Bullshark that there's no 3rd test.
Its Summer! - the Fever Cricket Thread. (Part 2)
That was epic.
Pretty dire and probably a preview of the kind of misery that's about to come in the Ashes. Probably going to need some help from the weather to avoid another 5-0.
ODI series shouldn't be far off that either. England's team looks pretty inexperienced.
Cook coming back into form was the only real positive from an England perspective. The batting order still lacks too much qualitytoo weak. People like Hales and Taylor look good additions for the ODI side but not sure about the test team.
Well done to them. They outplayed England in England on the last test. Shame they did not get a 3rd test or perhaps a better showing in the 4th innings of the 1st test but this is the kind of benchmark I use to measure a good team. Good on them.
Jeff you sort of lost your cricket credibility when you were making a solid case for England getting 450 in the fourth innings
Jeff you sort of lost your cricket credibility when you were making a solid case for England getting 450 in the fourth innings
Jeff you sort of lost your cricket credibility when you were making a solid case for England getting 450 in the fourth innings
I love this kind of thing though.
If they all played to their averages what would they make?
They'd done it to us once already, you have to admit you were immensely, immensely happy to see the wickets tumble after Auckland and Lords?
Jeff you sort of lost your cricket credibility when you were making a solid case for England getting 450 in the fourth innings
I love this kind of thing though.
If they all played to their averages what would they make?
They'd done it to us once already, you have to admit you were immensely, immensely happy to see the wickets tumble after Auckland and Lords?
Bell averages 45, Cook decent Stokes has had some form, Buttler can batter them, Root is averaging around 60 IIRC...a flummoxed team with some class acts on their day...
Jeff you sort of lost your cricket credibility when you were making a solid case for England getting 450 in the fourth innings
I love this kind of thing though.
If they all played to their averages what would they make?
They'd done it to us once already, you have to admit you were immensely, immensely happy to see the wickets tumble after Auckland and Lords?
What? Chase down 450 in the fourth innings? No they haven't.
NZ Cricket are trying to turn our three test series against Australia into a two test and three ODI series. I can see their point about wanting to ride from the world cup but fudge, horrible timing.
seriously? That would be an absolute joke if they wanted that
NZ Cricket are trying to turn our three test series against Australia into a two test and three ODI series. I can see their point about wanting to ride from the world cup but fudge, horrible timing.
Agree from a PR perspective it is horrible timing.
But stripping it away from that, they're saying we either play 6 tests against them this summer or 5 tests and a Chappell-Hadlee series with that being the carrot for regular C-H series. I'm pretty 50/50 on it when you look at it that way.
Jeff you sort of lost your cricket credibility when you were making a solid case for England getting 450 in the fourth innings
McCullum and Cook are polar opposites in terms of captaincy. And the brand of cricket we play is 100 times more entertaining than the English.
Jeff you sort of lost your cricket credibility when you were making a solid case for England getting 450 in the fourth innings
McCullum and Cook are polar opposites in terms of captaincy. And the brand of cricket we play is 100 times more entertaining than the English.
Jeff you sort of lost your cricket credibility when you were making a solid case for England getting 450 in the fourth innings
McCullum and Cook are polar opposites in terms of captaincy. And the brand of cricket we play is 100 times more entertaining than the English.
Er, no. I'd back him and the team to attempt the chase. I don't think i would ever realistically think we could chase 450 in the fourth innings.
So in case you need it spelled out carefully for you, more people would give us a chance in a massive fourth innings chase due to the way we approach every match we play and the way we are lead by our captain. No one would give England a chance because everyone knows they play some of the most boring (read: attritional) cricket around, and they are lead by a very pragmatic and defensive captain.
the only thing would be is before the rain if they had batted out the overs they would've likely won as there were so many left. That is why you bat on for a little bit longer to take that possibility out of the game. I think NZ figured that rain was coming when they declared. It is also why in SOME situations the stats are a bit skewed as when chasing 400+ there generally isn't enough time left to make the runs.
I certainly would never say that I backed England to get the runs (_as you did JV). Now would I back NZ to do the same (or anyone).
Nor would I use the reasoning "teams get 500 in first innings so why couldn't they do the same in the second innings" as that is blatantly ignoring all other factors which make batting in the 4th innings of a match significantly more difficult.
You're on a hiding to nothing here JV, you surely must know that.
Jeff you sort of lost your cricket credibility when you were making a solid case for England getting 450 in the fourth innings
I love this kind of thing though.
If they all played to their averages what would they make?
They'd done it to us once already, you have to admit you were immensely, immensely happy to see the wickets tumble after Auckland and Lords?
What? Chase down 450 in the fourth innings? No they haven't.
Surprised us by batting extraordinarily well in their second innings- 478
and yes, I know Jeff's hypothetical is crazy
But these stats are damn interesting:
https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/inde...
They support the idea Jeff's hypothetical is super crazy. England has one score over 400 in the 4th innings in its history and the next best is 370. In fact in their second innings they have only scored over 300 a handful of times in the 4th innings.
However, it shows that just in the previous test they had scored one of their best second innings scores ever, which ultimately took them from a very long shot to a won test. So evidence both ways.
NZ Cricket are trying to turn our three test series against Australia into a two test and three ODI series. I can see their point about wanting to ride from the world cup but fudge, horrible timing.
Agree from a PR perspective it is horrible timing.
But stripping it away from that, they're saying we either play 6 tests against them this summer or 5 tests and a Chappell-Hadlee series with that being the carrot for regular C-H series. I'm pretty 50/50 on it when you look at it that way.
the only thing would be is before the rain if they had batted out the overs they would've likely won as there were so many left. That is why you bat on for a little bit longer to take that possibility out of the game. I think NZ figured that rain was coming when they declared. It is also why in SOME situations the stats are a bit skewed as when chasing 400+ there generally isn't enough time left to make the runs.
I certainly would never say that I backed England to get the runs (_as you did JV). Now would I back NZ to do the same (or anyone).
Nor would I use the reasoning "teams get 500 in first innings so why couldn't they do the same in the second innings" as that is blatantly ignoring all other factors which make batting in the 4th innings of a match significantly more difficult.
You're on a hiding to nothing here JV, you surely must know that.
As to the matter as to whether I thought they could do it, well it's absolutely fair to say they were against it, however, McCullums team can do it but England can't according to to the logic above from Buffy. That's just blinkered eye patch talking. The potential was there for it given the factors of time, overs and runs per overs required. Rain came in and removed that potential.
As to whether I am on a hiding to nothing, again, test cricket can no longer be judged by what has happen historically but you seem to do so. NZ average nearly 5 an over the full game. 3 years ago, no one was talking that way and averaging 4 an over was considered very good. The old models do not necessarily apply any longer so by that rationale, why is chasing 450 not possible in the changing of today's game?
I have no doubt that one day it will happen (someone will chase 450/500). Of course it will at some point, but it will be an exceptional event, requiring a stroke of genius (like Astle's 200 a few years back) as opposed to something that might just happen if they have enough overs and apply themselves. For example if someone gets going, in a test the captain can just chuck everyone on the boundary and wait for them to mistime something (like England did to Astle).
And in this last test, even with 2 full days England were never a chance. They were never ever going to realistically have a go at it. Even if they tried to do it at 2.5 an over they would have had to have survived 180 overs (three new balls) on a pitch that at times showed swing, turn and variable bounce. Never going to happen.
Oh and as to your last point, Australia have been scoring at 4-5 an over for years, they "revolutionised" test cricket ages ago (10-15 years-ish), particularly with Gilchrist, Hayden etc. Yet, they have still only chased over 400 once (in 1948 with Bradman).
I have no doubt that one day it will happen (someone will chase 450/500). Of course it will at some point, but it will be an exceptional event, requiring a stroke of genius (like Astle's 200 a few years back) as opposed to something that might just happen if they have enough overs and apply themselves. For example if someone gets going, in a test the captain can just chuck everyone on the boundary and wait for them to mistime something (like England did to Astle).
And in this last test, even with 2 full days England were never a chance. They were never ever going to realistically have a go at it. Even if they tried to do it at 2.5 an over they would have had to have survived 180 overs (three new balls) on a pitch that at times showed swing, turn and variable bounce. Never going to happen.
Oh and as to your last point, Australia have been scoring at 4-5 an over for years, they "revolutionised" test cricket ages ago (10-15 years-ish), particularly with Gilchrist, Hayden etc. Yet, they have still only chased over 400 once (in 1948 with Bradman).
I have no doubt that one day it will happen (someone will chase 450/500). Of course it will at some point, but it will be an exceptional event, requiring a stroke of genius (like Astle's 200 a few years back) as opposed to something that might just happen if they have enough overs and apply themselves. For example if someone gets going, in a test the captain can just chuck everyone on the boundary and wait for them to mistime something (like England did to Astle).
And in this last test, even with 2 full days England were never a chance. They were never ever going to realistically have a go at it. Even if they tried to do it at 2.5 an over they would have had to have survived 180 overs (three new balls) on a pitch that at times showed swing, turn and variable bounce. Never going to happen.
Oh and as to your last point, Australia have been scoring at 4-5 an over for years, they "revolutionised" test cricket ages ago (10-15 years-ish), particularly with Gilchrist, Hayden etc. Yet, they have still only chased over 400 once (in 1948 with Bradman).
Would have to wonder how many opportunities they have had to chase 400+ however...
edit: beat me to the punch
Don't understand why you don't bring Elliott in for Anderson personally. He's in England anyway playing for Leicestershire so would be used to conditions. I understand they would be looking for towards the future and all that but seems a no brainer as a stop gap for this one test to me.
I actually mentioned that to someone today who knows Grant through playing with him. He struggles in the longer form of the game including the 4 day stuff and prefers to stick to the limited o vers stuff. The reason is that he has a plan for limited overs as he is a busy player but struggles to find his batting rhythm and therefore form, in the longer versions.
Just what I was told by someone who spent all season on the field with him
Jeff you sort of lost your cricket credibility when you were making a solid case for England getting 450 in the fourth innings
McCullum and Cook are polar opposites in terms of captaincy. And the brand of cricket we play is 100 times more entertaining than the English.
It only takes around 15 seconds to score a goal from a kickoff, therefore it is theoretically possible to come back from a 10 nil deficit with 5 minutes remaining. Although this has never happened in the history of top level football, you would back a team to do it - right?
The difference is, you are talking about historical patterns in cricket losing their relevance in the face of the modern game and the change in which its played, not historical patterns in football.
The difference is, you are talking about historical patterns in cricket losing their relevance in the face of the modern game and the change in which its played, not historical patterns in football.
But as you said, England had 2 days to score the 450 (if it wasn't for the rain). Teams have been in that position before, where the speed of the game and run rate has been irrelevant, but it still hasn't been done. I'm not saying it is impossible, just VERY unlikely. Chasing any sort of score on a 4th/5th day pitch is an incredibly difficult challenge, irrespective of the run rate required.
The difference is, you are talking about historical patterns in cricket losing their relevance in the face of the modern game and the change in which its played, not historical patterns in football.
But as you said, England had 2 days to score the 450 (if it wasn't for the rain). Teams have been in that position before, where the speed of the game and run rate has been irrelevant, but it still hasn't been done. I'm not saying it is impossible, just VERY unlikely. Chasing any sort of score on a 4th/5th day pitch is an incredibly difficult challenge, irrespective of the run rate required.
The point I was making is that some of these things are not as far fetched as they used to be.
I think the thing that all this talk about scoring rates and how they are speeding up misses is that it doesn't tend to be teams running out of time, it's conditions that normally make scoring 400+ so difficult. A 5th day cricket pitch will still be a 5th day cricket pitch no matter how fast you score. They tend to be very difficult to bat on, it's that which makes chasing big totals so difficult I would suggest.
Jeff if any test team scores 450 plus and wins chasing in the 4th innings in your life time, I will buy you a season pass to watch the Phoenix.
Closest I've ever seen to it happening was when South Africa absolutely cruised to 415(ish) against Aus at the WACA a few years ago. Think they still had 20 overs up the sleeve and were only 4 down. https://www.espncricinfo.com/ausvrsa2008_09/engine/match/351681.html
The difference is, you are talking about historical patterns in cricket losing their relevance in the face of the modern game and the change in which its played, not historical patterns in football.
sauce please Jeff
Did you even look at those stats I put up?
https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/inde...
Top second innings scores by England come from 1939, 1957, 1947, 1975, 1961, 1960, 1894 as well as a few in the last decade. In the top 50 second innings scores by England there are six from the last 5 years. Not much of a trend there.
The top 4 scores in the 4th innings of a test match for England?
1939, 1977, 1924 and 1921.
All which say you are making something of a bullshark point backed up by sfa.
Well this has been a shower of sharke.
WTF. Did we really score 400 in an ODI? That's awesome. Didn't expect I'd ever see that from England. Pity we didn't play like that in the World Cup.
Well this has been a shower of sharke.
Are you talking about the first ODI or JV's recent posts?
Just trying to measure up to the benchmarks you and Leggy have set
Whaa...whaa...whaat happen'd...
Meh. I'm glad they gave it a crack rather than play it safe and make it to 260. Will be interesting to see how they bounce back though.