*Official** New Zealand in England

[luckyeddie]

what riles me most is that instead of looking to win we were trying to make sure that we didnt lose. it also seems like the captain had no faith in the ability of his fast bowlers and was scared they would get smacked around despite the fact that they were instrumental in the 3-0 victory in the WI. no i might have agreed with this tactic 5 years ago, definetly not now with our 4 pronged pace attack

I'll just take this one - your other points are pretty well the same and can be answered the same way.

The impression I get of what seems to rile you (being careful) is
a) being proved wrong
b) being disagreed with

What would you have said if the new ball had been taken at 80 overs, Astle had hit 100 in 75 balls and England had been inserted with two hours to go before stumps chasing 400 (or rather batting 8 hours to save the game)?

Something along the lines of "Stupid Trescothick. They were only getting 2 an over off Giles, why on earth dis he take the new ball when he did? Any idiot could see that all Astle and Cairns were looking to do was free their arms up and hit the hard ball over the top. He should NEVER be given the captaincy again - in fact, drop him, the FTB. His brain moves slower than his feet."

/ducks, runs for cover

 

[tooextracool]

You keep having digs at the selectors, yet the teams they select keep on performing well.

Indeed to the best of my knowledge that's only 1 defeat in 11 matches and 3 in 19 since the beginning of 2003.

Perhaps they do know what they're doing?

that was one occasion where i wasnt actually having a dig at the selectors.....

 

[tooextracool]

I'll just take this one - your other points are pretty well the same and can be answered the same way.

The impression I get of what seems to rile you (being careful) is
a) being proved wrong
b) being disagreed with

how in the world have i been proven wrong??i still stick to my argument that if we had taken the new ball we would have bowled them out for a lot less.

What would you have said if the new ball had been taken at 80 overs, Astle had hit 100 in 75 balls and England had been inserted with two hours to go before stumps chasing 400 (or rather batting 8 hours to save the game)?

i think the fact that the NZ bowlers looked more effective when they had the new ball than they did with the old ball is what matters. its amazing how easy everything looked for england once the ball got a little older yesterday didnt it? as far as astle scoring 100 off 75 balls, thats just tripe.....they might just have been all out for 280.

Something along the lines of "Stupid Trescothick. They were only getting 2 an over off Giles, why on earth dis he take the new ball when he did? Any idiot could see that all Astle and Cairns were looking to do was free their arms up and hit the hard ball over the top. He should NEVER be given the captaincy again - in fact, drop him, the FTB. His brain moves slower than his feet."
/ducks, runs for cover

1) it doesnt matter whether the ball is new or old to cairns....hed still be able to smack you all over the park.
2) if the new ball didnt work for the first 20 overs we could have still bowled mr negative and frustrated them.

 

[luckyeddie]

how in the world have i been proven wrong??i still stick to my argument that if we had taken the new ball we would have bowled them out for a lot less.

Missed out 'or' - my bad. You appear to be paranoid about being proved wrong or being disagreed with

i think the fact that the NZ bowlers looked more effective when they had the new ball than they did with the old ball is what matters. its amazing how easy everything looked for england once the ball got a little older yesterday didnt it? as far as astle scoring 100 off 75 balls, thats just tripe.....they might just have been all out for 280.

And we will never know - as you yourself have said in this thread when you were carping on (I love that expression - ever seen a carp take a whole slice of bread off the surface of a pond?) at someone else - England's middle order blah blah blah.

1) it doesnt matter whether the ball is new or old to cairns....hed still be able to smack you all over the park.
2) if the new ball didnt work for the first 20 overs we could have still bowled mr negative and frustrated them.

1) Oh, very true.
2) We will never know.

 

[Craig]

Personally I would have taken the new ball, although reading on here, he was basically on a hiding to nothing if it didnt work, and I guess because Harmison picked up a wicket, people (not naming anybody) would have said it worked.

 

[luckyeddie]

Personally I would have taken the new ball, although reading on here, he was basically on a hiding to nothing if it didnt work, and I guess because Harmison picked up a wicket, people (not naming anybody) would have said it worked.

Conventional wisdom is to take the new ball when it is available, always enforce the follow-on, pick an all-seam attack at Headingley and put the opposition in, bowl the ball across left-handers, bounce Steve Waugh etc.

Trescothick took an unconventional approach (probably with more than one eye on saving the game) and through luck or judgment it paid off handsomely with a tremendous victory.

I don't know why people have problems with that (thinks about it). I know why people have problems with that.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Well, that was fun.

Getting out of bed at 3.45am, and getting back into it at 1.30am the next day and spending 10 hours on public transport isn't something that I desperately want to repeat in a hurry, but it were well worth it

I need to get some dinner, and then I have some tutorials this afternoon, but I'll give you a full report later.

I've taken 92 photos in total - a lot are rubbish, but the one I timed the best all day was Hussain cover driving Martin for four to bring up his century. I'll post the competent ones later...

 

[Craig]

Well done Neil.

Doing your job as a mod and SM very well, and then taking heaps of photos for this site

 

[Craig]

Conventional wisdom is to take the new ball when it is available, always enforce the follow-on, pick an all-seam attack at Headingley and put the opposition in, bowl the ball across left-handers, bounce Steve Waugh etc.

Fair point eddie.

Although hypothetically if I were a captain I wouldnt instruct my bowlers to bounce Steve Waugh.

 

[luckyeddie]

Well done Neil.

Doing your job as a mod and SM very well, and then taking heaps of photos for this site

Sado-Masochist?

(thinks about it for a minute)

Oh, yes.

 

[Loony BoB]

Sado-Masochist, Staff Member?

Potayto, Potahto...

 

[Craig]

Sado-Masochist?

(thinks about it for a minute)

Oh, yes.

No Staff member

 

[Craig]

I hope England keep Danish wicket keeper Freddy Kroggic (sp) in the squad when the 12th man is released back into CC.

There is hope for you Samuel Vimes!

 

[garage flower]

I'm just saying that it was too slow for him to become man of the match - his contribution is less valuable than Strauss's was, when they hit almost equal amounts of runs.

And anyway, England were slightly better positioned in the morning - 274 from 90 overs with 10 wickets in hand is definitely very, very chaseable.

At the risk of labouring the point, you were actually saying that Richardson batted too slow to give NZ a chance of winning and we weren't talking about who was in the better position - which is arguable - just that NZ still had a very real chance of winning.

 

[marc71178]

not for the first 25 overs....by which team we could have probably dismissed them all with the new ball.

Or just as likely Cairns / Astle get stuck into it, it flies to all parts, and they've 100+ more runs on the board.

 

[marc71178]

how in the world have i been proven wrong??i still stick to my argument that if we had taken the new ball we would have bowled them out for a lot less.

And you can prove this - we may have got them earlier, but for more runs...

1) it doesnt matter whether the ball is new or old to cairns....hed still be able to smack you all over the park.

As shown by the way he hit us all around in the 2nd Innings when the old ball was bowled to him...

 

[Magrat Garlick]

I hope England keep Danish wicket keeper Freddy Kroggic (sp) in the squad when the 12th man is released back into CC.

There is hope for you Samuel Vimes!

Except that I bat as badly as Neil, field as badly as Ranatunga, run as badly as Inzamam, and bowl as badly as Alester Maregwede.

Think it's Frederik Klokker, btw. Never showed much in the games he's played for Denmark.

 

[tooextracool]

As shown by the way he hit us all around in the 2nd Innings when the old ball was bowled to him...

2 fours in 14 from 20 balls....didnt look in too much trouble at all. mistimed shot of giles was the only mistake that he made and that was just about as likely with the new ball

 

[luckyeddie]

2 fours in 14 from 20 balls....didnt look in too much trouble at all. mistimed shot of giles was the only mistake that he made and that was just about as likely with the new ball

You know, if Marc said he'd seen a black cat, you'd say you'd seen a blacker one, Geoff.

 

[marc71178]

2 fours in 14 from 20 balls....didnt look in too much trouble at all. mistimed shot of giles was the only mistake that he made and that was just about as likely with the new ball

5 points.

1) the first 4 - an outside edge that was about an inch from being caught.
2) the second 4 - an inside edge that flew past leg stump.
3) it's unlikely that he's have played a mistimed shot against Giles with the new ball.
4) if it were anyone but Trescothick who'd made the ploy to use the old ball, you'd be applauding the decision.
5) did you actually sit and watch the whole day's play on Sunday?