Test series vs New Zealand

[Exiled Shrimper]

Vettori out for 35, to Cook's sixth catch of the match (and anyone who has seen him field for Essex, let alone England will realise that his fielding transformation has been amazing) to give Sidebottom another wicket.

The NZ innings will soon be at a close, and their quick runs this 'morning' will make the task all the harder for England. If they aren't all out soon, the job might just be too much for England, so perversely it's probably in their favour to be get out quickly!

 

[Up the Shrimpers]

Just declared 300 to win

 

[Exiled Shrimper]

Just declared 300 to win

300 to win from a minimum of 81 overs at 3.7 runs per over. On a regular Test pitch, you'd back England, especially with the likes of Vaughan, Pietersen and potentially Ambrose all capable of firecracker innings. It could be a cracking finish, but a lot will depend on the pitch, which seems OK for a fifth day wicket, but is very much on the slow side.

 

[Grayson]

24-2, the openers gone. Not good.

 

[Grayson]

30-4. Mills taken them all. What crap.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

NZ 173-9 Widebottom 6-46, ten wickets in the match a super effort.

Super figures, although I maintain that his bowling hasn't been anything special (unlike the catching).

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

30-4. Mills taken them all. What crap.

One of the more depressing sessions as an England fan. There was no need to be 4 wickets down, although credit is due to Vettori who first of all batted well and secondly regained the momentum by declaring rather than letting England bowl NZ out.

 

[sufcintheprem]

Hmmm. Just got in to see the highlights. Credit to the bowlers in that the wickets came from quality seam bowling. 2 from 50 for Collingwood? Did someone steal the day two pitch??

Don't even know why I'm bothering to watch. 50ish overs and three wickets to win (or three hundred runs). Only plus from today seems to be Bell's resilience. Him and Collingwood seem to have improved a lot of our results.

 

[sufcintheprem]

Right screw you England, I've seen my Hoggard boundary and I'm going to bed.

Harmison to get out before me? Could happen!

 

[BrettieAngell]

Hmmm 110 all out!

Embarrasing!

 

[Pubey]

complete joke.

 

[Exiled Shrimper]

One of the more depressing sessions as an England fan. There was no need to be 4 wickets down, although credit is due to Vettori who first of all batted well and secondly regained the momentum by declaring rather than letting England bowl NZ out.

Spot on. The quick runs and declaration on the fifth morning was a carrot for England's top order, as if to say that the pitch is OK, you've got a chance to win it. Then came the stick - Cook and Vaughan may have smacked 19 off the first two overs, but most of those runs were streaky, and it wasn't too much surprise that we capitulated early on.

Had Vettori plodded on in the morning, waited for NZ to be all out and set England 290 from 70 overs, they wouldn't have even countenanced the idea of chasing that total in the time left, and I've no doubt that the likes of Cook and Strauss would've ensured that NZ didn't have a sniff.

Stephen Fleming's thoughts after the fourth day's play were interesting - he said that NZ were the only side the world that would've been so enterprising at the end of the fourth day to have left all four results open (win, defeat, draw or tie).

Your first train of thought suggests that he was trying to put a gloss on an astonishing collapse from his team-mates, and that a side like Australia would be brave enough to do it. But Australia's ploy in recent years has been to back their two premier bowlers (McGrath and Warne) to completely obliterate a batting line-up once the possibility of a win has been erased (see Adelaide last winter as a decent reference point). It will be interesting to see how they change now that they have both retired.

As for England, Harmison has to be dropped for the Second Test, which gets underway on Wednesday night, but after that changes are bound to be at a premium - there simply aren't too many options open to Peter Moores and Michael Vaughan. Which all seems pretty depressing at the moment!

 

[Ailsa Road Shrimper]

A terrible performance by England. Are we returning to the dark days of the 1990's and early 00's? At least in those days, although we were losing regularly we were up against strong teams such as Australia, West Indies, South Africa and Pakistan. At least in the beat 90's we beat India at home, we won in 2001 in Sri Lanka against a stronger Sri Lankan side and we regularly beat New Zealand apart from in 1999. Perhaps our current team is as bad as the one in 1999 which was knocked out of the world cup early and lost a home series to New Zealand.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

A terrible performance by England. Are we returning to the dark days of the 1990's and early 00's? At least in those days, although we were losing regularly we were up against strong teams such as Australia, West Indies, South Africa and Pakistan. At least in the beat 90's we beat India at home, we won in 2001 in Sri Lanka against a stronger Sri Lankan side and we regularly beat New Zealand apart from in 1999. Perhaps our current team is as bad as the one in 1999 which was knocked out of the world cup early and lost a home series to New Zealand.

It was a stronger NZ side we lost to in 1999. Cairns was a class act, and I think that was the one series Dion Nash stayed fit for.

Someone pointed out that Fletcher also lost his last series in Sri Lanka, failed to beat India at home and New Zealand away, but I can't help thinking that England have gone backwards since firing Sir Duncan Fletcher. At least when England lost or drew those series under Fletcher we had young cricketers who were learning and improving.

There seems to be a complete lack of direction in the England camp at the moment. I'm concerned by Whittaker being asked to delay his return longer, I want Moores to be strong and not afraid of making decisions.

 

[Pubey]

It was a stronger NZ side we lost to in 1999. Cairns was a class act, and I think that was the one series Dion Nash stayed fit for.

Someone pointed out that Fletcher also lost his last series in Sri Lanka, failed to beat India at home and New Zealand away, but I can't help thinking that England have gone backwards since firing Sir Duncan Fletcher. At least when England lost or drew those series under Fletcher we had young cricketers who were learning and improving.

There seems to be a complete lack of direction in the England camp at the moment. I'm concerned by Whittaker being asked to delay his return longer, I want Moores to be strong and not afraid of making decisions.

agreed.. quite simply you should learn from losing and learn from your mistakes... i don't see us doing either at the moment

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

agreed.. quite simply you should learn from losing and learn from your mistakes... i don't see us doing either at the moment

Of our team, 7 have played 30 or more test matches, a further two (Panesar and Cook) will pass the 30 test match mark early this summer and Sidebottom first played international cricket 7 years ago and is the wrong side of 30.

Tim Ambrose may have a steep learning curve, but the others surely have no such excuse. I'm sure you never stop learning, but the others' room for improvement must be limited. If you can't perform after 30 test matches, when will they start to perform?

 

[Pubey]

Of our team, 7 have played 30 or more test matches, a further two (Panesar and Cook) will pass the 30 test match mark early this summer and Sidebottom first played international cricket 7 years ago and is the wrong side of 30.

Tim Ambrose may have a steep learning curve, but the others surely have no such excuse. I'm sure you never stop learning, but the others' room for improvement must be limited. If you can't perform after 30 test matches, when will they start to perform?

i was more referring to the management, coaching and selectors. picking some youngsters may not have changed the result, but at least it would have given them a chance to learn and gain experience. I love Harmison but as someone mentioned, 2004 looks more and more like a fluke and we need to look beyond him now... our selection policy doesn't seem to me to look like it's progressing. it's a learning process for everyone involved but there seems to be a lot of panic before each ODI and test, and the selection seems to reflect this

i agree with your point though... but I would argue that Pietersen suddenly showed that he has developed the ability to protect his wicket, grind out some sessions and give bowlers something to really think about.

 

[canveyshrimper]

Of our team, 7 have played 30 or more test matches, a further two (Panesar and Cook) will pass the 30 test match mark early this summer and Sidebottom first played international cricket 7 years ago and is the wrong side of 30.

Tim Ambrose may have a steep learning curve, but the others surely have no such excuse. I'm sure you never stop learning, but the others' room for improvement must be limited. If you can't perform after 30 test matches, when will they start to perform?

Apart from Ambrose & Sidebottom, and I suppose a vastly improved ground fielding display England just can't take any positives from their performance in Hamilton.

I've been a huge advocate of Vaughan as skipper, but I wonder because of the split captaincy if he has "lost" the team.

Harmison was woefully under prepared and I wonder how much longer England can keep up with his under par performances. IMO time for Broad to play, and also Shah for Strauss, he has been on the periphery of the team for long enough and deserves a run in the side.

I hope England have learned a valuable lesson and bounce back in Wellington, but I have my doubts. With all due respect to Mills, Martin & Oram, that is a fairly innocuous attack.

 

[C C Csiders]

Apart from Ambrose & Sidebottom, and I suppose a vastly improved ground fielding display England just can't take any positives from their performance in Hamilton.

I've been a huge advocate of Vaughan as skipper, but I wonder because of the split captaincy if he has "lost" the team.

Harmison was woefully under prepared and I wonder how much longer England can keep up with his under par performances. IMO time for Broad to play, and also Shah for Strauss, he has been on the periphery of the team for long enough and deserves a run in the side.

I hope England have learned a valuable lesson and bounce back in Wellington, but I have my doubts. With all due respect to Mills, Martin & Oram, that is a fairly innocuous attack.

Would hardly set the world alight in the LVCC. So for England to capitulate to that lot, plus Vettori is nothing short of a disgrace.

Anybody else have a bizaare laothing for Daniel Vettori? I've also got one for Scott Styris.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

Would hardly set the world alight in the LVCC. So for England to capitulate to that lot, plus Vettori is nothing short of a disgrace.

Anybody else have a bizaare laothing for Daniel Vettori? I've also got one for Scott Styris.

Good Kiwi accent.

Don't have anything against Vettori, but was never keen on Styris.

One of my mates doesn't like Styris either. For one of the one-dayers he constructed a banner involving (IIRC) a pair of large old lady style pants and some reference to lost property and them belonging to Styris.