England's Winter of Cricket 2022/23

First topic message reminder :

The Lions are doing some Bazball v Sri Lanka A.

Sri Lanka A were bowled out for a paltry 136, Fisher with 5/34, and the Lions have already amassed 249/3 in 48 overs. Hameed, who's captain, 81 off 109, Lees 56 off 69, and Haines unbeaten with 62 from 72.

Broad doing what Broad has done so many times.

Record wicket taking partnership for him and Jimmy. Take a bow, what an achievement.

Who remembers the last Ashes series when England were so good and so smart they could afford to leave them both out of the 1st test.

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:Broad doing what Broad has done so many times.

Record wicket taking partnership for him and Jimmy. Take a bow, what an achievement.

Who remembers the last Ashes series when England were so good and so smart they could afford to leave them both out of the 1st test.

That's just the sort of interesting fact/clever rebuke combo I visit the internet to read.

Let yourself down a bit by not using a question mark at the end so don't be too surprised if Guildford carves your face up with a broken bottle.

And the Caribbean where both Anderson and Broad were dropped so England could play C Overton, overseas Woakes and Fisher.

Impressive innings from Foakes and Robinson took the game away from NZ after the back and forth. Foakes still looks the most vulnerable when Bairstow comes back, so this was needed from him. Then Broad comes up with one of his fabled spells to make sure of the win. I saw an article in the week writing him off, so I thought he'd have a response.

NZ need to sort out their bowling. Can they get Boult back and/or Henry in for the second test? Kuggahsomething and Tickner are both awful, and Wagner has just delivered one of the worst returns in a test innings. And do they drop Nicholls? He's in a horrendous run.

Watching the highlights now...Root and Brook...Bazball rules !

Thought this might be competitive after day two but England have monstered NZ on this flat pitch and as I already know the bowlers have cashed in later...

Unusual in that no centuries made but the side batting first have dominated anyway. They really don't worry about losing wickets , do they ?

NZ paying for lacking true class bowling here. Just cannot contain England's aggressive bats. Day has gone perfectly to the sort of route map Craig would have prescribed

Overdone short stuff squared though : Wagner going at ten per over

That's crazy, I know "dry" bowling has gone out of fashion ; but surely a time and place for everything still ?

Ah...Brook gone now but damage done. Team scores at six per over you just can't stop them...

Looking forward to watching the Broad spell

Looking forward to catching the batting highlights later - sounds like good fun!

Did see England bowling and Broad was magnificent, one of “those” spells. Ably supported by Anderson and Robinson too of course, but really superb stuff from Broad to break open this game for England.

Work isn’t 100% done yet, I do have visions of Daryl Mitchell batting forever and Bracewell has played some wonderful backs against the wall knocks in ODI stuff (he’s a dangerous bat when he gets going), but things should really be wrapped up relatively comfortably tomorrow.
Important I think that Leach grabs one or two, and bowls better for sure.

Good point about Leach , for future reference , Olly.

Handy knock for Foakes. He's done a pretty good job , mostly , at seven lately. And pleased to see Robinson batting properly (memories of that horrible end to the Ashes tour might eventually fade )

Only one result coming from here . Mitchell can't save NZ this time. England should get a nice day off for golf or karaoke or whatever they do these days...another good day for McCullum/Stokes

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:Broad doing what Broad has done so many times.

Record wicket taking partnership for him and Jimmy. Take a bow, what an achievement.

Who remembers the last Ashes series when England were so good and so smart they could afford to leave them both out of the 1st test.

And missing West Indies altogether...

Funny thing is : wrong as that was in terms of picking the best team , it has arguably served to prolong both careers : nice rest , missed a lot of hard work on flat tracks , gingered them both up. Both now demonstrating they remain England's best bowlers in almost all conditions. OK , Robinson very much in the mix now ; but still.

Probably won't see the three of them together often as they will generally want to include one extreme pace option (Wood , Archer) : but I reckon you'd want two of them in most games while they can...

England's seam bowling options building up very nicely ahead of the Ashes. Anderson, Broad, Woakes, Robinson and Potts, with one of Archer, Wood and Stone providing the pace. And Mahmood in reserve.

The Ashes should be great. A first look at new England against quality opponents, it should be an amazing battle.

Well there's one for Leach...

Opening up this morning with Jimmy, and just four balls in he gets one to pop and surprise Bracewell for an easy catch to Brook at shortish mid-on. 68/6.

Next one turned sharply too so Olly's hopes for Jack may well be realised today.

Be nice if they can get this done early and I can concentrate on Delhi full time

Short stay for Kuggeleijn , lbw to Jimmy as one nips back and pins him for two , despite his optimistic call for a review..

And Southee caught by Root at slip first ball !

71/8 Large Lady Vocalist warming up ... Could we have an Anderson hat trick as a bonus ?

Nice for Jimmy to get that one - he continues a record of taking a wicket in every innings he's bowled in under Stokes' captaincy (17 innings).

And now another for the maestro! Potential hat-trick in the offing.

Ah well , no hat trick. Thoughtful of Jack not to take the last two wickets in his over , but he couldn't stop Mitchell bagging the strike to thwart Jimmy's attempt

Don't think it'll take too long anyway. I can't see Wagner blocking for two hours.

Amusing to see Jimmy trying a series of short balls at Wagner...don't want to see him tire himself out with them but fair enough to remind him that two can play at that game

Five overs today for Jimmy so probably his lot...time for Stuart B to go seeking a Michelle ?

But no...couldn't get the ball off the senior bowler and Jimmy duly nabs Wagner via a nice catch by Foakes...

91/9 ...wonder if Tickner fancies another big last wicket stand ?

Pleased to see Broad gets a crack at the number eleven now... He deserves a five wicket haul...can he get it ? Plenty of slips waiting.

Not this over. Tickner survives and on we go...

Stokes giving Leach plenty of opportunity to get wickets today as he continues...not much help for him - or any bowler really - on this pitch ; but he'd probably like to have more than one in ten overs .

Tickner not going to throw his wicket away. The way he's hanging in , NZ will be disappointed they got torn apart last night as they surely could have made England work hard today on this . Mitchell (49 no) solid as ever - getting him for nought in the first innings may just have been the most significant moment of this match , eh ?

118/9. Still 45 minutes to lunch...

Fifty for Mitchell

Likes English bowling , it seems. Last wicket stand proving quite annoying , again...

Anderson back for Leach. Slightly odd that Robinson hasn't bowled this afternoon yet ?

It was a big drought for Mitchell - going a total of one innings without registering a 50+ v England - so I'm not surprised he's rectified that.

And there it is...Jimmy finishes the job with a nice bail-trimming delivery too good for the stubborn Tickner ...four for him today , seven for the match

Comprehensive win

Oddly difficult choice for PoTM , perhaps ? Was a real team effort.

Suppose Brook made the most runs ; but could equally make a case for any of the pace bowlers. They never give it to a losing player but honestly Blundell's first innings was the outstanding batting performance of the match.

Broad for entertainment value as a Nighthawk ?

Ah I see they have gone with the simple scorecard test and given it to Brook...

Jimmy polishes it off with quite a beautiful delivery.  This afternoon's work has taken his test average below 26 and he's just 18 away from 700. Warne got his 700th in an Ashes test, seems Jimmy's on course for the same.

Emphatic victory that one and near-enough everyone playing a part in it. The difference between the two teams was the bowling attacks. England had Anderson (7/54), Broad (5/121) and Robinson (5/88). New Zealand had a load of garbage.

Wonder if England will make some alterations for the second test? Potts and/or Stone could come in, plus Jacks is in the squad. Only two tests left before England take on the Aussies.

NZ, dear oh dear. Six test series played since becoming test champions and they haven't won a single one. Perhaps the WTC carries a curse, like the one that afflicts first-time winners at the Crucible? Henry will be back for the second test I think, but Boult is highly unlikely to feature. Maybe Southee, Duffy, Henry and Sodhi can be their attack for the next one?

Did not have the opportunity to follow Eng-NZ game....but the end score card shows an easy win for Eng
Within the score card what stands out is Eng batted 58 overs for 325 and NZ 83 overs for their 306 first inning runs

that's 25 overs less by Eng for 20 runs more.
That's where  Eng is setting up platforms for their wins.....by putting up much bigger scores in the overs they bat, compared to their opponents

If someone was to run this stat for the Pak series....it would probably be the same.....Eng significantly outscored Pak batting far fewer overs.

Teams need to think of  ways to choke Eng's RR down.....to give themselves edge or atleast control over this "bazballing" style of cricket
Given that the other alternative of matching "bazballing" with their own batting is not impossible but quite radical for other teams to accept mentally in a test match setup.
And once metal conviction is lacking it's hard to pull it off

Let's see who will stop Eng and when

First test win in NZ since 2008 chalked up for the Stokes/McCullum pair now - and a comprehensive one too. Four away test wins on the trot, 10 wins in 11 tests since they came together, an unbelievable turnaround really.

Evening all. So, another day, another win for Bazball England. This one not as dramatic as some of the other efforts, but no less impressive. Largely built on England controlling the tempo with the bat, which allowed them to attack NZ's top order in the best bowling conditions, and England's bowlers exploiting those conditions masterfully. Also worth mentioning England's batting at the end of day 2, where they pushed through a tricky period at a time where it looked like NZ were back in the contest.

Some other thoughts, in no particular order.
1) Brook looks to the manor born, just so impressive. How to fit Bairstow back in, when fit, will be an interesting conundrum. Stokes has been vocal in his backing of Foakes, and he played nicely here, but that would seem the logical place. More left-field would be as an opener...
2) Stokes's captaincy remains largely impressive, though like many on here I was annoyed at how England bowled to the NZ tail in the first dig.
3) Oh, Jimmy Jimmy! Enjoy him while it lasts. OK, so he got a few cheaper wickets this morning, but yet again an economy rate of (just under) 2 runs per over through the test. What NZ would have given for that level of control! A lot of the stats have already been mentioned, e.g. average dipping under 26 for the first time since his first series 20 years ago. I'll add a couple (from cricinfo) that I haven't seen mentioned. He picked up his 250th wicket away from home, and his away average dipped under 30 for the first time. Not bad for a home-track bully

As well as Jimmy bringing up 253 wickets away from home, Broad also crossed 200 away wickets in this test. Perhaps unsurprisingly, they are the only two English players to get past 200 away wickets. Ten more English players have got 100+ but not 200 away from home (answers in the spoiler below if you want to guess):

Spoiler:

What if it was decided NOT to automatically bring Bairstow back in? Would this necessarily be the wrong thing to do?

It could be argued that if no one is really dropable then Jonny should be made to wait. OK, he was in the form of his life when, cruelly, he got injured. His replacement, Brook, is making runs for fun. Foakes is doing his stuff.

The possible weak link is Crawley, But if he is dropped they will have to fiddle around with the batting order. Not sure that's a great idea.

Back to the excellent win by England. I might have given the MoM award to Blundell.

I think Bairstow does come back in automatically and it's more than justifiable because his record over the summer was astonishing, with four centuries and a 75 average, and playing key hands in the win at Trent Bridge and the one over India.

But, like you say, who does he replace? Foakes is the one who does look most likely to be dropped. Though his batting returns have been very good, he averages nearly 44 since Stokes/McCullum took over, his style of play stands out like a sore thumb compared to the rest of the top seven. Of course, if Foakes did get dropped it opens up another problem of who bats at 7, between Brook, Bairstow and Stokes, all of whom would be batting too low if they got placed there. But we did see Stokes at 7 in this test and I wonder if that's the plan - Bairstow 5, Brook 6, Stokes 7?

The one who should be dropped is, of course, Crawley, who is dreadful at catching and batting. Crawley's averaging just 27 under the new order, and a lot of that was helped by those flat decks in Pakistan he played on! But his strike-rate is nearly 70 and that carries favour with Bazball. Crawley is as loved and as protected as Buttler was a few years ago. If it were Crawley to be dropped, would Bairstow be a good pick as opener, with his propensity to be bowled? Would it ruin a good thing with him at 5?

Brook cannot possibly be dropped after his start to test cricket - three centuries in eight innings, strike rate 97. Duckett has also delivered on his return (66.5 average, 100 SR), and I think Duckett is what the powers that be want Crawley to be. There are some conversion issues, but Duckett has been consistently setting the tone excellently.

Pope might potentially be vulnerable as, although his game has improved under the new regime, with an average just above 40 and a strike-rate close to 75, he's not a standout player.

Good problems to have, I think. I'd stick Bairstow up to open with Duckett in place of Crawley and just see what happens. He can't be worse than Crawley, and if Bairstow doesn't quite deliver, put him back down to 5 and figure something else out. Like getting Broad to open...

I agree that Bairstow should come back in, he’s more than earnt not losing his spot due to injury.

There was talk of Brook maybe coming in to open during the summer, so would seem logical to see if Jonny can do it - as you say Duty, he can’t really be any worse than Crawley at it, in fact I’d be stunned if he wasn’t a fair bit better!
At very very least he’d bring another reliable slip fielder over Crawley too

I think they will want Jonny back in as soon as he is fit. Obviously he was brilliant last summer ; but apart from that he has previously demonstrated his fighting qualities in (among other occasions) two centuries in Australia during serious losing tours : I would expect Australia in July to present tougher examinations for all batsmen than they've been facing on flat decks in Pakistan and NZ so those fighting qualities might be needed.

Where to fit him in ? That can wait a bit yet , I think. If all are fit he can presumably either replace Foakes in a straight swap or Crawley with the batting order juggled. Neither option is perfect : Foakes is the better keeper , even if not quite the superstar some people think ; and Jonny hasn't been keeping lately so may not be as good as he was in that role - and it would be rough on Ben who has done a decent job with the bat lately. And although Bairstow > Crawley as a bat is pretty clear , they would need to move the order around (Root , Brook , Pope - even Stokes ! - could open ) or Jonny could be risked in a position which doesn't seem suited to him in red ball cricket. All options are questionable as the incumbents are happy where they are so whatever is done is risky...which is why I am happy to leave a choice to the last minute... Certainly not wishing injury on anyone but injuries happen at inconvenient times.

Mind you , injuries sometimes have their "good" side. Jonny's untimely injury enabled Brook to get a run and hasn't he made the most of his chance !

Good problems to have , I agree.

There has been an internet meme saying that we aren't in full Bazball mode until we have Bairstow and Buttler opening in Tests. OK, it's been said in jest, but there does seem to be some merit given how England are approaching games, for one of the more fluent middle order players stepping up to opener - the question really is which one?
Root has opened before in Tests, without a great deal of success (one big century and a lot of dross)
Pope? Seems to have settled the long standing issues regarding #3, so surely we don't want to mess that around
Brook? I believe has some experience opening in CC cricket, but has settled brilliantly into #5.OK, it's probably Bairstow's 'natural' position in the batting line up...
Bairstow himself - obviously opens in T20 and ODI cricket, but that's a very different game with powerplay fields and greater restrictions on short pitched bowling, plus the white ball probably swings less and for fewer overs.

Overall though, file under 'nice problems to have'

Sodhi and Duffy have been released from the NZ squad, with Henry available, so the attack for the second test should be Southee, Henry, Wagner and one of Tickner/Kuggeleijn. Another green pitch?

Jamieson has been ruled out for a further few months.

Duty281 wrote: But we did see Stokes at 7 in this test and I wonder if that's the plan - Bairstow 5, Brook 6, Stokes 7?

Turns out Stokes was meant to come in at 6 but was on the loo when the wicket fell. When you've got to go, hey!

I'd have concerns over Brook or YJB opening. I'd need to do the numbers again but remember Brook having very poor numbers up the order with Yorkshire. Similarly Bairstow gets worse the higher up the order he's been. I'm a YJB fan but it's down the order targeting the older (and vitally last year soft) ball that he is an asset. I think both are ideal lower middle order batters in this set-up. Both playing spin well helps there too.

I'd prefer to look for a better opener than Crawley rather than shoehorn the extra middle order batter in myself.

Has Rory Burns completely dropped off the radar? Actually thought he was worth persevering with opening the batting.

I'd be very surprised if we ever saw any of Burns, Sibley, Malan and Vince in the Test team again. The reason I mention the others is they all get touted as options for various positions, but I just can't see it anymore for any of them

eirebilly_01 wrote:Has Rory Burns completely dropped off the radar? Actually thought he was worth persevering with opening the batting.

Hi Billy - Burns had a reasonable to decent 2022 season leading Surrey to the Championship title and scoringing overer 800 runs with 3 tons  for an average of 40. 

There was some talk of him turning his back on the game midway through last season but I suspect that was over hyped. For one or two reasons, I'm sure he would still need to work (not having the riches from franchise cricket) and don't know what he would do instead. He did take a break when the RL50 was being played which (hopefully) has sufficiently recharged his batteries.

Imo England could do worse than him for a Test opener (and probably are currently) but, in line with VTR's post, he and others from the same cloth seem off the radar unless they come up with an outstanding run of form.

PS Internet was down much of the weekend (thanks Virgin Media!). A few belated comments on the Test to follow later today.

VTR wrote:I'd be very surprised if we ever saw any of Burns, Sibley, Malan and Vince in the Test team again. The reason I mention the others is they all get touted as options for various positions, but I just can't see it anymore for any of them

I wouldn't be totally shocked at seeing Sibley in the Test team again - he has 4/5 years on the rest of them and opening the batting in England remains the hardest job in Test cricket. The Stokes/McCullum era could come to an end and he could still be around 30. The rest, I agree, have close to zero chance.

sirfredperry wrote:What if it was decided NOT to automatically bring Bairstow back in? Would this necessarily be the wrong thing to do?

It could be argued that if no one is really dropable then Jonny should be made to wait. OK, he was in the form of his life when, cruelly, he got injured. His replacement, Brook, is making runs for fun. Foakes is doing his stuff.

The possible weak link is Crawley, But if he is dropped they will have to fiddle around with the batting order. Not sure that's a great idea.

Back to the excellent win by England. I might have given the MoM award to Blundell.

I'm always keen to at least consider a player from the losing side as MoM. The award was actually sometimes given to a 'loser' in the past (I'm mainly referring to one day county and international games where MoM started) but very rarely so these days. 

In this Test, I didn't think there was an out and out winner but, all things in the mix, agreed with it going to Brook. Top run scorer in the match and consistent across both innings. Blundell was certainly a contender for his excellent century but got a black mark from me for his part in the appalling miss of nighthawk Broad at the end of day two. Admittedly, Broad didn't make NZ suffer and it had no impact on the eventual outcome but the match would have looked a bit different for a time - and not so good for England with perhaps a slightly uncomfortable night's sleep - if we had been 3 down second dig, as we should have been, for a lead under 100 at the end of that day's play. And, of course, Blundell was another of Broad's cheap victims to Broad second dig which proved so costly to the home side.

Galted wrote:

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:Broad doing what Broad has done so many times.

Record wicket taking partnership for him and Jimmy. Take a bow, what an achievement.

Who remembers the last Ashes series when England were so good and so smart they could afford to leave them both out of the 1st test.

That's just the sort of interesting fact/clever rebuke combo I visit the internet to read.

Let yourself down a bit by not using a question mark at the end so don't be too surprised if Guildford carves your face up with a broken bottle.

In the hands of my lawyers.

JDizzle wrote:

VTR wrote:I'd be very surprised if we ever saw any of Burns, Sibley, Malan and Vince in the Test team again. The reason I mention the others is they all get touted as options for various positions, but I just can't see it anymore for any of them

I wouldn't be totally shocked at seeing Sibley in the Test team again - he has 4/5 years on the rest of them and opening the batting in England remains the hardest job in Test cricket. The Stokes/McCullum era could come to an end and he could still be around 30. The rest, I agree, have close to zero chance.

Youth is on Sibley's side , true. Nowhere near now ; but who knows where things will be in a year or two ? Crawley , for all they want to support him , still hasn't proved himself a fixture ; and although Duckett has been brilliant lately it is still only four games - all on flat pitches and against less than full strength opposition attacks. (which isn't his fault of course : but it remains to be seen if he can do the business against Australia. Suppose you can say the same about Harry Brook , to be fair ! But the signs are good , one might say )

Burns isn't the worst opener I've seen in an England shirt since Cook and Strauss left the scene . But I suspect his time has passed unless we see a slew of injuries. Wonder if Hameed will ever challenge again ?

ALfie

I think you are right in saying that Hameed and Sibley are the two shall we say conventional openers who have the potential to force their way back into the side. I also think Lees is still very much on the radar and would be the first choice as an injury replacement in the short term.
Burns I suspect is done - never awful, but also never great, and his style doesn't fit with the Bazball philosophy of imposing yourself on the bowling attack. Actually, now I've written that, I wonder if Adam Lyth would have been more successful if he'd come in under this regime - certainly in the last couple of years he's become a much more aggressive batsman in T20 and 50 over cricket.

Still haven't quite answered the 'where to fit Bairstow' question...

king_carlos wrote:

Duty281 wrote: But we did see Stokes at 7 in this test and I wonder if that's the plan - Bairstow 5, Brook 6, Stokes 7?

Turns out Stokes was meant to come in at 6 but was on the loo when the wicket fell. When you've got to go, hey!

I'd have concerns over Brook or YJB opening. I'd need to do the numbers again but remember Brook having very poor numbers up the order with Yorkshire. Similarly Bairstow gets worse the higher up the order he's been. I'm a YJB fan but it's down the order targeting the older (and vitally last year soft) ball that he is an asset. I think both are ideal lower middle order batters in this set-up. Both playing spin well helps there too.

I'd prefer to look for a better opener than Crawley rather than shoehorn the extra middle order batter in myself.

Ah, that makes sense!

Ideally, I'd like England to find a better opener, a genuine opener, as well, but the well may have run dry. Burns is probably done, but Sibley (very outside) and Hameed may still be options down the line. Hameed was recently captain of the Lions red-ball team, so he's clearly still in the minds of many, and showed an ability on that tour to score at a 70+ SR. Last season he averaged 59 with a SR of 62, albeit in the second division. Sibley also has time on his side, but he'll need to score at a better strike rate in the 2023 season to be in contention - last season he averaged over 40, but his strike-rate was only 41.5.

Ultimately, I think it's fairly academic for now as Crawley will retain his place, probably for the whole summer. Wouldn't be surprised if, in the next test v NZ, England require something like 80 to win and Crawley scores 50 pressure-free runs, guaranteeing his spot for the next year. It'll be Foakes or Pope who get the chop when Bairstow returns.

Interesting that Lyth gets a mention, as I was thinking about the comment of Sibley not being the worst opener since Strauss retired, trying to decide who that was and pretty much settled on Lyth for that accolade, but then I remembered Jason Roy and Alex Hales. All picked as attacking openers who failed to bring anything like attacking play to the highest level.

Let's hope Duckett can continue to succeed with his attacking game where others have failed badly in the past

The worst opener since Strauss retired was probably Trott, who was brought back for an ill-advised comeback in 2015. Three ducks in six innings and a sad end to his England career.

But at least that was over quickly. Watching Crawley open in 24 tests for an average that is actually worse than Tim Bresnan is like a slow death.

VTR
There's little competition - Jason Roy was the worst Test opener. Hales wasn't so bad, but always seemed to be suffering with scrambled brain - was selected because of his aggressive style at the top of the order in ODIs but seemed determined to play against type in Tests, and ended up with a strike rate around 50 while not scoring many to compensate.
I do wonder if all of them would have been more successful playing under McCullum, who seems mainly to be good at getting players to play with freedom, unencumbered by over-analysis.

Duty281 wrote:The worst opener since Strauss retired was probably Trott, who was brought back for an ill-advised comeback in 2015. Three ducks in six innings and a sad end to his England career.

But at least that was over quickly. Watching Crawley open in 24 tests for an average that is actually worse than Tim Bresnan is like a slow death.

His average is also quite a bit lower than that of one my favourites. I won't name names, but it's an anagram of Bavi Ropara

dummy_half wrote:VTR
There's little competition - Jason Roy was the worst Test opener. Hales wasn't so bad, but always seemed to be suffering with scrambled brain - was selected because of his aggressive style at the top of the order in ODIs but seemed determined to play against type in Tests, and ended up with a strike rate around 50 while not scoring many to compensate.
I do wonder if all of them would have been more successful playing under McCullum, who seems  mainly to be good at getting players to play with freedom, unencumbered by over-analysis.

Steve Smith scored 664 more runs in one less innings than Jason Roy in 2019 Ashes. Only 5 Englishmen ever have scored more than 664 runs in an Ashes series.

Anderson No 1 in the rankings, probably for a very short time as Ashwin is 2 points behind him.

Jetty wrote:Anderson No 1 in the rankings, probably for a very short time as Ashwin is 2 points behind him.

The oldest bowler to top the rankings since 1936, remarkable really. I used to think Englands greatest ever bowler was up for debate but the past few years have cemented Anderson as not only a giant of English cricket but world cricket, he will not be forgotten or replaced.

Anderson is astonishing. He's essentially having a career in reverse as he started off slowly and has got better with age.

Ahead of England's second test v NZ, Robinson is suffering from soreness in one knee, so he might be rested for this one, with Potts the like-for-like switch, or Stone to add pace to proceedings.