New Zealand v England, 2nd Test, Christchurch, 30 March - 3 April, 2018

Reading the commentary Sodhi seemed to ride his luck with plenty flying over and through the slips.

Still, well done him and the tail to save the game and win the series for NZ.

Good effort from the Snoozers (and the light). We lost this series in the first session, effectively.

A stat that tells the story of this winter for England:
Broad and Anderson 47 wickets @ 29.82
All other bowlers 34 wickets @ 72.85

I didn't realise it was NZ's first win over England since 1999. I was living in England that summer and recall that the ball dominated that series.

What kind of bullshit was that? Joe Root nailed on for a hat trick and the umpires stop the match. If I were the ECB I'd be asking for an enquiry.

JGK wrote:I didn't realise it was NZ's first win over England since 1999.  I was living in England that summer and recall that terrible batting dominated that series.

FTFY

Wood shouldn't be anywhere near the England team.
Picked for his pace, he barely showed it.
Stick with Curran as the third quick.
Leach is a good find to replace the irreplaceable Rashid.

Pretty fifties don't cut it ...
Cook is now a spent force, (though I think he might just be given one last English summer against the Bannies).
Bell-Drummond could be a future opener.
Stick with Vince and Malan.

Merlin wrote:Wood shouldn't be anywhere near the England team.
Picked for his pace, he barely showed it.

Without his runs, though, you'd have lost this game on day 1.

lardbucket wrote:

Merlin wrote:Wood shouldn't be anywhere near the England team.
Picked for his pace, he barely showed it.

Without his runs, though, you'd have lost this game on day 1.

True.
However, had he been quicker and more accurate, who knows, he might have knocked over a few more Kiwi wickets cheaply!

Merlin wrote:Pretty fifties don't cut it ...



Stick with Vince

Sums up the confusion around English cricket right now

To be fair, it’s usually pretty 20s and 30s with Vince. Perhaps they do cut it...

Anyway I think with this and the Yarpies’ convincing win, the Snoozers are now world number 3. Probably at least equals their highest ever ranking?

beamer wrote:Good effort from the Snoozers (and the light). We lost this series in the first session, effectively.

A stat that tells the story of this winter for England:
Broad and Anderson 47 wickets @ 29.82
All other bowlers 34 wickets @ 72.85

Yet there are still people (not on here, I'll grant ) saying that it's essential that we find two new decent quick bowlers ...

... because they are past it, too old and should be dropped.

Presumably these arse clowns are quite happy with our change bowlers, we need to replace our "approaching 1,000 wickets" pair as a matter of urgency.

We need to think about where we’ll be after next summer’s Ashes when they probably retire (apart from “10th in the rankings”). It’s not about replacing them now, it’s succession planning.

Well done to the kiwis today for showing the fight that we couldn't muster.

beamer wrote:We need to think about where we’ll be after next summer’s Ashes when they probably retire (apart from “10th in the rankings”). It’s not about replacing them now, it’s succession planning.

Indeed, my worry isn't their form, it's what the fark we are going to do when they are gone.

vilkrang wrote:

beamer wrote:We need to think about where we’ll be after next summer’s Ashes when they probably retire (apart from “10th in the rankings”). It’s not about replacing them now, it’s succession planning.

Indeed, my worry isn't their form, it's what the fark we are going to do when they are gone.

Fully agree lads.

The point is though, what we're really looking for is a **new pair of opening bowlers**, and we should have them already.

With all but 100 caps between 'em, any two from Stokes, Woakes and Finn should be natural successors, but they're barely doing what you want as change bowlers.

We're not going to find one, let alone two who're even close to JA/SB quality - the closest are already in the squad. Although in fairness, it has to be said that Curran, Ball and Overton have hardly had the leeway afforded to the batsmen (Balance & Vince, to name two) to prove themselves. It was ever thus though ..... batsman throws his wicker away to a pieman, gets more chances. Bowler gets carted by a quality top order and gets forgotten about.

That was a weird day.

The NZ top order seemed to be under no huge pressure, on a pretty even track, but kept giving England the softest of softie wickets. They owe Sodhi and Wagner a huge night out tonight.

Those two managed to face over 40 overs worth of our 'best' and handled a lot of short pitched stuff without crapping the bed. If only our top order could have mustered similar resolve in the face of their similarly paced attack's bumper barrage.

It was ever thus though ..... batsman throws his wicket away to a pieman, gets more chances. Bowler gets carted by a quality top order and gets forgotten about.

Martin Bicknell

Yup - 2 matches v AB's Australia including Slater, Taylor, Boon, Waughs x2 and Healy. 4 wickets @65, then waited 10 years for 2 matches v Graeme Smiths SA, where he took 10 @ 28 ... never to win another cap.

I'll cover your Bicknell stake and raise you ...

Ryan Sidearse. Played 1 Test v Pak, bowled 20 overs returning 0/64, not selected again for a full 6 years, after which in 21 Tests he took 79 wickets at a respectable 28.

Surely it is time England unearthed sons of Fraser (Mac jnr} and Piggsy Piglet) as opposed to to the Feral Pif.

Growler wrote:Yup - 2 matches v AB's Australia including Slater, Taylor, Boon, Waughs x2 and Healy. 4 wickets @65, then waited 10 years for 2 matches v Graeme Smiths SA, where he took 10 @ 28 ... never to win another cap.

I'll cover your Bicknell stake and raise you ...

Ryan Sidearse. Played 1 Test v Pak, bowled 20 overs returning 0/64, not selected again for a full 6 years, after which in 21 Tests he took 79 wickets at a respectable 28.

He was clear leader of the attack for a year or so as well, as Hoggard, Harmison and an injury prone Flintoff faded from the scene and Anderson and Broad were yet to fully establish themselves.

In a way it makes sense that batsmen get longer than bowlers to prove their worth, as two mistakes and the batsman’s part in the game is over, but a bowler can churn out crap for a day and a half in full view of everyone. Some have been hung out to dry on pitches that don’t suit against tough opposition, but then there are performances that just say “thanks, but no thanks”. Whereas even a batsman who gets a king pair on debut can’t have proved beyond doubt in two balls that he’s not up to it. Also some bowlers are selected with a particular pitch in mind, and if that doesn’t work they’re unlikely to show up again. But it does also seem like it’s easier to scapegoat bowlers for a poor overall performance, and selectors find it difficult to pull the trigger on batting changes.

So .... I wouldn't say New Zealand's batsmen deserved to save the match (& series). A number of loose shots on the last day might have thrown it away. Stout defence from the second half of the order, but with quite a lot of assistance ...

But if NZ's bats hardly deserved to save the series, England in the last two days certainly didn't deserve to square it. First Root and Malan go into dazed mode when they should have set an example by pressing on - and then they got out.

But worse, on Day 5, the return of the tedious Baldrick-meets-Mr-Bean variant of Bodyline (see above). Wood told to bowl 90% of his deliveries to a speculative legside field. I mean - how unpredictable was that.

If England dawdled with the bat in the middle of their innings, they dawdled worse with the ball and in the field on Day 5. Too much humdrum Wood (yes, he eventually got two wickets, but the first was even that rarity, not a short ball) ate up time. And then the long field deliberations and shamblings. By the time Root went to the other extreme and tried to get into the G B of Records with a couple of overs in a minute or less, the opportunities set up at the start of the day had been prodigally dissipated.

And Stoneman shelling catches at the start of both Sodhi's and de Grandhomme's innings, of the unfortunate Leach.

As if winning was an option to be carefully considered, before passing on.

Poor strategy, poor urgency. It's not just personnel that need a rethink with the England Test team.

Bayliss should surely be stood down from Test duties, and asked to concentrate on white ball stuff. He doesn't seem to infuse the team with anything but cluelessness.

The one area England do have some fair choice is among openers. Rory Burns, Nick Browne, Bell-Drummond and - most obviously - Hameed need monitoring as a matter of urgency now. If Stoneman can't shake himself and get some technique together when deciding to hook, pull or leave, he's lost his chip.

New Zealand look reasonable. At least at home.

They’re now world number 3. That’s some achievement on their resources.

England now sit roughly equal distance, in points terms, from India at the top and WI/Bangladesh at the (effectively) bottom. Surely we’re underdogs this summer, even allowing for Kohli and co’s frailty against swing bowling? It may be down to the English weather, if we hit a warm/dry spell for that series it will play into India’s hands.

Latham has been correctly pilloried for feasting on weaker teams and failing against half decent opposition. His key knocks in this series shows nothing has changed.

horace wrote:Latham has been correctly pilloried for feasting on weaker teams and failing against half decent opposition. His key knocks in this series shows nothing has changed.

Which is par for the course really. Good Test openers are like rocking horse shit these days. It’s a combination of strong new ball pairs and lack of old fashioned patience and technique in the longer game.

I suspect the way it’s going, opening batsmen in most cases will either become semi-pinch hitters, or just players who can average 30 or so and take the shine off the new ball, while having another string to their bow (i.e. bowling, keeping, exceptional fielding, or captaincy) with the real specialist batsmen starting at 3.

beamer wrote:

horace wrote:Latham has been correctly pilloried for feasting on weaker teams and failing against half decent opposition. His key knocks in this series shows nothing has changed.

Which is par for the course really. Good Test openers are like rocking horse shit these days. It’s a combination of strong new ball pairs and lack of old fashioned patience and technique in the longer game.

I suspect the way it’s going, opening batsmen in most cases will either become semi-pinch hitters, or just players who can average 30 or so and take the shine off the new ball, while having another string to their bow (i.e. bowling, keeping, exceptional fielding, or captaincy) with the real specialist batsmen starting at 3.

Or good with the sandpaper.