• 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* New Zealand in England 2015

Spark

Global Moderator
The bowling got worse the more runs Cook/Trott etc scored. Easy to say he feasted but it worked both ways. And Siddle was very good in that series
Started out pretty awful tbf. Some of the stuff Johnson sent down at Brisbane was horrific.
 

Fuller Pilch

International Coach
Alternatively, could look to bolster the bowling and bring in Bracewell to replace Anderson in the all-rounder role, but bat him at number 7. Latham to keep and Rutherford to open with Guptill.
Bracewell can certainly bat - is probably just as good as or better than Craig, but still seems 7 is too high for him. He is certainly better than a test average of 11 would suggest.

Tom Latham is one of the most valuable assets in the NZ team - he shouldn't be moved from opening.
 
Last edited:

Bahnz

Hall of Fame Member
Forecast for tomorrow now looking not too bad - will likely be some showers, but it's looking pretty clear in the afternoon. Fingers crossed, as I really want to watch a boatload of cricket this Queen's birthday weekend.
 

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
Not saying Aussies bowled well in 10/11, but I think Cook has a knack of making it seem bowlers bowled worse than they did, especially in hindsight, because he only scores in his areas.
Yeah, the truth here lies somewhere in the middle. People who didn't watch the series or don't remember it well will look back at the names on paper and think it was a pretty good pace attack, and some who did watch the series will remember the bowling as being much worse than it was.

Australia picked good bowlers but they had very poor plans and were often trying to defend low totals because Australia's batting was genuinely **** in that series. It definitely counts as Cook having scored runs against a good attack, but not so much against good bowling.
 

FBU

State Captain
Yeah he was for a large part, though he was also unlucky. He really deserved more than 1 wicket for the spell he produced on the morning of day 1. And he started excellently on day 4 as well. On another day the jaffa that he bowled to Root first ball would've taken the edge and then he would've had Stokes into bat on a hattrick ball in the first over of the day with England still 60 runs in deficit. Who knows what would've happened next in that scenario. I also don't think that Southee was helped by McCullum constantly chopping and changing the quicks around after 2 or 3 overs. Southee is at his best when he gets to bowl long 7-8 over spells to help him set batsmen up. Anyway, I'm backing him to come good in the second test.
Same with our Anderson. Now we have five bowlers there is less chance to bowl 6/7 over spells. Before it was three 7 over spells in a day.
 

JediNudist

U19 Debutant
Two test and 'one off' test matches series are meaningless. Test series should be 3 tests minimum. This series deserves 3 tests. Yes NZ imploded and collapsed in a heap o the final day but if the Leeds test is a wash out it takes away from what should have been an exciting series. But then the robots that run ICC don't know what excitement is.
 

tooextracool

International Coach
Rankings at the moment are pretty meaningless. South Africa and Australia are rightfully 1 and 2, although I think the rankings over-rate South Africa a touch. Rest might as well be joint 3rd, there's pretty much nothing between 3 and 7.
Australia has a pretty miserable record for a team that is outright ranked #2 - they are 2-2-10 in away tests since the start of 2013. If anything, the rankings flatter them far more than SA (who have been consistently competitive across the world) considering their batting unit consists of 2 world class bats, a cripple and the rest just there to make up the team sheet.
 

JediNudist

U19 Debutant
you know when you need to bat 70 overs over 3 sessions to draw and you cannot win anyway what drug was Macca on ?????? DEFEND DEFEND DEFEND DEFEND . Are our batsman incapable of playing a defensive shot ? F*** seriously ??? Sorry to many excuses being rolled out., USE YOUR BRAIN MACCA PLEASE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!. Grrrrr Im still so seriously annoyed after staying up to 1.30am . Please diont roll out 'thats the way we play" That is a weak excuse.
 
Last edited:

jcas0167

International Debutant
Bracewell can certainly bat - is probably just as good as or better than Craig, but still seems 7 is too high for him. He is certainly better than a test average of 11 would suggest.

Tom Latham is one of the most valuable assets in the NZ team - he shouldn't be moved from opening.
Yes, it might be a tad high. My impression is that with Southee lacking match fitness and Craig well below par, they need another bowling option.
 

Bahnz

Hall of Fame Member
you know when you need to bat 70 overs over 3 sessions to draw and you cannot win anyway what drug was Macca on ?????? DEFEND DEFEND DEFEND DEFEND . Are our batsman incapable of playing a defensive shot ? F*** seriously ??? Sorry to many excuses being rolled out., USE YOUR BRAIN MACCA PLEASE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!. Grrrrr Im still so seriously annoyed after staying up to 1.30am . Please diont roll out 'thats the way we play" That is a weak excuse.
Not sure why you keep going on about this. Besides our taile-enders, none of our batsmen got out playing agressive shots. Guptill, Latham and Taylor all got good deliveries early in their innings. KW was bound to fail eventually. McCullum got a peach first ball, and Watling got a screamer of a bouncer before Anderson missed a straight one whilst playing an orthodox forward defense. Yeah, the tail played stupid shots, but that has more to do with them being poor batsmen than any strategy to try and win the game from a hopeless position. Move along.
 

Zinzan

Request Your Custom Title Now!
you know when you need to bat 70 overs over 3 sessions to draw and you cannot win anyway what drug was Macca on ?????? DEFEND DEFEND DEFEND DEFEND . Are our batsman incapable of playing a defensive shot ? F*** seriously ??? Sorry to many excuses being rolled out., USE YOUR BRAIN MACCA PLEASE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!. Grrrrr Im still so seriously annoyed after staying up to 1.30am . Please diont roll out 'thats the way we play" That is a weak excuse.
I didn't hear any post-game comments from McMillan. Did he actually say something to the effect of 'that's the way we play' ?
 

harsh.ag

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Why do some fans have a hard time accepting that England bowlers outplayed the NZ batsmen, and it's that simple?
 

Bahnz

Hall of Fame Member
Why do some fans have a hard time accepting that England bowlers outplayed the NZ batsmen, and it's that simple?
Sometimes people just prefer to claim that their team played poorly, rather than acknowldeging that the opposition were better. Looking forward to the next episode of the BYC podcast - they were talking it up like the series was already 2-0 to NZ (except for Paul Ford who was his usual thoughtful self).
 
Last edited:

Zinzan

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Why do some fans have a hard time accepting that England bowlers outplayed the NZ batsmen, and it's that simple?
Mate, we're naturally disappointed, we're passionate cricket fans.

I was unbelievably gutted with that result for a number of reasons, but none more so than our last decade of tests in England in which we've inexplicably blown strong/winning positions time and time again. And to see that unfold in front of my eyes yet again, really rubbed salt into the wounds, more than it would have without that recent history and scarring. To add to this, we generally only get a 2-match series against good sides, which makes it all the worse when you're down 1- zip and you always knew you'd be a touch rusty given the undesirable build-up (or lack of it in our case). Not even blaming anyone for this, but it is a reality.

I know it's possible to go OTT sometimes as a reaction to a loss like that, but being a passionate fan can lead to an element of irrationality at times. I agree that the purely rational and objection take on that game is that England played very well on those last 2 days. That said, I'm not sure why a little OTT emotion is really that surprising.
 
Last edited:

Top