EvNZ T1 D3

EvNZ T1 D3

Post by Mike Holman » Mon, 24 May 2004 06:49:35


And do the match takes another turn. Last night, England were in a
very strong position, but tonight the advantage and momentum are with
New Zealand.

The experienced old hands who had been the batting engine of the
Caribbean series all made a mess of things. Butcher erroneously
thought he hadn't bottom-eged a cut of Vettori to McCullum, Thorpe
played on to Cairns almost as convincingly as Vettori the previous
day, and although Hussain played a few good shots, the critical
observer would not be entirely convinced by his performance,
especially with Strauss's assured innings fresh in the memory.

In the evening, Hoggard was especially criminal in ignoring the
lessons he should have taken home from Barbados, but the rest of the
bowling was a return to the crassness of most of England's recent
efforts against Australia. Somehow, England's bowlers got fixated on
the idea that because McCullum had got himself out to a short ball in
the first innings, he is desperately weak against short-pitched
bowling. It was never much of a theory against Steve Waugh, and it is
not much better against McCullum, and Hoggard really ought to know
better than to try and bowl bouncers (one bouncer in five overs might
be sensible for the surprise value), but two or three short ones an
over at his pace is simply asking for trouble - and both McCullum and
Richardson were happy to give him what he'd asked for. (Giles need not
return in this series: the Kiwis have clearly decided that he's utter
rubbish and will treat him as such, and since they're not far wrong,
bringing him on to bowl is just a disaster waiting to happen.)

But there were quite a few people who did good things today.

I expect that the stand between McCullum and Richardson was the best
batting of the day, but I can't be sure since I was getting so
irritated by the English bowlers' inability to remember what length to
bowl. McCullum played adventurously, being particularly severe on
anything short, and managed to affect Richardson to such an extent
thatr he opened up and looked like a normal Test batsman rather than
the Tavare de nos jours he'd been on Thursday. McCullum had come in at
3 because Astle has been off with some flu-like thing for two days,
after a superb catch by Hussain to dismiss Fleming.

That had left New Zealand on 7/1 after they'd conceded a deficit of 55
on first innings, at which point England were clearly still ahead, but
they threw away the advanatage and then some.

Hoggard had done a manful job of*** around and playing even a few
shots for over an hour before he went for 15. The new ball was 8 overs
old by this time, so he'd done his job as nigh***chman almost to
perfection. Alf Gover had a tale of how he'd once gone in as
nigh***chman for Surrey, and thought he'd been doing pretty well
batting with Jack Hobbs for an hour the next morning when Hobbs met
him in the middle. "Well done," said Hobbs, "but would you mind
getting yourself out now: there are some good batsmen waiting to come
in." There were on this occasion, too, but Thorpe failed to live up to
the billing.

Flintoff and Jones the Mitt did, though, and after negotiating 20
minutes to get to the interval without incident, proceeded to put on
more than 80 in an hour after lunch. The little boy sitting in front
of me asked his father "Is this 20-20?" Dad said it wasn't, and he was
more than semantically correct. Flintoff and Jones were playing very
aggressively, but they weren't attempting to score at a 20-20 sort of
strike rate of 180, just at odo pace of 90. Freddy moved up from the
career total of sixes shared by Trescothick, Gavaskar, Sehwag and
Hammond to join Chris Cairns's dad, Border and Keith Miller on 28.

Flintoff's Antigua century had been an extremely responsible affair,
and I thought this innings too was well judged and executed. The
Flintoff/Jones stand had rapidly given England a small first-innings
lead, and if NZ hadn't been able to break it, the game could have been
almost in the bag for England by teatime. Having taken the lead, they
were quite right to attempt to administer a hammer blow, because the
profits could have been huge and the downside was merely that England
would only get a small advantage. The point I'm making about Flintoff
is that he seems to have acquired the sense to know what approach *he*
ought to be taking at *this* stage of the match and play accordingly -
and that's the only necessary desciption - people know what a Flintoff
innings is like by now, admirably illustrated by the fact that all the
stands were packed immediately after lunch when there are usually
acres of empty seats on the Saturday as people dawdle over their
picnic lunches.

It was Jones who fell to the sucker punch, slightly mistiming a cut
off the newly-introduced and slightly slower Styris to Oram in the
gully. Having watched this 46, I can see why Fletcher and Vaughan were
so keen to bring him into the side. His keeping this evening was a
considerable improvement on his Thursday performance, so it may be
that day one's lapses can be written off as nerves at making a home
debut at HQ. Today, he was up to Stewart's standard. With bat as well
as ball.

There were a couple of shots square through the off side and a couple
of sweeps off Vettori which particularly caught my eye. They were hit
very hard indeed, achieved not through the bludgeoning power that
Flintoff has, nor from exquisite timing, but through extreme bat
speed: to describe him as wristy would give the wrong impression, but
he must have wrists made of steel wire to deliver that kind of whip to
the ball. He looks like a class act.

Oram and Flintoff took the respective new balls, in Flintoff's case
presumably because Hoggard preferred to waste his opportunity at the
Nursery End after Harmison had used it, and in Oram's case because he
had obviously been a much better bowler than Martin yesterday. All the
New Zealand bowlers were sharper and better directed than on day two,
but Oram was again the pick of them to my eyes. Intelligent line and
length at 78-80 mph just kept giving trouble.

New Zealand have their noses in front, but they will probably need to
bat all day tomorrow and get England out in three sessions if they are
to win, and neither of those two are foregone conclusions.

What an excellent match this is turning out to be.

Even if it's been ***y freezing the last two days.

Cheers,

Mie

 
 
 

EvNZ T1 D3

Post by Mike Holman » Mon, 24 May 2004 07:53:20

On Sat, 22 May 2004 22:49:35 +0100, Mike Holmans

Quote:
>Freddy moved up from the
>career total of sixes shared by Trescothick, Gavaskar, Sehwag and
>Hammond to join Chris Cairns's dad, Border and Keith Miller on 28.

***. I checked again, and Fred's now on 30, as he was on 28 before.
Puts him level with Langer and Slater.

Cheers,

Mike

 
 
 

EvNZ T1 D3

Post by Aditya Basru » Mon, 24 May 2004 09:18:51


<snip the bulk of a lovely report>

I was going to reply to this in depth, and had started doing so. My newsclient
unexpectedly froze on me and I lost the bulk of the post. A few brief comments
will have to suffice. I've lost the stamina.

I thought the NZ bowling was a lot better today than it had been yesterday.
Martin does not have a lot of variation or guile just yet, nor is he
particularly fast, but he was able to keep his line straight and induce
mistakes. The English batsmen could have learnt a bit from him in terms of
playing within their limitations prior to the Flintoff-Jones partnership. I got
the feeling they were all trying to be swashbucklers when patently unsuited to
doing so. If Thorpe had had his feet closer to the ball, for example, he would
not have played on as he did. The others seemed to want to play away from their
body as well - if you have the timing and the ability, that's fine. I didn't
think many of these players did, particularly early in their innings. On the
Kiwi bowling again, I'm once again amazed that Scott Styris has picked up a
couple of wickets. (His bowling average descends from 58 to a shade under 50
with his 2 wickets. If he can push it to 43 in the second innings, his batting
average will exceed his bowling average by more than Kapil's did.) I think it's
about time I accept that he's not a bad Cricketer to have around the place,
although he still has about 17 matches to go before I take him seriously. Oram
did look reasonable - he seemed to be bowling a little quicker. It's perhaps
unfair on him, but I get the feeling that a man of his size should be able to
bowl a little faster than he does.

This changed with the Flintoff-Jones G partnership, where the batsmen started
playing far more responsibly. I was impressed with Jones G's batting. He seems
to be able to play all around the wicket. There was a perfectly executed pull
there, along with a delightful back cut and a lovely squarecut. I can't seem to
remember any drives especially, but that's not to say they weren't there.  And
Flintoff's batting today showed the ludicrousness of comparing him to Agarkar.
They're such different players, whether or not their stats are similar. One gets
the feeling that Flintoff is attaining the status of folk hero around English
Cricket grounds. The crowd was visibly animated when he came to the crease. It
reminded me of the anticipation one can sense when Chris Cairns comes out to bat
in New Zealand. His display justified this, with some rather enchanting strokes
again. This partnership was definitely the highlight for me before going to
sleep. Special props to Ashley Giles for a perfectly-executed cover-drive for
four: feet forward to the ball, elbow straight, ball hits the middle of the bat,
pierces the field, and goes for four. It looks like that may be his most
important contribution to the match. (England must have good bowlers: not many
sides can afford a specialist bat at number 9.  Is Peter Such still playing?) I
think English fans should be disappointed that the lead has been restricted to
55 after the score at stumps on the second day. The top order was rather
irresponsible this morning, I thought.

I didn't see the NZ batting, but I'm quite happy to see McCullum has done well.
It begs the question as to why he wasn't sent in to open in the first place.
Fleming's first innings effort was pretty (particularly when compared with
Richardson's) but one didn't get the feeling he was particularly comfortable
against the bowling. He seems to be very good at reacting to a situation when
coming in one down, not so good at setting up an innings as he deems fit, which
is what I think an opener's primary responsibility is. I think openers should
play a certain way and back their instincts to do so in all circumstances,
without being foolish. The Haydens and Langers always seem to want to attack
from the outset, while Richardson does, well, the opposite. The reason why
they're successful more often than not is because they do what they know best.
(When Richardson tried to do things differently against South Africa, he came a
cropper, so he's back to his old ways.) Fleming is not so certain. In the first
innings, I had the feeling that Fleming was trying to graft while not really
being able to contain himself. Looking at Hussain's name in the caught column, I
assume he was caught behind, either at slip or gully. I'll watch the replay
shortly.

One final comment. With McCullum, Jones G, and perhaps to a lesser extent,
Parthiv Patel, one seems to sense that selection boards are trying to find
home-grown Gilchrists wherever possible. The keeping standard seems almost
incidental to their selection. Admittedly I didn't see Jones keep yesterday, and
McCullum didn't seem to mess up too badly, but Jones' first innings and
McCullum's performances in the past have suggested that they're not that hot
with the gloves. (Parthiv, if anything, degenerated with the gloves during the
Australian tour while looking more and more useful with the bat, even though he
almost certainly would have slowed things down with Yuvraj's dismissal at Multan
and caused Tendulkar to spend another half an hour to get to 200.) I'm not all
that sure this is a good trend. I'd still pick a keeper on his ability behind
the stumps before considering what he can do in front of them. Evidently not
everyone agrees.

Quote:

> What an excellent match this is turning out to be.

Indeed. I think England could still do this fairly easily. Harmison and Jones
actually looked rather good on the second day, and a bit of venom and a few
well-placed deliveries could put paid to Kiwi hopes fairly briskly. The Kiwis
could be kept to about 150 to 175 ahead by tea tomorrow, with everything wrapped
up by lunch on the final day.

One thing is certain: predictions of a draw on the first evening from yours
truly were premature.

Quote:
> Even if it's been ***y freezing the last two days.

It's been very warm in Auckland, but I seem to have come down with a bad throat.
Were there any attractive females in white t-shirts around the place?

Aditya [ The TV coverage was rather disappointing, in that regard. Who cares
about Ronnie Corbett? ] Basrur

 
 
 

EvNZ T1 D3

Post by John Hal » Mon, 24 May 2004 16:42:20



Quote:
>In the evening, Hoggard was especially criminal in ignoring the
>lessons he should have taken home from Barbados, but the rest of the
>bowling was a return to the crassness of most of England's recent
>efforts against Australia. Somehow, England's bowlers got fixated on
>the idea that because McCullum had got himself out to a short ball in
>the first innings, he is desperately weak against short-pitched
>bowling.

How much of the blame do you think should be taken by Trescothick, who
presumably should be giving his bowlers some guidance as to what line
and length they ought to be bowling? Was he perhaps leaving the bowlers
to their own devices, or even instructing them to bowl short?
--
John Hall
           "If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end in doubts;
            but if he will be content to begin with doubts,
            he shall end in certainties."       Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
 
 
 

EvNZ T1 D3

Post by Mike Holman » Mon, 24 May 2004 17:19:25

On Sun, 23 May 2004 08:42:20 +0100, John Hall

Quote:


>>In the evening, Hoggard was especially criminal in ignoring the
>>lessons he should have taken home from Barbados, but the rest of the
>>bowling was a return to the crassness of most of England's recent
>>efforts against Australia. Somehow, England's bowlers got fixated on
>>the idea that because McCullum had got himself out to a short ball in
>>the first innings, he is desperately weak against short-pitched
>>bowling.

>How much of the blame do you think should be taken by Trescothick, who
>presumably should be giving his bowlers some guidance as to what line
>and length they ought to be bowling? Was he perhaps leaving the bowlers
>to their own devices, or even instructing them to bowl short?

Oh, is Trescothick captain in this game, then? I'd wondered. The
bowlers didn't go short of advice: Harmison regularly suggested things
to S Jones, while G Jones, Flintoff and Hussain all ran up to Hoggard
and Harmison at various times to suggest things, but I get the
impression that Tresco is so dedicated to his first slip fielding that
he doesn't really have time for anything else.

Cheers,

Mike

 
 
 

EvNZ T1 D3

Post by John Hal » Mon, 24 May 2004 17:57:16



Quote:
>Oh, is Trescothick captain in this game, then? I'd wondered. The
>bowlers didn't go short of advice: Harmison regularly suggested things
>to S Jones, while G Jones, Flintoff and Hussain all ran up to Hoggard
>and Harmison at various times to suggest things, but I get the
>impression that Tresco is so dedicated to his first slip fielding that
>he doesn't really have time for anything else.

I suppose that England are so short of reliable slip fielders (Flintoff
being the only other one that you'd confidently back to catch more than
he misses) that Trescothick moving out of the slips isn't really an
option. I believe that traditionally captains used mainly to field at
mid-off and mid-on, where they were close to the action but didn't have
to worry about taking quick-reaction catches.
--
John Hall
           "If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end in doubts;
            but if he will be content to begin with doubts,
            he shall end in certainties."       Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
 
 
 

EvNZ T1 D3

Post by Mike Holman » Mon, 24 May 2004 18:06:21

On Sun, 23 May 2004 09:57:16 +0100, John Hall

Quote:


>>Oh, is Trescothick captain in this game, then? I'd wondered. The
>>bowlers didn't go short of advice: Harmison regularly suggested things
>>to S Jones, while G Jones, Flintoff and Hussain all ran up to Hoggard
>>and Harmison at various times to suggest things, but I get the
>>impression that Tresco is so dedicated to his first slip fielding that
>>he doesn't really have time for anything else.

>I suppose that England are so short of reliable slip fielders (Flintoff
>being the only other one that you'd confidently back to catch more than
>he misses) that Trescothick moving out of the slips isn't really an
>option. I believe that traditionally captains used mainly to field at
>mid-off and mid-on, where they were close to the action but didn't have
>to worry about taking quick-reaction catches.

If Flintoff can take the time to run up from second slip to talk to
the bowler, though, I fail to see why the skipper can't do the same
from first.

Cheers,

Mike

 
 
 

EvNZ T1 D3

Post by Aditya Basru » Mon, 24 May 2004 18:52:47


Quote:


> >Oh, is Trescothick captain in this game, then? I'd wondered. The
> >bowlers didn't go short of advice: Harmison regularly suggested things
> >to S Jones, while G Jones, Flintoff and Hussain all ran up to Hoggard
> >and Harmison at various times to suggest things, but I get the
> >impression that Tresco is so dedicated to his first slip fielding that
> >he doesn't really have time for anything else.

> I suppose that England are so short of reliable slip fielders (Flintoff
> being the only other one that you'd confidently back to catch more than
> he misses) that Trescothick moving out of the slips isn't really an
> option. I believe that traditionally captains used mainly to field at
> mid-off and mid-on, where they were close to the action but didn't have
> to worry about taking quick-reaction catches.

Which isn't to say that one cannot be an effective captain from slip anyway -
names that come to mind include Mark Taylor, Greg Chappell, Stephen Fleming, and
a whole host of others. I don't recall there being any problems with over-rates
in this match, so it probably wouldn't have hurt Tresothick too much to talk to
the bowler between overs

This thing about bowlers receiving a surfeit of advice has been common with most
Indian teams I've seen not captained by Tendulkar. The inter-over conference
seems to consist of the captain, Tendulkar, and the bowler. It's not necessarily
a bad thing to have other bowlers or the keeper chiming in from time to time. I
do think it's part of the captain's role to be the bowler's primary caregiver,
however, and not let others look after things in his stead.

If he does feel he doesn't have time for anything other than his slip fielding,
then perhaps he doesn't have time to be captain.

Aditya [ Am I in Mike's killfile, or was my earlier post not sufficiently
controversial? ] Basrur

 
 
 

EvNZ T1 D3

Post by Craig Sutto » Mon, 24 May 2004 19:57:13


Quote:





> > >Oh, is Trescothick captain in this game, then? I'd wondered. The
> > >bowlers didn't go short of advice: Harmison regularly suggested things
> > >to S Jones, while G Jones, Flintoff and Hussain all ran up to Hoggard
> > >and Harmison at various times to suggest things, but I get the
> > >impression that Tresco is so dedicated to his first slip fielding that
> > >he doesn't really have time for anything else.

> > I suppose that England are so short of reliable slip fielders (Flintoff
> > being the only other one that you'd confidently back to catch more than
> > he misses) that Trescothick moving out of the slips isn't really an
> > option. I believe that traditionally captains used mainly to field at
> > mid-off and mid-on, where they were close to the action but didn't have
> > to worry about taking quick-reaction catches.

> Which isn't to say that one cannot be an effective captain from slip
anyway -
> names that come to mind include Mark Taylor, Greg Chappell, Stephen
Fleming, and
> a whole host of others. I don't recall there being any problems with
over-rates
> in this match, so it probably wouldn't have hurt Tresothick too much to
talk to
> the bowler between overs

Jerry Coney...
 
 
 

EvNZ T1 D3

Post by John Hal » Mon, 24 May 2004 21:49:11



Quote:
>I don't recall there being any problems with over-rates
>in this match, so it probably wouldn't have hurt Tresothick too much to talk to
>the bowler between overs

In fact the over rates in this match have been lamentable from both
sides, being in between 13 and 14 overs per hour. It hasn't helped that
there's been a drinks break every session, even when the temperature has
been only 15C (60F). In the old days, they only had drinks breaks in
England when it was seriously hot.
--
John Hall
           "If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end in doubts;
            but if he will be content to begin with doubts,
            he shall end in certainties."       Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
 
 
 

EvNZ T1 D3

Post by Mad Hamis » Mon, 24 May 2004 23:53:03

On Sun, 23 May 2004 09:57:16 +0100, John Hall

Quote:



>>Oh, is Trescothick captain in this game, then? I'd wondered. The
>>bowlers didn't go short of advice: Harmison regularly suggested things
>>to S Jones, while G Jones, Flintoff and Hussain all ran up to Hoggard
>>and Harmison at various times to suggest things, but I get the
>>impression that Tresco is so dedicated to his first slip fielding that
>>he doesn't really have time for anything else.

>I suppose that England are so short of reliable slip fielders (Flintoff
>being the only other one that you'd confidently back to catch more than
>he misses) that Trescothick moving out of the slips isn't really an
>option. I believe that traditionally captains used mainly to field at
>mid-off and mid-on, where they were close to the action but didn't have
>to worry about taking quick-reaction catches.

Depends a lot on who the captain is.

Rod Marsh was of the opinion that being in the slips was very helpfull
for Greg and Ian Chappell because they got a better chance to see what
was going on than they would have from elsewhere.

I also remember very late in his career (the 83/84 series vs Pakistan
iirc) Greg Chappell was in the outfield and doing a great job and got
interviewed. He said that he'd always really loved fielding in the
outfield but had given it up because he felt he had to field in close
as captain.
--
"Hope is replaced by fear and dreams by survival, most of us get by."
Stuart Adamson 1958-2001

Mad Hamish
Hamish Laws

 
 
 

EvNZ T1 D3

Post by Mad Hamis » Mon, 24 May 2004 23:54:26

On Sun, 23 May 2004 13:49:11 +0100, John Hall

Quote:



>>I don't recall there being any problems with over-rates
>>in this match, so it probably wouldn't have hurt Tresothick too much to talk to
>>the bowler between overs

>In fact the over rates in this match have been lamentable from both
>sides, being in between 13 and 14 overs per hour. It hasn't helped that
>there's been a drinks break every session, even when the temperature has
>been only 15C (60F). In the old days, they only had drinks breaks in
>England when it was seriously hot.

Doesn't that qualify as seriously hot in England?
--
"Hope is replaced by fear and dreams by survival, most of us get by."
Stuart Adamson 1958-2001

Mad Hamish
Hamish Laws

 
 
 

EvNZ T1 D3

Post by Shishir S. Patha » Tue, 25 May 2004 00:18:38


<snip>

Quote:
> If Flintoff can take the time to run up from second slip to talk to
> the bowler, though, I fail to see why the skipper can't do the same
> from first.

Second slip usually stands a couple of paces "ahead" of the first slip, and
is therefore closer to the bowler.

Cheers, Shishir

 
 
 

EvNZ T1 D3

Post by Yuk Tan » Tue, 25 May 2004 01:04:27



Quote:


> <snip>

>> If Flintoff can take the time to run up from second slip to talk
>> to the bowler, though, I fail to see why the skipper can't do the
>> same from first.

> Second slip usually stands a couple of paces "ahead" of the first
> slip, and is therefore closer to the bowler.

Second slip does not stand in front of first slip.  I've got an mpeg to
prove it.

--
Cheers, ymt.

 
 
 

EvNZ T1 D3

Post by Mike Holman » Tue, 25 May 2004 03:19:54

On Sun, 23 May 2004 21:52:47 +1200, "Aditya Basrur"

forth:

Quote:
>Aditya [ Am I in Mike's killfile, or was my earlier post not sufficiently
>controversial? ] Basrur

I was too effing tired to write a reply to it.

Cheers,

Mike