New Zealand tour of England - May/June 2015

[blockerdave]

Not managed to see this, but just looking at the figures - is the bowling wayward or is Buttler having an absolute mare with 60 runs coming as byes/legbyes?

he's not kept particularly well, but the ball is really moving after passing the stumps.

 

[_Sam_]

Not managed to see this, but just looking at the figures - is the bowling wayward or is Buttler having an absolute mare with 60 runs coming as byes/legbyes?

His 2 catches were brilliant taken diving pretty wide each side of the stumps. Ian Smith was saying lords is one of the harder places to keep due to the excessive swing after passing the bat, haven't seen all the extras though so can't comment.

 

[Santander]

It is tough to keep at Lord's, but 60 extras coming off byes and leg byes is very high. NZ conceded fewer than half that in England's first innings.

NZ looking dangerous with the new ball again. Hopefully the middle order digs in and steadies the innings like on the first day.

 

[IceAgeComing]

It is tough to keep at Lord's, but 60 extras coming off byes and leg byes is very high. NZ conceded fewer than half that in England's first innings.

Mostly with a part-time keeper as well, which makes it worse

 

[LiveLoveABD]

Bell has to go; he averages 32.96 over 18 months; his average vs WI was 31 despite starting with a ton, and he failed at a crucial time yesterday. It's a long term decline, he has just got to go.

This is the major issue with England and their perception of people. Alastair Cook has 3 hundreds in 3 years, Bell has 5.

Bell's averages in calendar years are as follows:

2013- 42
2014- 35
2015- 31

Compare that to Cook?

2013- 33
2014- 32
2015- 52

To be honest, there's not much in it. I'm not a stats person, but I do love watching cricket and while numbers have their place in the game, it hardly ever tells a true story. I think, if you ask international captains they'd rather Cook made a hundred, than Bell. WHY?

Because Bell wins you games of cricket. It's not like Cook can't, but Bell moves games forward. He's a positive player. Cook can't.

If stats were everything, Stokes shouldn't really be considered an all rounder, but he was England's best bowler in the first innings at par with Broad.

It's a small thing, but two down for England today trailing a deficit of 100 odd, Bell moved that game forward and batted positively. Cook, frankly looks like he can get out anytime. It's just about how much he can crawl to.

 

[LiveLoveABD]

Ballance has had the best start to a test career since Graeme Smith statistically and I really think he's someone we should keep persevering with overall as if he can solve a few issues he could become a solid player. It's hardly like we can drop him right now after the start he's had either. Suggestions on commentary today for Bell or Root at 3 so they don't have to be counterattacking but simply removing the pressure so one is not necessary were interesting. Not sure I'd want to adjust anything about Root right now given how he's going!

Sorry to pull you up, but did you see Ballance's dismissal in both innings?

 

[T.J.Hooker]

he's not kept particularly well, but the ball is really moving after passing the stumps.

Lord's is a notoriously difficult ground to keep at. Takes a bit of getting used to.

The two catches down the legside today were fantastic, but the flashy acrobatic stuff doesn't tell you that much about someone's keeping. I don't think Buttler is going to make many legside stumpings, put it that way.

 

[T.J.Hooker]

Obviously this includes the Ashes whitewash, when everyone did bad, but even taking that out he only gets up to 36 since then.

Thing is, he gets a 50 or ton often enough to keep the questions away from him, and the 2013 summer Ashes, probably his best, seems recent enough. But he has fallen off a cliff since then, and as he and Cook are the two most experience batsmen & should be doing most heavy scoring but he just isn't up to it.

It depends upon that great conundrum of English cricket : is Ian Bell really world class, or does he just look world class?

Before the Ashes 13 series, I would have said the evidence suggested he was often style over substance, but then he reeled off those match winning knocks and for a little while looked like he'd finally turned into the player everyone was hoping he'd be when he first arrived in the game.

Now it's been long enough since that burst of consistent form that you wonder if it was just an isolated peak, and with the 2015 Aussie attack surely far more potent than in 2013, and the English batting wickets almost invariably fiddlier to bat on than Australian ones, whether that spell of heroics is really much of a guide to likely future form.

I'm kind of agnostic at present. Of Root / Bell / Ballance, Ballance unquestionably looks like the guy who is going to struggle the most technically with extreme pace and movement, and Bell is certainly better equipped in this department. Against lesser bowling attacks recent form suggests Ballance is the more likely to make big scores, but he's not looking like a great bet against pacey swing bowling in English conditions at present.

Which is not to say I'd actually drop Ballance if I were a selector. The guy has earned the right to prove whether his technique is up to it. But that's why it's so important to pick the right batsmen against the lesser attacks, because the number of potential picks capable of succeeding under those conditions is necessarily much greater than the number who can also succeed against the best attacks.

EDIT - although now I think about it there is an obvious counterpoint : Bell is probably technically capable of nicking deliveries that Ballance would miss.

 

[SpitfiresKent]

Watching Mark Wood bowl and I see a bit of Mitch Johnson in him, Must be his slightly slingy action he has (plus his pace). Seriously impressed with this lad.

 

[richowebbo]

Yesterday evening is largely why I don't trust Ballance. Clearly the lad has ability, but he's wilted twice against top quality fast bowling. Hopefully he'll get some runs in the next Test.

Cracking bowling from NZ though. Its going to be a great day of Cricket today. Can't wait!

 

[cooks1st100]

Clearly the lad has ability, but he's wilted twice against top quality fast bowling.

He hasn't even faced any 'fast' bowling this match. Yesterday was really poor from him tbh, McCullum set a field which suggested some short stuff, when every man and his dog knew the Kiwis would pitch it up and he fell for it hook, line and sinker. I fear he has been found out.

 

[MUFC1987]

We overreact so much as a group of supporters. It's no wonder we don't have consistency in selection, because the very minute a player isn't scoring hundreds or taking 5 wickets, some of us are saying that he's done at this level, or not good enough. Ballance has had a bad test. But, you know what? It happens. He's not going to score 50 every single innings. Facing the new ball in England is difficult and he's doing far too much of it, because we consistently have one opener being fired out early doors. I still back him to score runs and I'd still want him in the side, even if he has another poor Test in the next match. The guy can play.

On Buttler, he's just not a natural wicket keeper. He's forever been a decent backup, who could do the job in One Day cricket. This is why he left Somerset, because we picked Kieswetter over him, because he's better. Saying that though, I think he will get better, but just like with anyone, he has his bad days and his good days. Some of those byes were harsh though, because they were close to the batsman before swinging a mile after it went past him. The amount of Leg byes has been insane, but we can't blame anybody for that.

 

[Santander]

Well, that didn't take long.

 

[cooks1st100]

I don't think it's overreacting to say that there appears to be an obvious flaw in his technique. He needs to get on the front foot in these conditions which are not alien to him. You will get found out quickly at this level and hope as you say it's just a bad test and something that he will rectify. Otherwise he will have to go.

 

[T.J.Hooker]

Ballance is an extremely limited player technically, and he's not an especially talented ball striker. That's ok if his technique will hold up vs the best attacks. If it doesn't, he's a guy who will fill his boots in unspectacular fashion against poorer attacks but fail at the job he's really in the side to do.

That's the thing about attritional batsmen. Their primary usefulness is digging in under tough conditions. When things are straight up and down you'd rather have free scoring strokeplayers making runs and moving the game on, although an attritional player can serve a useful purpose playing a supporting role in that situation.