New Zealand vs England - Third Test

First topic message reminder :

Are we going to get a result? With decent weather, I think we will, and dare I say it to England.

The only change I can see is Bracewell coming in for the Kiwi's, although there was talk of England playing five bowlers, which I would be surprised at.

Broad is the only England bowler who has looked anything near his best, but with Jimmy who needs five wickets for 300, and Finn, who will hopefully pitch the ball up, things should improve.

It's not like the batsmen were scoring runs completely for fun, and the bowlers had to bowl well to get wickets.
As Mysti said, that's what test cricket is all about.

I prefer a pitch that offers something personally. Each to their own, this wont live long in the memory for myself, final day aside

Mike Selig wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:

Anyway back to watching for a little bit more. This might yet end up a more interesting Test than we thought ....

Immense satisfaction at our fighting spirit to obtain a draw but that's nothing to my smugness about the comment above made early on the second day when most pundits had already given up on this Test!

Feel free to be smug. I'm eating a healthy dose of pie at the moment. Clearly us young rebels still have a thing (or three) to learn from wise experienced heads...

Too kind, Mike.

As former Surrey and England captain Peter May stated, ''It is a fascination of cricket that one is always learning.''

I very much agree with the comments in your earlier post this morning. Massive credit for their battling performances today to Prior, Bell, Root and Broad. The last of those four went some way to redeeming himself in my eyes after a shamefully petulant performance the day before. Too often Broad blamed the fielders - and Panesar in particular - for being in the wrong position but only after the ball had been bowled and struck.

As you also said, New Zealand take considerable credit from this Test and the series. A shame for them that Martin couldn't really deliver today. As I mentioned a day or so ago, I was particularly impressed by McCullum. He knows his team and his own mind. The only criticism I would suggest - and I did so at the time - is that he chose to bat on in New Zealand's second innings a little too long. I felt a target of 430 - 450 max was more than sufficient. How at close today he must have wished he could have shortened that innings by four or five overs and had those extra balls to bowl at Prior and Panesar. Not to be.

In what turned out to be such an enthralling match, there are inevitably so many ''what if'' and crucial moments to look back on. One which I suspect will be too quickly forgotten amongst the last day heroics and earlier centuries and sixfers is Joe Root's first innings score of 45 off 254 deliveries. He got a lot of flak on this board and on SKY for going so slowly, allowing New Zealand to call the tune and dominate proceedings. However, New Zealand were already well ahead and would have dominated even more if Root had gone quickly. From a precarious position of 72-5 when he was joined by the excellent Prior, Root displayed patience, determination and good judgment in an innings that his final score does not do justice to in the context of the match.

GSC wrote:I prefer a pitch that offers something personally. Each to their own, this wont live long in the memory for myself, final day aside

It offered plenty to the kiwi bowlers, they worked the new ball and England struggled. There were plenty of wickets taken in all 3 matches but the batsmen could still score if they applied themselves.
That's the definition of a good test match.

Matt Prior - what a player. Mr Consistent for England these last few years. Definitely the best w/k-batsman in the world today and possibly on course to be remembered as the greatest that England has ever produced.

I am still in shock how we came away with a draw.

Matt Prior what a legend, as i have said before he is such a key player for England, and we would of been simply doomed without him.

Bairstow a bit dissapointed i am with him personally.

Poor test series over all, but at least we didn't lose!

I believe that is it for Cricket this winter? Next game is in May at Lords against NZ

Just read this on the BBC:

Stuart Broad set a new Test record for the longest time at the crease without scoring. He needed 103 minutes to get off the mark, beating the previous record of 101 minutes set by New Zealand's Geoff Allott against South Africa in 1999 - also at Eden Park.

Though it's worth noting that Allot ultimately was dismissed for 0. Admittedly there were several occasions he and Chris Harris turned down singles in order to avoid him retaiing the strike. And delaying the start of NZ's follow on meant saving the test on that occasion too.

fantastic from Prior and the tail! Top order sit up and notice!

Looking back now at this 3rd test match in Auckland, Johnny Bairstow should never have played in it as he scored just 3 runs in the first innings and only made 6 runs in the second innings. I'm not putting any blame on Bairstow at all as he hadn't played in any matches since last year, however I do believe that England made a huge selection blunder by not moving Matt Prior to 6 in order that they could bring in another specialist bowler to strengthen what has been a bowling attack that has been firing blanks throughout the test series in NZ. A 5 man specialist bowling attack could have made a big difference on the crucial 1st and 4th days play in which England struggled to not only take wickets but to slow down the avalanche of runs made by the opposition batsmen.

Stella wrote:Kiwi fans? There was more than one?

Shame. A full ground would have made that last day even better. Well played Matt Prior. His 'only scores easy runs' tag should now be thrown in the bin.

Stella, you do have to appreciate that cricket is only a minor sport in New Zealand, especially in Auckland. in fact I cant remember the last time a cricket test was played in Auckland.

Still thought the atmosphere was good despite the sparse crowd. Barmy army were superb all test, especially when billy the tumpeter started playing that cricus tune when NZ dropped those two catches off Bell and Bairstow. Tremendous banter. Thought the NZ supporters also made allot of noise for the wickets and appeals.

Didn't have time to comment this morning but was slightly surprised and very pleased to wake up and find that England had gutted it out for an unlikely draw.
After Cardiff 2009 and the two games in SA this last wicket thing is becoming something of a habit
No praise too much for Bell and Prior , tremendous effort from each of them. And of course they have both done it before ( I recall Bell playing a major role in one of those SA escapes ) . Broad apparently managed to set aside his normal game to almost see his team to comfortable safety , and the effort of Root shouldn't be forgotten...

Think I predicted on day four that England would be able to save a draw "if Cook and Trott had a big stand" .That they were able to save it without a major contribution from those two speaks volumes for the spirit in the team , even if they were a bit off the boil overall in this series ( which I think is a not unfair assessment )

Again , it doesn't change the fact that NZ were the better team in this series in terms of days/sessions won , and England will not be happy with their performance over the three matches ; but at least nil all is not a loss and the saving of this one against the odds will see them leave for home with morale a lot higher than if they'd gone down to defeat .

Oh yes , and well done those Kiwis They were supposed to be the whipping boys in this , and they proved pretty well everyone wrong with their fight and tenacity. Hope they go on to better things.

It's not been a complete disaster of a tour for England. Broad has got himself back to some form with the ball, Prior has once again confirmed how good he is, Compton has cemented his position for the summer (I'm not convinced by him, but he deserves his chance), Joe Root has gained some more experience and has continued to show promise and Bell, Cook and Trott have all got some run albeit intermittently.

Bad points are Jimmy hasn't looked fit, Finn hasn't looked the bowler he was even in India and Monty doesn't look threatening on anything but turning wickets. The batsmen are all failing far too much as well, very little in the way of consistency. That's probably the most worrying part; the fact we turn off for sessions at a time and let Tests slip away in two sessions of madness.

Hopefully the fact we ended the series on a high with a brilliant effort to save the series doesn't overshadow the fact that we were outplayed for vast swathes of it. Lots of work to do before these back to back Ashes series and even before NZ in England and here's praying KP and Swann can get back to full fitness before then.

On another note, I'm not one to criticise umpires generally but they were bloody awful in this last Test. I'm sure it is not the norm for them, but thank God for DRS because this Test could have been lost on a poor decision on that final day with Prior and Broad both being given out LBW incorrectly.

Having Monty about clearly does a lot for morale..

But sadly he isnt needed unless we play in south asia..

If he isnt playing he should be the barmy army mascot

From what looked like a position of real depth squad wise, well certainly on paper. England are looking like being a couple of injuries away from really being up against it.

In the bowling outside the 3 Quicks who played these tests, who is really putting their hands up to take their place? Also in the Spinning department, if Swann is out, then the cupboard is bare. Monty (outside if India) apart has been a non factor for a number of years now, but what other options are there?

With one established batsmen missing, there are 3 positions (Root, Baristow and to a lesser extent Compton) that there are big questions marks about, certainly at the moment.

Could not agree more with the view that Prior should bat at six so we can play five bowlers. We should certainly have done this when Swann was injured and I think we ought to do this when Swan is fit, as well.
The way Swann can keep an end going is great and he effectively has been able to dispel the five-bowlers-needed theory. But Prior is averaging 45, for Pete's sake, and it's not as if anyone else is battering down the door to be number six.

Swann can bat a bit. And dont discount Broad.. Clearly has been working very hard again on his batting. being best mates with Prior as well may help. he will give him tips.

5 bolwers is fine for england. Well untill that TRUE all rounder comes along(which off course could be root anyway!!)

I don't agree with the 5 bowlers thing. As someone stated above we have the 3 seamers and not much that is convincing beyond that (even the 3 themselves are not all that convincing at times). Who is the 5th bowler going to be - Monty? That would be a very poor choice outside of the subcontinent.

Bresnan is the perfect medium pace option and can bat a bit VTR. He just needs to be put back in the side

And he averages 32 with bat and ball!!!

a true allrounder i suppose

I'd agree Bresnan looked like he could be that man. But on recent form not a chance. Similar to Broad - looked like a future number 7 but his batting has regressed severely.

well woakes could be put in again

sorry he hasnt played test yet has he!
but still an option to try

Woakes has potential. I think he needs to get into the side on the strength of his bowling first though. I don't see the England management sticking him in at 7 and expecting him to contribute with bat and ball right from the off.

7 bat, 4 bowl works for England, don't expect a change. Maybe move Prior up the order.

Better preparation needed from England.

GSC wrote:7 bat, 4 bowl works for England, don't expect a change. Maybe move Prior up the order.

Better preparation needed from England.

Well it didn't work for England in this last test match as the test place made vacant by Kevin Pietersen's injury was wasted by giving it to a player who hadn't played in any proper cricket matches since last summer (Johnny Bairstow), so it was always going to be asking too much for him to go straight in from the off and start making the big scores like he did in the SA test series. I would have perfered a specialist bowler like Onions or Woakes to have been given that vacant place in the test side as a specialist bowler always has the opportunity to bowl himself into some kind of match form/sharpness out in the middle, whereas a batsman who hasn't played any competitive cricket for ages just doesn't have that kind of luxury (he can be out first ball in each innings).

Has five bowlers ever worked for England? Whereas we have won Tests everywhere (Aus, SA, Ind; admittedly plus Samit Patel) with four bowlers. Add in the fact that people were clamouring for Bresnan to be dropped not so long ago and now he is the key to balancing the side? Hmmm. Plus if I was to choose the main weakness of this England side it would be there batting, rather than the bowling, so why would we weaken that for an unnecessary fifth bowler?

I do not think we need to be too rigid about this. It is true that Prior is certainly good enough to bat at six ( though you then have to look at how good the batting from 7-11 is going to be: Bresnan/Broad/Swann/Finn/Anderson , for example , would be fine from a batting viewpoint ; while Broad/Finn/Anderson/Onions/Panesar would be a little light in most eyes ) But yes , he does give England the option of including an extra bowler when conditions appear to warrant one.
Next consideration is how much the extra bowler brings to the game : does anyone really think Woakes would have made a massive difference to the bowling effort against NZ in the game just completed ? With hindsight he might obviously have been at least as effective as Bairstow with the bat , but you don't select your team in the expectation of a player failing in his appointed role...
As VTR rightly pointed out above , while picking Monty as the fifth bowler makes sense in Asia it really is of no use anywhere else. So it will always be a fourth seamer , and probably will be one who can bat a bit - which pretty much means Bresnan or Woakes , no ?
My own view is that on a
really flat wicket one might look at playing Broad/Swann/Finn/Anderson/Tremlett or Onions , but I cannot at the moment see too many other combinations that would actually enhance the overall strength of the team.
The other case for the extra bowler is more one of conserving energy in close spaced matches , and I think this is essentially too conservative : I would rather select the best team to win the next match and worry about replacing injured players when and if this becomes necessary.

Alfie - your last point is probably the best. With loads of back-to-back Tests and with no rest days these days, fitness is always a worry for a four-man attack.
At present we're expecting each of our four to bowl at least 20 over a day, which is too much. No wonder they get jaded.

Tbh the kiwi bowlers all reminded me of Timy Brsnan anyway and they did ok!

gboycottnut wrote:

GSC wrote:7 bat, 4 bowl works for England, don't expect a change. Maybe move Prior up the order.

Better preparation needed from England.

Well it didn't work for England in this last test match as the test place made vacant by Kevin Pietersen's injury was wasted by giving it to a player who hadn't played in any proper cricket matches since last summer (Johnny Bairstow), so it was always going to be asking too much for him to go straight in from the off and start making the big scores like he did in the SA test series. I would have perfered a specialist bowler like Onions or Woakes to have been given that vacant place in the test side as a specialist bowler always has the opportunity to bowl himself into some kind of match form/sharpness out in the middle, whereas a batsman who hasn't played any competitive cricket for ages just doesn't have that kind of luxury (he can be out first ball in each innings).

And it worked as we won series in Australia and India. Until a genuine all rounder emerges (never) 4 bowlers seems to suit us.

I very much agree with the workload issue. I would not have played Anderson in the final Test, he was clearly not at 100% however much he protested he was. Tough balancing act between what is best for England to win the next Test and what is best for them in the long run but I think they got this one wrong.

GSC wrote:

gboycottnut wrote:

GSC wrote:7 bat, 4 bowl works for England, don't expect a change. Maybe move Prior up the order.

Better preparation needed from England.

Well it didn't work for England in this last test match as the test place made vacant by Kevin Pietersen's injury was wasted by giving it to a player who hadn't played in any proper cricket matches since last summer (Johnny Bairstow), so it was always going to be asking too much for him to go straight in from the off and start making the big scores like he did in the SA test series. I would have perfered a specialist bowler like Onions or Woakes to have been given that vacant place in the test side as a specialist bowler always has the opportunity to bowl himself into some kind of match form/sharpness out in the middle, whereas a batsman who hasn't played any competitive cricket for ages just doesn't have that kind of luxury (he can be out first ball in each innings).

And it worked as we won series in Australia and India. Until a genuine all rounder emerges (never) 4 bowlers seems to suit us.

Well when we won the series in Australia in 2010/2011 a 4 man bowling attack worked because all 4 bowlers were very potent and were in matchwinning form with particularly Chris Tremlett being a huge success with the ball when he came in for Broad during the middle of that test series at Perth. However in this test series in NZ not all of the 4 bowlers have been potent and that has been the main problem for England. For a 4 man attack to succeed, more times than not all 4 bowlers have to be in excellent form otherwise it will be a lot easier for the opposition batsmen particularly on these slow flat batting surfaces that all the 3 tests were played on in NZ. A 5 man specialist bowling attack would have increased the chances of offering the captain a better chance of bowling out the opposition for under 400 odd per innings as well as offering the captain with better bowling options when he is looking to contain opposition batsmen who have already got their eye in and have scored
runs out in the middle.

sirfredperry wrote:Alfie - your last point is probably the best. With loads of back-to-back Tests and with no rest days these days, fitness is always a worry for a four-man attack.
At present we're expecting each of our four to bowl at least 20 over a day, which is too much. No wonder they get jaded.

Well that is my point , Sir Fred...I do appreciate the wear and tear issue is a problem in the modern calendar. But it is a balancing act : no use picking five bowlers for the first Test of a series if the result is that a short batting order gets knocked over cheaply in favourable bowling conditions and the opposition then run up a nice big lead despite the best efforts of our five man attack and go on to win ...I would sooner win the first Test and have to think about refreshing the bowling later in the series than be one down early with a bunch of well rested bowlers ...
Of course I know that is an oversimplification of the choices ...but what I am getting at is the first priority should surely be to put the best possible team in the field for the start of any series , with subsequent need for changes an accepted risk ; rather than selecting an extra bowler purely as an insurance policy. I don't think you would disagree with that ?

If the best team can be clearly seen as one including a five/five split then of course we have the best of both worlds. Just not sure that is likely to pertain in most circumstances given the resources currently available.

Going by the past 12 months of Test Cricket, Bresnan (17) and Broad (12) batting at 7/8 is too weak a lower order to bring in a 5th bowler.

Our bowling all-rounders, just don’t get enough time to work on their First Class batting. With them rarely playing County cricket and with their being so few warm up games, there time in the middle is very limited. They get such few opportunities to build an innings, in most of their Test Innings they are either coming in with License to throw the bat as the Top Order has set the platform or they are in with their backs against the wall.

Sorry a bit of a random and late point but I wanted Woakes to play in the final Test. On a flat wicket like that, Woaks' control would have been ideal on the wicket and more importantly, his batting would have brought greater balance to the line up. Doesn't matter now but just thought i'd make the point.

Liam wrote:Sorry a bit of a random and late point but I wanted Woakes to play in the final Test. On a flat wicket like that, Woaks' control would have been ideal on the wicket and more importantly, his batting would have brought greater balance to the line up. Doesn't matter now but just thought i'd make the point.

Fully agree that Woakes should have played instead of Bairstow as Woakes has played cricket matches since last summer whereas Bairstow hasn't so from a batting perspective there would be more of a chance of Woakes making a decent score with the bat than what Bairstow could, despite Bairstow being the recognised specialist batsman. Also obviously Woakes could have brought the advantage to England's team of having an extra specialist bowler with which to use in trying to contain the opposition team's scoring.

I don't think the selection in the last Test was wrong at all. Bairstow failed but it seems a lot of people on here are wise after the event. I'd suggest whatever form he was in he was a better bet to make a match winning score with the bat than Woakes would have been.

So the side was chosen on the basis of keeping the preferred balance which has worked in the past. A 5 man attack, as others have stated, has probably not worked for us since 2005 when we had a batting allrounder (something we lack completely now) at number 7.

Seems Root will bat 6 in the home series then...Baristow didnt take his chance..

VTR wrote:

So the side was chosen on the basis of keeping the preferred balance which has worked in the past. A 5 man attack, as others have stated, has probably not worked for us since 2005 when we had a batting allrounder (something we lack completely now) at number 7.

I know people didn't rate Geraint Jones' wicket keeping, but calling him a batting allrounder is a bit much...

VTR wrote:I don't think the selection in the last Test was wrong at all. Bairstow failed but it seems a lot of people on here are wise after the event. I'd suggest whatever form he was in he was a better bet to make a match winning score with the bat than Woakes would have been.

So the side was chosen on the basis of keeping the preferred balance which has worked in the past. A 5 man attack, as others have stated, has probably not worked for us since 2005 when we had a batting allrounder (something we lack completely now) at number 7.

Of course the selection of Bairstow was wrong based on 2 main factors. First was the state of the good/excellent batting conditions which meant that England could easily have got away with playing just 5 specialist batsmen with Prior at 6. And secondly, Bairstow hadn't played any proper cricket since the SA test series last summer, whereas someone like Woakes has played in India and played a couple of the warmup matches prior to the first test V NZ so its not exactly rocket science which points to the likelihood that Woakes would do better than Bairstow if he had been given the vacant test place in this last test at Auckland.

chrisss wrote:

VTR wrote:

So the side was chosen on the basis of keeping the preferred balance which has worked in the past. A 5 man attack, as others have stated, has probably not worked for us since 2005 when we had a batting allrounder (something we lack completely now) at number 7.

I know people didn't rate Geraint Jones' wicket keeping, but calling him a batting allrounder is a bit much...

you got me there! Yep Freddie was at 6, the great Geraint at number 7. The point still stands of course, we would probably need a batting all-rounder again to field a 5 man attack on a regular basis.

gboycottnut wrote:

Of course the selection of Bairstow was wrong based on 2 main factors. First was the state of the good/excellent batting conditions which meant that England could easily have got away with playing just 5 specialist batsmen with Prior at 6. And secondly, Bairstow hadn't played any proper cricket since the SA test series last summer, whereas someone like Woakes has played in India and played a couple of the warmup matches prior to the first test V NZ so its not exactly rocket science which points to the likelihood that Woakes would do better than Bairstow if he had been given the vacant test place in this last test at Auckland.

There's no evidence to suggest Woakes would have batted better than Bairstow in the last match. Woakes has never even played a Test so we don't know how good his batting is at the top level!

Also the good/excellent batting conditions you refer to, well look at the state of our first innings and tell me we only needed 6 batsmen. We were 80-5ish, that's hardly a compelling case to suggest we can cope without all the batting available.

Dont now if any of you English guys remember a Kiwi cricketer called Jesse Ryder?

Anyway last night (morning actually) he was beat up outside a bar in Christchurch, he is now in critical care with a fractured skull.

That is not good to hear , laurie

Ryder has a reputation for getting into strife , I believe , but this sounds really terrible. Hope he will be all right.

Rikki Clarke has come back into a good deal of form for Warks. Sadly, it's probably a bit on the late side for him to resurrect a test career as a batting all rounder.

Clarke had a terrific year last year, but in my view too early to tell if it was just a freak year. Also, I'm not sure his bowling is so good that he's worth sacrificing a better batsman for.

Shelsey - I think you are probably right on both counts.