England vs New Zealand | 2nd Test | Leeds | May 29-Jun 2, 2015

[Neferpitou]

[MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] Did I not say McCullum will adjust?

 

[Justcrazy]

Lead now 288 runs

 

[leatherface58]

Two WK were batting , one gets out another walks in. Kiwis have three genuine Keepers in playing XI

Make that 4.

Even Latham can keep.

 

[Neferpitou]

Why were people complaining about these pitches? Both pitches offered enough for both sides. People keep on referring to the past, they also need to understand the quality of bowlers has dwindled massively compared to the 80s and 90s where nearly every team had an ATG and bunch of greats. It's slowly recovering but this past decade has been the weakest era of test cricket in 50 years.

 

[Space Cat]

Two WK were batting , one gets out another walks in. Kiwis have three genuine Keepers in playing XI

4 actually if you count McCullum.

 

[Abdullah719]

Two WK were batting , one gets out another walks in. Kiwis have three genuine Keepers in playing XI

Latham, Baz, Ronchi, Watling, all pretty decent WKs.

Watling is a really good batsman, has already played some clutch innings in tough situations for NZ.

 

[Space Cat]

It is in Englands best interest to get Ronchi out soon here. He will not muck around.

 

[London_Lahori]

lol imo mid 40 averages are very respectable

Two of them we're in the 30's and one was 40.

 

[Space Cat]

I don't think bowling short balls at the Western Australian is the greatest strategy.

 

[Justcrazy]

Root back again.

 

[Space Cat]

Two of them we're in the 30's and one was 40.

John Wright can be forgiven. Averaging late 30s opening the batting in NZ during that period is excellent. Not only the pitches but the quality of bowlers going around.

 

[Justcrazy]

Can Poms get another one here.

 

[Space Cat]

Anderson gets Ronchi. Acts like he just won the world cup.

 

[Space Cat]

England need to get through NZ tail as fast as they can but its one of the better tails going around. Mark Craig averages 36.

 

[Justcrazy]

Anderson strikes

 

[Neferpitou]

Mark should be confident after his bowling effort.

 

[Space Cat]

That was some leave by Craig lmao. About 3 atoms away from off stump.

 

[Space Cat]

NZ will want 400 here. Still can't trust Craig to do the business in 4th innings so will want a decent bite with a second new ball if it comes to that.

 

[Justcrazy]

New Zealand lead by 323 runs with 4 wickets remaining

 

[Justcrazy]

5 overs left , kiwis need to bat it out

 

[Neferpitou]

Damn Watling, what a shot! Beautiful cover drive.

 

[Space Cat]

Early signs of erratic bounce in the pitch. Getting a bit dry.

 

[CricketAnalyst]

Why were people complaining about these pitches? Both pitches offered enough for both sides. People keep on referring to the past, they also need to understand the quality of bowlers has dwindled massively compared to the 80s and 90s where nearly every team had an ATG and bunch of greats. It's slowly recovering but this past decade has been the weakest era of test cricket in 50 years.

This is so utterly wrong it's not funny. Modern day cricketers would utterly destroy teams from past generations. It wouldn't even be a contest. Provide pitches like they had in the past and modern bowlers like Steyn, Mitch etc would look like gods. In every single professional sport, standards have improved exponentially in the last 30 years.

It's just difficult for guys like you to understand that when two weak sides play against each other, someone will always look strong; that was amateur era cricket when players would be drinking and spending nights in casinos during a match and then turn up and hope it works; they didn't practice as much, had no fielding skill, used primitive tactics. As such you can glorify it all you like, but those guys wouldn't last a minute in modern cricket.

 

[Justcrazy]

Watling needs to survive here.

 

[Space Cat]

This is so utterly wrong it's not funny. Modern day cricketers would utterly destroy teams from past generations. It wouldn't even be a contest. Provide pitches like they had in the past and modern bowlers like Steyn, Mitch etc would look like gods. In every single professional sport, standards have improved exponentially in the last 30 years.

It's just difficult for guys like you to understand that when two weak sides play against each other, someone will always look strong; that was amateur era cricket when players would be drinking and spending nights in casinos during a match and then turn up and hope it works; they didn't practice as much, had no fielding skill, used primitive tactics. As such you can glorify it all you like, but those guys wouldn't last a minute in modern cricket.

Well if these guys in the past were in the current era they would have the same increased standards and vice versa? or are we using a time machine?

 

[Space Cat]

sensational century by Watling.

 

[Neferpitou]

This is so utterly wrong it's not funny. Modern day cricketers would utterly destroy teams from past generations. It wouldn't even be a contest. Provide pitches like they had in the past and modern bowlers like Steyn, Mitch etc would look like gods. In every single professional sport, standards have improved exponentially in the last 30 years.

It's just difficult for guys like you to understand that when two weak sides play against each other, someone will always look strong; that was amateur era cricket when players would be drinking and spending nights in casinos during a match and then turn up and hope it works; they didn't practice as much, had no fielding skill, used primitive tactics. As such you can glorify it all you like, but those guys wouldn't last a minute in modern cricket.

Lillee, Thompson, Holding, Garner, Roberts, Marshall, Ambrose, Walsh, Imran, Wasim, Waqar, Hadlee wouldn't last in modern day cricket. hahaha now I've heard it all. You do realize that if those guys played in the modern era they'd go under the same training as modern cricketers. Perhaps 50 years was pushing it but the quality of cricketers is definitely not the same as 80s, 90s and early 2000s.

Don't act like some know it all old saint. This happens in every sport, great eras of sportsmen are usually followed by some bleak ones.

 

[Justcrazy]

watling , awesome innings

 

[Neferpitou]

Wonderful century from Watling, exactly how cricket should be played on a pitch that's not easy to bat on and he's made it look easy.

 

[Space Cat]

Pace Bowling really hasn't progressed a great deal since the 80s.

Batting has came a long way however.

 

[Justcrazy]

New Zealand lead by 338 runs with 4 wickets remaining

 

[London_Lahori]

John Wright can be forgiven. Averaging late 30s opening the batting in NZ during that period is excellent. Not only the pitches but the quality of bowlers going around.

True, always felt Fleming slightly underachieved tbh.

 

[Space Cat]

New ball coming 5 overs into tomorrow. If England can't finish things fairly quickly with that new nut then they are in big trouble. Craig could easily notch another 50 and the tail is good for a few boundaries.

 

[Neferpitou]

Pace Bowling really hasn't progressed a great deal since the 80s.

Batting has came a long way however.

It's went the opposite way in fact. In 80-90s, there were a plethora of genuine fast bowlers, now there are like two. We've all seen what happens in Johnson when a genuine pacer is in full flow. No modern day batting innovation will help you negotiate a 90 mph bouncer or a toe crushing yorker. The fact is there just aren't many quality bowlers around.

 

[Space Cat]

True, always felt Fleming slightly underachieved tbh.

Definitely. Had the natural talent to average 45+ plus. I seen him live smash Murali and Warne all over the place for a 50 ball 100 in a charity match.

Had an issue getting big scores and a weakness against left armers.

He was an excellent captain. I always wondered how he would of fared with the bat if he wasn't skipper for a decade. Played a few good knocks after he handed reigns to Vettori.

 

[Space Cat]

It's went the opposite way in fact. In 80-90s, there were a plethora of genuine fast bowlers, now there are like two. We've all seen what happens in Johnson when a genuine pacer is in full flow. No modern day batting innovation will help you negotiate a 90 mph bouncer or a toe crushing yorker. The fact is there just aren't many quality bowlers around.

Not much ball tampering around ether these days. That was a big part in any bowlers arsenal during that period whether they will admit it or not.

 

[Space Cat]

It its 6:30am on a monday here. Thank goodness its a public holiday or i would be calling in sick.

 

[Buffet]

Not much ball tampering around ether these days. That was a big part in any bowlers arsenal during that period whether they will admit it or not.

Many have admitted it and anyway Pringle proved it to leave no doubt.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/259676.html

 

[Buffet]

NZ needs to take this beyond reach. Bat for another 15-20 overs with 400-450 lead.

 

[Neferpitou]

Not much ball tampering around ether these days. That was a big part in any bowlers arsenal during that period whether they will admit it or not.

Ball tampering whether it be bottlecaps or seam lifting was necessary sometimes to create chances due to lack of intent which is not the case anymore.

 

[Neferpitou]

Many have admitted it and anyway Pringle proved it to leave no doubt.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/259676.html

It's funny how you never post articles of seam lifting "Mr I am not biased."

 

[Chrish]

Ball tempering has played major role in success of 90s bowlers. That's why I have doubted the greatness of Imran and Waqar.. Wasim was skillful enough that he would have survived without tempering.. Same can't be said about the other two..

 

[Space Cat]

Still all excellent bowlers but we might of seen a few more matches like we see nowdays where even the best bowlers get a pasting.

 

[Space Cat]

Looking from an England point of view i think they have the makings of a very good team here but still have a few holes especially with the spin bowling. Its a great luxery having Moeen coming in at 8 but is his spin bowling up to scratch? sure he has a knack of picking up wickets at times but im not convinced hes a full time spinner.

 

[Neferpitou]

Ball tempering has played major role in success of 90s bowlers. That's why I have doubted the greatness of Imran and Waqar.. Wasim was skillful enough that he would have survived without tempering.. Same can't be said about the other two..

Exactly why Imran averaged 20 in World Series Cricket played in Australia.

 

[Chrish]

Exactly why Imran averaged 20 in World Series Cricket played in Australia.

Imran himself has admitted he tempered with the ball..

 

[London_Lahori]

Definitely. Had the natural talent to average 45+ plus. I seen him live smash Murali and Warne all over the place for a 50 ball 100 in a charity match.

Had an issue getting big scores and a weakness against left armers.

He was an excellent captain. I always wondered how he would of fared with the bat if he wasn't skipper for a decade. Played a few good knocks after he handed reigns to Vettori.

His innings that I recall the most was the match winning knock against SA in the 03 World Cup. Timing the ball so effortlessly that day.

 

[Neferpitou]

Imran himself has admitted he tempered with the ball..

He also admitted that players from other countries tampered.

 

[Space Cat]

His innings that I recall the most was the match winning knock against SA in the 03 World Cup. Timing the ball so effortlessly that day.

Yep probably the best knock of his career. Chased down 300 to knock the saffers out of their own world cup. First installment in our trilogy of world cup misery for the poor saffers.

 

[Chrish]

He also admitted that players from other countries tampered.

There is no way to know who did and who didn't. Pakistani bowlers were pioneers of reverse swing which required altering the ball with bottle caps and change the shine and shape.

 

[Neferpitou]

There is no way to know who did and who didn't. Pakistani bowlers were pioneers of reverse swing which required altering the ball with bottle caps and change the shine and shape.

Then stop finger pointing like a crybaby. Pakistanis still reverse the ball without bottle caps. Don't gimme that bs.

You talk as if Imran and Waqar couldn't swing the new ball. Some seriously stupid assumptions.

Anyways I don't wanna derail this thread. Post in another thread if you want to discuss this.

 

[Chrish]

Then stop finger pointing like a crybaby. Pakistanis still reverse the ball without bottle caps. Don't gimme that bs.

You talk as if Imran and Waqar couldn't swing the new ball. Some seriously stupid assumptions.

Anyways I don't wanna derail this thread. Post in another thread if you want to discuss this.

Nope! They didn't..

 

[shaz619]

[MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] must be crying in a dark corner somewhere; how dare this Test be entertaining! damn these IPL loving scoundrels from New Zealand; their style of play is an insult to Test Cricket!

 

[Random Aussie]

Good day for NZ.

 

[Junaids]

This is so utterly wrong it's not funny. Modern day cricketers would utterly destroy teams from past generations. It wouldn't even be a contest. Provide pitches like they had in the past and modern bowlers like Steyn, Mitch etc would look like gods. In every single professional sport, standards have improved exponentially in the last 30 years.

It's just difficult for guys like you to understand that when two weak sides play against each other, someone will always look strong; that was amateur era cricket when players would be drinking and spending nights in casinos during a match and then turn up and hope it works; they didn't practice as much, had no fielding skill, used primitive tactics. As such you can glorify it all you like, but those guys wouldn't last a minute in modern cricket.

Actually, wrong on pretty much every count.

The only improvements in modern sport are due to better fitness and diet. That helps in some sports, but even then, if you take the case of the womens 100m and 200m sprint, you see that people cannot approach Flo-Jo's drug-fuelled records. Diet, drugs and gym training just improve fitness and endurance, not actual ability at ball games.

But if you gave the 1974 Netherlands soccer team the fitness levels of the modern team the game would be a complete mismatch, because the older ones were far better at football.

Cricket is no different. Modern cricketers could beat old cricketers in ODIs or T20s on dead wickets. But there is no batting line-up in Test cricket with more than 2 players who have the technique and judgment to leave the ball outside off-stump. No modern Test team would stand a chance of reaching even 200 in an innings against the West indies bowling attacks of 1976-1992.

The same is true in football. "The game has moved on" but modern defenders while fitter than their predecessors:

1) Can't defend and
2) Aren't allowed to kick opponents with impunity.

Lionel Messi has had a career which resembles Diego Maradona's. But he wouldn't last 20 minutes against Claudio Gentile or the Butcher of Bilbao. He has had a career in an era in which defenders aren't allowed to tackle. His record is basically one of devalued football inflation, which is why at three World Cups he has yet to make an impact at the business end of the tournament and why his Golden Ball for the 2014 World Cup was so offensive when people like James Rodriguez, Kaylor Navas and Manuel Neuer had performed so much better than him.

And by the way, almost all of the cricketers of days gone by were hardened pros who had spent their entire childhoods practising at cricket. In the case of a bowler like Fred Trueman, he bowled far more deliveries than any modern cricketer and had a body hardened for the task by mining. In the case of Bradman, how many balls did he hit at home to hone his hand-eye coordination long before he debuted?

You have heard tales of Keith Miller's carousing and assume that all old cricketers were plucky amateurs. They weren't.

It's why the supposed "one hundred hundreds" of Sachin Tendulkar were so universally derided outside Asia. Lots of batsmen have reached or approached the true milestone of one hundred hundreds in First Class cricket with slip cordons in place.

 

[Junaids]

[MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] must be crying in a dark corner somewhere; how dare this Test be entertaining! damn these IPL loving scoundrels from New Zealand; their style of play is an insult to Test Cricket!

No my friend, not at all.

I love positive cricket. I just hate suicidal Test cricket.

McCullum nearly got out twice in his first three balls but then he batted really sensibly. Like Ross Taylor he scored quite quickly but without risking his wicket.

55 from 98 balls was perfect, a captain's innings. He scored 55 out of 140 runs in 26.3 overs. It's a quick Test innings, but it hurt England far more than the slogged scores in his earlier innings, which put together didn't last this long.

I'm disappointed that my country is behind, but delighted that the opposition - who we know are better than us when they play properly - are finally playing proper cricket. I just hope that we use the second new ball well.

Lastly, don't be misled by Mark Wood's 3-64. He has done just what Waqar did in the West Indies in 1992-93. Short fast bowler gets wickets but lets the other team get away by scoring too fast. Carrying him and Moeen and Stokes in a Test attack is not good.

 

[shaz619]

No my friend, not at all.

I love positive cricket. I just hate suicidal Test cricket.

McCullum nearly got out twice in his first three balls but then he batted really sensibly. Like Ross Taylor he scored quite quickly but without risking his wicket.

55 from 98 balls was perfect, a captain's innings. He scored 55 out of 140 runs in 26.3 overs. It's a quick Test innings, but it hurt England far more than the slogged scores in his earlier innings, which put together didn't last this long.

I'm disappointed that my country is behind, but delighted that the opposition - who we know are better than us when they play properly - are finally playing proper cricket. I just hope that we use the second new ball well.

Lastly, don't be misled by Mark Wood's 3-64. He has done just what Waqar did in the West Indies in 1992-93. Short fast bowler gets wickets but lets the other team get away by scoring too fast. Carrying him and Moeen and Stokes in a Test attack is not good.

lol had he made same amount of runs off 20 balls you'd have criticised him, so it makes no sense where you're coming from.

Mark Wood is a good prospect, he completes the attack. Got the ball to reverse today, Eng need to invest in him.

Agreed, Mo is deadweight at this point; stokes has the potential to be a descent batting A/R with the ability to turn the game on its head every now and then.

All results are possible at this point in the test match, this is what you call cricket at its best. NZ have played a brand of cricket which appeals to all types of fans.

 

[Chrish]

Lionel Messi has had a career which resembles Diego Maradona's. But he wouldn't last 20 minutes against Claudio Gentile or the Butcher of Bilbao. He has had a career in an era in which defenders aren't allowed to tackle. His record is basically one of devalued football inflation

Now I have heard it all..

 

[James]

Great performance from New Zealand in this match. England have been completely outplayed and are now extremely likely losers.

 

[shaz619]

Great performance from New Zealand in this match. England have been completely outplayed and are now extremely likely losers.

It's not over yet, still two days to play.

 

[Pantani]

Actually, wrong on pretty much every count.

The only improvements in modern sport are due to better fitness and diet. That helps in some sports, but even then, if you take the case of the womens 100m and 200m sprint, you see that people cannot approach Flo-Jo's drug-fuelled records. Diet, drugs and gym training just improve fitness and endurance, not actual ability at ball games.

But if you gave the 1974 Netherlands soccer team the fitness levels of the modern team the game would be a complete mismatch, because the older ones were far better at football.

Cricket is no different. Modern cricketers could beat old cricketers in ODIs or T20s on dead wickets. But there is no batting line-up in Test cricket with more than 2 players who have the technique and judgment to leave the ball outside off-stump. No modern Test team would stand a chance of reaching even 200 in an innings against the West indies bowling attacks of 1976-1992.

The same is true in football. "The game has moved on" but modern defenders while fitter than their predecessors:

1) Can't defend and
2) Aren't allowed to kick opponents with impunity.

Lionel Messi has had a career which resembles Diego Maradona's. But he wouldn't last 20 minutes against Claudio Gentile or the Butcher of Bilbao. He has had a career in an era in which defenders aren't allowed to tackle. His record is basically one of devalued football inflation, which is why at three World Cups he has yet to make an impact at the business end of the tournament and why his Golden Ball for the 2014 World Cup was so offensive when people like James Rodriguez, Kaylor Navas and Manuel Neuer had performed so much better than him.

And by the way, almost all of the cricketers of days gone by were hardened pros who had spent their entire childhoods practising at cricket. In the case of a bowler like Fred Trueman, he bowled far more deliveries than any modern cricketer and had a body hardened for the task by mining. In the case of Bradman, how many balls did he hit at home to hone his hand-eye coordination long before he debuted?

You have heard tales of Keith Miller's carousing and assume that all old cricketers were plucky amateurs. They weren't.

It's why the supposed "one hundred hundreds" of Sachin Tendulkar were so universally derided outside Asia. Lots of batsmen have reached or approached the true milestone of one hundred hundreds in First Class cricket with slip cordons in place.

I agree, with respect to cricket, at least. The big innovation modern athletes have that pre-90s athletes didn't is blood doping. That's why they are faster, fitter, stronger etc. But blood doping, aside from fast bowlers, has little use in cricket. If you are a batsman you will spend most of the five days standing at slip, at the crease, or in the pavilion. It's not the most physically demanding sport. Ergo it makes little sense that modern cricketers are by default superior to their predecessors because athletes in other sports are superior to their predecessors.

 

[Pantani]

It's not over yet, still two days to play.

If New Zealand aren't bowled out before lunch their victory is almost certainly assured. They will have set a target of over 400 and England can't chase that. A day and two sessions would also most likely be enough to knock them over, too.

 

[Junaids]

Now I have heard it all..

Don't you talk to anyone aged over 40 who watched both Maradona and Messi?

Football has changed. In part because of the injuries suffered by Maradona and Van Basten due to brutal tackling.

So FIFA introduced yellow cards for virtually any mistimed tackle, let alone brutal one. The outcome was that defenders know that they can only commit one foul per match. Tackling has been virtually abolished.

The consequences have been far-reaching. Compare the bodies of Maradona and Messi. Messi is optimised to run twice as far in 90 minutes, but without the acceleration which Maradona's upper body strength gave him.

This works for around 50 games per season, but means that at both the 2010 and 2014 World Cup and 2011 Copa America Messi has arrived worn out after playing a ludicrous 60+ matches for Barcelona. And unlike Maradona, he hasn't got the upper body strength to explode past defenders once he steps up from Nigeria/Bosnia/Iran to Switzerland/Belgium/Germany.

Lionel Messi is an ATG, not in the class of di Stefano/Maradona/Pele but in the class of Zidane/Platini/Cruyff/Puskas/Beckenbauer.

But the very weaknesses in his game which make him a serial failure at the last 3 major tournaments he has played are the very deficits which would have made him inferior to Maradona if he had had to play against defenders under the old rules.

Just think of what Portugal and Hungary did to Pele at Old Trafford and Goodison Park in 1966. Look it up on YouTube. How on earth would Messi handle that?

 

[leatherface58]

Great performance from New Zealand in this match. England have been completely outplayed and are now extremely likely losers.

The same thing was said at Lord's.

Unless....you are trying a reverse-jinx, ye sneaky gent.

 

[Junaids]

Great performance from New Zealand in this match. England have been completely outplayed and are now extremely likely losers.

They are a superb team when they play properly, like they did on days 2 and 3. Probably as good as Australia and South Africa.

That said, England are already into the tail and the new ball arrives in 5 overs. But 339 would already be the highest non-Bradman 4th innings score to win at Headingley.

I'm hoping that we DON'T take quick wickets, that NZ bat on too long and that the rain saves us.

There are currently 180 overs left in the match. If NZ bat until lunch that leaves 150 overs, and hopefully rain can reduce that to 100 overs to survive to draw the match! We certainly can't win.

 

[Robert]

I'm hoping that we DON'T take quick wickets, that NZ bat on too long and that the rain saves us.

There are currently 180 overs left in the match. If NZ bat until lunch that leaves 150 overs, and hopefully rain can reduce that to 100 overs to survive to draw the match! We certainly can't win.

Another last-wicket stand in the offing? England are the masters at that.

 

[Random Aussie]

This one is over barring rain. NZ have enough.

 

[Robert]

This one is over barring rain. NZ have enough.

It will be interesting to see when McCullum declares. He should do it now. Batting on from here is merely cutting into NZ's time to bowl England out.

 

[Zeshan547]

What if stole play another gem and come out all guns blazing and do a NZ Vs Nz? In cricke, life and love anything can happen.

 

[Zeshan547]

*Sorry i meant stoke

 

[CricketAnalyst]

Lillee, Thompson, Holding, Garner, Roberts, Marshall, Ambrose, Walsh, Imran, Wasim, Waqar, Hadlee wouldn't last in modern day cricket. hahaha now I've heard it all. You do realize that if those guys played in the modern era they'd go under the same training as modern cricketers. Perhaps 50 years was pushing it but the quality of cricketers is definitely not the same as 80s, 90s and early 2000s.

Don't act like some know it all old saint. This happens in every sport, great eras of sportsmen are usually followed by some bleak ones.

Not really. People just constantly over-rate their childhood heroes and assess people by the standards of the opposition they play against; not objectively.

I had the documentary on during one of the lunch breaks; it was about "Botham's Ashes" at one point Botham said "Dilley took a great catch at Third Man" when I saw the catch I cringed; he had to move all of five yards to take a routine catch at comfortable height and to be honest if someone shelled that in the IPL today we would have people screaming about how awful IPL standards are.


"They'd undergo modern training" is a WHOLE DIFFERENT ISSUE. The fact is they just weren't as good. Maybe they would have been if they were trained the modern way; but I am 100% confident that this England side or NZL side would smash the WI sides of old; as long as modern equipment was allowed (for both sides). I fully acknowledge that modern-day sides would probably melt down if they were asked to face fast-bowling without helmets because it's a fear they've never encountered in their lives, but in terms of actual cricketing skill, those hours and hours more of training, modern science, added discipline has a very real impact.

It's a bit like me saying "If I practiced 12 hrs a day like Sachin" WELL I DIDN'T! And nor did these guys have the pro approach of today or the modern knowledge; that's why they aren't as good.

 

[CricketAnalyst]

They are a superb team when they play properly, like they did on days 2 and 3. Probably as good as Australia and South Africa.

That said, England are already into the tail and the new ball arrives in 5 overs. But 339 would already be the highest non-Bradman 4th innings score to win at Headingley.

I'm hoping that we DON'T take quick wickets, that NZ bat on too long and that the rain saves us.

There are currently 180 overs left in the match. If NZ bat until lunch that leaves 150 overs, and hopefully rain can reduce that to 100 overs to survive to draw the match! We certainly can't win.

Given the way NewZealand have approached this match, this is far more unlikely to happen then England chasing 350. Mccullum simply won't bat till lunch; I just don't see any appreciable possibility of him doing that given how much emphasis they have placed on speeding things up.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

This one is over barring rain. NZ have enough.

NZ's bowling has not really shown the ability to run through England's lineup. Southee has been generally below par. And Mark Craig might just start gifting boundary balls again. NZ should bat as long as possible as thre's still plenty of time left in this match

 

[CricketAnalyst]

Don't you talk to anyone aged over 40 who watched both Maradona and Messi?

Football has changed. In part because of the injuries suffered by Maradona and Van Basten due to brutal tackling.

So FIFA introduced yellow cards for virtually any mistimed tackle, let alone brutal one. The outcome was that defenders know that they can only commit one foul per match. Tackling has been virtually abolished.

The consequences have been far-reaching. Compare the bodies of Maradona and Messi. Messi is optimised to run twice as far in 90 minutes, but without the acceleration which Maradona's upper body strength gave him.

This works for around 50 games per season, but means that at both the 2010 and 2014 World Cup and 2011 Copa America Messi has arrived worn out after playing a ludicrous 60+ matches for Barcelona. And unlike Maradona, he hasn't got the upper body strength to explode past defenders once he steps up from Nigeria/Bosnia/Iran to Switzerland/Belgium/Germany.

Lionel Messi is an ATG, not in the class of di Stefano/Maradona/Pele but in the class of Zidane/Platini/Cruyff/Puskas/Beckenbauer.

But the very weaknesses in his game which make him a serial failure at the last 3 major tournaments he has played are the very deficits which would have made him inferior to Maradona if he had had to play against defenders under the old rules.

Just think of what Portugal and Hungary did to Pele at Old Trafford and Goodison Park in 1966. Look it up on YouTube. How on earth would Messi handle that?

With the specific example of Maradona and Messi I agree 100%.

Maradona was objectively much faster than Messi, much stronger and had equal or superior control.

The fact is that rule-changes like what Junaids mentioned as well as things like banning backpasses to GK in modern football have heavily favoured attacking styles in general and on the ground passing in particular.

Tiki-taka came about because rule changes suddenly made it much tougher to handle little guys who were pinging it around because things that were not fouls earlier, were now getting yellow cards.

This is an objective change that was counter-balanced by improved defensive organization; meaning that if current defensive organization levels were reached in 1970, goals would be vanishingly rare. If Jose Mourinho managed Leeds in 1970; they would probably have won every single title, and single-handedly been responsible for a whole raft of rules changes because of how absolutely unwatchable the game would have become.

By the way [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION], Ronaldo is in a different class to Messi; I think Ronaldo could and would have handled it; not least by giving it back (which was also tolerated). When Pele broke a guy's nose in response to constant foul tackling; he wasn't even booked for it. I'm still not sure that using old rules is a good benchmark for football skill, simply because those rules sometimes amounted to legalized on-field hooliganism and thuggery. I have no doubt Messi can't handle people battering the hell out of him; but I'm not sure that's a great metric for assessing a footballer anyway and I think the rules change was correcting an obvious flaw rather than a subjective call about favouring attacking.

 

[Junaids]

Brilliant posts CricketAnalyst! Great stuff!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[CricketAnalyst]

Brilliant posts CricketAnalyst! Great stuff!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks!

 

[Junaids]

Not really. People just constantly over-rate their childhood heroes and assess people by the standards of the opposition they play against; not objectively.

I had the documentary on during one of the lunch breaks; it was about "Botham's Ashes" at one point Botham said "Dilley took a great catch at Third Man" when I saw the catch I cringed; he had to move all of five yards to take a routine catch at comfortable height and to be honest if someone shelled that in the IPL today we would have people screaming about how awful IPL standards are.


"They'd undergo modern training" is a WHOLE DIFFERENT ISSUE. The fact is they just weren't as good. Maybe they would have been if they were trained the modern way; but I am 100% confident that this England side or NZL side would smash the WI sides of old; as long as modern equipment was allowed (for both sides). I fully acknowledge that modern-day sides would probably melt down if they were asked to face fast-bowling without helmets because it's a fear they've never encountered in their lives, but in terms of actual cricketing skill, those hours and hours more of training, modern science, added discipline has a very real impact.

It's a bit like me saying "If I practiced 12 hrs a day like Sachin" WELL I DIDN'T! And nor did these guys have the pro approach of today or the modern knowledge; that's why they aren't as good.

This is probably where the "amateur oldies" part of your theory falls down.

The West Indies lost 5-1 to Australia in intimidating conditions in 1975-76, then thrashed a feeble Indian team and England, who also were not great.

But after Kerry Packer gave them a dressing down and assigned Dennis Waight to them they became an incredible cricket killing machine.

They had practised their cricket skills for at least as long as any modern cricketer. But they also spent as much time getting fit as any modern cricketer. I don't know why you think that they were amateurs who just turned up and played a bit of calypso cricket. They were dedicated and hard-working analysts.

PS, I agree with you about Cristiano Ronaldo. He isn't as gifted as Messi but he trains harder and would have been a superstar in any era.

 

[Random Aussie]

NZ's bowling has not really shown the ability to run through England's lineup. Southee has been generally below par. And Mark Craig might just start gifting boundary balls again. NZ should bat as long as possible as thre's still plenty of time left in this match

Only one team has ever scored more than 340 to win here in the forth, and that was 70 years ago with the greatest batsman of all time scoring half the runs and being not out at the end.

 

[Sherlock]

NZ well ahead of this game and even a total of 360-80 will be too much for England in these overcast conditions today.

They'll have to bat their utmost to win. One fortunate thing and it may just help England too is NZ have scored so quick that England have enough time to bat.

 

[Sherlock]

With the specific example of Maradona and Messi I agree 100%.

Maradona was objectively much faster than Messi, much stronger and had equal or superior control.

The fact is that rule-changes like what Junaids mentioned as well as things like banning backpasses to GK in modern football have heavily favoured attacking styles in general and on the ground passing in particular.

Tiki-taka came about because rule changes suddenly made it much tougher to handle little guys who were pinging it around because things that were not fouls earlier, were now getting yellow cards.

This is an objective change that was counter-balanced by improved defensive organization; meaning that if current defensive organization levels were reached in 1970, goals would be vanishingly rare. If Jose Mourinho managed Leeds in 1970; they would probably have won every single title, and single-handedly been responsible for a whole raft of rules changes because of how absolutely unwatchable the game would have become.

By the way [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION], Ronaldo is in a different class to Messi; I think Ronaldo could and would have handled it; not least by giving it back (which was also tolerated). When Pele broke a guy's nose in response to constant foul tackling; he wasn't even booked for it. I'm still not sure that using old rules is a good benchmark for football skill, simply because those rules sometimes amounted to legalized on-field hooliganism and thuggery. I have no doubt Messi can't handle people battering the hell out of him; but I'm not sure that's a great metric for assessing a footballer anyway and I think the rules change was correcting an obvious flaw rather than a subjective call about favouring attacking.

Absolutely agree, great post....but what has that got to do with this thread?!