England v New Zealand ODI series

[Exiled Shrimper]

England didn't bottle it, Swann bottled it.

Wright bowled a fantastic final over and England would have won if Swann had kept his head.

...or indeed, Stuart Broad, who was 'backing up' by racing in towards the stumps where Bell and Pietersen were already well-positioned to claim any throws to hand. It's ODI cricket, you've done well to keep the batsman to a single off of the last over and you sense a chance of a run-out that would win the game. I'm not convinced Gillespie would've been out with a more conservative throw, so Swann did the right thing - he just missed the important element of hitting the stumps. Cricket is a team game, so it doesn't come down to just what happened off of the last ball, but everything that went before it.

 

[Exiled Shrimper]

& you would have bee wasting your breath! It was an accident & Collingwood could, sorry, should have withdrawn his appeal.

Cricket is better than football for sportsmanship & today England did a Ronaldo! I hope Collingwood is suitably embarrassed!

I had more sympathy for New Zealand until SKY showed Brendan McCullum whipping off Muttiah Muralitharan's bails to run out the Sri Lankan in a Test match last winter...as he went down the wicket to congratulate Kumar Sangakkarra on completing a 100 in a total of 170!

Daniel Vettori came across very well in his post-match interview with Michael Atherton, perhaps partly with that in mind. There is a fine line between sportmanship and playing to win at all costs (we all enjoyed Garry Pratt's run-out of Ricky Ponting, didn't we?), and I think that in the heat of the moment, Paul Collingwood made a call that followed most natural human instincts to try and benefit his team. It nearly worked.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

& you would have bee wasting your breath! It was an accident & Collingwood could, sorry, should have withdrawn his appeal.

Cricket is better than football for sportsmanship & today England did a Ronaldo! I hope Collingwood is suitably embarrassed!

Elliott running diagonally ie towards the ball, rather than towards the popping crease wasn't an accident, it was a deliberate ploy.

This has been a deliberate tactic employed by many teams for some time. Batsmen try and get themselves between the ball and the stumps. I think this goes against the spirit of the game, so I have no problem with England claiming the run-out.

The relationship between cricket and sportsmanship/fairplay isn't as clear-cut as commonly believed. WG Grace on being clean bowled reputedly replaced the bails and said "they've come here to see me bat not you umpire". I think England were entitled to claim the run-out, but that means that if a similar incident occurs against you accept it.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

I had more sympathy for New Zealand until SKY showed Brendan McCullum whipping off Muttiah Muralitharan's bails to run out the Sri Lankan in a Test match last winter...as he went down the wicket to congratulate Kumar Sangakkarra on completing a 100 in a total of 170!

Daniel Vettori came across very well in his post-match interview with Michael Atherton, perhaps partly with that in mind. There is a fine line between sportmanship and playing to win at all costs (we all enjoyed Garry Pratt's run-out of Ricky Ponting, didn't we?), and I think that in the heat of the moment, Paul Collingwood made a call that followed most natural human instincts to try and benefit his team. It nearly worked.

Ah, yes. Was just looking for that clip on you-tube to add to that last post. In particular I was trying to find the smug, fat ******* Ian Smith suggesting that they should have recalled him. Obviously the footage must have been edited to remove him extolling fair-play and consistency.

Nothing wrong with Garry Pratt's run-out: Simon Jones was off the field with a series ending - and almost career ending - injury.

 

[Exiled Shrimper]

He's batted at 7/8 for most his ODI career. How many of those innings were above 5 or 6 in the order? I'd say 5 matches tops at a guess.

17 of Ravi's 23 ODI innings have been at numbers 7 and 8. He has batted just 5 times at 3 or 4, where he has batted successfully for Essex, and once at number 6.

Believe me, I've seen enough of Ravi for Essex to know that, with persistence (the like of which we have seen with Ian Bell, for example) he will make an excellent number 4 for England in ODI cricket. He is also adaptable enough to play a number of different types of innings, and he will be very good on the sub-continent with experience. Writing him off after 5 innings in his best position is ridiculous, so I'm with Museshrimper on this one.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

...or indeed, Stuart Broad, who was 'backing up' by racing in towards the stumps where Bell and Pietersen were already well-positioned to claim any throws to hand. It's ODI cricket, you've done well to keep the batsman to a single off of the last over and you sense a chance of a run-out that would win the game. I'm not convinced Gillespie would've been out with a more conservative throw, so Swann did the right thing - he just missed the important element of hitting the stumps. Cricket is a team game, so it doesn't come down to just what happened off of the last ball, but everything that went before it.

I disagree. Throwing the ball to Bell you still have a chance of winning the series and means you definitely can't lose the series. He made a bad choice and then compounded the error with an abysmal throw.

He choked under pressure and should not be given another chance to do so again.

He has form: his fielding as 12th man in Sri Lanka was the most disgraceful I've ever witnessed. It was so bad that England started using Phil mustard, a specialist wicketkeeper with little outfielding experience ahead of the fumbling Swann.

 

[Exiled Shrimper]

Nothing wrong with Garry Pratt's run-out: Simon Jones was off the field with a series ending - and almost career ending - injury.

Very true, but Pratt had regularly been wheeled onto the field during the series as a specialist fielder when our bowlers wanted to go off for a shower and to rest after a long spell. Ponting's outburst just happened to be in the reaction to the one occasion when a substitute was on the field legitimately!

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

17 of Ravi's 23 ODI innings have been at numbers 7 and 8. He has batted just 5 times at 3 or 4, where he has batted successfully for Essex, and once at number 6.

Believe me, I've seen enough of Ravi for Essex to know that, with persistence (the like of which we have seen with Ian Bell, for example) he will make an excellent number 4 for England in ODI cricket. He is also adaptable enough to play a number of different types of innings, and he will be very good on the sub-continent with experience. Writing him off after 5 innings in his best position is ridiculous, so I'm with Museshrimper on this one.

Agreed. Bopara wasn't at his best, but still passed 50 today (hello Ian Bell). I think its legitimate to suggest switching Bopara and Shah in the batting order though.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

Very true, but Pratt had regularly been wheeled onto the field during the series as a specialist fielder when our bowlers wanted to go off for a shower and to rest after a long spell. Ponting's outburst just happened to be in the reaction to the one occasion when a substitute was on the field legitimately!

Making it even more amusing. Ponting's choice of time to go ballistic was as poorly judged as his single!

Personally, I'm relaxed about fast bowlers taking breaks. Cricket benefits from having fast bowlers (a) fit and (b) bowling fast. I'd be more concerned about people abusing substitute fielders when replacing poor/unwilling fielders (hello Inzy.....) with supersub fielders. The likes of Flintoff and Jones were actually decent fielders, so England weren't doing it to upgrade their fielding.

 

[Pubey]

note to kp: that dismissal was a joke - i know that criticising him is usually a no-go, but he gifted a wicket when all we needed was 15mins to calm down

 

[Exiled Shrimper]

I disagree. Throwing the ball to Bell you still have a chance of winning the series and means you definitely can't lose the series*. He made a bad choice and then compounded the error with an abysmal throw.

He choked under pressure and should not be given another chance to do so again.

He has form: his fielding as 12th man in Sri Lanka was the most disgraceful I've ever witnessed. It was so bad that England started using Phil mustard, a specialist wicketkeeper with little outfielding experience ahead of the fumbling Swann.

*If NZ had completed a single to tie the match, then the series would've gone to Lord's 1-1, meaning a NZ win would've won them the series.

I know you don't like bits-and-pieces cricketers, but I think Swann's overall contribution to the side as a specialist spinner who bats well at 8 helps the balance of the England team. I'd love Monty to be able to play ODI cricket for England, but a tail of Sidey, Anderson and Panesar could prove costly in tight situations batting second. It's a completely different situation in Test cricket.

I didn't see any of the SL series, so can't comment on Swann's fielding there, but since when did fielding come into England selectors' priorities - if they did then James Foster and Chris Read would have 200 international appearances between them! ;)

 

[Exiled Shrimper]

Agreed. Bopara wasn't at his best, but still passed 50 today (hello Ian Bell). I think its legitimate to suggest switching Bopara and Shah in the batting order though.

Temporarily perhaps, but in the long-term, England have to be looking at a middle-order that contains Pietersen at 3, Bopara at 4 plus one other. Shah offers more experience at the moment, and has shown to have a calm temperament in edgy situations. At this stage, he's also probably more likely to complete a big ODI hundred.

 

[Exiled Shrimper]

Personally, I'm relaxed about fast bowlers taking breaks. Cricket benefits from having fast bowlers (a) fit and (b) bowling fast. I'd be more concerned about people abusing substitute fielders when replacing poor/unwilling fielders (hello Inzy.....) with supersub fielders. The likes of Flintoff and Jones were actually decent fielders, so England weren't doing it to upgrade their fielding.

The problem in the 2005 Ashes being that Ponting and his Australian team had made themselves the self-appointed guardians of the Spirit of the Game. Ponting thought that he had an agreement with Duncan Fletcher and Michael Vaughan, and he saw England as having abused that.

Personally, the way I see it, the batsmen don't get to go and have a quick break during their innings to freshen up, so why should bowlers? Cricket does benefit from having fit and fast quickies, but if bowlers have been able to do this for 120 years in Test cricket before, why should it be any different in England in 2005? It's not like we were all sweltering on the Indian subcontinent!

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

*If NZ had completed a single to tie the match, then the series would've gone to Lord's 1-1, meaning a NZ win would've won them the series.

I know you don't like bits-and-pieces cricketers, but I think Swann's overall contribution to the side as a specialist spinner who bats well at 8 helps the balance of the England team. I'd love Monty to be able to play ODI cricket for England, but a tail of Sidey, Anderson and Panesar could prove costly in tight situations batting second. It's a completely different situation in Test cricket.

I didn't see any of the SL series, so can't comment on Swann's fielding there, but since when did fielding come into England selectors' priorities - if they did then James Foster and Chris Read would have 200 international appearances between them! ;)

Oops, good point. England would still have had a chance of winning the series.

I'm not sure how much Swann's batting adds. He's had two opportunities to make really meaningful contributions this series*, yet failed to see them home at Bristol and failed to help them see out the others today. Looking back further he did nothing at Edgbaston, Hamilton or Wellington. I'd expect more from a no.8 - Kyle Mills is a no.9 and has outshone him with the bat in both the last two games.

I'd also bat Broad ahead of Swann, despite Broad's limited range of shots.

As a specialist spinner, I don't think he offers enough wicket-taking threat. He'll take occasional wickets when players try and attack him, but he can be milked about too easily.


*As has Ambrose, who seemed a strange choice in the first place, so must be under a bit of pressure.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

The problem in the 2005 Ashes being that Ponting and his Australian team had made themselves the self-appointed guardians of the Spirit of the Game. Ponting thought that he had an agreement with Duncan Fletcher and Michael Vaughan, and he saw England as having abused that.

Personally, the way I see it, the batsmen don't get to go and have a quick break during their innings to freshen up, so why should bowlers? Cricket does benefit from having fit and fast quickies, but if bowlers have been able to do this for 120 years in Test cricket before, why should it be any different in England in 2005? It's not like we were all sweltering on the Indian subcontinent!

Batsman call for new gloves when they want a break, bowlers don't get the chance to do that and if they do slow things down they get fined for slow over-rates! Batsman (or at least English ones) aren't out on the field all day either.

Bowlers haven't always run in quick and then hared around the outfield, that is a relatively new phenomenon, and again one which I believes enhances cricket.

I'm uneasy about donkeys being replaced by specialist fielders, but fast bowlers are something special - approaching an endangered species, and the ICC should be encouraging them (and spinners) as much as possible.

 

[Exiled Shrimper]

Oops, good point. England would still have had a chance of winning the series.

I'm not sure how much Swann's batting adds. He's had two opportunities to make really meaningful contributions this series*, yet failed to see them home at Bristol and failed to help them see out the others today. Looking back further he did nothing at Edgbaston, Hamilton or Wellington. I'd expect more from a no.8 - Kyle Mills is a no.9 and has outshone him with the bat in both the last two games.

I'd also bat Broad ahead of Swann, despite Broad's limited range of shots.

As a specialist spinner, I don't think he offers enough wicket-taking threat. He'll take occasional wickets when players try and attack him, but he can be milked about too easily.


*As has Ambrose, who seemed a strange choice in the first place, so must be under a bit of pressure.

I think you'll struggle to find a specialist spinner who would offer any more threat aside from Monty, who on occasions remains too one-paced himself.

In time, Broad will certainly be a Test and ODI number eight - like his father, Chris, he started out as a batsman at school, and did not start developing his bowling seriously until the age of 15. I read an interview with him in The Times recently that indicated that he felt that he wasn't at risk from burn-out because he didn't take up genuinely fast bowling until a relatively late stage.

As for the wicketkeeping position, that has exasperated me for a long time!

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

I think you'll struggle to find a specialist spinner who would offer any more threat aside from Monty, who on occasions remains too one-paced himself.

In time, Broad will certainly be a Test and ODI number eight - like his father, Chris, he started out as a batsman at school, and did not start developing his bowling seriously until the age of 15. I read an interview with him in The Times recently that indicated that he felt that he wasn't at risk from burn-out because he didn't take up genuinely fast bowling until a relatively late stage.

As for the wicketkeeping position, that has exasperated me for a long time!

There seem to be quite a few young spinners around at the moment. Some like Wainwright at Yorks are real spear-it-in merchants, but I see there are quite a few young leggies around: Rashid at Yorks is the most prominent, but also his team-mate Lawson; Simon Marshall at Lancs who is doing very well this year in limited overs cricket; Will Beer at Sussex; Munday at Somerset.

I'm hoping one of those can really push on and offer a wicket-taking threat during the middle stages when opponents are trying to consolidate and just keep the score ticking over.

I also hope Monty's one-day bowling (as well as his fielding) improves, I think he could be an excellent one-day bowler if he could add guile. Someone like Middlebrook is nowhere near as talented as Monty, but is possibly a better one-day bowler. If Monty adds that with experience, he may yet be the answer to England's prayers, although we may need a Plunkett to replace Sidebottom.

On the wicketkeeping front, Foster is looking a better and better choice for the one-day team. Personally I'd prefer a pinch-hitter - a Mustard or at least Prior's specialist bat, rather than a closer like Foster.

 

[The Big Shrimp]

Elliott running diagonally ie towards the ball, rather than towards the popping crease wasn't an accident, it was a deliberate ploy.

This has been a deliberate tactic employed by many teams for some time. Batsmen try and get themselves between the ball and the stumps. I think this goes against the spirit of the game, so I have no problem with England claiming the run-out.

The relationship between cricket and sportsmanship/fairplay isn't as clear-cut as commonly believed. WG Grace on being clean bowled reputedly replaced the bails and said "they've come here to see me bat not you umpire". I think England were entitled to claim the run-out, but that means that if a similar incident occurs against you accept it.

That argument doesn't hold as he was no where near the other end of the pitch & had little opportunity to run in such a way to get between ball & stumps. Both players were trying to avoid each other & the NZ player had only set off a few paces. If you take the example below of Inzaman's dismissal for obstructing the field, he would have been given out even if he hadn't used his bat.

I should add, that I speak as a qualified cricket umpire!! :p

 

[Exiled Shrimper]

There seem to be quite a few young spinners around at the moment. Some like Wainwright at Yorks are real spear-it-in merchants, but I see there are quite a few young leggies around: Rashid at Yorks is the most prominent, but also his team-mate Lawson; Simon Marshall at Lancs who is doing very well this year in limited overs cricket; Will Beer at Sussex; Munday at Somerset.

I'm hoping one of those can really push on and offer a wicket-taking threat during the middle stages when opponents are trying to consolidate and just keep the score ticking over.

I also hope Monty's one-day bowling (as well as his fielding) improves, I think he could be an excellent one-day bowler if he could add guile. Someone like Middlebrook is nowhere near as talented as Monty, but is possibly a better one-day bowler. If Monty adds that with experience, he may yet be the answer to England's prayers, although we may need a Plunkett to replace Sidebottom.

On the wicketkeeping front, Foster is looking a better and better choice for the one-day team. Personally I'd prefer a pinch-hitter - a Mustard or at least Prior's specialist bat, rather than a closer like Foster.

Rashid's batting, rather than his bowling, is doing the impressing at the moment, but certainly a lot of people rate him highly. Munday also has a lot of pundits expecting big things, but at the moment we're dealing with potential, not the finished article in all the cases quoted above, and if just one or two of those five mentioned push on to challenge Monty, then I'll be delighted.

At the moment, I'd stick with Swann in ODI cricket. As for Middlebrook, I think two years ago he may have been a genuine contender, but he has been less impressive this season, and his batting has often gone off of the boil as well. I'd suggest that his place is under threat at Essex - presumably the only reason he retains it over Grant Flower when we are at full-strength is the fact that we lose money from the ECB when Flower plays.

Foster has proven over the past 18 months that he is becoming more than just a closer in one-day cricket - batting higher and higher up the order and contributing important half-centuries. His keeping is exceptional, and he is simply in a different league to the likes of Ambrose and Mustard. I think with Bell and Wright struggling at the top of the order, you could make a justified claim for Matt Prior to play as a specialist batsman in an opening role.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

That argument doesn't hold as he was no where near the other end of the pitch & had little opportunity to run in such a way to get between ball & stumps. Both players were trying to avoid each other & the NZ player had only set off a few paces. If you take the example below of Inzaman's dismissal for obstructing the field, he would have been given out even if he hadn't used his bat.

I should add, that I speak as a qualified cricket umpire!! :p

Sorry, I meant the running between the ball and the stumps is a cynical ploy widely prevalent in international cricket, rather than this specific example. If batsman try and stretch the rules with such ploys, I think it makes them fair game to run out, if they come a cropper using tactics like this.

Elliott was running towards the ball to make it harder for anyone to execute a run-out, rather than just trying to make it to the other end.

Either batsman is out Obstructing the field if he wilfully obstructs or distracts the opposing side by word or action.