England v New Zealand (Jun 2022 - 3 Match Test Series)

[PhatBoy]

One thing is evident , if anything was to go by this series might be a huge change in mindset under McCullum.

McCullum was an aggressive, attacking player and I can very much see him telling that to the top 7 of that lineup to play with flair and chase results then meander for draws.

Fair play to England..it was phenomenally sustained aggression but it was a belter to bat on,fast outfield,smallish ground and Boult aside(and even he came in for some stick) the bowling didn't really trouble the batsmen

what i would like to see proof of and this is true of basically all the top test sides,is,had the onslaught been stopped in its tracks by a couple of of quick wkts falling ,could the side have 'dug in' to attritionally save the game?

if they are capable of so doing it bodes well but remain to be convinced

it was an exhilirating game re runs scored but not enough in the pitch for the bowlers imho

Oh without a doubt and the mark of a genuinely good side rather than just a dangerous one (I’m looking at you, many editions of Pakistan in the last 30 years) is a side that is adaptable.

West Indies probably didn’t really have to be during their golden era as their bowling relentlessness pretty much ensured that their batting could be as reckless as it wanted, as long as 1-2 players got SOMETHING on the board they were in the game. Their tail was good too.

But Australia, first through Border and Boon then Taylor, Steve Waugh and Ian Healy from 95-2000, had players who could dig in. Again after that when they really peaked through to 2005 they probably didn’t NEED grafters at all as they just churned through opponents so relentlessly - though India 2001 probably showed they could do with some limpets at the crease.

SA were a good mix, they had genuine grafters like Kallis and before they really peaked, Kirsten, and maybe the hallmark of guys like AB, Amla and Faf were that they were versatile, could attack when needed, defend when needed.

The better Pakistan sides of the last decade were similar though they probably lacked a little bit of aggression, they erred towards graft more than positivity.

Essentially it’s great to have that in your armour or better still, to not even need it because your plan A works so well.

England dont have a grafting fallback really that could shut up shop for a day outside of Root and maybe Stokes at the moment.

But if they’re a threat to win at least it poses some headaches for the opposition

 

[corbies]

It is now up to other countries to react to England's approach when playing them. How can they use England's new attacking approach against them?

 

[Sphynx]

On the match itself - wow, what a stunning assault from Bairstow and Stokes.
I thought having Stokes in charge and McCullum coaching would lead to a change in attitude and approach but THAT big a change?

This reinforces why I can’t believe they ever put Bairstow on the scrap heap in the first place.

If you don’t have 5 world class batsmen to fill the spots above Stokes, that’s fine - it’s rare for most teams to have 5 entrenched world class players at any one time. But if one of the guys vying for a spot is capable of the play that Bairstow clearly is and always has been, they’re mad not to use him.

There have been lots of teams throughout the last 30 years who maybe don’t have a world class line up, 11 cut and dried test class players, but they can maximise what top level talent they DO have, to become good or at least dangerous sides.

England, for now anyway, have Anderson, Broad is fading but he’s still ok, Foakes I think is a world class keeper-batsman (if not quite world class as a batsman keeper), Stokes, Root and Bairstow. More than half their side are what I’d consider GOOD or better test players, and in Anderson, Root, Stokes and Bairstow I believe they have four match winners.

That to me is a much much better looking side than Root, Stokes, and Anderson with a combination of 8 other plodders or guys who quite simply aren’t good enough.
As the commentators said last night, most of their fans would rather see them play attacking positive cricket and lose than see what they were shown in the Ashes and the West Indies.

I think I will wait a little longer before declaring Foakes a world class keeper batsman. After a ton in his first test innings, he's notched up 2 x 50's since, with one of those coming in this test match.


I'm more interested in where this leaves NZ.

Been rinsed by a side who had won 1-17 coming into this series, lost 3 of their last 4 away series, with a draw to Sri Lanka prior to that and a home drawn series with Bangladesh.

You'd think they are now no chance to defend their title.

 

[PhatBoy]

I think I will wait a little longer before declaring Foakes a world class keeper batsman. After a ton in his first test innings, he's notched up 2 x 50's since, with one coming in this test match.


I'm more interested in where this leaves NZ.

Been rinsed by a side who had won 1-17 coming into this series, lost 3 of their last 4 away series, with a draw to Sri Lanka prior to that.

I was more leaning towards his keeping. He’s generally very good with the gloves and considering the problems they had when Bairstow and Buttler were swapping duties behind the stumps, Foakes is someone they can bank on to a degree.

New Zealand have been desperately underwhelming.

They got seduced by one great Matt Henry spell at home over summer - picking him over Wagner is criminal IMO.

I can forgive this game a little bit with Jameson being hurt - logically he’d have been the hardest player for England to attack and they really missed him but their two spearheads are experienced enough to have been better. Southee had a wretched match, he just couldn’t get it on the spot.

From the side that got them to the top they were without Williamson, Taylor, de Grandhomme in this match - obviously Taylor ain’t coming back and he was being carried towards the end.

I think they have undone a lot of their good work from a lengthy period of time, in a matter of about 6 months to be honest.

 

[Sphynx]

I was more leaning towards his keeping. He’s generally very good with the gloves and considering the problems they had when Bairstow and Buttler were swapping duties behind the stumps, Foakes is someone they can bank on to a degree.

New Zealand have been desperately underwhelming.

They got seduced by one great Matt Henry spell at home over summer - picking him over Wagner is criminal IMO.

I can forgive this game a little bit with Jameson being hurt - logically he’d have been the hardest player for England to attack and they really missed him but their two spearheads are experienced enough to have been better. Southee had a wretched match, he just couldn’t get it on the spot.

From the side that got them to the top they were without Williamson, Taylor, de Grandhomme in this match - obviously Taylor ain’t coming back and he was being carried towards the end.

I think they have undone a lot of their good work from a lengthy period of time, in a matter of about 6 months to be honest.

They haven't announced the final venue yet, but why do I think it could end up being Aus vs SAF in Mumbai or something?

Hopefully common sense prevails and they announce the final towards the end of the fixtures each time, factoring in a neutral venue and a venue suited to the two sides.

England or NZ would be good.

TBH, I wouldn't even mind playing it in South Africa, even if South Africa were in it.

I think if it was India vs South Africa, somewhere like Adelaide or Sydney makes complete sense. A bit for everyone.

 

[PhatBoy]

They haven't announced the final venue yet, but why do I think it could end up being Aus vs SAF in Mumbai or something?

Hopefully common sense prevails and they announce the final towards the end of the fixtures each time, factoring in a neutral venue and a venue suited to the two sides.

England or NZ would be good.

TBH, I wouldn't even mind playing it in South Africa, even if South Africa were in it.

I think if it was India vs South Africa, somewhere like Adelaide or Sydney makes complete sense. A bit for everyone.

I think most neutral spectators would probably agree that from a viewing perspective SA is the best place in the world for test cricket - and that’s not factoring in the wandering lenses of the cameramen. It’s fast, it’s intense, it’s a test of batsmen but also of bowlers because games in SA can actually get away from an attack really quickly if the opposition start to get momentum.

I have no issue if they played it in India or SL or WI or wherever: each place presents different challenges to different sides and they all have merit but by far my choice from a taste point of view would be SA regardless of who is playing.

 

[Sphynx]

I think most neutral spectators would probably agree that from a viewing perspective SA is the best place in the world for test cricket - and that’s not factoring in the wandering lenses of the cameramen. It’s fast, it’s intense, it’s a test of batsmen but also of bowlers because games in SA can actually get away from an attack really quickly if the opposition start to get momentum.

I have no issue if they played it in India or SL or WI or wherever: each place presents different challenges to different sides and they all have merit but by far my choice from a taste point of view would be SA regardless of who is playing.

I probably enjoy cricket in the North of England slightly more than SAF, but not by much.

I have no issue with India or SL or WI as venues, but you have the opportunity to tailor the conditions to the contest when you know who is likely going to be in it.

There's no use having a test championship final in Mumbai between South Africa and Australia if they've gotten their way there on the back of 2 fast bowling batteries.



A Test Championship final in the WI or SL between India and Pakistan as an example, would be great.

Just as a final between Aus and SAF at Headingly would.

 

[PhatBoy]

I probably enjoy cricket in the North of England slightly more than SAF, but not by much.

I have no issue with India or SL or WI as venues, but you have the opportunity to tailor the conditions to the contest when you know who is likely going to be in it.

There's no use having a test championship final in Mumbai between South Africa and Australia if they've gotten their way there on the back of 2 fast bowling batteries.



A Test Championship final in the WI or SL between India and Pakistan as an example, would be great.

Just as a final between Aus and SAF at Headingly would.

All very fair points

 

[HODGEYROAD]

England have somewhat surprised me this series, didn't expect them to bat as well as they have.

NZ well what can you say, awful defence of a world test championship, although I've always thought India and Australia were marginally stronger sides even when the Kiwis won in 2021.

 

[PhatBoy]

England have somewhat surprised me this series, didn't expect them to bat as well as they have.

NZ well what can you say, awful defence of a world test championship, although I've always thought India and Australia were marginally stronger sides even when the Kiwis won in 2021.

I think most people did, they had a more solid body of work over a longer period but I guess that’s what a one year tournament is for, they ticked the boxes. Incredibly disappointing last period for them though that’s for sure, they don’t have a lot of players who can really say they held up their end of the bargain during the title defence

 

[Sphynx]

England have somewhat surprised me this series, didn't expect them to bat as well as they have.

NZ well what can you say, awful defence of a world test championship, although I've always thought India and Australia were marginally stronger sides even when the Kiwis won in 2021.

Australia did only miss the final because of a point deduction because of a poor over rate.

 

[NYRB]

Current ICC Standings after the 2nd Test between Eng v NZ




England were penalised 40% of match fees and deducted percentage points (went from 25 to 23.8) for a slow over rate.

 

[to1994]

Great game of Cricket.

That said New Zealand in recent times have been pretty toothless on a flat pitch, good win by England and they'll ride the high of this but it won't always work out that way.

Olly Pope's hundred was pretty lucky, it'll give him another extended run but I'm not sold on him being anywhere near the next Joe Root, he may not even make it as a Test player.

Alex Lees looks pretty solid after a poor debut series, they need to dump Crawley and go back to Rory Burns. Burns is mediocre but he's still got the best body of work of any opener since Cook/Strauss and everyone else around him is an attacking player.

Interesting times for New Zealand, with Kane out it's nice to see newer players like Mitchell and Blundell stand up. The problem is both are in their 30s and the top 7 even when shuffled around never seems to have any young guns in it - reminds me of our team at the end of the Michael Clarke era.

Ravindra is that young gun, it'll take some time like Kane did initially but he's the next great batsmen who'll come through at some point for them.

As for Joe Root, aside from a middling Ashes he's been pretty outstanding the last couple of years. I'd advise English fans not to take it for granted though as we've seen how quickly great batsmen can start to slip with all of Kohli, Smith and Williamson seemingly nowhere near where they were even 3-4 years ago.

 

[PhatBoy]

Great game of Cricket.

That said New Zealand in recent times have been pretty toothless on a flat pitch, good win by England and they'll ride the high of this but it won't always work out that way.

Olly Pope's hundred was pretty lucky, it'll give him another extended run but I'm not sold on him being anywhere near the next Joe Root, he may not even make it as a Test player.

Alex Lees looks pretty solid after a poor debut series, they need to dump Crawley and go back to Rory Burns. Burns is mediocre but he's still got the best body of work of any opener since Cook/Strauss and everyone else around him is an attacking player.

Interesting times for New Zealand, with Kane out it's nice to see newer players like Mitchell and Blundell stand up. The problem is both are in their 30s and the top 7 even when shuffled around never seems to have any young guns in it - reminds me of our team at the end of the Michael Clarke era.

Ravindra is that young gun, it'll take some time like Kane did initially but he's the next great batsmen who'll come through at some point for them.

As for Joe Root, aside from a middling Ashes he's been pretty outstanding the last couple of years. I'd advise English fans not to take it for granted though as we've seen how quickly great batsmen can start to slip with all of Kohli, Smith and Williamson seemingly nowhere near where they were even 3-4 years ago.

Agree with all of this.
I thought Kane and Kohli would be the ones with the best test longevity because of the textbook nature of their techniques - jury is still out on Kane as he’s really battled this injury but Kohli has slipped markedly and his video game worthy technique hasn’t saved him.

Smith is obviously the one most reliant on his physical features given his odd method and it’s started to let him down a BIT but he’s still finding new ways to make runs.

I find root fascinating because he is a bit of a cross breed of all of them. He has beautiful timing, he plays the ball really late and uses his eye a lot to do that, he has amazing hands like Kohli sometimes does - it seems to me like he’s the one who’s the best at adjusting what works according to what’s required in the conditions. He can force the ball off the quicks when it’s slow like he did in the West Indies, he sweeps beautifully against spin in all conditions, he loves using the pace of the ball when conditions are fast and using the area between 2nd slip and point - he’s really shown he’s a ‘deeper’ batsman than what I gave him credit for.

Personally I’ve always really rated Bairstow even if I think he’s got some massive deficiencies in his game so I’m glad to see him making a fist of his recall.

You can’t put a price on players who can turn a game in a session or even an hour. Since that amazing stand in Capetown(?) I’ve always felt like England are at their best when they have that double act or Stokes and Bairstow in the middle order together because they can turn it on in any circumstances.

 

[frankrizzo]

I wonder if they will use the series win to buy more time for crawley? its no secret he has friends in high places with key being his mentor growing up(and key basically used his commentary stints to push crawleys stocks at every chance) but if they can find a solid opener in his spot the batting actually looking pretty solid with that strong middle order firing the way it is they just need to get a half decent platform from the top 3.

 

[Bareth Garry]

I read it was free entry at the ground yesterday and everyone who had purchased a ticket before the test started for the final day was able to get their money back so they could come in and watch for free too. I'm sure if they had to pay no one would have complained they didn't get their money's worth.

Incredible knock from Bairstow. He is a bit of an all or nothing cricketer but you can see why they persisted with him for so long when he puts an innings up like that.

 

[KennyHuntersBlues]

Can we please have Silverwood back as coach and Root as captain
I don’t like this New England

 

[Dipper]

Agree with all of this.
I thought Kane and Kohli would be the ones with the best test longevity because of the textbook nature of their techniques - jury is still out on Kane as he’s really battled this injury but Kohli has slipped markedly and his video game worthy technique hasn’t saved him.

Smith is obviously the one most reliant on his physical features given his odd method and it’s started to let him down a BIT but he’s still finding new ways to make runs.

I find root fascinating because he is a bit of a cross breed of all of them. He has beautiful timing, he plays the ball really late and uses his eye a lot to do that, he has amazing hands like Kohli sometimes does - it seems to me like he’s the one who’s the best at adjusting what works according to what’s required in the conditions. He can force the ball off the quicks when it’s slow like he did in the West Indies, he sweeps beautifully against spin in all conditions, he loves using the pace of the ball when conditions are fast and using the area between 2nd slip and point - he’s really shown he’s a ‘deeper’ batsman than what I gave him credit for.

Personally I’ve always really rated Bairstow even if I think he’s got some massive deficiencies in his game so I’m glad to see him making a fist of his recall.

You can’t put a price on players who can turn a game in a session or even an hour. Since that amazing stand in Capetown(?) I’ve always felt like England are at their best when they have that double act or Stokes and Bairstow in the middle order together because they can turn it on in any circumstances.

Root is the reason why you have openers and I suppose someone solid at 3 (which England have rarely had in my lifetime) they're there to protect players like him and if they do more often than not he'll cash in.

Hard new ball on a fastish pitch is where he's not so good.

He did have the highest average batting at 5 of anyone in the history of Test cricket but he batted 5 after a nightwatchman in the last ashes which I think may have pushed him into second place but anyway the point remains that in an ideal world if he's protected from the new ball he's a major force.

The last 50 over world cup on those crap slow pitches he played priceless innings to get England into the final when the white ball specialists were all at sea. He just has impeccable timing on slow pitches, can score off almost every ball to all areas.

What is it, 10 Test centuries since January 2021. He was on 17 and Kohli and Williamson were on 27 and now he's levelled it up. Something like that anyway.

Sent from my SM-A326B using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[corbies]

I'm not sure whether New Zealands bowling or the camera work were worse on day 5. There was barely a Bairstow shot that was followed off his bat and to the boundary by the camera operators.

 

[PhatBoy]

I'm not sure whether New Zealands bowling or the camera work were worse on day 5. There was barely a Bairstow shot that was followed off his bat and to the boundary by the camera operators.

NZ bowling set a pretty ‘high’ benchmark it has to be said

 

[PhatBoy]

I didn’t understand the logic of really going hard at Bairstow, it reeked of a team who either hadn’t studied their opponent, or they were very arrogant toward him.

As I’ve said and many in here have pointed out a lot, Bairstow has some real technical flaws and weaknesses that many bowlers exploited to get him into the periphery of the side in the first place.

What he’s never ever had a problem doing is dominating bowling that isn’t disciplined. Short ball attacks, fast and full attacks, he’s very very good at picking them apart. They got it badly wrong to him

 

[NYRB]

The last 50 over world cup on those crap slow pitches he played priceless innings to get England into the final when the white ball specialists were all at sea. He just has impeccable timing on slow pitches, can score off almost every ball to all areas.

Speaking of 50 over cricket and the white ball format, its pretty clear or the general consensus is he isnt flamboyant enough to be in the T20 squad given the depth of England batting at the moment, but he is still a lock for the 50 over format?

 

[NYRB]

Speaking of 50 over cricket and the white ball format, its pretty clear or the general consensus is he isnt flamboyant enough to be in the T20 squad given the depth of England batting at the moment, but he is still a lock for the 50 over format?

OK answering my own question. He is definite lock in this format still.

Just noticed he only missed 3 ODI's and England for some reason don't seem to play that much ODI cricket lately compared to other nations.

 

[Plugger35]

I didn’t understand the logic of really going hard at Bairstow, it reeked of a team who either hadn’t studied their opponent, or they were very arrogant toward him.

As I’ve said and many in here have pointed out a lot, Bairstow has some real technical flaws and weaknesses that many bowlers exploited to get him into the periphery of the side in the first place.

What he’s never ever had a problem doing is dominating bowling that isn’t disciplined. Short ball attacks, fast and full attacks, he’s very very good at picking them apart. They got it badly wrong to him

Yeah I couldn't understand the approach after tea, our bowlers played right into his hands by bowling short to him and playing to his strengths with his hook, pull and cut shots and once he got on a roll he was hard to stop. He is a confidence player and we spoon fed him confidence by bowling rubbish.

 

[AlwaysHawks15]

He’ll be more prolific than both but I can’t see a circumstance in which he has a better average than Smith. Hell of memory serves he still needs another 50-odd just in this innings to ensure his average stays above 50 when he gets out

If he's conversion rate of 50s into 100s was better he would be averaging close to 60. Refering to Root. The bloke has never really been out of form for more than 1 series really. Has an average series but than will back it up with a series where he scores big hundreds or makes lots of runs. Nobody in world cricket now has been as consistent over a long period of time as Root. We can bag his form in Australia but it's literally the final frontier that he hasn't conquered. Is a better player right now than Smith and the stats back it up.