Doesn't it always happen on England tours? Ugh. Almost without exception (1999 being the exception, without counting last year which was a WTC final warm-up) we head over there with all this hope, that the conditions will suit us, then we lose at Lord's after being in a promising position, and never really recover. Only difference in 1999 being we didn't start the series at Lord's.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
*Official* 2022 New Zealand Tour of England, Ireland, Scotland & Netherlands
- Thread starter Kippax
- Start date
Bahnz
Hall of Fame Member
Not a harsh enough punishment. The match should be retrospectively awarded to NZ.
thierry henry
International Coach
Bring the boys home
thierry henry
International Coach
Yeah like...obviously McCullum brings a certain something to the table, but surely we don't really believe you can "good vibes" your way into being good at batting? And surely we don't believe that "actually just slog it" is in fact the key to batting success? Obviously you increase your chances of doing something amazing if you just go hyper aggressive at all times, that's just the law of averages, but is it actually good cricket?
Magrat Garlick
Global Moderator
cc Indian fans
nzfan
International Vice-Captain
Shouldn't matter as for team selection is concerned. I think they will go with 4 fast bowlers and Kane included in his place.
In UK they don't even care isolating I think but our players will isolate.
Adders
Cricketer Of The Year
Agree with this.....mostly. I think a win like this carries huge benefits beyond just a test win.....player/team confidence, belief and public interest etc
But I also think in most instances it's low percentage cricket. You have a few batsmen around the game you know have it in them to pull off the remarkable. England have Stokes, Barstow and in a different but equally capable way of chasing at 4 to 5 runs an over, Joe Root.
My concern is, if you play a high risk high reward game and it doesn't come off......will we go to plan B and bunker in for the draw? If all off stokes, root and YJB are back in the shed and we still need 150 at 5 an over. Will we say the wins out of reach now let's not ****ing lose?
I love what we did at TB, but 9 times out of 10 it's not coming off like that. Does our new management have the smarts to adjust the plan when it's not working???
Bahnz
Hall of Fame Member
By all accounts the answer is no, McCullum at tea didn't even entertain the idea of shutting up shop in the event of the Stoakes-Bairstow partnership being broken. It's all or nothing, and don't worry if it doesn't work out. Which yeah, ended up turning out great, but you can imagine a lot of circumstances were this will cause acute angina for fans (as it did for NZ when they toured England in 2015).
thierry henry
International Coach
Yeah and like, clearly I despise BMac and Stokes but in this case I'm really not trying to disparage what they achieved. What BMac achieved with NZ to some extent did shake up conventional notions because it showed that "low percentage" cricket is actually higher percentage than conventional wisdom would suggest. This probably applies to a lot of modern cricket, particularly batting, where to some extent it's been shown that outrageous batting can actually work more often than we used to think it would.
I'm just confused by the narrative because as Howe said, wasn't this already done in 2015 (right down to BMac being the catalyst) and wasn't it seen as the eventual reason for the demise of England's test team? Too much focus on white ball cricket, batting techniques going to ****, white ball players failing in test cricket (Bairstow, Buttler, Roy), and then a stuttering attempt to use red ball specialists without the runs behind them to suggest success was imminent. Are memories really so short that "get Bairstow to play his natural game" now seems like a brilliant new tactic?
Having said all that I acknowledge that playing #BazBall with actual #BazMac as coach might be the most successful way to play for now, at least it's a consistent and clear philosophy.
thierry henry
International Coach
And call me a talkback caller but don't underestimate how important it was that NZ was the opponent here. We have become flakey AF in general and teams coming hard at us with the bat + defending 4th innings chases are our perennial weaknesses.
Flem274*
123/5
I think McCullum's philosophy is correct for these players and what they can do - YJB isn't a blocker, but knowing England he's probably been hearing "bat properly" for years. McCullum would have just told him to bat normally and trust what has got him to this level.
Also worth noting McCullum has room for slower players. Watling was one of his favourite cricketers.
On percentage cricket - it comes down to whether you cross the psychological threshold. If you make the opposition panic then they're likely to give you more runs and not bowl testing areas.
Bahnz
Hall of Fame Member
From reading his book, I think McCullum's biggest philosophy when it comes to cricket is simply: enjoy yourself, try your damn hardest but don't forget what makes you love playing this game and don't try to be anyone else but yourself. Given that England (besides maybe India) probably have the most overly-engineered approach towards test cricket of any nation, that's probably an asset.
Flem274*
123/5
All the kiwis having really good County games is a bit frustrating. There's Ravindra of course with 260 runs for the match, but also Phillips a 100 and a 50, Duffy 8 wickets and Williams 6 wickets.
If you can transplant those guys into County with no dramas then we should be a lot more competitive in this series rather than the headless chooks we seem to be when it counts.
If you can transplant those guys into County with no dramas then we should be a lot more competitive in this series rather than the headless chooks we seem to be when it counts.
Athlai
Not Terrible
I can't wait till Ross writes a book
Bahnz
Hall of Fame Member
Will be awesome to read Ross and Kane's books not just for the dirt, but also because NZ's transformation from a shambles into a strong and exciting side that its fans could be proud of just makes such a great story and it's really interesting to learn about how and why it happened. Too bad the last chapter of Kane's book looks likely to be titled "No happily ever afters".
NZTailender
I can't believe I ate the whole thing
But did they try that approach in Tests? Genuinely can't remember. England basically had two setups for yonks with multiple captains and coaches for the red and white ball sides. The Test side seemed to continue on the same path that was laid out in the late 2000s/early 2010s when they saw some successes under Strauss and Flower, while the L/O side reached dizzying heights never before seen by England. Who knows, maybe they'll become aggressive guns at test cricket and then flounder in L/O.
I think part of the issue with the narrative here is that people either want to take the 'Baz is God' stance or the 'Baz is Al Capone' angle.
Where I stand, maybe comes across that I think Baz is God. But I accept his approach has shortcomings. I was very pissed off at Lord's in 2015, when his gung-ho approach probably cost us the Test, for example. And there's going to be times where England **** their pants trying to play the approach they're trying to now. If Stokes had been bowled legitimately at Lord's, that narrative becomes potentially very different. New England skipper slogs out to a part-timer on 1, and loses Test won't go down well in the red tops. It didn't, but to use a tired old phrase they'll live and die by the sword.
But to me, I feel like Baz is good for that side now. And they'll swing way too far the other way from the scared little kitty cats they were in the Ashes, to a group that tries to push the envelope too much at times. Maybe that will lead to them finding where the middle point is, where that balance of daring and discipline meet.
And yeah obviously, sorting out the technical difficulties faced by their top order apart from Root is a massive part of that as well, that won't be remedied by Brendon McCullum. And they'll need to deal with sub-continent conditions, pace + bounce in Australia which won't come from 'positive intent'
Where I stand, maybe comes across that I think Baz is God. But I accept his approach has shortcomings. I was very pissed off at Lord's in 2015, when his gung-ho approach probably cost us the Test, for example. And there's going to be times where England **** their pants trying to play the approach they're trying to now. If Stokes had been bowled legitimately at Lord's, that narrative becomes potentially very different. New England skipper slogs out to a part-timer on 1, and loses Test won't go down well in the red tops. It didn't, but to use a tired old phrase they'll live and die by the sword.
But to me, I feel like Baz is good for that side now. And they'll swing way too far the other way from the scared little kitty cats they were in the Ashes, to a group that tries to push the envelope too much at times. Maybe that will lead to them finding where the middle point is, where that balance of daring and discipline meet.
And yeah obviously, sorting out the technical difficulties faced by their top order apart from Root is a massive part of that as well, that won't be remedied by Brendon McCullum. And they'll need to deal with sub-continent conditions, pace + bounce in Australia which won't come from 'positive intent'