England v New Zealand ODI Series

First topic message reminder :

Teams for first ODI:

New Zealand: 1 Martin Guptill, 2 BJ Watling, 3 Kane Williamson, 4 Ross Taylor, 5 Brendon McCullum (capt & wk), 6 Grant Elliott, 7 James Franklin, 8 Andrew Ellis, 9 Nathan McCullum, 10 Kyle Mills, 11 Mitchell McClenaghan

England: 1 Alastair Cook (capt), 2 Ian Bell, 3 Jonathan Trott, 4 Joe Root, 5 Eoin Morgan, 6 Jos Buttler (wk), 7 Chris Woakes, 8 Stuart Broad, 9 Graeme Swann, 10 James Anderson, 11 Steven Finn

England currently 157/2 after 34 overs after being put into bat. Cook out for 4, Bell out for 64. Trott and Root doing nicely.

It annoys me that every time we lose Bell and Trott get the blame, even though they scored 50s, in Bell's case at a very good rate for the match.

I haven't seen much of it, but from the radio commentary and scorecard it seems the last 15 overs with the bat and second half with the ball were problem areas. Woakes again struggled to disprove the idea that his bowling isn't top-notch at international level - on a pitch like this I'd be tempted to play Tredwell instead.*

* I'm not too worried about the effect on batting. Broad, Swann, Tredwell is a decent enough 7, 8, 9 and we shouldn't need them to contribute that often.

Woakes weren't the problem with the ball, sure he went for 5 an over, but he picked up a couple of wickets.

Broad was the problem with the ball today

He was expensive, but his opening spell was good and the game was as good as gone by his last over. Certainly looks in much better form than he did before Xmas.

Looking at their returns its ridiculous to single out any individual as responsible from the bowling unit. They just lacked penetration throughout and had too little to defend without taking wickets.
OK so actually lets blame Finn, since he is the premium strike bowler and failed to capitalise on the new ball. Or Anderson for his later overs being expensive.

They just werent quite good enough as a unit, this happens.


Same goes with the batting, I wouldnt directly blame any of the individuals in the top order but having it so packed with accumulators does unbalance things a touch. Again this is not a case of directly blaming that for this loss, but an observation that was made prior to the game. Cook is the one whos underperfoming the most recently (not just this game but an extended run covering the previous two series)
The plan off starting slow and building has been working for England, and very much changed the fortunes of the side. But without KP the side does look too loaded in that direction.

Shockingly without oner of their best players they arent as good a side.

Pretty much agree with that, just overall not quite good enough as a unit but 20 more runs or one more wicket a bit earlier and it becomes a win.

Just looked up Bell's record since coming back in to open the side against the Windies: Average 56.5 at a Strike Rate of 80. Not too shabby....

Main reason for defeat in my book is this:

After 35 overs, England were 163/2. From there, you're looking at a minimum score of 275, and probably eyeing up 300+. Instead we drastically collapsed and made 258, another 20-30 runs and we win.

Anyway, it's all over now. England are 1 down.

Shelsey93 wrote:It annoys me that every time we lose Bell and Trott get the blame, even though they scored 50s, in Bell's case at a very good rate for the match.

I haven't seen much of it, but from the radio commentary and scorecard it seems the last 15 overs with the bat and second half with the ball were problem areas. Woakes again struggled to disprove the idea that his bowling isn't top-notch at international level - on a pitch like this I'd be tempted to play Tredwell instead.*

* I'm not too worried about the effect on batting. Broad, Swann, Tredwell is a decent enough 7, 8, 9 and we shouldn't need them to contribute that often.

Broad has an ODI average of 12

Shelsey93 wrote:It annoys me that every time we lose Bell and Trott get the blame, even though they scored 50s, in Bell's case at a very good rate for the match.

I haven't seen much of it, but from the radio commentary and scorecard it seems the last 15 overs with the bat and second half with the ball were problem areas. Woakes again struggled to disprove the idea that his bowling isn't top-notch at international level - on a pitch like this I'd be tempted to play Tredwell instead.*

* I'm not too worried about the effect on batting. Broad, Swann, Tredwell is a decent enough 7, 8, 9 and we shouldn't need them to contribute that often.

What exactly does Trott add to the team if we already have Cook, KP and Bell.

ShankyCricket wrote:

Shelsey93 wrote:It annoys me that every time we lose Bell and Trott get the blame, even though they scored 50s, in Bell's case at a very good rate for the match.

I haven't seen much of it, but from the radio commentary and scorecard it seems the last 15 overs with the bat and second half with the ball were problem areas. Woakes again struggled to disprove the idea that his bowling isn't top-notch at international level - on a pitch like this I'd be tempted to play Tredwell instead.*

* I'm not too worried about the effect on batting. Broad, Swann, Tredwell is a decent enough 7, 8, 9 and we shouldn't need them to contribute that often.

What exactly does Trott add to the team if we already have Cook, KP and Bell.

Runs. Which is what the top order is there for.

From 5 down is where England are failing.

You can't always expect the likes of Buttler and Morgan to score 100 runs consistently in the last 10 overs. If the top order players bat a touch too slow, then they have to score hundreds and pick up the pace of the innings in due course of time, and let the rest bat around them. A slowish 50 or 60 won't help a great deal as far as the middle and lower middle order is concerned, as they have to not only hunt for quick runs, but also keep the wickets in hand and bat out the overs. If Trott, Bell and Root all stay in decent touch by the time Pietersen comes back, I would seriously think about Trott's place in the side. Root seems more capable of shifting gears according to the situations. He has shown pretty decent consistency as well.

msp83 wrote:You can't always expect the likes of Buttler and Morgan to score 100 runs consistently in the last 10 overs. If the top order players bat a touch too slow, then they have to score hundreds and pick up the pace of the innings in due course of time, and let the rest bat around them. A slowish 50 or 60 won't help a great deal as far as the middle and lower middle order is concerned, as they have to not only hunt for quick runs, but also keep the wickets in hand and bat out the overs. If Trott, Bell and Root all stay in decent touch by the time Pietersen comes back, I would seriously think about Trott's place in the side. Root seems more capable of shifting gears according to the situations. He has shown pretty decent consistency as well.

They didn't have to score hundreds or even that between them. Morgan came in at 184/3 and Buttler at 190/4. A brisk 30/40 each would have put England out of sight. As it was Morgan added another single figure to his already long list. Regardless, 258 would have been enough if England didn't bowl so short late on.

Since Cook has taken over the captaincy, more often than not the top 4 have laid a decent platform for England, this is despite the constant wittering that him, Trott and Bell can't play in the top 4.

ShankyCricket wrote:
What exactly does Trott add to the team if we already have Cook, KP and Bell.

Cook Bell and Root.

The question is which one of the 4 should go to make way for return of the king peanut?

Cooks been in the worst form. Everyone knows Bell cant play limited overs. Trotts the slowest of the lot. Root the new kid/unproven/only getting payed on an incremental.
Cooks the captain and had a great run of form till the mid summer, Bells the greatest player ever all of a sudden, Trott gets the most runs and bowls, Roots had a bright start and is capable of scoring fast too and has a valuable spin option which is pretty much required to keep Fatel out of the side.

Drop all and none of them. Oh and invent a way to pick Hales too.

liverbnz wrote:

msp83 wrote:You can't always expect the likes of Buttler and Morgan to score 100 runs consistently in the last 10 overs. If the top order players bat a touch too slow, then they have to score hundreds and pick up the pace of the innings in due course of time, and let the rest bat around them. A slowish 50 or 60 won't help a great deal as far as the middle and lower middle order is concerned, as they have to not only hunt for quick runs, but also keep the wickets in hand and bat out the overs. If Trott, Bell and Root all stay in decent touch by the time Pietersen comes back, I would seriously think about Trott's place in the side. Root seems more capable of shifting gears according to the situations. He has shown pretty decent consistency as well.

They didn't have to score hundreds or even that between them. Morgan came in at 184/3 and Buttler at 190/4. A brisk 30/40 each would have put England out of sight. As it was Morgan added another single figure to his already long list. Regardless, 258 would have been enough if England didn't bowl so short late on.

Since Cook has taken over the captaincy, more often than not the top 4 have laid a decent platform for England, this is despite the constant wittering that him, Trott and Bell can't play in the top 4.

Of course Morgan has been out of form in ODIs for some time now.
But the point is that if the top 4 bat at a strike rate of 70 up to the 40th over, all that the side could manage is about 170 runs by that time. And if they are 4 down by that time, the lower middle order would be placed in a dificult position of needing to push the score up to safe regions as well as batting out the 50 overs.
Even in the first game of the recent India series, Cook and Bell had put together a 150+ opening partnership but they did take their time. So Morgan and Pietersen had to play their shots and lost their wickets in the process. Had it not been for a splendid knock from Samit Patel that total whould have been 20-25 less and there was every chance they would have lost the game. Now Patel is not England's best bet with the bat, and you can't really expect him to play similar knocks every day, although he's better than often credited for.
In English conditions, with 2 new balls, the strategy might come off. But even in New Zealand, it might not despite bowlers having more of a say in things, as the boundaries are rather on the short side and also their batting depth. Any side that someone like Mills coming in at 10 will have some fire power all the way for sure.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/new-zealand-v-england-2013/content/current/story/605415.html

England expected to name an unchanged side to save the series.

liverbnz wrote:

ShankyCricket wrote:

Shelsey93 wrote:It annoys me that every time we lose Bell and Trott get the blame, even though they scored 50s, in Bell's case at a very good rate for the match.

I haven't seen much of it, but from the radio commentary and scorecard it seems the last 15 overs with the bat and second half with the ball were problem areas. Woakes again struggled to disprove the idea that his bowling isn't top-notch at international level - on a pitch like this I'd be tempted to play Tredwell instead.*

* I'm not too worried about the effect on batting. Broad, Swann, Tredwell is a decent enough 7, 8, 9 and we shouldn't need them to contribute that often.

What exactly does Trott add to the team if we already have Cook, KP and Bell.

Runs. Which is what the top order is there for.

From 5 down is where England are failing.

Sorry, you can't score at a SR of under 70.

sent ya a PM shanks

msp83 wrote:You can't always expect the likes of Buttler and Morgan to score 100 runs consistently in the last 10 overs. If the top order players bat a touch too slow, then they have to score hundreds and pick up the pace of the innings in due course of time, and let the rest bat around them. A slowish 50 or 60 won't help a great deal as far as the middle and lower middle order is concerned, as they have to not only hunt for quick runs, but also keep the wickets in hand and bat out the overs. If Trott, Bell and Root all stay in decent touch by the time Pietersen comes back, I would seriously think about Trott's place in the side. Root seems more capable of shifting gears according to the situations. He has shown pretty decent consistency as well.

Indeed... and I feel KP at 4 would be a criminal waste. So it is Trott who has to make way IMO.

CF wrote:sent ya a PM shanks

Done...

thanks very much

sent ya another PM, last one lol

Should be a good match. Always love watching games from Napier.

The match starts in about 2 hours 40 mins.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Looking at their returns its ridiculous to single out any individual as responsible from the bowling unit. They just lacked penetration throughout and had too little to defend without taking wickets.
OK so actually lets blame Finn, since he is the premium strike bowler and failed to capitalise on the new ball. Or Anderson for his later overs being expensive. They just werent quite good enough as a unit, this happens.


Same goes with the batting, I wouldnt directly blame any of the individuals in the top order but having it so packed with accumulators does unbalance things a touch. Again this is not a case of directly blaming that for this loss, but an observation that was made prior to the game. Cook is the one whos underperfoming the most recently (not just this game but an extended run covering the previous two series)
The plan off starting slow and building has been working for England, and very much changed the fortunes of the side. But without KP the side does look too loaded in that direction.

Shockingly without oner of their best players they arent as good a side.

Only 1 over that went for 17. Buttler let a ball through his legs for 4 that takes it down to 13 and only one bad ball that went for 6.Take that off and his figures would have been 9-1-26-1. Still nervous for tonight though.

Line-ups for the 3rd ODI in Napier

New Zealand:
Hamish Rutherford, BJ Watling, Kane Williamson, Ross Taylor, Brendon McCullum*†,
Grant Elliott, James Franklin, Nathan McCullum, Kyle Mills, Trent Boult, Tim Southee

England:
Alastair Cook*, Ian Bell, Jonathan Trott, Joe Root, Eoin Morgan, Jos Buttler†,
Chris Woakes, Stuart Broad, Graeme Swann, James Anderson, Steven Finn

England have won the toss and have sent New Zealand into bat.

Brendon McCullum would have bowled first as well.

Hamish Rutherford makes his ODI debut, replacing the hamstrung Martin Guptill, while Trent Boult deputises for fellow left-armer, the injured Mitchell McClenaghan, and Tim Southee makes a return to the New Zealand side after an injury-enforced absence in place of Andrew Ellis.

Flat pitch. Looks like par 280.

Good start that from Finn, good pace and length off a new shortened run up. England will need early wickets and try to get McCullum in as early as possible and hope no platform has been set for him. Otherwise it could be a bit of a chase.

19 - 2. Two wickets for Anderson

Good start from Anderson.

This 300 par score looks a long way off. Maybe Liam is closer to the mark but the Kiwis will need to kick things along.

37/2 after 15 overs.

WASP = Winning And Score Predictor

"Using the historical data from the last 5 years and information from the current live game, WASP makes two predictions during a limited over match.

For the team batting first it will predict their score.

For the team batting second it will predict their percentage chance of winning.

Both of these predictions will change every ball depending on what happens during the game."

That clears it up then... wondered what the heck WASP meant.

NZ are currently 57/2 after 19 overs.

Partnership up to 45... But steady bowling from Swann and Broad in last few overs.

89/2 after 25 overs now.

Williamson chops on a delivery from Woakes. He departs for 33 (47)

NZ 91/3

Ross Taylor reaches his 50 off 81 balls.

182/4 after 41 overs. Taylor 82 and McCullum 33 starting to hit out. McCullum six while falling over. 57 from 34 ball partnership

204/4 after 42 overs.

22 off the next over...hmm..a competitive total perhaps

Mccullum 6. now 50 off 26 balls

If they keep bowling short it will be 300

Taylor gets his 100.

NZ 266/8 after 48 overs

and All Out for 269 runs

Four wickets later ( three of them to piched-up deliveries, note ) and Taylor has some work left to get past 280

But he has a well played century

266/8 in the ante penultimate over...

Welcome back Ross Taylor. 100. And departs

267/9. 2 overs left

...and Anderson gets Taylor for a fine 100 exactly...268/9

May not use up their overs...

All out 269. With seven balls unused.

Five for Jimmy Anderson

Solid start from Cook and Bell, 37-0 after 9.

McCullum not giving the new ball to Southee, I don't think that was very smart from Brendon. But now he's on, in the 10th over.

54-0 after 12. Bell 29, Cook 24.

England well in control. 72-0 after 15. Cook 32, Bell 38.

Isn't it nice to have DRS for a change!!

massively wasted review from NZ mind..

England in control at the moment- but I 'don't want Bell bogging things up and end up putting pressure on others to chase a high RR

Williamson and Nathan McCullum with some spin, the run rate has come down a bit. 77-0 after 17.