If we were 2-1 against Australia and clinging on for a draw at the final test. then I'd welcome the rain delays, but in this series I want England tested. Players like Bell need to show they're mentally tough enough to survive long periods against a good attack, as his last few innings have been all over the place
Australia begin a 2 match Test series in the West Indies tomorrow. Should be an interesting watch on Sky. Don't know the squad they have taken out there and wouldn't use it as a form studying tool necessarily but it will be very good TV, especially as Caribean cricket is the best to watch from a timing POV.
It will be interesting to see the approach that England take tomorrow, 411 in 98 overs is only just over four an over, so whilst it is unlikely, you can see it happening against an attack that lacks depth, and is without a quality spinner.
If England are say 250-3 with 40 overs remaining then that would leave just 205 from 40 overs, with all of the big hitting middle order to come - could be a close one.
In a way, part of me hopes that NZ win, as they have played some good cricket and certainly don't deserve to lose 2-0!
Can't see it with captain conservative . I'd back McCullum over cook in a battle of strategy and desire to win .
Especially as we are actually don't need to win the match to take the series. Trouble is that time after time we've allowed the opposition to get on top by playing this way that losing becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.
It will be interesting to see the approach that England take tomorrow, 411 in 98 overs is only just over four an over, so whilst it is unlikely, you can see it happening against an attack that lacks depth, and is without a quality spinner.
If England are say 250-3 with 40 overs remaining then that would leave just 205 from 40 overs, with all of the big hitting middle order to come - could be a close one.
In a way, part of me hopes that NZ win, as they have played some good cricket and certainly don't deserve to lose 2-0!
Always makes me laugh when people equate One-day run-rates to Test Matches. Don't they realise that there are no fielding restricitons in Tests, nor is bowling leg-side necessarily a wide.
It will be interesting to see the approach that England take tomorrow, 411 in 98 overs is only just over four an over, so whilst it is unlikely, you can see it happening against an attack that lacks depth, and is without a quality spinner.
If England are say 250-3 with 40 overs remaining then that would leave just 205 from 40 overs, with all of the big hitting middle order to come - could be a close one.
In a way, part of me hopes that NZ win, as they have played some good cricket and certainly don't deserve to lose 2-0!
Always makes me laugh when people equate One-day run-rates to Test Matches. Don't they realise that there are no fielding restricitons in Tests, nor is bowling leg-side necessarily a wide.
still plenty of space to smash it about a bit though - they did it to us !
It will be interesting to see the approach that England take tomorrow, 411 in 98 overs is only just over four an over, so whilst it is unlikely, you can see it happening against an attack that lacks depth, and is without a quality spinner.
If England are say 250-3 with 40 overs remaining then that would leave just 205 from 40 overs, with all of the big hitting middle order to come - could be a close one.
In a way, part of me hopes that NZ win, as they have played some good cricket and certainly don't deserve to lose 2-0!
Always makes me laugh when people equate One-day run-rates to Test Matches. Don't they realise that there are no fielding restricitons in Tests, nor is bowling leg-side necessarily a wide.
The way modern cricket is going - with the power of modern bats and batsmen - it surely won't be long before people are chasing down 400 on a final day.
Fielding restrictions don't mean much when the ball is landing in Row Z.
Modern day "Power" means nothing if the pitch is worn, has variable bounce, turns square, and bowlers are not restricted by fielding sanctions and can bowl down the leg-side as they want. Chasing 400 is one thing, but on a last day pitch, it will always be very, very, difficult, and a very rare occurrence (when it does eventually happen, which it won't today!).
Ballance was actually bowled off his pads. Smith, the commentator, indicated that he was trying to work the ball on the leg side but, to me, it looked like the "trigger" movement of someone who is trying to get out of the way of the ball.
Oh dear the snail has gone for six. I thought someone said he was going to get a century in this game? He looks like a walking wicket. Technique all over the place.
Ballance was actually bowled off his pads. Smith, the commentator, indicated that he was trying to work the ball on the leg side but, to me, it looked like the "trigger" movement of someone who is trying to get out of the way of the ball.
Smith has now confirmed what I said. His foot movement is all over the place.
Oh dear the snail has gone for six. I thought someone said he was going to get a century in this game? He looks like a walking wicket. Technique all over the place.
I said that either Ballance or Bell would get a century in this match - still a chance then ! Agree that Ballance's footwork is flawed at moment, but vaguely remember him being like this in early Tests last year v India ?
Oh dear the snail has gone for six. I thought someone said he was going to get a century in this game? He looks like a walking wicket. Technique all over the place.
I said that either Ballance or Bell would get a century in this match - still a chance then ! Agree that Ballance's footwork is flawed at moment, but vaguely remember him being like this in early Tests last year v India ?
No chance now. What was Bell thinking. They just put in a leg slip and he puts it straight into his hands. As Ian Smith said either leave it or hit it, all he did was guide it.
I know he has his admirers but really don't think Ballance has the bottle for the aussies. Bell, Cook have proven to face them.. and you just get the feeling Lyth would be well up for facing them. Real doubts about Ballance.
Bell is now out. He is in worse form than Ballance. Do we stick with Bell and Ballance against the Australians?
ideally a BIG NO .. but who else is there ? .. Taylor, Hales, Bairstow (w/k) with Buttler as a batsman, Vince, Northeast, .... who else is there who is likely rather than just a possibility to improve the batting, which has been a problem for at least two years .. and of course, the present team are all mates earning plenty of money .. hard to drop your friends and lose them some income .. it'll be interesting to see if Bayliss is big and tough enough to make the necessary changes, AND, I would add, the bowling needs a serious overhaul as well .. other than that and the terrible catching, all is well ((:>)
This is what I said back in April about Ballance after his Test average of 60 plus was thrown at my assertion that his technique was poor:
I am a stats person but question the nature of his runs - mostly at home to a poor Sri Lankan attack and India who, after the 2nd Test, typically played as if they couldn't wait to go home.
Time will tell but the one thing you can be certain of is that every Test playing nation will have sussed out his strengths and weaknesses.
With Bell in the worst form of his Test career (54 runs in his last eight Test innings) we really do have a problem with those two .
And as I said re our attitude to these situations is oh so predictable:
Trouble is that time after time we've allowed the opposition to get on top by playing this way that losing becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.
23 runs scored in 18 overs is indicative of a team that never had any intention of demonstrating that they are going for the runs. And it is the intent that is important. Not the execution and the reason we've lost four wickets this morning.
I can only hope that, with an Australian in charge, that attitude might change for the better.
Bell is now out. He is in worse form than Ballance. Do we stick with Bell and Ballance against the Australians?
ideally a BIG NO .. but who else is there ? .. Taylor, Hales, Bairstow (w/k) with Buttler as a batsman, Vince, Northeast, .... who else is there who is likely rather than just a possibility to improve the batting, which has been a problem for at least two years .. and of course, the present team are all mates earning plenty of money .. hard to drop your friends and lose them some income .. it'll be interesting to see if Bayliss is big and tough enough to make the necessary changes, AND, I would add, the bowling needs a serious overhaul as well .. other than that and the terrible catching, all is well ((:>)
Comments
If England are say 250-3 with 40 overs remaining then that would leave just 205 from 40 overs, with all of the big hitting middle order to come - could be a close one.
In a way, part of me hopes that NZ win, as they have played some good cricket and certainly don't deserve to lose 2-0!
Fielding restrictions don't mean much when the ball is landing in Row Z.
Dot balls that is. From 54 bowled. Lots of gaps in the field though ;-)
61-2
i really dont know how he was ever coached to bat that way
Agree that Ballance's footwork is flawed at moment, but vaguely remember him being like this in early Tests last year v India ?
Bell, Cook have proven to face them.. and you just get the feeling Lyth would be well up for facing them.
Real doubts about Ballance.
I am a stats person but question the nature of his runs - mostly at home to a poor Sri Lankan attack and India who, after the 2nd Test, typically played as if they couldn't wait to go home.
Time will tell but the one thing you can be certain of is that every Test playing nation will have sussed out his strengths and weaknesses.
With Bell in the worst form of his Test career (54 runs in his last eight Test innings) we really do have a problem with those two .
And as I said re our attitude to these situations is oh so predictable:
Trouble is that time after time we've allowed the opposition to get on top by playing this way that losing becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.
23 runs scored in 18 overs is indicative of a team that never had any intention of demonstrating that they are going for the runs. And it is the intent that is important. Not the execution and the reason we've lost four wickets this morning.
I can only hope that, with an Australian in charge, that attitude might change for the better.