EvNZ T2 D4

EvNZ T2 D4

Post by Mike Holman » Tue, 08 Jun 2004 10:07:43


A day very familiar to England fans, this. Starting the day slightly
ahead after taking a late wicket or two the previous evening, it
simply required a bit of application and there'd be a chance of a win.
After a couple of early deliveries had looked as though they might get
he batsmen in trouble, the overnight pair dug in and then started to
score freely as the bowlers served up increasingly rank piles of
doggy-doo, a breakthrough only brought in a batsman keeper who
proceeded to knock off a rapid hundred, so instead of a first-innings
lead, it's a substantial deficit, and then lose five wickets before
you've even reached the total required to make the oppo bat again. One
of the batsmen had his finger broken for him in the first innings, and
one of the bowlers has limped off, his Test series over. Just another
ordinary day on an Ashes tour.

What wasn't familiar was that it was England handing out the
punishment and New Zealand cast in the hapless bunch of tourists'
roles.

This is not a good pitch now. It was reasonable on days one and two,
started to misbehave on day three and misbehaved some more on day
four. But it's only a bit ***:  you might threaten to send it to
bed without any supper, but you wouldn't really mean it. It's not been
a minefield. England managed to score 282 runs in 70 overs on it, and
that is a sad reflection on the Kiwi bowling.

In post-innings interviews, both Flintoff and Trescothick said they
never felt comfortably in on the pitch, and Flintoff went on to say
that he'd had to s***for every run because he wasn't feeling in the
best of form. It's a measure of what the fans have come to expect from
him that we sat around in the stands applauding his judicious shot
selection rather than realising he was having trouble as he crawled to
94 off 144 balls. While they were together, he was the junior partner
keeping an end up while Jones blazed away, and had only contributed
about 40 to the partnership of 118 (off 117 balls) when he holed out
trying to reach his 100 with a six (Jones had reached his maiden Test
fifty by smacking Vettori back over his head for six - shortly before
Vettori got a bit too energetic trying to throw a ball in and tore his
hamstring).

Jones slowed down a bit after that, but got solid support from Giles
and then Hoggard as he neared three figures. When he was on 99,
Fleming set a field which was recognisable as attempting to exert a
little pressure, with almost everyone in one-saving positions, but
that lasted two balls, until Jones dabbed one backward of point and
danced down the wicket punching the air. He was obviously delighted
with his hundred, and seemed to love the ovation, and decided to have
an action replay on his march back to the pavilion having given gully
a regulation catch.

The last three wickets fell for no runs, just as in the New Zealand
innings, but that was about the only similarity between the two.

With a lead of 117, England were in with a great chance, as long as
they bowled with more intelligence and discipline than NZ had.
Harmison charged in from the top and Hoggard up the hill, and both
banged it in far too short or far too wide, so Richardson and Fleming
picked off some easy runs when they weren't leaving balls they had no
need to play.

After a dozen overs of the new ball being entirely wasted, Flintoff
replaced Hoggard and Saggers Harmison. They both bowled a fuller
length and had the batsmen tucked up and in trouble more often. In the
17th over, Flintoff got one to climb on Fleming and Strauss too the
catch at forward short leg. That brought McCullum in, and he decided
that attack was hte best form of defence and threw the bat at the ball
to some effect, which also got Richardson interested in hitting the
ball. They were making useful progress, so Harmison and Hoggard were
brought back from the opposite ends.

Harmison's first over saw him getting the batsmen lined up, but
Hoggard started his spell disappointingly, Richardson hitting him for
yet another boundary. Next ball, though, Richardson top-edged to
Jones, and Hoggard suddenly gained a yard of pace and a tone of
aggression.

The first ball of Harmison's next over went off the edge of McCullum's
bat between first and second slip, and Trescothick pulled off a
magnificent one-handed catch with the ball almost past him at about
knee-height.

The Barmy Army on the West Stand were now in full voice, shouting
"Vaughan-y, Vaughan-y, give us a wave!" and after a minute or two of
it, Vaughan did. So, between balls of Harmison's over, they went on to
get Strauss-y, Geraint and Marcus to do little dances or waves for
them.

Next over, Hoggard had a desperately close lbw shout turned down
against Astle. But his disappointment did last long, as Bucknor
answered his appeal off the next ball in the affirmative.

Tuffey came out as nigh***chman, and departed the following over,
edging Harmison to Jones again.

75/1 had become 91/5 adn there were still five overs to go. Styris and
Oram survived them and ended on 102/5, still 15 adrift.

It will take an 81-style miracle to save New Zealand now. They may
have the batsmen in Styris, Oram and Cairns, but they have no
potential Bob Willis that I can see.

Cheers,

Mike

 
 
 

EvNZ T2 D4

Post by Mike Holman » Tue, 08 Jun 2004 10:22:37


Quote:
>Next over, Hoggard had a desperately close lbw shout turned down
>against Astle. But his disappointment did last long, as Bucknor
>answered his appeal off the next ball in the affirmative.

Um, that was Taufel.

Cheers,

Dave.

 
 
 

EvNZ T2 D4

Post by Bob Dube » Tue, 08 Jun 2004 16:58:38

Quote:

> This is not a good pitch now. It was reasonable on days one and two,
> started to misbehave on day three and misbehaved some more on day
> four. But it's only a bit ***:  you might threaten to send it to
> bed without any supper, but you wouldn't really mean it. It's not been
> a minefield. England managed to score 282 runs in 70 overs on it, and
> that is a sad reflection on the Kiwi bowling.

I'm pretty sure I saw one delivery, from Styris, that rolled at least
part of the way. Not by design though - he pitched it reasonably
enough but it kept VERY low and seemed to bounce, roll and then bounce
again. The "bounces" seemed to be less than 6 inches.

 
 
 

EvNZ T2 D4

Post by Simon Pleasant » Tue, 08 Jun 2004 17:38:06

On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 02:07:43 +0100, Mike Holmans

Quote:

>Next over, Hoggard had a desperately close lbw shout turned down
>against Astle. But his disappointment did {not - Ed} last long, as Bucknor
>answered his appeal off the next ball in the affirmative.

Probably just as well as Bucknor turned down an absolutely plumb LBW
of Jones.  Unfortunately for Astle he was not able to make his
reprieve count in the same way.
 
 
 

EvNZ T2 D4

Post by Yuk Tan » Wed, 09 Jun 2004 03:09:26



Quote:


>> This is not a good pitch now. It was reasonable on days one and
>> two, started to misbehave on day three and misbehaved some more
>> on day four. But it's only a bit ***:  you might threaten to
>> send it to bed without any supper, but you wouldn't really mean
>> it. It's not been a minefield. England managed to score 282 runs
>> in 70 overs on it, and that is a sad reflection on the Kiwi
>> bowling.

> I'm pretty sure I saw one delivery, from Styris, that rolled at
> least part of the way. Not by design though - he pitched it
> reasonably enough but it kept VERY low and seemed to bounce, roll
> and then bounce again. The "bounces" seemed to be less than 6
> inches.

Compare with the Richardson dismissal, which was occasioned by an
absolutely hideous Hoggard delivery that seemed to climb a gradient
of around 45 degrees.  It was Ambrose and Edgbaston 1995 all over
again.  Thorpe got a similar delivery, but (un)luckily for him, was
hit square on the body.

--
Cheers, ymt.

 
 
 

EvNZ T2 D4

Post by Andrew Dunfor » Wed, 09 Jun 2004 06:17:45


Quote:
> On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 02:07:43 +0100, Mike Holmans

> >Next over, Hoggard had a desperately close lbw shout turned down
> >against Astle. But his disappointment did {not - Ed} last long, as
Bucknor
> >answered his appeal off the next ball in the affirmative.

> Probably just as well as Bucknor turned down an absolutely plumb LBW
> of Jones.  Unfortunately for Astle he was not able to make his
> reprieve count in the same way.

Seeing Cairns out lbw on the final morning reminded me of the appeal Tuffey
had against Jones as you mention, because the two deliveries were on an
identical line, the only difference being that the Tuffey one would have hit
middle-and-leg an inch or two lower.  Nothing wrong with the Cairns
decision, which was obviously out, but I did think that part of the reason
for the unexpectedly high first innings scores in this match was the refusal
of the umpires to grant most reasonable lbw appeals.  England probably
suffered more than New Zealand, with Fleming extremely lucky on two
occasions.

Sky reported that Taufel won't seek an extension of his Elite Panel
contract.

Of course the real answer to the Jones lbw query is that McCullum shouldn't
have muffed a chance which was going down Fleming's throat.

Andrew