterfactual where the bowler *doesn't* overstep you necessarily have a different delivery. It may have lead to a dismissal but statistically it's unlikely.

This entire argument is reminding me of a thankfully erstwhile poster. Yet it's pretty unforgivable for someone of CDG's pace to overstep, so he certainly deserved nothing. On Stokes he was just lucky not to get out to that stupid shot on a number of occasions, that being one.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

There was a degree of irony in one of the New Zealand team coming over early to play a bit of County Cricket to get acclimatised and then running himself out first ball, getting a vital "wicket" with a no ball and then leaving the attack a man short by getting injured.

Another came over early (Young), scored good runs in CC, and had scores of 1 and 1.

 

[straw man]

The batting was very bad, but not winning against England when you have them 69/4 chasing 277 in the 4th innings is a seriously big **** up. Can’t just say ‘the bowlers were fine’ cos that’s basically a catastrophic bottle job.

Partly, though the batting that beat us from that point was a great innings from an England ATG and a very important innings from their second best batsman. Sometimes the opposition do just play well.

The part where I do agree is in finding wickets after the new ball has softened (15-20 overs at home, 30-35 in England), which we also failed at during the home summer. Southee and Boult are still decent with the old ball, but we've relied a lot on Wagner and CDG magic and that's waning. This is hardly a new suggestion but making wickets with the old ball is usually a job for a genuine quick, a spinner or a captain that tries a few different tactics to keep the batsmen under pressure. What's that, Lockie Ferguson, yes yes it is.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

But Lockie won't last the test match!

*picks a guy to bowl 12 balls the entire game*

 

[NZTailender]

I'm glad there's 3 matches in this series. In 2015 we threw away the first test when we should've drawn. 2021 the narrative was England were cowards not to chase in that first test draw but we were a bit lucky tbf. We always seem to come back well in the second test, so expecting at least a draw and hoping for a win to set up a series decided in the decider.

 

[honestbharani]

three series' in a row we've lost Tests because we failed to win the big moments and/or get up for the contest.

Can't comment on the other stuff but tbf, teams are so evenly matched these days and pitches are bowler friendly enough that this is the main reason most sides lose games now, not even just tests if u remove the bowler friendly pitches part.

 

[honestbharani]

The BC's see Baz / Stokes in charge and they think "these guys are going to play like Australia".
Hence the mental capitulation and a comfortable win to England in 3 and a bit days.

I wonder how they beat Shastri/Kohli then

 

[Moss]

Ajaz's last outing in England was good. Two overs in the match is not a sample size.

Interesting thing is that Latham was the captain in that game, as well as at the Wankhede when Ajaz Lakered India. (Two matches may not be a sample size, but clearly Latham’s eagerness to bowl spinners comes from being a great player of spin himself).