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.

That's really poor by Rutherford. Done all the hard work, lunch is in sight, runs a plenty to be had here, and he wafts at one and gets out.

Inexperience coming in there

GSC wrote:Why would you insert a team on this pitch.

Another dull pitch, I hope we prepare some pitches with life this summer.

This just shows Cook's captaincy ability. Also when will England's selectors learn that they must be flexible enough in selecting the final test XI taking into account the match playing surface. England should have gone for an extra bowler on this slow lifeless batting paradise surface instead of another specialist batsman.

No, 4 bowlers was the right choice IMO. Woakes offers nothing that any of the other quickies do and if he bowls enough overs to justify his inclusion then NZ have made too many anyway.

JDizzle wrote:No, 4 bowlers was the right choice IMO. Woakes offers nothing that any of the other quickies do and if he bowls enough overs to justify his inclusion then NZ have made too many anyway.

If not Woakes, then Onions or Tredwell should have been selected as England are never going to get NZ out on this generous batting surface for a paltry low score.

Why? What would Tredwell/Onions have offered in that first session that wasn't already? If a bowler isn't good enough for your first four then he isn't going to make a consistent impact as a fifth option either.

Snow playing havoc with my satellite reception! BBC live text here we come...

JDizzle wrote:Why? What would Tredwell/Onions have offered in that first session that wasn't already? If a bowler isn't good enough for your first four then he isn't going to make a consistent impact as a fifth option either.

Simple really, a 5th specialist bowler offers a captain an extra bowling option out on the field. Generally it is the view taken by many cricket pundits that teams can only get away with a 4 man bowling unit only if it contains truely great bowlers, e.g. the West Indies pace attack in the 80's, the Australian attack in the 1990's-early millennium.

50 for Fulton. He's got NZ off the another solid start and he's a decent series in general. He'll want to make this one a biggie though.

I don't understand how Woakes is an extra option. You can't play Onions because that means Broad at 7 which is at minimum one place to high (he's not really an 8 at the moment) and Woakes is just inferior to Anderson, Broad and Finn. I might be proved wrong by him, but at this moment in time there is no way he justifies his inclusion as a fifth bowler. And the other option thing doesn't wash, he is just another right arm medium swinger. If the three front line seamers aren't getting through, chances are he won't as they are meant to be better than him, that's why they are picked ahead of him in a four man attack.

I'm going to put something out there; I think MFC may have mentioned at some point as well, is Monty our number two spinner outside of Asia? We have to remember why he was dropped in the first place e.g. bowling too quick with no variation, and it looks as though nothing has changed. Effective in Asia when it turns at that pace (nigh on unplayable in some cases) but not so much on day 1 wickets (or later) anywhere else. The debate is would Tredwell be a better option? Who knows, but he might get a go the next time (hopefully not for a long time) Swann misses out.

JDizzle wrote:I don't understand how Woakes is an extra option. You can't play Onions because that means Broad at 7 which is at minimum one place to high (he's not really an 8 at the moment) and Woakes is just inferior to Anderson, Broad and Finn. I might be proved wrong by him, but at this moment in time there is no way he justifies his inclusion as a fifth bowler. And the other option thing doesn't wash, he is just another right arm medium swinger. If the three front line seamers aren't getting through, chances are he won't as they are meant to be better than him, that's why they are picked ahead of him in a four man attack.

But the wicket surface is slow and lifeless and is perfect for batting on. Therefore England need an extra bowler rather than playing 6 specialist batsmen as that extra bowler will allow the other 4 specialist bowlers to have sufficient rest in between their bowling spells on what are hot sunny conditions.

JDizzle wrote:I'm going to put something out there; I think MFC may have mentioned at some point as well, is Monty our number two spinner outside of Asia? We have to remember why he was dropped in the first place e.g. bowling too quick with no variation, and it looks as though nothing has changed. Effective in Asia when it turns at that pace (nigh on unplayable in some cases) but not so much on day 1 wickets (or later) anywhere else. The debate is would Tredwell be a better option? Who knows, but he might get a go the next time (hopefully not for a long time) Swann misses out.

There was a time back in 2009 that Adil Rashid was our second best spinner. He would have been ideal for selection as a number 7 batsman in any such 5 man bowling attack.

Well new zealand's day. Looks like a bad decision to insert the kiwis, but we can't be to critical given the number of ex captains eg vaughan who said they would have done the same thing. Only positive for england is the slow scoring rate means the kiwis haven't completely got away yet. Think if england bat well in the first innings this will be a draw. Bad pitch really for test cricket IMO. But credit to new zealand, they are in the box seat after day one with runs on the board.

Draw written all over it on this flat track.

Bar a little bit of bounce literally no help for the bowlers. Not surprised, they'll want the draw from the series

Nothing in this pitch. Mistake putting them in first, but i suppose cook wanted to try something different..

Well played NZ though.. They still had to bat it out

Probably not the right time to re-look this thread then...

606v2.com/t39971-what-should-a-inferior-team-do-to-combat-england-s-pair-of-terror-new-ball-bowlers

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler on Tue Jan 29, 2013 11:16 am

Chris Martin is terrified of batting full stop

Anyway the question is what can New Zealand do against two good bowlers of very different styles to avoid folding like a panckae as they did against a not entirely disimilar SA attack?

Try not to be terrified?
Speak to the groundstaff and import a drop in pitch from India?

fair

Kinggraf. Its simple- loads of bad weather and pancake pitches. It works against any team

Srsly, NZ have played well but the only way to get a team out cheaply on these pitches is for them to throw their wickets away a la England in the first

Mystir- it was only a joke. But considering the fact that NZ normally has weather playing a crucial role, and that the flat pitches arent a new phenomena, I think calling it out is justified.

Dont worry mate. I get it. Wound up a bit tbh..

But credit to the kiwis. I expected them to fold whatever in fairness.

But on the plus side- Good to see the lower sides competing. Its good for the game..

I can't remember the last time NZ only lost 1 wicket in a full day's play. Odds are it'll be a draw unless runs-on-the-board pressure works its magic, but in the mean time:




Well done 2-Metre Peter! I love it when someone I've played against does well at the top level - and sadly there's not too many of those still playing the game these days.

If NZ can get to 500-550 and declare/be dismissed an hour before stumps tomorrow things could get interesting (granted that'd need no rain, and a couple of hours of McCullum batting)

mystiroakey wrote:Bowling first. Makes a decent change..

Mysti - better than Olly's post, I guess!

Olly wrote:Fulton just looks like a walking wicket

Olly - it's really good to see you more regularly on the cricket board but don't give up the day (Norwich FC thread) job!

Fulton does when we bowl at the wicket. Something we didn't do.

A few comments/rants:

First of all the pitch. Disgrace. Worse than the first test which was also a disgrace (that England got out for 167 was almost all to do with dreadful batting rather than any wicket-taking balls). Pitches like this do nothing for cricket - they are not good for bowling, but they are also not good for batting on, too slow so you can't play expansive shots. At a time when India have seemingly understood that flat pitches are of no good to anyone and are producing interesting pitches, New Zealand have gone the other way. It used to be that pitches there were great for seam bowlers. Well...

I don't get the criticism of Cook's decision to insert the kiwis, which IMO was perfectly sensible. The pitch is unlikely to deteriorate, and so the only time where the bowlers had anything from it was during the first hour or so (and England were a bit unfortunate not to pick up a wicket or two).

When faced with a dodo pitch, you probably control the game better bowling first - if you can limit the other side to 400 or less then you are on top, and if not then you can control the scoring, and the other side has to make the running. If you want to win you need 20 wickets. On a flat pitch the best way to do this is:
a) get 10 wickets up front, bat once and long, then rely on pressure to finish them off.
b) put a huge total on the board, then rely on scoreboard pressure to bowl them out .
The problem with plan b) (which is admitedly the more conventional way of doing things) is that you are relying on scoreboard pressure for 2 collapses (as opposed to just 1 in plan a) and it is probably harder to amass a huge total first up when looking for the win, because the tendancy will be to push too hard too soon, and throw wickets away.

Teams nowadays will tell you they would rather have the opposition 250/3 at the end of day 1 than 350/6, because they're more in control. Although going into day 2 with only just 1 wicket may be pushing it, but the fact is if New Zealand want to win this game, they now need to push on, on a pitch where it isn't easy to do so. They have the players (in particular the in-form McCullum) to do so, but England will just keep plugging away, as they did for most of the day.

The path for New Zealand to win now relies on a couple of collapses (either both by England, or one by either side). The path for England to win relies on a New Zealand declaration when they get bored, then matching their total in slightly less time, leaving them between 3 and 4 sessions and hoping for a replay of Adelaide 2006. Without Warne, and on a pitch not turning sideways (probably) this could be difficult. The other difficulty will be "in less time" - KP's absence will be felt, because he is the one player who could score a quick 150 for England. Bairstow could feasibly score a quick 50 or 60 but it's hard to see him make the fast big hundred which England will probably need to win. There may be a case that if New Zealand get to 500 or so, and England get to 200-2 to push Prior up the order - he's the other guy in this England side I can see getting a run-a-ball hundred.

Of the two options, I have to say if anything I fancy England's path a little bit more, but the draw is of course firm firm favourite.

Suggestions that Woakes would have made any difference on this pitch are silly. Tredwell would have been a better option, but to be honest you could pick 8 bowlers on this pitch and it wouldn't make much difference.

Finally, it seems Root is now under pressure, just a few weeks after being the next big thing. I can't say I'm surprised by the fast turn-around. But let's just remember that so far he's been out cheaply just 3 times, once when everyone else got themselves out just as well, once run out. It's not exactly a slump. England would do well to stick with him at least the following home series.

Mike Selig wrote:

Finally, it seems Root is now under pressure, just a few weeks after being the next big thing. I can't say I'm surprised by the fast turn-around. But let's just remember that so far he's been out cheaply just 3 times, once when everyone else got themselves out just as well, once run out. It's not exactly a slump. England would do well to stick with him at least the following home series.

I think they will and should. I guess the conflict occurs if, say, Bairstow makes 100 and Root hardly anything in this match.

Disgusting, disgraceful pitch.

Poor from New Zealand, who for all McCullum's bluster are little more than a scared lamb hoping for a draw.

Incredibly boring, and I shan't be tuning in tonight.

We'll have our revenge soon enough.

Disgraceful pitch.......Why ????

If the pitch has life.. New Zealand get rolled........At least this way they can get something out of the game...........

Certainly The kiwis can't bowl England out twice!!

Sport is about winning and If not drawing.........When you are at home you give yourself the best chance of a favorable result..

Sadly a draw vs England represents a good return for NZ.

Wish the ICC would step in about these dead pitches, hurts cricket as a whole.

Don't disagree, Trussy, they are within their rights to stack the cards in their favour.

What angers me is how much things like this hurt Test cricket. Imagine the casual fan listening in on the radio of reports of this series. England 300-1, NZ 250-1, etc etc they are hardly thrilling. Even the radio commentators announce it in a resigned tone. It just drives youngsters toward T20.

These aren't awful pitches - I'd probably give them all 5-6 out of 10. But they've all been the same, and combined with the weather this has probably been the most turgid series England have been involved in for a long, long time.

Even Sri Lanka at home in 2011 had some good moments - like SL being rolled over on the last day at Cardiff. And Bangladesh in 2010 had Tamim's quick hundreds, and plenty in the pitch at Old Trafford for the bowlers.

Mike Selig wrote:
...
Suggestions that Woakes would have made any difference on this pitch are silly. Tredwell would have been a better option, but to be honest you could pick 8 bowlers on this pitch and it wouldn't make much difference.

Finally, it seems Root is now under pressure, just a few weeks after being the next big thing. I can't say I'm surprised by the fast turn-around. But let's just remember that so far he's been out cheaply just 3 times, once when everyone else got themselves out just as well, once run out. It's not exactly a slump. England would do well to stick with him at least the following home series.

Mike - completely agree with you about Woakes. He's a lesser bowler than Anderson, Broad and Finn - if they can't do it, there's no reasonable likelihood he would.

Interesting comments earlier by the ever excellent JDizzle (picking up a point first made on an ''India v England'' thread by Mad for Chelsea) about Panesar and his role as the second spinner outside of Asia. I suspect that if cricket were a twelve man game, England would much more regularly play Panesar in Tests, regardless of the venue. We always seem keen to try and include him but too often he gets squeezed out of the actual starting eleven. I think all aspects of that are understandable and reasonable. I do wonder though if the selectors have made the mistake in this series - and particularly this Test - of too quickly regarding Panesar as an immediate replacement for Swann. It is right that Panesar be regarded as a foil and partner (in Asia, even the senior partner) for Swann. I would certainly be loathe to pick Swann and Tredwell together. However, in several ways Tredwell is a more natural replacement for Swann. I'm not for a moment suggesting that Tredwell would have skittled New Zealand today but emphasising that Swann's best partner isn't necessarily his best replacement.

As for Root, I think many of us old hands (and I include a young rebel in that term ) predicted how quickly the tide could turn on somebody who was and remains a very promising cricketer.

I'll comment on the rest of your post a bit later.

Mike Selig wrote:A few comments/rants:

First of all the pitch. Disgrace. Worse than the first test which was also a disgrace (that England got out for 167 was almost all to do with dreadful batting rather than any wicket-taking balls). Pitches like this do nothing for cricket - they are not good for bowling, but they are also not good for batting on, too slow so you can't play expansive shots. At a time when India have seemingly understood that flat pitches are of no good to anyone and are producing interesting pitches, New Zealand have gone the other way. It used to be that pitches there were great for seam bowlers. Well...

I don't get the criticism of Cook's decision to insert the kiwis, which IMO was perfectly sensible. The pitch is unlikely to deteriorate, and so the only time where the bowlers had anything from it was during the first hour or so (and England were a bit unfortunate not to pick up a wicket or two).

When faced with a dodo pitch, you probably control the game better bowling first - if you can limit the other side to 400 or less then you are on top, and if not then you can control the scoring, and the other side has to make the running. If you want to win you need 20 wickets. On a flat pitch the best way to do this is:
a) get 10 wickets up front, bat once and long, then rely on pressure to finish them off.
b) put a huge total on the board, then rely on scoreboard pressure to bowl them out .
The problem with plan b) (which is admitedly the more conventional way of doing things) is that you are relying on scoreboard pressure for 2 collapses (as opposed to just 1 in plan a) and it is probably harder to amass a huge total first up when looking for the win, because the tendancy will be to push too hard too soon, and throw wickets away.

Teams nowadays will tell you they would rather have the opposition 250/3 at the end of day 1 than 350/6, because they're more in control. Although going into day 2 with only just 1 wicket may be pushing it, but the fact is if New Zealand want to win this game, they now need to push on, on a pitch where it isn't easy to do so. They have the players (in particular the in-form McCullum) to do so, but England will just keep plugging away, as they did for most of the day.

The path for New Zealand to win now relies on a couple of collapses (either both by England, or one by either side). The path for England to win relies on a New Zealand declaration when they get bored, then matching their total in slightly less time, leaving them between 3 and 4 sessions and hoping for a replay of Adelaide 2006. Without Warne, and on a pitch not turning sideways (probably) this could be difficult. The other difficulty will be "in less time" - KP's absence will be felt, because he is the one player who could score a quick 150 for England. Bairstow could feasibly score a quick 50 or 60 but it's hard to see him make the fast big hundred which England will probably need to win. There may be a case that if New Zealand get to 500 or so, and England get to 200-2 to push Prior up the order - he's the other guy in this England side I can see getting a run-a-ball hundred.

Of the two options, I have to say if anything I fancy England's path a little bit more, but the draw is of course firm firm favourite.

Mike - as usual, a well crafted and considered post. I do wonder though if there's too much of a rush to judgment in your condemnation of the pitch and your defence of Cook.

I accept the pitch appears overly batsman friendly. However, we regularly say when the side batting first loses wickets cheaply that we need to see how the opposition do in their first innings before forming too much of a view as to whether it's down to poor batting or a difficult pitch. Along the lines of what is sauce for the goose etc, we still have to see the rest of New Zealand's first innings and then our own before utterly condemning the pitch as far too easy. Even if that is called for, we should still praise New Zealand's batting so far. Regardless of the favourable conditions, New Zealand's batsmen have shown excellent concentration and judgment bar for Rutherford's dismissal on the stroke of lunch.

New Zealand now have a realistic opportunity to make 500 which will firmly put them in the box seat. Even more so if they get an hour to bowl at us tonight and can capture a couple of wickets. In such a situation, our batsmen will inevitably be tired after the best part of two days in the field. When England do start their first innings, they'll almost certainly be faced with a big score from New Zealand. That by itself may cause more problems for England than it would have done for New Zealand. In such a situation, New Zealand would be clear in their sole intent to save the game. I fear we'll be stuck in two minds wondering whether to play safe or get on with it in the hope of a win- similar to our knock in the first Test when we ended up doing neither after day one had been washed out.

Even if we had chosen to bat first, the pitch still might not allow us to take 20 wickets. However, we would/should have been somewhere now between 250 and 320 for not many and surveying matters from a position of strength. Through Cook opting to bowl first, we're denied that position and have to play a tricky game of catch up if we are to have a chance of victory.

I do understand Fists' concern that a dull high scoring draw will lessen people's interest in Test cricket. However, a win for the home side would have a very different effect in New Zealand. They are still a long way off that but are in just about as good a position as they could have hoped for having been put in. I just feel that having won the toss we shouldn't have allowed that possibility to arise.

I read the other day a comment from David Lloyd that upon becoming Lancs skipper in the early 1970s, he was advised by an old former captain of the county that upon winning the toss ''he should think about batting and that if he thought about anything else, he should think again!''. Ok, that's very old fashioned and not always appropriate. Nonetheless, I wish Cook had followed that advice yesterday and felt so at the time.

Y-A-W-N. New Zealand trying to kill off Test cricket are they? The only moment of excitement in this series was when England decided to throw all their wickets away in the first innings of the first Test. The pitches are even more flatter than they were in India! Can't wait to play New Zealand on some proper wickets back home.

Fists of Fury wrote:Don't disagree, Trussy, they are within their rights to stack the cards in their favour.

What angers me is how much things like this hurt Test cricket. Imagine the casual fan listening in on the radio of reports of this series. England 300-1, NZ 250-1, etc etc they are hardly thrilling. Even the radio commentators announce it in a resigned tone. It just drives youngsters toward T20.

Well I can imagine then that such a casual fan tuning in/listening on the radio won't know what on earth is going on out there in the NZ test half of the time as there aren't any live pictures available for them to make any kind of judgement.

guildfordbat wrote:

Olly wrote:Fulton just looks like a walking wicket

Olly - it's really good to see you more regularly on the cricket board but don't give up the day (Norwich FC thread) job!

Literally could not believe my eyes when I awokr and saw Fulton not out 100 odd!

The way things are going they might as well shake hands at the end of day 3

Im sorry but playing on drop in pitches is ridiclous at international level! They just gurantee draws and is a negative more from someone high up in NZ cricket to make sure a drop in pitch is used..

CF wrote:Im sorry but playing on drop in pitches is ridiclous at international level! They just gurantee draws and is a negative more from someone high up in NZ cricket to make sure a drop in pitch is used..

Not if one of the teams can't bat to save themselves!

Great day for the Black Caps.

CF wrote:Im sorry but playing on drop in pitches is ridiclous at international level! They just gurantee draws and is a negative more from someone high up in NZ cricket to make sure a drop in pitch is used..

it does make it tough, but all the more reason for the Bowlers to perform, we had the same issues when we went there last time.

Between the rain and the pitches and the battling Kiwi's it isn't easy to annihilate them.

guildfordbat wrote:
Mike - as usual, a well crafted and considered post. I do wonder though if there's too much of a rush to judgment in your condemnation of the pitch and your defence of Cook.

I accept the pitch appears overly batsman friendly. However, we regularly say when the side batting first loses wickets cheaply that we need to see how the opposition do in their first innings before forming too much of a view as to whether it's down to poor batting or a difficult pitch. Along the lines of what is sauce for the goose etc, we still have to see the rest of New Zealand's first innings and then our own before utterly condemning the pitch as far too easy. Even if that is called for, we should still praise New Zealand's batting so far. Regardless of the favourable conditions, New Zealand's batsmen have shown excellent concentration and judgment bar for Rutherford's dismissal on the stroke of lunch.

New Zealand now have a realistic opportunity to make 500 which will firmly put them in the box seat. Even more so if they get an hour to bowl at us tonight and can capture a couple of wickets. In such a situation, our batsmen will inevitably be tired after the best part of two days in the field. When England do start their first innings, they'll almost certainly be faced with a big score from New Zealand. That by itself may cause more problems for England than it would have done for New Zealand. In such a situation, New Zealand would be clear in their sole intent to save the game. I fear we'll be stuck in two minds wondering whether to play safe or get on with it in the hope of a win- similar to our knock in the first Test when we ended up doing neither after day one had been washed out.

Even if we had chosen to bat first, the pitch still might not allow us to take 20 wickets. However, we would/should have been somewhere now between 250 and 320 for not many and surveying matters from a position of strength. Through Cook opting to bowl first, we're denied that position and have to play a tricky game of catch up if we are to have a chance of victory.

I do understand Fists' concern that a dull high scoring draw will lessen people's interest in Test cricket. However, a win for the home side would have a very different effect in New Zealand. They are still a long way off that but are in just about as good a position as they could have hoped for having been put in. I just feel that having won the toss we shouldn't have allowed that possibility to arise.

I read the other day a comment from David Lloyd that upon becoming Lancs skipper in the early 1970s, he was advised by an old former captain of the county that upon winning the toss ''he should think about batting and that if he thought about anything else, he should think again!''. Ok, that's very old fashioned and not always appropriate. Nonetheless, I wish Cook had followed that advice yesterday and felt so at the time.

Guildford, many thanks for the response. You raise some valid points, not all I agree with. I was travelling home today (holidays, which despite the common impression of students these I actually do feel I've earned) which is why I didn't respond earlier.

You are right to raise a couple of points:
- we shouldn't judge the pitch too quickly
- New Zealand deserve credit for the way they've batted.

My view was probably blinkered by having watched 3 hours of some of the dullest cricket I have ever witnessed last night/early this morning. I have nothing in general against attritional cricket (I love nothing better than watching a side guts it out for a draw, or the 3rd morning of the Brisbane ashes test when Anderson bowled truly a fantastic spell of swing and seam bowling, and was repelled by Hussey and Haddin with wonderful skill and no short measure of luck). Providing it also reflects the skill of the players. I do not feel this pitch does that. There is of course a challenge of mental concentration but there is little skill required (comparitively) IMO, and certainly not much luck. Providing you do not play a bad shot, you shouldn't get out. There will be a little bit every morning where the ball swings, but...

New Zealand have batted well, and indeed have done so throughout the series. They deserve credit for that, and in particular their top order for not repeating the capitulation against South Africa.

Where I will carry on disagreeing with you is your assessment of the toss, and who is in control of the game. I believe this to be partly a generational thing. The classical way to deal with flat pitches has been to amass runs and rely on scoreboard pressure. The trouble with this approach is that it views a draw as significantly a better result than a defeat. I am not sure that is true anymore, particularly in deciding tests. There is a view now (rightly or wrongly) that cricket is also entertainment, and that the players have a duty to entertain as well as perform (this is of course nothing new, Benaud's australians played by that motto back in the 60s, but I believe it is more prevalent now).

You say England are playing catch-up now. I am not sure that is true. They will be playing catch-up when they start batting probably, but for now it is actually New Zealand who are under pressure to make the running. If they carry on today as they did yesterday (and have started this morning) then they will reach 500 at the end of the day. I don't think that leaves them with enough runs or time to win the match.

There is a general feeling now that you can control the game (or at least the pace) better in such instances bowling first. To some extent England have done that (although they'd have liked 2 more wickets at least on day 1). The pressure to chase a result is now with New Zealand. For now.

Good decision not to review that Monty appeal, with times getting desbret i was scared they were going to waste a review there!

The only thing DESPERATE is your spelling Nick

Slow slow first hour. Fulton only adding 5 runs to his overnight score so far. NZ gonna need Taylor/McCullum to kick on, otherwise they're just gonna drift to 500 by the end of the day

Wild over there from Monty, but at least Taylor is out!

Let the wickets roll!!!!!

Taylor has got to be kicking himself.

Sniff of a chance here for England

You see that's what I'm talking about. Taylor got himself out, because he had to get on with it if New Zealand are to have a chance of winning. The pitch is very difficult to score runs quickly on, being so slow, and it doesn't make for good cricket.

England just plugging away, that's all they'll do today.

New Zealand have to decide whether to try to kick on and risk collapsing for under 400, or reset and crawl along like yesterday. At the moment the onus (and hence pressure) is on them, not England. England are controling the pace.

12 runs in 90 minutes for Fulton today.

Boycott is even bored by this!

What an amazing catch by Matt Prior!!!!!!

Well batted Peter Fulton, 136. Superb innings from him.