New Zealand in England May - June 2013

[barmyarmy]

I think it was the negative batting on Sunday evening and then the delayed declaration.
My question would be if that was exactly the gameplan agreed by Flower and Trott why did Trott suddenly start batting properly on Monday morning?
Lucky to win and not showing the ruthlessness you need to put away really top sides.

 

[MUFC1987]

I'd say it's more a fear of failure. It's all very good everyone saying that we should have declared with the lead at 350, but there is that 1 in 100 chance that the weather clears and they get a good run at it and go on to win. I'm not saying it's likely, but it's possible. That's the fear for this England side.

Like I said before, I'm not against it if we're in this position. A 1-0 series win or a 2-0 series win makes little real difference, besides a few ranking points or something, I do agree that it can cause problems when we have to win, but who's to say we haven't learnt from our mistakes and will change when those circumstances happen? I just think it's harsh criticising a side for winning and winning well, just because it could have been over a day earlier. Perhaps it is safety first, but coming from watching us get thumped by everyone a few years back, I'm not totally against that attitude.

 

[SpitfiresKent]

I thought the reason behind us not enforcing the follow on was to let Compton have another bat.

 

[ste_mc_efc]

so if the first game was drawn do we think they would have enforced the follow on?

for all the speculation we don't know how the england set-up prioritises. Is the series win more important than trying to progress in the rankings? and if so by how much?

 

[Owzat]

I think it was the negative batting on Sunday evening and then the delayed declaration.

My question would be if that was exactly the gameplan agreed by Flower and Trott why did Trott suddenly start batting properly on Monday morning?
Lucky to win and not showing the ruthlessness you need to put away really top sides.

The delay was the worst, Yawn was harping on about it for a while but he was just as negative when it came to declarations. Too much worry about losing when the highest chased down total at Headingley was 404/3 I think it was by an Australia side including Bradman.

Not so sure it was so much the batting on Sunday evening that was the biggest issue, they were making sure of a solid base which wasn't the worst approach in a match that you don't want to lose with 3-7 sessions possible. However captains have a problem with 400, not only do they not feel happy unless they have set more than 400, more often than not they want 500.

Agree re your point on the top sides.

Those saying we should have enforced the follow on should consider it would have been easier (theoretically, but then so's the basis of their declaring notion) for the kiwis to bat and maybe leave England high and dry. Sure you know how many runs you need to chase, but if the kiwis made 330-360 then you have tricky batting to do last.

Time was an issue which is one of my two reasons for enforcing the follow on*, BUT it was mainly an issue because Cook needed that psychological 'comfort' of having way too many runs on the board. They could have declared 350 in front, personally I would have gone with just over 400 and my suggestion of 430 was really a "compromise" knowing (England) captains were/are unlikely to declare before that

I'd say it's more a fear of failure. It's all very good everyone saying that we should have declared with the lead at 350, but there is that 1 in 100 chance that the weather clears and they get a good run at it and go on to win. I'm not saying it's likely, but it's possible. That's the fear for this England side.

Fear is the problem, fear of losing. We made hard work of the kiwis, they played well in patches which you expect from most Test sides, but we seemed overworried about losing a Test to a side that had scored around 450 runs aggregate in their previous three innings.

I think 350 would have been enough to win, but to be on the safeR side England could have made it 400, if they'd chased that down I'd have been surprised and said fair play to them for doing it.

Like I said before, I'm not against it if we're in this position. A 1-0 series win or a 2-0 series win makes little real difference, besides a few ranking points or something, I do agree that it can cause problems when we have to win, but who's to say we haven't learnt from our mistakes and will change when those circumstances happen? I just think it's harsh criticising a side for winning and winning well, just because it could have been over a day earlier.

It was a close shave, it's not really harsh to criticise a side that didn't push on when they should have with weather a likely factor. Were they likely to need 450+ runs to win? No. Was it likely they wouldn't get a complete final day to complete the job? Yes. Could they have pushed harder sooner? Definitely. Could they have declared sooner? Definitely.

With tougher opposition this may have ended in a fatal draw and lost or drawn series. With tougher opposition we may be on the receiving end of defeats and need any and every opportunity to win converted, unfortunately as I've said or alluded to before, we're great when things go swimmingly our way and we're posting 400+ and under no pressure, but situations like this and others where we aren't as in control we look very ordinary in and if we can't even get tactics right and push on when in control then we will never be outright top dogs

Perhaps it is safety first, but coming from watching us get thumped by everyone a few years back, I'm not totally against that attitude.

We haven't been "thumped by everyone" for a long time. We used to lose to a better West Indies side because they were the best around, and the aussies when they became strong, but in the 90s we held our own pretty much and in the 2000s. The notion we lost all the time is weak at best, we dropped the odd clanger but most of the time we were there or thereabouts, competitive without being strong enough to win many series in a row.

Our Tests record in the 90s was P104 W26 D36 L42, the lowest ebb was in the 80s and 40s. We got some decent results in the 90s, exactly 1/4 of our Tests in the 90s (26/104) ended in defeats to Australia or West Indies, otherwise our record was P56 W15 D25 L16 which is far from brilliant, but that was holding our own including series home and away to India (L0-3 away), New Zealand, South Africa, Pakistan and Sri Lanka.

In the 2010s we've won 20 out of 38 Tests, however 6 of those were against New Zealand, Bangladesh and West Indies, take those Tests away and we've a record of P28 W14 D5 L9 which is still around the same win rate, but we've lost 32% which is nearer our 90s loss rate of 40% than most would ever care to check - and back then there were stronger sides around than at the moment.

 

[sifter132]

I guess I can understand England fans being a bit annoyed by the lack of aggression, but I think most of the right moves were made. Enforcing a follow on when you've made only 350 is a bit risky, as Owzat says - it wouldn't take much for NZ to score 350 in return and leave England a tricky last day chase. Yes, that's a negative mindset but with a series lead there is no need to feed the ego and go all out to crush NZ. Going out and batting recklessly with a lead of 'only' 180 is also a bit risky, so I've got no real problem with Trott's batting early in the 2nd innings. Once your lead is upwards of 300 or 400, THEN you can start turning it on. Only problem I had was the declaration - a little late - but again I think getting it over 400 was the right move, and at least by that time they were scoring freely with Root and Bairstow.

 

[MUFC1987]

Typical start from us in the ODIs. Slow opening to the innings and then both openers getting out. If this were any two other batsmen, they'd be criticised to the end of the world and back by the media and fans.

 

[MUFC1987]

I'm not convinced that Buttler is good enough to be a full time Wicket-keeper just yet, but that catch was special.

 

[sifter132]

Not a lot of comments on this one...but a good win for the Kiwis!

Thought NZ were fairly ripe for the picking if England had kept some wickets in hand. Their 5th bowler of Franklin/Williamson doesn't seem too imposing, and in future I'd be attacking them, or even sending in someone who might play with a bit more aggression in those middle overs. Shake things up a bit. Then again, Buttler tried to attack Williamson, just failed!

Dernbach and Woakes not doing themselves any favours with the ball...released any pressure that was building.

 

[OKP]

Guppy two toes doing the business again. Man he is awful in tests .. lol

 

[Owzat]

Not a great surprise England lost, they are very hit and miss in ODIs. I suspect this is because they don't have a truly great bowler who can turn it on and rip through sides consistently. Don't get me wrong, bowlers like Anderson, Swann and Broad are decent and CAN rip through a side, but not really consistently and so the limited overs arena shows they aren't all that great.

Where did we lose this one? Too many batsmen getting in and then getting out, the top four all made 18+, three going on to 30, but no one got to 40. Woakes is a poor man's all-rounder, capable of taking wickets or scoring runs, but batting too high in my opinion.

At 114/2 off 26 overs we should have pushed on with Root and Trott both well set, we lost both in two overs and then Morgan cheaply so from 114/2 after 26 overs we were 128/5 after 30 overs and that was pretty much GS&M to the kiwis. We rallied a little, but I doubt many ODIs are won with a top scorer of 37, at 114/2 we should have reasonably expected to make another 30+ runs. The one rule of thumb you may hear is you double the score from the 30 overs and that's about the total for 50 overs - England fell 29 runs short of that.

Anderson got us off to a good start bowling, 1/2 in the first over, but there was not enough support which you need when trying to defend an inadequate total. I think the kiwis would have won it even if Guptill had made only 50 or 60, Woakes was shocking and Dernbach not much better. Should they be persisted with?

Woakes - 128 runs @ 25.60 & 15 wkts @ 33.87
Dernbach - 17 runs @ 2.83 & 31 wkts @ 39.39

Woakes has a decent batting record, but 4/9 innings he's been not out and that was his highest score. Not too much wrong with his batting, other than I'd have him at 8 or preferably 9. Bowling wise he is expensive, an ER or 5.66 or more for all Test nations played, his 6/45 carrying his average, take that one performance away and he's taken 9 wkts @ 51.44 . Or perhaps a split that won't have a few spitting dummies is :

ODIs 1-2 : 7 wkts @ 10.86
ODIs 3-12 : 8 wkts @ 54.00

So since his 2nd ODI in which he took that 6/45 he has gone from 7/76 in two ODIs to 8/432 in the last 10.

As for Dernbach, poor bowling figures, going at an overall ER of 6.24 and only significantly less than 5.50 runs per over against one side - Pakistan against whom he took 4/45 off 10 overs. His SR is good, 37.87, but if he doesn't take wickets then his ER is a massive problem you simply can't carry. His split of performances is probably best by wickets taken as that's the crunch given his ER.

0 wkts : 6 inns, 326 runs (ave n/a, ER 7.30)
1 wkt : 8 inns, 449 runs (ave 56.13, ER 5.99)
2 wkts : 5 inns, 289 runs (ave 28.90, ER 6.67)
3 wkts : 3 inns, 112 runs (ave 12.44, ER 4.94)
4 wkts : 1 inns, 45 runs (ave 11.25, ER 4.50)

So in 61% of his bowls so far he takes 0-1 wickets, too high a run rate and we've a record of P14 W4 L9 NR 1 in those games - all four wins batting second oddly enough, two rain affected. Those two wins not rain affected were chasing a low total in which Bell made 88, and chasing a moderate 251/7 from the aussies and in which Bell made 75 and Bopara 82.

On the flip side, in the games he takes 2+ wickets we've won 8 out of 9 and he takes his wickets at 19.39 and an ER of 5.87. Some might see him as a wildcard, someone who hits form and wins games, but for someone who only hits the "match winning" form 2/5 of the time he is a gamble indeed.

And it would be only fair to point out other performances contributed, as well as D/L so we may well have won with someone else in the side anyway. If we want to win consistently enough to win the World Cup we need a strong bowling line-up, for me Woakes and Dernbach have a lot to do. I'm not scapegoating them for this defeat, I'm analysing their ODI careers to date and whether they are doing enough to be persisted with. Woakes needs to tighten up and do more with the ball as the influence of that 6/45 will soon dissipate, his average has been climbing steadily despite a couple of decent performances in New Zealand - climbed to 34.33, dropped back down to 30.64 and has climbed back up to 33.87 already.

 

[CG123]

Thought NZ were fairly ripe for the picking if England had kept some wickets in hand. Their 5th bowler of Franklin/Williamson doesn't seem too imposing, and in future I'd be attacking them, or even sending in someone who might play with a bit more aggression in those middle overs. Shake things up a bit. Then again, Buttler tried to attack Williamson, just failed!

I assume that Vettori will come into our XI when he's fit in place of Franklin, which should give us an extremely solid attack of McClenaghan, Mills, Southee, McCullum, and Vettori.

Like the Tests our batting's going to be our concern, because I think Ronchi's been a bit over-hyped, Williamson and Elliott have a tendency to get bogged down, B McCullum's horribly out of form, and our lower order of Vettori, N McCullum and Mills all haven't spent much time in the middle lately especially against quality bowling.

 

[sifter132]

Woakes has a decent batting record, but 4/9 innings he's been not out and that was his highest score. Not too much wrong with his batting, other than I'd have him at 8 or preferably 9. Bowling wise he is expensive, an ER or 5.66 or more for all Test nations played, his 6/45 carrying his average, take that one performance away and he's taken 9 wkts @ 51.44 . Or perhaps a split that won't have a few spitting dummies is :

ODIs 1-2 : 7 wkts @ 10.86
ODIs 3-12 : 8 wkts @ 54.00

So since his 2nd ODI in which he took that 6/45 he has gone from 7/76 in two ODIs to 8/432 in the last 10.

Won't get any dummy spits from me That Woakes 6-fer vs Aus wasn't real impressive, a lot of luck required - was full of the Aussie batters showing him no respect but managing to pick out fielders in the deep, bottom edging onto stumps etc.

 

[Owzat]

Well surprise surprise, Woakes and Dernbach so far going at SEVEN an over while everyone else is going nearer five an over. Too little punch from them to be that expensive, and if England fall around 40-50 runs short then we may know why

Well maybe not, but no wickets = no pressure and so the kiwis have dictated the pace and indeed the game. I did think maybe Woakes and Dernbach were trying to lure the kiwis into a trap, making them think their batsmen were world class so Anderson, Bresnan and Swann could sneak up on them and catch them out.

Frankly if either of these two are in our World Cup squad we can wave our chances goodbye. I'm gonna have a think about an all-time England ODI bits n pieces XI, Woakes surely must be a contender alongside Yardy, Shight, probably throw in Kieswetter as the keeper. I guess to qualify all you need to do is be not great at your primary function, or either if you're an "all-rounder", and maybe considered a one day specialist. Qualification must be 10+ ODIs, maybe a break off point of neither scoring anything above 33 with bat or under 33 with ball, either might be considered handy.

Think I'm at a 22 man squad so far of Solanki, A.Brown, Blackwell, Shah, McGrath, Irani, Yardy, B.Hollioake, Patel, Reeve, Wright, Mascarenhas, Nixon, Pringle, Capel, Dalrymple, Giles, Croft, Bresnan, Woakes, Dernbach, Illingworth. Bit bowling heavy, but I could always pick up on failed batsmen, surprisingly Vaughan for example only scored at an average of 27.15 in 86 ODIs. Maybe batting qualification could be below 28 over a sustained period.

 

[MUFC1987]

Superb stuff from New Zealand. Shocking bowling at times though, especially Dernbach, here's hoping we've seen his last game.

Good pitch though and not the best bowling attack in the World, so let's see what this England top 4 has got.