What's new

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
MarkCooper said:
I am very angry with this rain! It is going to prevent England achieving a 2 nill series win.

I would just like to say to any New Zealand people or sheep who may be reading this: I am really sorry about the rain.
Click to expand...
...no worries mate, Pom supporters or the Lambs reading this there will be no where to hide during the Ashes :mc
 
I'll worry about the Ashes later. Michael Clarke has many visits to the beauticians with Shane Warne to get his hair and nails done before I need to worry about that series.
 
Unfortunately Day 4 was arguably the worst example of all of Brendon McCullum's testosterone-drunk captaincy.

New Zealand were 339 ahead at the end of Day 3. England were more likely to travel to the Moon than to score that number of runs to win a Test match.

With rain around, the need for New Zealand was not "more quick runs" because they had more than enough runs already. [MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION], [MENTION=130243]MarkCooper[/MENTION] and myself all made comments to that effect - and we understand Test cricket in England.

The 16 over slog-athon which New Zealand indulged in instead was clearly intended to humiliate and demoralise England - either that or McCullum is ignorant about Test history and thinks that teams chase down 300+ to win Tests in England.

But it resembles one thing in sporting history more than any other. And that is Holland in the 1974 World Cup Final, 1-0 ahead after 2 minutes against West Germany, seeking to humiliate the opposition and in doing so throwing away the victory that they should have had.

And, for that matter, it also resembles the First Test of this series, in which New Zealand three times threw away victory and endeavoured to lose to a team that they had had on the ropes three times in the match.

As it turned out, if New Zealand had declared overnight they would have bowled 31 overs at England on Day 4 rather than 13 overs. Mark Craig would have had a lot more than his one actual over at England, and Day 5 would have been much more winnable if they had not batted on scoring more runs than any team without Bradman has ever scored in the fourth innings at Headingley.
 
If the situation was reversed and it was England who were on top in the game and Cook kept batting until 415 ahead he would have been crucified by everyone including Warne, Sky Sports commies, twitter, fans.
 
Junaids said:
Unfortunately Day 4 was arguably the worst example of all of Brendon McCullum's testosterone-drunk captaincy.

New Zealand were 339 ahead at the end of Day 3. England were more likely to travel to the Moon than to score that number of runs to win a Test match.

With rain around, the need for New Zealand was not "more quick runs" because they had more than enough runs already. [MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION], [MENTION=130243]MarkCooper[/MENTION] and myself all made comments to that effect - and we understand Test cricket in England.

The 16 over slog-athon which New Zealand indulged in instead was clearly intended to humiliate and demoralise England - either that or McCullum is ignorant about Test history and thinks that teams chase down 300+ to win Tests in England.

But it resembles one thing in sporting history more than any other. And that is Holland in the 1974 World Cup Final, 1-0 ahead after 2 minutes against West Germany, seeking to humiliate the opposition and in doing so throwing away the victory that they should have had.

And, for that matter, it also resembles the First Test of this series, in which New Zealand three times threw away victory and endeavoured to lose to a team that they had had on the ropes three times in the match.

As it turned out, if New Zealand had declared overnight they would have bowled 31 overs at England on Day 4 rather than 13 overs. Mark Craig would have had a lot more than his one actual over at England, and Day 5 would have been much more winnable if they had not batted on scoring more runs than any team without Bradman has ever scored in the fourth innings at Headingley.
Click to expand...

The pitch is still good, and despite those 115 more runs, Joe Root still seems to think England are going to win.


Like seriously, this history bit is mostly irrelevant. It depends on two things: 1) Crumbling pitch (Which isn't the case here) and 2) Lack of confidence and self-fulfilling prophecy. I don't think 339 would cause that kind of intimidation at all. I would have thought 450 would, but apparently England think they are going to win this; and honestly, on mental pressure aside I'd expect them to do it 35% of the time or so if the match was unlimited duration; the pitch IS fine and both teams were scoring just fine on it yesterday.
 
MarkCooper said:
If the situation was reversed and it was England who were on top in the game and Cook kept batting until 415 ahead he would have been crucified by everyone including Warne, Sky Sports commies, twitter, fans.
Click to expand...

Your perception is wrong. If England score so quick, within no time, then even England will not be blamed.

The fact is, NZ score so quick that time has not been wasted.
 
Junaids said:
Unfortunately Day 4 was arguably the worst example of all of Brendon McCullum's testosterone-drunk captaincy.

New Zealand were 339 ahead at the end of Day 3. England were more likely to travel to the Moon than to score that number of runs to win a Test match.

With rain around, the need for New Zealand was not "more quick runs" because they had more than enough runs already. [MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION], [MENTION=130243]MarkCooper[/MENTION] and myself all made comments to that effect - and we understand Test cricket in England.

The 16 over slog-athon which New Zealand indulged in instead was clearly intended to humiliate and demoralise England - either that or McCullum is ignorant about Test history and thinks that teams chase down 300+ to win Tests in England.

But it resembles one thing in sporting history more than any other. And that is Holland in the 1974 World Cup Final, 1-0 ahead after 2 minutes against West Germany, seeking to humiliate the opposition and in doing so throwing away the victory that they should have had.

And, for that matter, it also resembles the First Test of this series, in which New Zealand three times threw away victory and endeavoured to lose to a team that they had had on the ropes three times in the match.

As it turned out, if New Zealand had declared overnight they would have bowled 31 overs at England on Day 4 rather than 13 overs. Mark Craig would have had a lot more than his one actual over at England, and Day 5 would have been much more winnable if they had not batted on scoring more runs than any team without Bradman has ever scored in the fourth innings at Headingley.
Click to expand...

U will never spare B McCullum lol! Are u after his life or what? ha ha.. At least he deserves credit (regardless of the result) for the attacking nature he has brought to NZ's Test batting in this series and revolutionized Test batting overall and now they have an edge in this match!
 
CricketAnalyst said:
The pitch is still good, and despite those 115 more runs, Joe Root still seems to think England are going to win.


Like seriously, this history bit is mostly irrelevant. It depends on two things: 1) Crumbling pitch (Which isn't the case here) and 2) Lack of confidence and self-fulfilling prophecy. I don't think 339 would cause that kind of intimidation at all. I would have thought 450 would, but apparently England think they are going to win this; and honestly, on mental pressure aside I'd expect them to do it 35% of the time or so if the match was unlimited duration; the pitch IS fine and both teams were scoring just fine on it yesterday.
Click to expand...

The other factor is if you set a target they can't reach, you can keep the field up looking for wickets because the runs are irrelevant. That tends to be the way modern Test captains operate.
 
I would back Big Mac on his strategy as far as this match is concerned! By outbatting Poms, he has made sure they would not even be thinking about achieving that target. Instead, it's more about surviving the day/match. If NZ could not take those 10 wickets in 100 odd overs, I doubt they would take em in 115.
 
Random Aussie said:
But I can happily tell you NZ>England.
Click to expand...

In what regard though? They look pretty even to me. A couple of good quicks each, a poor spinner each, batting about the same.

96 overs to go for England to win the series.
 
I have seen test match #3 who don't play the cover drive, some that don't play the pull shot and some that don't play the cut shot.

Ballance is the only #3 that doesn't play the forward defense.
 
CricketAnalyst said:
Like seriously, this history bit is mostly irrelevant. It depends on two things: 1) Crumbling pitch (Which isn't the case here) and 2) Lack of confidence and self-fulfilling prophecy. I don't think 339 would cause that kind of intimidation at all. I would have thought 450 would, but apparently England think they are going to win this; and honestly, on mental pressure aside I'd expect them to do it 35% of the time or so if the match was unlimited duration; the pitch IS fine and both teams were scoring just fine on it yesterday.
Click to expand...

I would not. You misunderstand the psychological aspects of test cricket. Nobody except Bradman's Aussies have run down 339 to win here.
 
Cook and Balance should enjoy boring the kiwis to death by dead batting everything!
 
CricketAnalyst said:
The pitch is still good, and despite those 115 more runs, Joe Root still seems to think England are going to win.


Like seriously, this history bit is mostly irrelevant. It depends on two things: 1) Crumbling pitch (Which isn't the case here) and 2) Lack of confidence and self-fulfilling prophecy. I don't think 339 would cause that kind of intimidation at all. I would have thought 450 would, but apparently England think they are going to win this; and honestly, on mental pressure aside I'd expect them to do it 35% of the time or so if the match was unlimited duration; the pitch IS fine and both teams were scoring just fine on it yesterday.
Click to expand...

You do wonder if all these cricketers that have played professionally are just fooling us and this game is actually a piece of cake. 400+ in the fourth innings against a good bowling attack is actually very easy. :mv
 
Oh boy. Two down already. I feel like it's going to come down to the last wicket, with England barely drawing the game. Should be fantastic viewing after I come back from my own game.
 
Robert said:
I would not. You misunderstand the psychological aspects of test cricket. Nobody except Bradman's Aussies have run down 339 to win here.
Click to expand...

Wow. I say "mental pressure aside"; you blithely ignore that qualifier and proceed to critique me for not understanding psychology. Comprehension fail here.

Also, please do note that once that psychological barrier falls (which it hasn't yet) records start tumbling very fast, like they did in ODIs.
 
Bilal7 said:
You do wonder if all these cricketers that have played professionally are just fooling us and this game is actually a piece of cake. 400+ in the fourth innings against a good bowling attack is actually very easy. :mv
Click to expand...
:))

Ballance is in no sort of form at the moment. I expect the cries for KP will restart soon.
 
Bilal7 said:
You do wonder if all these cricketers that have played professionally are just fooling us and this game is actually a piece of cake. 400+ in the fourth innings against a good bowling attack is actually very easy. :mv
Click to expand...

It's no different from 500 in the first innings against the same attack. Earlier pitch deterioration was a huge factor. It isn't anymore.
 
Ian Bell showing again why he is mentally the strongest player in the world.
 
CricketAnalyst said:
Wow. I say "mental pressure aside"; you blithely ignore that qualifier and proceed to critique me for not understanding psychology. Comprehension fail here.

Also, please do note that once that psychological barrier falls (which it hasn't yet) records start tumbling very fast, like they did in ODIs.
Click to expand...

I didn't "critique you". I'm English. I criticised your understanding of test cricket, which you think about in ODI terms.
 
CricketAnalyst said:
It's no different from 500 in the first innings against the same attack. Earlier pitch deterioration was a huge factor. It isn't anymore.
Click to expand...

This

There's the usual psychological pressure if you lose a few quick wickets and are still 300+ runs behind but that's independent of conditions.

Keep wickets in hand, rotate the strike constantly and this target is chase-able.
 
England 62/4 what a collapse...

who needs KP when uve got Ian Bell...
 
CricketAnalyst said:
It's no different from 500 in the first innings against the same attack. Earlier pitch deterioration was a huge factor. It isn't anymore.
Click to expand...

Don't disagree with your premise but it is more subtle than that. There are very few fielding restrictions in Test cricket and much bigger margin for wides.

And more to the point very few captains will set a gettable target these days so unlike LO where you chase runs all the time, Test batters don't have much practice at it.
 
Let the meltdown begin.

Piers Morgan is preparing his vocal chords as we speak, with fingers on his keyboard ready to type the letters 'K' and 'P'.
 
Counter Attack from Stokes is must. Come on Cook, show the world that you are braver Captain then McCullum.
 
Kiwis need Cook out before lunch and then they should be looking to force a win from here.
 
Two Lefties against an off spinner who is making the ball talk. Let's see who wins this battle.
 
leatherface58 said:
Saqlain Craig is spinning quite a web out there.
Click to expand...

Why stop at Saqlain ? :P Craig is rivalling the ATGs.

Andy Zaltzman - STAT ALERT: Last 4 players to score 40+ & take 2+ wickets in both innings in Test v England: Garry Sobers, Kapil Dev, Imran Khan, Mark Craig
 
I am quite glad now that England won the first Test, a drawn series means they keep Cook as captain and probably persist with these guys.
 
Adnan Siddiqui said:
Counter Attack from Stokes is must. Come on Cook, show the world that you are braver Captain then McCullum.
Click to expand...


This is going to be tough for Stokes. All the long-innings men bar one are gone. Root's statement about winning was naive - there was never any chance of it - and he has egg on his face now.
 
4th innings stats are usually a load of rubbish, especially if they are limited to a single ground. How many times do teams get a decent but not impossible run chase in the 4th inning? South Africa have chased 400+ score in 2008 in Perth and would've chased another one if they wanted to a year and a half ago.
 
Random Aussie said:
I am quite glad now that England won the first Test, a drawn series means they keep Cook as captain and probably persist with these guys.
Click to expand...

You'd have to ask who would do better. Jimmy is lacking rhythm or something - I'd like Woakes back to exploit traditional Aussie problems against the moving ball. I'm not sure that anyone would do a better spin job than Moeen, which says a lot about the state of spin bowling in England and Wales unfortunately.
 
Robert said:
You'd have to ask who would do better. Jimmy is lacking rhythm or something - I'd like Woakes back to exploit traditional Aussie problems against the moving ball. I'm not sure that anyone would do a better spin job than Moeen, which says a lot about the state of spin bowling in England and Wales unfortunately.
Click to expand...

I reckon even Moeen Bhai would be a better captain than Cook. He's worse than Flintoff.
 
CricketAnalyst said:
The pitch is still good, and despite those 115 more runs, Joe Root still seems to think England are going to win.


Like seriously, this history bit is mostly irrelevant. It depends on two things: 1) Crumbling pitch (Which isn't the case here) and 2) Lack of confidence and self-fulfilling prophecy. I don't think 339 would cause that kind of intimidation at all. I would have thought 450 would, but apparently England think they are going to win this; and honestly, on mental pressure aside I'd expect them to do it 35% of the time or so if the match was unlimited duration; the pitch IS fine and both teams were scoring just fine on it yesterday.
Click to expand...

My friend, you could get prosecuted under the UK Trade Description Act for using the word "Analyst" with that post! :)

The total number of times in Test matches that a team has scored 450 or more to win is ZERO. In 2,163 Test matches.

Yet you claim a 35% probability of doing so provided that the pitch is fine and the match is of unlimited duration.

Yet the actual probability, from 2,163 matches, is ZERO.

You have very quickly and bravely ruled out the two factors of:

a) Pitch deterioration, and
b) Mental pressure.

But how can you do that?

Firstly, any Day 5 pitch is more tricky than a Day 4 pitch. And this one has big footholes for Mark Craig to bowl into and moderately uneven bounce.

Secondly, all sports involve a certain amount of mental pressure. In the first two innings of a Test you know that you will have a second chance to redeem yourself as a batsman personally. In the third innings you know that your bowlers might come to the rescue. In the fourth innings there is no second chance. It's now or never. Which is why otherwise great players like Tendulkar and even Sehwag were too mentally weak to succeed in the fourth innings.

That "no more second chances" factor plays on a batsman's mind. Does he take risks to try to score the runs to win the match, even though he will be blamed if he gets out? Does he knuckle down like FAF du Plessis and try to save the day and abandon any tilt at victory?

That is why the fourth innings is the ultimate test of a batsman and of a cricketer. Those three factors:

a) the deteriorating pitch,
b) the match situation
c) the "no more second chances" factor

.....put the batting team under a great deal more pressure. That's why almost all skippers who win the toss bat first. Because batting fourth is really difficult.

And to be honest, even the flatter modern pitches haven't made it significantly easier. Think of India in the First Test in Australia last winter. Brave chase. Only 2 wickets down at Tea. They still lost badly.
 
Robert said:
I didn't "critique you". I'm English. I criticised your understanding of test cricket, which you think about in ODI terms.
Click to expand...

Except that doesn't change the fact that you deliberately ignored the qualifier to make a spurious point. Your argumentative ethics seem as suspect as your understanding of cricket. Dodging the real point with semantics is sadly typical of the way 'purists' tend to behave.
 
Random Aussie said:
Paging the good doctor [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION]
Click to expand...

Look, I'm seriously worried.

The opening pair is fine, Joe Root at 5 is fine. For me Stokes is too high at 6, but Buttler at 7, Moeen 8, Broad 9, Wood 10 and Anderson 11 are fine.

But Gary Ballance is out of his depth against good Test bowling attacks and Ian Bell hasn't scored even 60 runs in his last 8 Test innings combined.

Neither one of them deserves to hold his place for the First Test of the Ashes. And even though my team got KP out cheaply a couple of days ago, he would clearly strengthen the team against Australia.

I am tired of Andrew Strauss' personal vendetta being allowed to harm the team. Cook, Root, Bell and even Broad have said that they have not refused to play with KP.
[MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION] might disagree, but the English cricket public is being let down to allow Strauss to pursue a petty personal vendetta.
 
CricketAnalyst said:
Except that doesn't change the fact that you deliberately ignored the qualifier to make a spurious point. Your argumentative ethics seem as suspect as your understanding of cricket. Dodging the real point with semantics is sadly typical of the way 'purists' tend to behave.
Click to expand...

A bit unfair.

Both [MENTION=8418]Random Aussie[/MENTION] and I can probably be described as purists and I think we both agree with you on this point to some extent. On this wicket the conditions are such that whilst it would take a pretty good batting performance (and one that I don't think England would even really try for) a win was possible at the start of the day.

I do wonder if that comes about from the cultural differences between Australian and English cricket.
 
Junaids said:
My friend, you could get prosecuted under the UK Trade Description Act for using the word "Analyst" with that post! :)

The total number of times in Test matches that a team has scored 450 or more to win is ZERO. In 2,163 Test matches.

Yet you claim a 35% probability of doing so provided that the pitch is fine and the match is of unlimited duration.

Yet the actual probability, from 2,163 matches, is ZERO.

You have very quickly and bravely ruled out the two factors of:

a) Pitch deterioration, and
b) Mental pressure.

But how can you do that?

Firstly, any Day 5 pitch is more tricky than a Day 4 pitch. And this one has big footholes for Mark Craig to bowl into and moderately uneven bounce.

Secondly, all sports involve a certain amount of mental pressure. In the first two innings of a Test you know that you will have a second chance to redeem yourself as a batsman personally. In the third innings you know that your bowlers might come to the rescue. In the fourth innings there is no second chance. It's now or never. Which is why otherwise great players like Tendulkar and even Sehwag were too mentally weak to succeed in the fourth innings.

That "no more second chances" factor plays on a batsman's mind. Does he take risks to try to score the runs to win the match, even though he will be blamed if he gets out? Does he knuckle down like FAF du Plessis and try to save the day and abandon any tilt at victory?

That is why the fourth innings is the ultimate test of a batsman and of a cricketer. Those three factors:

a) the deteriorating pitch,
b) the match situation
c) the "no more second chances" factor

.....put the batting team under a great deal more pressure. That's why almost all skippers who win the toss bat first. Because batting fourth is really difficult.

And to be honest, even the flatter modern pitches haven't made it significantly easier. Think of India in the First Test in Australia last winter. Brave chase. Only 2 wickets down at Tea. They still lost badly.
Click to expand...

Rightly said, it was poor captaincy. McCullum remained aggressive at times it was not required at all and when he was needed to be aggressive, he didn't.
 
Junaids said:
My friend, you could get prosecuted under the UK Trade Description Act for using the word "Analyst" with that post! :)

The total number of times in Test matches that a team has scored 450 or more to win is ZERO. In 2,163 Test matches.

Yet you claim a 35% probability of doing so provided that the pitch is fine and the match is of unlimited duration.

Yet the actual probability, from 2,163 matches, is ZERO.

You have very quickly and bravely ruled out the two factors of:

a) Pitch deterioration, and
b) Mental pressure.

But how can you do that?

Firstly, any Day 5 pitch is more tricky than a Day 4 pitch. And this one has big footholes for Mark Craig to bowl into and moderately uneven bounce.

Secondly, all sports involve a certain amount of mental pressure. In the first two innings of a Test you know that you will have a second chance to redeem yourself as a batsman personally. In the third innings you know that your bowlers might come to the rescue. In the fourth innings there is no second chance. It's now or never. Which is why otherwise great players like Tendulkar and even Sehwag were too mentally weak to succeed in the fourth innings.

That "no more second chances" factor plays on a batsman's mind. Does he take risks to try to score the runs to win the match, even though he will be blamed if he gets out? Does he knuckle down like FAF du Plessis and try to save the day and abandon any tilt at victory?

That is why the fourth innings is the ultimate test of a batsman and of a cricketer. Those three factors:

a) the deteriorating pitch,
b) the match situation
c) the "no more second chances" factor

.....put the batting team under a great deal more pressure. That's why almost all skippers who win the toss bat first. Because batting fourth is really difficult.

And to be honest, even the flatter modern pitches haven't made it significantly easier. Think of India in the First Test in Australia last winter. Brave chase. Only 2 wickets down at Tea. They still lost badly.
Click to expand...

You're also misreading my post; though I suspect it wasn't deliberate. I said MENTAL PRESSURE ASIDE; which means if you eliminate mental pressure, then I expect 450 to happen 30% of the time on this particular pitch which IS a good one.

I don't understand why you're hung up on nomenclature and milestones like 5th day pitch, 4th innings etc rather than the actual physical composition of the soil particles on which the game is being played. Things like "4th innings and 5th day pitch" are proxy for good bowling conditions in your terminology; but those are based on conditions that no longer exist. The pitch doesn't magically become bad the moment Mccullum declares. They were belting it around then, and only 35 overs have been played since.

The 450 vs 339 is huge because England are being bundled out because they are playing negatively (according to the situation as per you).

Please distinguish between fundamentals- things that are physically true and abstract stuff- pressure, convention and fear. The main difficulties you are outlining outside of the pitch (WHICH ISN'T DETEREORATING FOR THE GAZILLIONTH TIME) are just in the players head. In sports just like in other discipline, people are like lemmings because in a professional context failing conventionally is looked upon more favourably than winning unconventionally (Your analysis of this match is proof of that). Once the trend changes though and people realize that pitches are actually different and stats from the past don't have any bearing, things will change drastically.

Your use of data of 2,163 matches is like the people who used this sort of data to claim that no one could run a 4 minute mile.

I'm not underestimating the effect of a psychological barrier; I'm just saying the stats themselves convey nothing, because if teams start trying to win these situations, they will.
 
Bell's international career is finished. Its been nearly two years since he's done anything of note.
 
Kiwis are the most interesting test team in a long long time,hopefully they do well here.
 
Ian Bell seems to be missing when needed. Safe to say KP being missed here.
 
CricketAnalyst said:
You're also misreading my post; though I suspect it wasn't deliberate. I said MENTAL PRESSURE ASIDE; which means if you eliminate mental pressure, then I expect 450 to happen 30% of the time on this particular pitch which IS a good one.

I don't understand why you're hung up on nomenclature and milestones like 5th day pitch, 4th innings etc rather than the actual physical composition of the soil particles on which the game is being played. Things like "4th innings and 5th day pitch" are proxy for good bowling conditions in your terminology; but those are based on conditions that no longer exist. The pitch doesn't magically become bad the moment Mccullum declares. They were belting it around then, and only 35 overs have been played since.

The 450 vs 339 is huge because England are being bundled out because they are playing negatively (according to the situation as per you).

Please distinguish between fundamentals- things that are physically true and abstract stuff- pressure, convention and fear. The main difficulties you are outlining outside of the pitch (WHICH ISN'T DETEREORATING FOR THE GAZILLIONTH TIME) are just in the players head. In sports just like in other discipline, people are like lemmings because in a professional context failing conventionally is looked upon more favourably than winning unconventionally (Your analysis of this match is proof of that). Once the trend changes though and people realize that pitches are actually different and stats from the past don't have any bearing, things will change drastically.

Your use of data of 2,163 matches is like the people who used this sort of data to claim that no one could run a 4 minute mile.

I'm not underestimating the effect of a psychological barrier; I'm just saying the stats themselves convey nothing, because if teams start trying to win these situations, they will.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, in spite of our new amicable relationship I still strongly disagree with this.

May I ask if you've been watching the TV coverage? Because if you have, you will have seen the pitch map for where England bowled on Day 4 when New Zealand were scoring those runs. We were bowling absolute tripe. The line and length were all over the place. It didn't matter what the pitch was doing, because 1 ball - yes, 1 ball - all morning was going to hit the stumps, and everything outside off-stump was too short to create a slip chance.

So we can extrapolate nothing really about how the pitch was playing "well" on Day 4.

But did you see the comparison of uneven bounce after Watling was out? Two balls pitched in the same place at the same pace, but one lifted far more than the other which shot through. That was stark evidence of a deteriorating wicket.

Pitches haven't changed as much as you think on Days 3-5. The difference is that they are less green on Day 1 and, by extension, the imperative to bat first is even greater than it used to be, as the perils of batting fourth now outweigh the perils of batting first even more than they used to.

Before you make silly statements about soil particles, just look at the footmarks. Have you ever tried bowling spin (or batting against it) into the footmarks? The ball behaves differently. It's geometry, not geology.

And England are not getting out because they are trying to survive. They would have lost far more wickets if they had played unnecessary shots outside off-stump to try to accelerate. Alastair Cook is playing wonderfully again and isn't any more at risk because he isn't trying to score fast.
 
Daniel Vettori could have brought this match and thread to a faster end.
 
[MENTION=135134]CricketAnalyst[/MENTION]

There's no need to use CAPS to make your point.
 
Junaids said:
I'm sorry, in spite of our new amicable relationship I still strongly disagree with this.

May I ask if you've been watching the TV coverage? Because if you have, you will have seen the pitch map for where England bowled on Day 4 when New Zealand were scoring those runs. We were bowling absolute tripe. The line and length were all over the place. It didn't matter what the pitch was doing, because 1 ball - yes, 1 ball - all morning was going to hit the stumps, and everything outside off-stump was too short to create a slip chance.

So we can extrapolate nothing really about how the pitch was playing "well" on Day 4.

But did you see the comparison of uneven bounce after Watling was out? Two balls pitched in the same place at the same pace, but one lifted far more than the other which shot through. That was stark evidence of a deteriorating wicket.

Pitches haven't changed as much as you think on Days 3-5. The difference is that they are less green on Day 1 and, by extension, the imperative to bat first is even greater than it used to be, as the perils of batting fourth now outweigh the perils of batting first even more than they used to.

Before you make silly statements about soil particles, just look at the footmarks. Have you ever tried bowling spin (or batting against it) into the footmarks? The ball behaves differently. It's geometry, not geology.

And England are not getting out because they are trying to survive. They would have lost far more wickets if they had played unnecessary shots outside off-stump to try to accelerate. Alastair Cook is playing wonderfully again and isn't any more at risk because he isn't trying to score fast.
Click to expand...

England were pressured into bowling that tripe because the NZ tail was slogging them. NZ are free to bowl where they like because they have the cushion of a very large score (and because England won't think out of box and try to score fast to push the field out). There is a little bit of uneven bounce, but there was some even on earlier days; I don't think there's any evidence that batting is impossible.

Also, my point was deeper than this particular pitch. My point was that this methodology is wrong. Even if you were playing on a docile, flat road your stats would still say the exact same thing, but the reality would be different. I think the extra 115 runs is a massive issue because playing for only two possible results tends to cause the defending side to makes sub-optimal decisions.
 
Random Aussie said:
[MENTION=135134]CricketAnalyst[/MENTION]

There's no need to use CAPS to make your point.
Click to expand...

I agree, but I've taken to doing so because of the sheer number of occasions where people have (on some occasions deliberately) ignored part of my comments to make a strawman point that I've already addressed. It gets really frustrating. Try arguing my side of the issue for a week and you'll see what I mean.
 
Have to give Craig immense credit.

Was awful in the first test, but he's been outstanding in this test. NZ badly need a decent spinner too, he looks like he could fit the bill.
 
Meanwhile, England could not achieve the initial target of knocking off the runs within 35 overs, so the revised target is to get those runs with 35 overs remaining...
:srt
 
CricketAnalyst said:
England were pressured into bowling that tripe because the NZ tail was slogging them. NZ are free to bowl where they like because they have the cushion of a very large score (and because England won't think out of box and try to score fast to push the field out). There is a little bit of uneven bounce, but there was some even on earlier days; I don't think there's any evidence that batting is impossible.

Also, my point was deeper than this particular pitch. My point was that this methodology is wrong. Even if you were playing on a docile, flat road your stats would still say the exact same thing, but the reality would be different. I think the extra 115 runs is a massive issue because playing for only two possible results tends to cause the defending side to makes sub-optimal decisions.
Click to expand...

But there were already only two possible results when New Zealand closed at 338-6 on Day 3. NZ could win or it would be a draw. Bangladesh had as much chance of winning this Test as England - and they are not even playing.

I don't think that you grasp the difference between ODI and Test pitches. I really don't. In ODIs you get served up a flat track totally shaved of grass. But this track has not just had 320 overs of use, it has had 46 overs bowled by a left-armer over the wicket from one end, and the footmarks there are hugely significant.

You can no more score 338 to win batting fourth on this wicket than you can score 900 in the first innings of an ODI. If you listened to the "Tuffers and Vaughan" show last night - and it's downloadable on Test Match Special - Joe Root's pal Michael Vaughan laughed outright at his suggestion that England would go for the runs. It was an obvious effort to sound upbeat by Root which bore no resemblance to reality.

So the difference between 339 or 445 to win was non-existent. Neither was remotely possible. The only problem was that Brendon McCullum - whose mind, like yours, I think is wrongly influenced by a different form of the game in different conditions - gave away 18 overs of bowling at England, and he still might find that if the rain returns his excessive defensiveness with the late declaration cost the team dear.

You write a lot about "positive" and "negative" cricket. I will tell you this - any Test fan will tell you that inflating a target from 339 to 455 is an act of extremely defensive cricket!

McCullum has applied faulty ODI logic out of context to Test cricket for two matches now. He has over-attacked when he should have contained, and he has gone negative and defensive with a late declaration which has jeopardised his chances of winning unnecessarily.

116 unnecessary extra runs in 16 overs is purely and simply negative, domestic cricket. Those of us from western countries aren't impressed by boundaries and sixes if they are part of such a defensive and negative decision to bat on too long.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

The Bald Eagle
  • Locked
England vs India | 1st Test | Headingley | June 20-24 | Pre-Match Discussion
2
Replies
80
Views
2K
Rajdeep
R
The Bald Eagle
England (465 & 373/5) cruise to a comfortable 5-wicket win over India (471 & 364) in the opening Test of the series
27 28 29
Replies
2K
Views
26K
hks222
H
BouncerGuy
  • Locked
England vs India | 2nd Test | Edgbaston | July 02-06 | Pre-Match Discussion
2
Replies
152
Views
3K
mominsaigol
mominsaigol
Bhaijaan
New Zealand cricket team's remarkable rise since 2015
Replies
75
Views
1K
harshjoshi87
harshjoshi87
Cricket Warrior
New Zealand (259 & 255) beat India (156 & 245) convincingly in the 2nd Test by 113 runs to seal a 3-Test series victory (2-0) with one match remaining
10 11 12
Replies
955
Views
15K
sweep_shot
sweep_shot
Back
Top