**Official** England in New Zealand

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Another video of the beer incident on day two for those who haven't seen it yet:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=fyc22i1hVbk

Heath - are you the guy on the left with the sunglasses?

Which one do you mean? To the left of the falling guy or the left as we're viewing it?

 

[Raghav]

Which one do you mean? To the left of the falling guy or the left as we're viewing it?

left as we are viewing it.....

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

left as we are viewing it.....

At the top or the bottom of the bank?

 

[NZTailender]

FFS Davis, tell us which one you are. You know, exact description and all that. I figure you're the guy in the brownish shirt with a black haired lass next to you.

 

[Athlai]

Personally I saw KP as being used to get the new ball out as quickly as possible and spinners bowl quicker overs, the Poms wanted at least one over at us with the new ball and they got it.

The light fiasco was irritating and as I was standing behind the match referee it seemed rather clear no one had the **** what was going on.

 

[Days of Grace]

Pissed off about the Oram dismissal. Victory was a long shot from there but now it is almost impossible.

But, as it is the new ball, who is to say that Oram wouldn't have been cleaned up first over back tomorrow. Anyway, that's how it goes.


What I get from this match is the inability of our batsmen to bat time. When was the last time a New Zealand batsmen faced 300 balls in a test innings? Sinclair and Fleming both got themselves out to very tame dismissals. Those are our two most experienced batsmen and it sets a bad example to the rest of the team. We shouldn't ignore this. It irriates me greatly.

 

[wpdavid]

A middling sort of scenario to wake up to this morning. Should have been better, and nothing irks me more than professionals fielding like village cricketers playing a beer match. But there was always a chance that I could wake up to NZ closing at 300 for 3 or somesuch, and at least that wasn't the case. Hopefully the new ball will sort things out on Day 5.

So how did the quicks bowl? And what sort of speeds did Broad clock?

 

[Richard]

A middling sort of scenario to wake up to this morning. Should have been better, and nothing irks me more than professionals fielding like village cricketers playing a beer match.

Yep, my precise thoughts. At least I should get to watch the denounement this evening now.

So how did the quicks bowl? And what sort of speeds did Broad clock?

Haven't seen the last session yet (at least, much of - saw the Sinclair dismissal just after I turned the comp off) but Broad bowled really well earlier on, having his fast-becoming-obligatory drop from Collingwood but seeing it not matter as he dismissed the batsman anyway. Sidebottom bowled brilliantly at the start, less well in the middle (though as so often without luck) and seemingly decently again at the end. Anderson struggled into the wind mostly and presumably slightly with his ankle and was pretty ineffective.

Collingwood and MSP, meanwhile, don't seem to have offered any great threat, though both of them had 1 catch dropped off nothing deliveries.

 

[Richard]

What I get from this match is the inability of our batsmen to bat time. When was the last time a New Zealand batsmen faced 300 balls in a test innings?

TBF, how often does anyone do that, particularly in the current age? Not very often. Most batsmen will have 170-180 under those circumstances at the moment, and that's a very substantial score.

 

[Richard]

He will need batsmen to stick around for him to achieve that. Hint: not bloody likely with Sidebottom beating Oram nearly every ball this last over.

Amazing, on that note, how much trouble Sidebottom has caused Oram in general in both Tests and ODIs this tour, both by moving the ball in and away.

Certainly not something I'd foreseen, even though I don't tend to predict how every bowler will go against every batsman.

 

[Richard]

I'm quite a fan of overthrows.

I'm not. They're even more unforgiveable than easy dropped catches. Only a tiny number of overthrows are not unneccessary.

 

[Smudge]

This one was even worse than your standard overthrows - it was one of those mindless throws back to the keeper when the batsmen aren't even going for a run. As a bowler, I hate them at the best of times but, if I was an England supporter, I would have been (figuratively) tearing my hair out at this effort.

 

[Richard]

And after Vettori faces one ball, the umpires take a reading and they go off for bad light. That's bull**** - common sense would dictate that you take a reading when you hand the bowling side the new ball. Grinds my ****ing gears, that does.

Exactly, damn right annoying.

Honestly why would the umpires not check the light after at least each over? And why wouldn't they check them when a fast bowler is given the new ball. Even Vaughn knew there was a danger of them being pulled - that's why he threw the ball to a part time spinner.

What a joke.

Yip, indeed it does.
Made no sense to give Sidebottom an over with the new ball when they had been playing spinners because of the light. They didnt even take a reading.

Knew Oram was likely to go once they let him bowl. Bollocks really.

Can't believe the umpires decide to take the players from the field for light after one further delivery. If it was an issue at all, and with England taking the new ball, the decision to offer the light should have been made before the start of the over.

Oram looked out of sorts for most of his innings but seemed to be coming good until the light went at the end. That was extremely frustrating. The light was darker than when it had been the first time they went off, and you could tell the umpire's new they'd stuffed up as Oram walked off. They only reason why they didn't walk off then and there was because it would've looked bad.

Oram impressed with me with his grinding determination, he is woefully out of form at the crease which was fairly obvious but really just held onto his wicket and scored some beautiful boundaries. Was very disappointed to see him go when the players were called back on with the bad light. Though I was standing behind the match referee (who looks like he's smuggling a keg under his shirt) and he was saying that with the light that they were even considering going on till 6:38pm to catch up for the time they were called off initially. There really seemed to be little worry about the light itself.

Reckon those out there that are complaining Oram got out due to the light are way off, the ball was doing far too much and he hadn't been moving his feet, Oram's just not that well suited to the new ball thats doing a lot. Sidebottom bowled superbly.

Not too happy about Oram being dismissed when the light was bad, but from a pragmatic point of view there was the usual theatrics from batsmen pretending not to see and fielders pretending the light was ever-so-bright. The light hadn't been that great for the last hour and a half and hadn't deteriorated that much as to be the overriding reason for the dismissal. It was a good ball.

Have to say, TBH, that it's always irritated me when a wicket falls just before a suspension of play. As pointed-out by the latter two correspondants, Oram might very easily have got out bright light or tomorrow, but it inevitably leaves a bad taste in the mouth when this sort of thing happens.

I mean, bad light annoys the heck out of me, period, and it's always going to be difficult to be truly fair while there remains ever the possibility of bad light stopping play in cricket.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Panesar's bowling average continues heading rapidly towards the 35+ mark where it belongs.

Only England could have serious aspirations towards being a top Test side and continue to pick a specialist finger spinner whose batting and fielding are atrocious. Picking Panesar is like playing with 10 men unless you're a) up against piss poor batting (such as West Indies) or b) on a bunsen.

England have enough seam bowling depth to have 4 seamers + Colly/KP/Vaughan etc.

 

[Richard]

Yes, as shown by Broad and Anderson's oh-so-hugely-consistent games here...

Under normal circumstances, MSP (poor-ish though he may be on a non-turner) > Anderson. And so far we still haven't a clue how good Broad will or will not be. Tremlett, of course, is still to return to fitness, but being unfit is hardly unusual for him.

 

[wpdavid]

I would have thought the myth of our deep well of test quality quicks has been well & truly shown up over the last 12 months or so. Which isn't to say that Panesar's fielding isn't an absolute disgrace though.

Anyway, that wasn't why I was going to post. A question for Goughy, really. Following the piece that we discussed the other day, what have you made of Broad's action in this test?

 

[Jamee999]

It is quite impressive though, that we've been able to drop our 2 senior quicks, and bring in two quite young players who have done well.

I agree with SP though, that on a green pitch, Panesar shouldn't play.

 

[Richard]

It is quite impressive though, that we've been able to drop our 2 senior quicks, and bring in two quite young players who have done well.

How well has Anderson really done, though? He bowled superbly in 9 overs in his first spell of the game, and has been decidedly poor since then. To drop Hoggard for him (and Broad) remains a baffling decision, even if it mercifully doesn't seem to have cost us a vital victory here. Now, OK, he's had to battle the wind and his ankle often in the second-innings, but it's not like I'd have been expecting anything else given his prior form. He's had very short decent spells and bowled crap the rest of a match before now, plenty of times.

As for Broad, he's been no different this game to how he has before. Sometimes he's in the right areas, sometimes he's not, and he hasn't really had THAT much of a cutting-edge, despite the advantage of his height. He's bowled 2 decent balls that have coaxed a chance out of Bell (1 caught, 1 dropped), and his other 3 chances created have come from extremely poor strokes from Taylor and McCullum (first-innings) and a shocking leave from Fleming (second-). Broad still has plenty to do if he is to become a Test-standard bowler.

I agree with SP though, that on a green pitch, Panesar shouldn't play.

I've always said no fingerspinner should ever play on a green pitch. One problem, though - this wasn't a green pitch. And we know full well that the "you must have variation" rubbish will mean fingerspinners do get picked, for England and most other countries, on all bar the most blatantly green-seaming surfaces, something you (sadly) hardly ever see at the current time. This particular pitch has had no more than a bit in it for seamers, and it's taken excellent bowling from Oram and - in one 9-over spell - Anderson to extract it. Everyone else, except Sidebottom of times, has toiled away for not-that-much reward.

 

[Raghav]

Pissed off about the Oram dismissal. Victory was a long shot from there but now it is almost impossible.

But, as it is the new ball, who is to say that Oram wouldn't have been cleaned up first over back tomorrow. Anyway, that's how it goes.


What I get from this match is the inability of our batsmen to bat time. When was the last time a New Zealand batsmen faced 300 balls in a test innings? Sinclair and Fleming both got themselves out to very tame dismissals. Those are our two most experienced batsmen and it sets a bad example to the rest of the team. We shouldn't ignore this. It irriates me greatly.

Hardly we play test match right! So, Hardly we remember those stats

 

[Prince EWS]

Too far?

Probably. But I enjoyed it.