Just How Big An Achievement Was England's 3-0 Whitewash Of New Zealand in 2004?

[Richard]

in summation I'd say the series was NOT a significant result for ENG so far as a head to head competition goes - certainly not as true a test as the series v RSA / IND / Ashes are likely to be..............

certainly it worked in well to give the ENG team a continuing momentum, as seen in the ODIs with their subsequent performance in the ICC Trophy..........

however in hindsight the fact that this NZL team were able to be as competitive as they were in each test should not be overlooked by the ENG coach etc, regardless of the 3-0 scoreline...........

I'm glad someone else agrees that the upcoming 3 (proper) series are going to be a bigger test.
The momentum is nice to have, but IMO it's not going to be so significant as who's got the better players.

 

[Richard]

"Losing their ability to battle to put themselves in a position not to lose games" would have been better wording, on reflection. Still, it's nice to know someone actually read my piece! Where did yours appear, BTW?

Here.
I'd be more than delighted if James were interested in publishing it on the main page.
Has no-one given you any feedback on your piece? I think it was very good: clear, concise analysis of how England have fared without any bias towards "this side is building to be a superb side", starting as you mean to go on by not overstating the importance of the first series you talk of. As I've tried to convey here, the one bit I disagreed with was the New Zealand series and how much that meant.
Certainly your take on the West Indies away series made me think about that series a bit more; while West Indies were terrible, the fact is England achieved something that other teams would surely have beaten us to had West Indies been so terrible as I immidiately reckoned.

As for your original question, I did feel that all the talk about the current lot matching Brearley's side's run during 1978-79 was misguided as (i) most England sides since then have been somewhere between moderate & poor anyway and (ii) even Brearley's side during that period wasn't nearly as good as some of the retrospectives would have us believe.

I most certainly agreed with you WR Brearley's side - personally I've never got too excited about them. I reckon the side of 2000-2000\01 was stronger and achieved more. I'd also never really thought about the side of the late 60s and early 70s.
I thought it was very sensibly argued: England have never had a truly great side since the 1950s; they have had several good ones and this one is possibly fit to rank among them. The next 13 months will tell.

Another question is how much did the 3-0 loss to Engalnd knock the confidence out of NZ? Totally impossible to answer categorically, of course, but maybe a factor in what we've seen over the past couple of weeks.

Certainly it is possible.
As I've mentioned, though, I'm not sure it wouldn't have happened anyway. I think New Zealand had been a bit fortunate with their Test-cricket of late and I think the luck ran-out in England and, more spectacularly, in Australia.

 

[Craig]

Another question is how much did the 3-0 loss to Engalnd knock the confidence out of NZ? Totally impossible to answer categorically, of course, but maybe a factor in what we've seen over the past couple of weeks.

Well I would say it has taken a lot of confidence out after losing 3-0. Certainlly I think our middle-order needs to pull their finger out once and a while and actually preform, then rely on past reputations, and expect Oram, McCullum, and Vettori to get the bulk of the runs to get the score to something respectable.

Guess what guys? They won't always fire.

 

[Richard]

Fleming and Astle need to get some form back (probably won't prove especially difficult if Murali isn't going to play in the upcoming series) and Sinclair needs to be dumped from the opening slot. First try will be to bring Papps back in, presumably.
McMillan? Whoever knows.

 

[Macka]

McMillan isn't the answer, re-selecting him would be a huge mistake. Sinclair could become a lot better player than he is now if he were in the middle order. I don't think Papps is good enough to play as an international opener, a few people don't think his technique is up to it, and I'd have to agree with that. Bracewell and co. need to start looking at top-order batsman in NZ domestic cricket. Unfortunately there are no decent openers in NZ domestic cricket, personally I still think the answer is Fleming opening with Richardson.

I thought England's result against NZ earlier in the year was huge for them. In each game they came up with something when it was needed. Nearly all their players performed when the pressure came on.

 

[Craig]

So you see Fleming opening as an short term answer to a long term problem?

 

[The Argonaut]

England are still building up confidence. I have said all along that I don't think they can match the Aussies yet. In Australia next time will be the real contest. The important thing for the English is that they are learning how to win. Once you start winning it means that you don't want to have the feeling you get when losing again.

NZ are a fighting side without real match winners. England did well to whitewash them. The recent results may have been less one-sided had Gilchrist been given out for 7 in Brisbane. The Kiwis have been demoralised ever since.

 

[Will Scarlet]

Richard, I agree with most of your summary, except the sub-continent and England series.

NZ nearly made India follow on in one of the tests, and were only saved by Laxman, so how were NZ lucky to draw the series? The SL series was an even, boring, flat-pitch affair.

NZ went into each test against ENG with injuries. This was compounded by injuries to available bowlers early in the 2nd and 3rd tests, to the point where only three bowlers were available - and not the best bowlers. It simply came down to bowling NZ out for a respectable-high score and taking advantage of the weak NZ bowling attack. No-one is denying that ENG did what they needed to do, but that will count for nothing against AUS.

As I read somewhere today, England is only a hamstring injury to Steve Harmisson away from a very ordinary bowling attack - as NZ is without Bond.

The basic message coming through recent, and past, series is that while NZ can produce some good cricketers, they don't have the player pool that other countries have. Additionally, NZ bowlers seems to experience significantly more injuries than other nations, for unknown reasons. Thus, when the BCs have injuries to their top players there is limited cover. The other serious problem for NZ is to find a solid opening partnership, which was hampered by the injury to Papps in the ENG series.

And NZ don't specifically create green, seaming wickets to suit their bowlers. The groundsman have battled against the weather to prepare pitches in recent years. As you mentioned, the pitches for the SA series were flat - due to the drier weather prior to the matches last summer.

 

[wpdavid]

I most certainly agreed with you WR Brearley's side - personally I've never got too excited about them. I reckon the side of 2000-2000\01 was stronger and achieved more. I'd also never really thought about the side of the late 60s and early 70s.
I thought it was very sensibly argued: England have never had a truly great side since the 1950s; they have had several good ones and this one is possibly fit to rank among them. The next 13 months will tell.

FWIW the best performances by England sides since I started watching the game in 1971 were the 1977 Ashes win (even though Aus were without Lillee, they were still pretty strong) and the 2000/2001 Asian tours, especially the SL leg. Those were the times when I thought we had the making of a very good side. Beating SA in 1998 was a decent achievement, but we were lucky. Beyond that, most of our series wins have involved beating ordinary sides and/or relying on ITB to an unhealthy degree.

Probably the last time England had a genuinely world class batting lineup was in the Caribbean in the late 1960's - Boycott, Edrich, Barrington, Cowdrey & Graveney followed by D'Oliveria & Knott is the best I can think of. But even that was untypical, and it didn't last long beyoind that series. For much of the 1960's, the selectors seemed to have little idea of who should play, and prior to that, our great middle order was vulnerable because of our relatively weak openers. And when Hutton was still around, our big names in the middle order were young and inconsistent.

Quite what all that proves, I'm not sure, but there it is anyway. Thanks for your comments, and don't worry, James & Andre do provide feedback. As for your piece, presumably you know there's a section of the CW site where aspiring contributors can apply. I'm sure James will be pleased to hear from you.

 

[anzac]

Well I would say it has taken a lot of confidence out after losing 3-0. Certainlly I think our middle-order needs to pull their finger out once and a while and actually preform, then rely on past reputations, and expect Oram, McCullum, and Vettori to get the bulk of the runs to get the score to something respectable.

Guess what guys? They won't always fire.

IMO NZL started to loose confidence as a team when PAK beat them in the 2nd Test to end their undefeated streak...........

they fought back well v RSA but threw it away in the last test - primarily because of complacency IMO...............that loss to draw that series took the wind out of their sails mentally, and the subsequent injuries have just compounded the problems & created an unsettled squad...............

in addition we have the situation where the backbone of the batting (what little there is) has been badly out of form - Richardson, Styris & Astle are all out of touch at the same time - only Fleming is able to score atm from the top order...........Sinclair does not count because it's hard to define him as a starter with him being played out of position........he could well be only there as cover for Papps until SRL series...........

considering the lack of experience in the bowling attack v ENG & AUS, it's not surprising that they have struggled to contain / dismiss the opponent batting line ups - there's probably been a bit less experience this time around as opposed to the 00/01 tour to ZIM & RSA when O'Conner led the attack with Tuffey & Martin on debut, and Walker was the spin option...........

 

[Scaly piscine]

As I read somewhere today, England is only a hamstring injury to Steve Harmisson away from a very ordinary bowling attack - as NZ is without Bond.

It's still a good attack with Hoggard, Flintoff and Giles it would just mean England would have to rely on Anderson and/or Simon Jones a bit more. It's a lot more reliable than NZ's attack and Flintoff still hits 90mph so there's still pace with bounce there. As even Australia has shown, if you miss 2 of your best bowlers (home series v India) it's a huge loss so this is hardly a phenomenon only England suffer from anyway.

 

[Will Scarlet]

It's still a good attack with Hoggard, Flintoff and Giles it would just mean England would have to rely on Anderson and/or Simon Jones a bit more. It's a lot more reliable than NZ's attack and Flintoff still hits 90mph so there's still pace with bounce there. As even Australia has shown, if you miss 2 of your best bowlers (home series v India) it's a huge loss so this is hardly a phenomenon only England suffer from anyway.

Flintoff is not a strike bowler, and Hoggard struggles in anything other than perfect seaming conditions. Harmisson was the main difference between NZ and ENG during the recent series. Considering the close contest in all three games - against a weakened NZ team - I fail to see how ENG provide strong opposition without him.

But you are right, any team struggles without it's two best bowlers. Even Australia without McGrath, Gillespie, and Warne struggled to draw the last series in AUS against India.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Flintoff is a strike bowler these days and Hoggard is learning to get people out without the ball having to move around so much.

 

[Macka]

So you see Fleming opening as an short term answer to a long term problem?

Well with Richardson looking like he could retire after June next year, yes. Where are we going to get two openers from? It's not all that far away and the opening position has been a huge problem for NZ for a long time. They've been struggling to find another person to open, now what are they going to do?

 

[Nate]

Well with Richardson looking like he could retire after June next year, yes. Where are we going to get two openers from? It's not all that far away and the opening position has been a huge problem for NZ for a long time. They've been struggling to find another person to open, now what are they going to do?

since when sorry?

 

[Loony BoB]

Perhaps I should have mentioned the injury to Mills. I just didn't consider it especially important because I don't really rate Mills, something I don't think I've been made to rescind yet.
I don't believe the injury to Tuffey had as much of an effect as some, but it is strange how poorly he bowled at Headingley. Certainly injury didn't keep him out of any of the Tests. Similarly, I should have mentioned that Bond wasn't playing, but I guess it doesn't really impact too much - as I tried to mention (perhaps my phraseology wasn't the best - no real surprise there) I don't believe that had the impact on the series some do.
I did mention the injuries to Vettori and Oram, and did mention that I believe it had a not-insignificant impact on the series.
What I was trying to touch on, meanwhile, was actually England - trying to put New Zealand's past series into perspective, and point-out that we weren't quite so outstanding in beating you 3-0 than some thought.

I still believe that had we a fully fit side then we could have won any of those games. Tuffey definitely was suffering - he constantly was taken out of the attack for very, very long periods and bowled far less overs than he is used to. Bond was selected and then did not play and people who think that he would not have had any impact need their head checked, regardless of him not having made his name in the test arena, he's still undoubtedly an impact player. Was McCullum also not wearing the gloves for some time, or do I have that wrong? I'm pretty sure one or two of our batsmen were batting with broken fingers. To say that one single injury would not have an impact is correct, but I am sure a person with any knowledge of the game would acknowledge that NZ, with so many injuries, were at a notable disadvantage, particularly with such a small squad. To take a quote out of Cricinfo...

"We found Rob Nicol, the Auckland batsman, on the terraces this afternoon, luckily before he went to the bar."
John Bracewell after New Zealand's desperate search for substitute fielders in the second Test against England at Headingley

I just remembered Astle suffered from the flu and Fleming from ear-related problems, too. And, once again, while these things do not impact the series by themselves, they do impact the series on a whole. One person at 75% is a minimal impact. Four players at 75% is similar to one man down.

EDIT: Note that I still believe England deserved to win due to NZ's poor management and had NZ been at full strength, for all I know they still would have won, and then I think it would have been significant. A victory is only as great as the skill shown by your opponent on the day(s).

 

[Richard]

England are still building up confidence. I have said all along that I don't think they can match the Aussies yet. In Australia next time will be the real contest. The important thing for the English is that they are learning how to win. Once you start winning it means that you don't want to have the feeling you get when losing again.

England have known how to win series ever since 2000 when Duncan Fletcher took over - we've just forgotten it on three significant occasions (final Test v Pakistan 2001, final Test v New Zealand 2001\02 - and on both occasions we'd probably have won those series given less bad luck - and Third Test v India 2002).
After his debut series, since Duncan Fletcher took over we've only lost to Australia (twice, abjectly) and in Sri Lanka and India (something plenty of others have done). In that time we've won 8 series, drawn 3 we should have won and drawn 1 we should have lost (plus beaten post-WC2003 Zimbabwe and Bangladesh, which means nothing).
IMO the optimism of 2004 stems more from the fact we're winning series by large margins, which reflects more the global trend than any specific improvement in the side.
Since Duncan Fletcher's tenage began, England have been a hard side to beat in series, but have not always been able to keep hold on series after taking the lead.
We've got the best test of all coming-up in the next 14 months.

 

[Richard]

I still believe that had we a fully fit side then we could have won any of those games. Tuffey definitely was suffering - he constantly was taken out of the attack for very, very long periods and bowled far less overs than he is used to. Bond was selected and then did not play and people who think that he would not have had any impact need their head checked, regardless of him not having made his name in the test arena, he's still undoubtedly an impact player. Was McCullum also not wearing the gloves for some time, or do I have that wrong? I'm pretty sure one or two of our batsmen were batting with broken fingers. To say that one single injury would not have an impact is correct, but I am sure a person with any knowledge of the game would acknowledge that NZ, with so many injuries, were at a notable disadvantage, particularly with such a small squad. To take a quote out of Cricinfo...

I just remembered Astle suffered from the flu and Fleming from ear-related problems, too. And, once again, while these things do not impact the series by themselves, they do impact the series on a whole. One person at 75% is a minimal impact. Four players at 75% is similar to one man down.

EDIT: Note that I still believe England deserved to win due to NZ's poor management and had NZ been at full strength, for all I know they still would have won, and then I think it would have been significant. A victory is only as great as the skill shown by your opponent on the day(s).

OK, OK, you can't expect me to remember every disadvantage you guys suffered - all right, I should probably have got a few more than I did, but the paragraph on the actual series was long enough as it is!
Thank you for providing more ammo to my idea that our triumph wasn't quite what some thought!

 

[Richard]

Richard, I agree with most of your summary, except the sub-continent and England series.

NZ nearly made India follow on in one of the tests, and were only saved by Laxman, so how were NZ lucky to draw the series? The SL series was an even, boring, flat-pitch affair.

NZ went into each test against ENG with injuries. This was compounded by injuries to available bowlers early in the 2nd and 3rd tests, to the point where only three bowlers were available - and not the best bowlers. It simply came down to bowling NZ out for a respectable-high score and taking advantage of the weak NZ bowling attack. No-one is denying that ENG did what they needed to do, but that will count for nothing against AUS.

Maybe New Zealand did a bit better in India than I gave them credit for. But I reckon they were about as close to winning The Second Test as they were to losing The First. About. And as for SL, The First Test might have been a flat-pitch bore but from what I've read (and one or two bits I've seen) The Second was a blatant turner and SL would almost certainly have won but for all the rain on the first 2 days.
I tried to mention that I thought the injuries your bowlers suffered in the Second and Third Tests had quite a big impact on the series.

 

[Richard]

Thanks for your comments, and don't worry, James & Andre do provide feedback. As for your piece, presumably you know there's a section of the CW site where aspiring contributors can apply. I'm sure James will be pleased to hear from you.

Yeah, I tried that ages ago, but something went wrong somewhere. Craig and David told me I was put on 1-month trial but I never heard anything. Apparently I was sent an email but I don't remember receiving it.