• The forum upgrades are now largely complete.
    Please read this thread for more details.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.

England v New Zealand (1st test)

rentaghost said:
a 5% chance of victory and maybe a 30% chance of defeat by doing so? I've no doubt there will be some criticism coming Root's way but not deserved imo.
Click to expand...
But it’s not like that. You lose a couple of wickets, and fine shut up shop. It’s not as if it’s a horrific pitch

they could have left themselves something “sloggable” in the last hour. And then if you lose wickets you reign it back.
 

chunkylover53 said:
I think there is a balance personally. They could have opened up a 5% chance of a victory with a bit more intent. Let’s say they were 144/3 an hour ago, could they have feasibly chased it? With very little risk?

Yeah. It’s almost like there is nowt in between
Click to expand...

Which batsmen were going to lead this fools errand in your opinion?
 
smoker said:
Quit yer whinging. If this was achievable do you really think nz would have declared when they did? We would have fallen flat on our arse without Stokes or Buttler to orchestrate that chase
Click to expand...

Aye. I think NZ are an attacking team who see this series as a bit of a free hit. They attempted to dangle the carrot and make a game of it and England said no thank you.

The approach has been very disappointing. Gung ho cricket wasn’t required but positive intent and a run rate of 3 runs per over would have made an interesting conclusion. An opener scoring 1 every four balls and not even attempting to put away half volleys simply isn’t good enough.
 
Sea to Shining Sea said:
Aye. I think NZ are an attacking team who see this series as a bit of a free hit. They attempted to dangle the carrot and make a game of it and England said no thank you.

The approach has been very disappointing. Gung ho cricket wasn’t required but positive intent and a run rate of 3 runs per over would have made an interesting conclusion. An opener scoring 1 every four balls and not even attempting to put away half volleys simply isn’t good enough.
Click to expand...
Falling on deaf ears, mate.
 
Sea to Shining Sea said:
Aye. I think NZ are an attacking team who see this series as a bit of a free hit. They attempted to dangle the carrot and make a game of it and England said no thank you.

The approach has been very disappointing. Gung ho cricket wasn’t required but positive intent and a run rate of 3 runs per over would have made an interesting conclusion. An opener scoring 1 every four balls and not even attempting to put away half volleys simply isn’t good enough.
Click to expand...
An opener lasting for 178 balls against a Duke ball in England is good enough. This is against a good bowling attack also
 
There’s a perfect example; Pope played a forward defensive but it was positive. He was on the front foot and looking for the run. That’s not been there throughout this innings. Sibley standing flat footed at the other shouting no. It’s just shite cricket.
 

chunkylover53 said:
But it’s not like that. You lose a couple of wickets, and fine shut up shop. It’s not as if it’s a horrific pitch

they could have left themselves something “sloggable” in the last hour. And then if you lose wickets you reign it back.
Click to expand...
Its a lot easier for Root and Sibley to shut up shop than Robinson and Bracey for example. Its not as easy to reign it back when you have lost 4 or 5 with the mixture of inexperience and tail enders we have from 7-11 and the opposition have a chance.
 
rentaghost said:
Its a lot easier for Root and Sibley to shut up shop than Robinson and Bracey for example. Its not as easy to reign it back when you have lost 4 or 5 with the mixture of inexperience and tail enders we have from 7-11 and the opposition have a chance.
Click to expand...
I know that. Hence there is balance, you try not to lose early wickets but you play with a bit of intent

If you’re 7/2 then you clearly don’t go with it. I think they’ve got the balance wrong
 
Jack Torrance said:
An opener lasting for 178 balls against a Duke ball in England is good enough. This is against a good bowling attack also
Click to expand...

It isn’t. Opening the batting isn’t just about survival. Of course important but it can’t be at the cost of even attempting to score runs. It puts pressure on those around him, doesn’t take the game forward and isn’t situational; he plays this way regardless. It’s not good enough
 
Not been watching at all apart from a few highlights, but I can’t fault the approach with the side we have out. As mentioned previously I wouldn’t have fancied our middle and lower order to bat out a draw if we were 5 down with 40 overs to survive or something.

Can see the other side though. Pretty meaningless series really so would have been a chance for some of these lads to make a name for themselves
 
Silly Point said:
Not been watching at all apart from a few highlights, but I can’t fault the approach with the side we have out. As mentioned previously I wouldn’t have fancied our middle and lower order to bat out a draw if we were 5 down with 40 overs to survive or something.

Can see the other side though. Pretty meaningless series really so would have been a chance for some of these lads to make a name for themselves
Click to expand...

If you look at the scorecard you might say fair enough. But watching the approach adds a different element to it. Bad balls being blocked, flat footed at the crease, no pro-active running or attempts to put pressure on. Burns, Sibley and Crawley were never coming out like Hayden, Slater and Ponting but they could have attempted Cook, Strauss and Trott! It was 1.5ish an over for the most part and was absolutely appalling cricket
 
Sea to Shining Sea said:
It isn’t. Opening the batting isn’t just about survival. Of course important but it can’t be at the cost of even attempting to score runs. It puts pressure on those around him, doesn’t take the game forward and isn’t situational; he plays this way regardless. It’s not good enough
Click to expand...
It isn't but this was a classic example where it was. I game with next to no chance of winning and a decent chance of defeat if we had lost early wickets. Sibley's innings has but no extra pressure on anyone as they have been happy, rightly to see the game out and secure the draw.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top