• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

**Official** England in New Zealand 28 Nov-18 Dec 2024 - 3 Tests

F

Fuller Pilch

Hall of Fame Member
Howsie said:
Southee, Boult and to a lesser extent Henry, hell I’m going to chuck Wagner in to because he wasn’t always perfect were/have been horrible for years. Scared of quick bowling, end of really. Needed a coach to publicly call them out for being cats with the bat.
Click to expand...
I'd also add Jamieson. Perhaps not scared, but the former schoolboy opener/potential allrounder as we were often told has achieved less with the bat than he should have.
 
Moss

Moss

International Captain
Fuller Pilch said:
I'd also add Jamieson. Perhaps not scared, but the former schoolboy opener/potential allrounder as we were often told has achieved less with the bat than he should have.
Click to expand...
For Jamieson, a deep square leg/deep backward square leg and banging it in short does the trick most times.
 
L

LangleyburyCCPlayer

State Regular
Howsie said:
Southee, Boult and to a lesser extent Henry, hell I’m going to chuck Wagner in to because he wasn’t always perfect were/have been horrible for years. Scared of quick bowling, end of really. Needed a coach to publicly call them out for being cats with the bat.

O’Rourke might not have any talent with the bat, and all those guys did. But hey at least he has a set of balls and will get in behind it.
Click to expand...
So far O’Rourke has lasted more balls on average in his embryonic career than any of those mentioned
 
Molehill

Molehill

Cricketer Of The Year
For all the doom and gloom from NZ on here, worth pointing out that England have won the opening Test in their last 3 Away series and have failed to go on to win any of them. Although I do asterisk the first of those with the ridiculous follow on in NZ last year.

IF NZ take their catches then that Test is very different, and teams don't often field as horrifically as that. I'm expecting a close one this week, don't think there's much between these teams.
 
mackembhoy

mackembhoy

International Regular
Molehill

Molehill

Cricketer Of The Year
mackembhoy said:
Both sides fined 15 percent of match fee and deducted 3 WTC points, for slow over rate.

That’ll teach em! Need to bring in game penalties to tackle over rates as otherwise this isn’t changing.

www.icc-cricket.com

England and New Zealand penalised for slow over-rate

Media Release
www.icc-cricket.com www.icc-cricket.com
Click to expand...
But why does it need to change? If a match finished inside 4 days then what's the issue? Who decided 90 overs was the Holy Grail for over rates? If England had bowled NZ out in 5 less overs there would've been no fine.

What clearly needs to change is the daft rule. Over rate penalties should only be considered in draws, and then only where the weather hasn't had an impact......basically something which hardly exists anymore.
 
A

ashley bach

Cricketer Of The Year
SteveNZ said:
It's infuriating, it's unprofessional, it's ineffective, it's really a lot of ins and uns.

If I was batting 6-7 and they batted this way around me, while I'm trying to forge a Test career and bat for my country, I'd be absolutely filthy. But the guys who historically did it, Boult/Southee/Henry and to a lesser extent Wagner (although at times he proved he could do better) were the senior players.

I almost guarantee that the younger brigade coming in after those names won't do it. I don't actually mind if Southee bats the way he does sometimes, because clearly it has effect in the right situations. And sure, you might miss out on a couple of knocks because you're asking him to be circumspect. But he gets too far wrong too often, and he also plays ridiculously dumb shots like trying to hook with 3 men back to a 90m boundary into the wind. And you're right, nothing annoys the bowling team more than having to spend more time out there, trying to come up with plans to chip out an obdurate batsman.

I don't buy that they were scared - well they were, but I just hate it as a narrative. I've pissed on about this, Trent won a national one-day batting prize at the NZ one-day champs. He's a low handicap golfer. Tim is a natural sportsman, a magnificent fielder. These guys can see the ball. They just chose to bat the way they did, and to not get behind it. Chris Martin used to. Will O'Rourke does. It's so lame. Even in 'Baz Ball' Jack Leach plays expansively some days, but by god if you need him to get 0 off 100, he will. Stokes' Headingley epic doesn't happen if he can't.
Click to expand...
So what you're really trying to say in short is that it's time for @NZTailender to stand up.
 
mackembhoy

mackembhoy

International Regular
Molehill said:
But why does it need to change? If a match finished inside 4 days then what's the issue? Who decided 90 overs was the Holy Grail for over rates? If England had bowled NZ out in 5 less overs there would've been no fine.

What clearly needs to change is the daft rule. Over rate penalties should only be considered in draws, and then only where the weather hasn't had an impact......basically something which hardly exists anymore.
Click to expand...
Because it's a negative tactic employed by sides and IMO isn't good for the game.

Fans even if treated to a good day are also being short changed from more action. When tickets are now £100+ a day in England that's ripping people off.
 
Last edited:
Molehill

Molehill

Cricketer Of The Year
mackembhoy said:
Because it's a negative tactic employed by sides and IMO isn't good for the game.

Fans even if treated to a good day are also being short changed from more action. When tickets are now £100+ a day in England that's ripping people off.
Click to expand...
Even if it is a negative tactic (not convinced it is), should you decide a league table on that? Can a Premier League be decided upon by how long it takes for a throw in? England have now been deducted 22 points in matches that were either won or lost, and hardly any of which made it to Day 5.

Would you rather see 350-8 in 83 overs or 240-2 in 90?

It also penalises teams more who are based in seam friendly conditions. If you want 90 overs in Eng/Aus/NZ then you should demand 100 in Asia.
 
mackembhoy

mackembhoy

International Regular
Molehill said:
Even if it is a negative tactic (not convinced it is), should you decide a league table on that? Can a Premier League be decided upon by how long it takes for a throw in? England have now been deducted 22 points in matches that were either won or lost, and hardly any of which made it to Day 5.

Would you rather see 350-8 in 83 overs or 240-2 in 90?

It also penalises teams more who are based in seam friendly conditions. If you want 90 overs in Eng/Aus/NZ then you should demand 100 in Asia.
Click to expand...
I don't agree with the points deductions for slow over rates. So no the league shouldn't be decided on that. I've at no point said that it should.

I've consistently argued that the points deductions are stupid as the players don't care and the fines are irrelevant. In game penalties would stop players not bowling 90 overs in a day. England don't manage to bowl 90 in a day even with spinners in place at both ends(neither did Pakistan!!), so the point about Asia I don't agree with.

I just think If they can manage 96 without an extra 30 mins in County Cricket in England surely they can manage more than the 78-82 they normally manage with an extra 30 mins in test cricket.

I don't get this part "Would you rather see 350-8 in 83 overs or 240-2 in 90?" Well we saw 319 in 83 on day 1 and 319 in 348 in 82 on day two.

If more overs had been bowled we'd have seen more runs scored? Both sides slowed the rate they bowled at in the day as the other side were batting well and slower rate I definitely think is an attempt to limit how many they could score in a day.
 
Last edited:
centurymaker

centurymaker

Cricketer Of The Year
Molehill said:
But why does it need to change? If a match finished inside 4 days then what's the issue? Who decided 90 overs was the Holy Grail for over rates? If England had bowled NZ out in 5 less overs there would've been no fine.

What clearly needs to change is the daft rule. Over rate penalties should only be considered in draws, and then only where the weather hasn't had an impact......basically something which hardly exists anymore.
Click to expand...
Because it is used as a tactic to slow the game down. To do damage control when opposition is on top. To break the batters' concentration. To allow certain bowlers to recover and come into the attack sooner again. To delay declarations so that you have fewer overs to face. To delay the game so that you have slightly more favourable conditions to bat or less favourable for the opposition and/or less time to bat before close of play etc. Weather impacted games are likewise subject to same slow over rate tactics to get a more favourable outcome for your side. Therefore slow over rates should absolutely be punished. In-game punishments obviously make more sense.
 
Molehill

Molehill

Cricketer Of The Year
mackembhoy said:
I just think If they can manage 96 without an extra 30 mins in County Cricket in England surely they can manage more than the 78-82 they normally manage with an extra 30 mins in test cricket.
Click to expand...
They bowl 96 overs however long it takes. Why not just bowl 90 overs however long it takes? I actually think that would speed them up.

centurymaker said:
Because it is used as a tactic to slow the game down. To break batters' concentration. To allow certain bowlers to recover and come into the attack sooner again. To delay declarations so that you have fewer overs to face. To delay the game so that you have slightly more favourable conditions to bat or less favourable for the opposition and/or less time to bat before close of play etc. Weather impacted games are likewise subject to same slow over rate tactics to get a more favourable outcome for your side. Therefore slow over rates should absolutely be punished. In-game punishments obviously make more sense.
Click to expand...
That is all very well, but a reminder that England have been involved in one draw during this WTC cycle, a rain affected one in which only Australia were punished for a slow over rate (and it didn't affect the result anyway).

It is utterly ridiculous to penalise teams for slow over rates for matches which finish in less than 4 days.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top