England v New Zealand, 1st Test, Lord's, 21-25 May 2015

So, Mukka to lace the Pom bowlers, or Jimmeh to rip the Snoozies a new arsehole? Could be a good last day here.

0-2. That'll do!

Looks like the latter after a 2 for none start by the Sheep.

So it's set fair for Mccullum to come in at 'situation hopeless' and just go bat-shit crazy.

Blaze a ton fifty, get out and set up an interesting end?

Root shells Taylor

Broad gets his revenge and traps Taylor LB.

PeterCS wrote:

Lindsay no.2 wrote:I guess it'll be a draw. I'd love us to win - but my desire for that outcome is tinged by the prospect of victory making Strauss feel so self-righteous and smug as to be even more unbearable than he is now.

Hard to imagine I know.

Personally, I wouldn't begrudge Strauss a crow if he has made some right decisions. He has never struck me as especially profound (sometimes a big understatement), but - Kevgate apart - it seems some decent first steps have been made out of the utter shambles.


But but but England still need a frontline left-arm spinner or leggie from somewhere. And I am so far uncertain if Wood is the answer as Seamer 3 (well, it has only been one innings).



And as for Bell, he should be offered #3 (swap with Ballance) or a swap with someone outside the team.

I would begrudge him that - he hasn't done anything particularly inventive to warrant feeling like a genius. And I don't think he should really be taking any credit for what happens out on the pitch, unless his 'Mr Motivator' speech pre-day one was so awe inspiring as to be up there alongside the likes of that in Henry V.

Got rid of Moores - everyone knew that had to happen. It took too long to happen as it was.

Brought in 2 players that had been picked for the WI touring party but weren't picked by Moores (because he was fearful of his job and wanted to go with so-called trusted players who he hoped would have helped to win the series 2 or 3-nil and therefore maybe save his arse. If the ECB had lied to him and told him his job was safe irrespective of the WI results Moores may have picked them himself).

Binned KP - wow. That was a notional massive decision - but it could also be viewed as a pretty straightforward one. Either way it was done pretty shabbily - and the shitstorm that ensued was partially down to how Strauss handled it.

My major concern would be that if we win (which at the moment appears a good chance) it re-inforces the 'I'm right. Look what happened in the first test of my reign, I'm a legend.' style of thinking.

England have a habit of getting conceited far too quickly - we need to guard against that.

With regard to Wood - early days, but I like what I see.

Left arm spinner/leggie - we can prosper without. We've done so before - so I woudln't say they're a pre-requisite to being a winning team. That said, it'd be nice to know if Rashid has what it takes - but that is not going to happen, well this summer at least.

OMG

Lindsay no.2 wrote:

PeterCS wrote:

Lindsay no.2 wrote:I guess it'll be a draw. I'd love us to win - but my desire for that outcome is tinged by the prospect of victory making Strauss feel so self-righteous and smug as to be even more unbearable than he is now.

Hard to imagine I know.

Personally, I wouldn't begrudge Strauss a crow if he has made some right decisions. He has never struck me as especially profound (sometimes a big understatement), but - Kevgate apart - it seems some decent first steps have been made out of the utter shambles.


But but but England still need a frontline left-arm spinner or leggie from somewhere. And I am so far uncertain if Wood is the answer as Seamer 3 (well, it has only been one innings).



And as for Bell, he should be offered #3 (swap with Ballance) or a swap with someone outside the team.

I would begrudge him that - he hasn't done anything particularly inventive to warrant feeling like a genius. And I don't think he should really be taking any credit for what happens out on the pitch, unless his 'Mr Motivator' speech pre-day one was so awe inspiring as to be up there alongside the likes of that in Henry V.

Got rid of Moores - everyone knew that had to happen. It took too long to happen as it was.

Brought in 2 players that had been picked for the WI touring party but weren't picked by Moores (because he was fearful of his job and wanted to go with so-called trusted players who he hoped would have helped to win the series 2 or 3-nil and therefore maybe save his arse. If the ECB had lied to him and told him his job was safe irrespective of the WI results Moores may have picked them himself).

Binned KP - wow. That was a notional massive decision - but it could also be viewed as a pretty straightforward one. Either way it was done pretty shabbily - and the shitstorm that ensued was partially down to how Strauss handled it.

My major concern would be that if we win (which at the moment appears a good chance) it re-inforces the 'I'm right. Look what happened in the first test of my reign, I'm a legend.' style of thinking.

England have a habit of getting conceited far too quickly - we need to guard against that.

With regard to Wood - early days, but I like what I see.

Left arm spinner/leggie - we can prosper without. We've done so before - so I woudln't say they're a pre-requisite to being a winning team. That said, it'd be nice to know if Rashid has what it takes - but that is not going to happen, well this summer at least.

TBF Strauss has sorted the batting order. barring 2,3 and 4 that is.

So McCullum's let Watling to face the music when in a bit of trouble? Just brilliant...

Mind, I wouldn't trust him against a swinging ball. Then again, wouldn't necessarily Watling either.

oh, England's bowlers decided to show up now

L#2: Did I say Strauss was a genius?

Hmmm, when did England last lose a test from a winning position? Oh,

PeterCS wrote:L#2:  Did I say Strauss was a genius?

No.

To paraphrase you (and correct me if I'm misinterpreting you), you wrote that you wouldn't begrudge him crowing about making some right decisions.

I then tried to make the point that the decisions he has made to date are hardly anything worth crowing about.

And that I would therefore take issue with him crowing about them given that they are what most sane people would regard as being pretty obvious ones.

Such a turnaround, though this often happens when a team digs itself out of a hole and builds a lead heading into the fourth innings. The team in the ascendancy then is placed under pressure batting last.

Benjamin Stokerino is 2 in 2. Top bowling.

The decision to come down the order worked well....

Like I said, McCullum to come in at situation hopeless and blaze 150. I couldn't have got closer if I'd tried.

Mrs Stokes, your boy's done good. Actually enjoying watching England, did't think I'd be saying that first thing Thursday morning.

Anderson still going for the runs....

Things could start to get interesting if Anderson bats for another hour.

Double fark it. 

Anyone know what England were paying after Day 3?

Lindsay no.2 wrote:

PeterCS wrote:L#2:  Did I say Strauss was a genius?

No.

To paraphrase you (and correct me if I'm misinterpreting you), you wrote that you wouldn't begrudge him crowing about making some right decisions.

I then tried to make the point that the decisions he has made to date are hardly anything worth crowing about.

And that I would therefore take issue with him crowing about them given that they are what most sane people would regard as being pretty obvious ones.

Well L#2, that's where we disagree. (You paraphrased fairly verbatim btw ) If, of course, they manage a win.

The term "crow" was partly tongue-in-cheek.

But the main difference I'd see is in the team ethos and unscrambled orientation. (Which is by no means the same as proclaiming happy-clappy families in the camp.)

When not in the ascendant, England have tended - since 2011 - to go backwards, even fold lamentably. Whereas in this match, England have generally progressed - gained in strength - after a very poor start, and adverse couple of days. So: the exact reverse of the usual.

JGK wrote:Double fark it. 

Anyone know what England were paying after Day 3?

Sorry chief, don't know what they were paying - but judging by umpire Ravi's increasingly flaky decisions I'm guessing he's got a stack riding on England at great odds.

PeterCS wrote:

Lindsay no.2 wrote:

PeterCS wrote:L#2:  Did I say Strauss was a genius?

No.

To paraphrase you (and correct me if I'm misinterpreting you), you wrote that you wouldn't begrudge him crowing about making some right decisions.

I then tried to make the point that the decisions he has made to date are hardly anything worth crowing about.

And that I would therefore take issue with him crowing about them given that they are what most sane people would regard as being pretty obvious ones.

Well L#2, that's where we disagree. (You paraphrased fairly verbatim btw ) If, of course, they manage a win.

The term "crow" was partly tongue-in-cheek.

But the main difference I'd see is in the team ethos and unscrambled orientation. (Which is by no means the same as proclaiming happy-clappy families in the camp.)

When not in the ascendant, England have tended - since 2011 - to go backwards, even fold lamentably. Whereas in this match, England have generally progressed - gained in strength - after a very poor start, and adverse couple of days. So: the exact reverse of the usual.

Maybe one day you'll agree with something I write. Maybe not. :-)

I can't recall with accuracy our tendencies re: positions and outcomes in games over the last few years although I suspect you're right that when behind we tend to fold more often than not.

Again, you're quite right that in this match we've seemingly overcome that tendency - but is that as much to do with an oppo whose key players are coming straight in from IPLville or down to our boys having a fresh sense of purpose now that they're free of the Moores murderer? The rest of the summer may well prove instructive.