Stokes being injured causes even more issues if he plays as a batter only in the second Test. Pope would probably then have to go back up to 3 and keep with neither Bethell or Robinson playing and the bowlers coming in from 7 onwards. If Stokes can't play at all then we will have to bring in another bowler anyway in which case I would expect Bethell to be left out, Pope to move back up and Robinson to bat at 6.
Southee hits two 6s to take him to 95 but remains 6th in the history of 6 hitters in Test cricket. Above him are Kallis (97). Gayle (98), Gilchrist (100) with the top two, ironically, being McCullum (107) and Stokes (133).
Excellent running catch from Root on the boundary to dismiss for 12 (13) off the bowling of Atkinson. Mitchell is still there on 47 off 128 balls but it really is time for him to open his shoulders now if NZ are going to get any sort of lead
Atkinson has just bowled England's 22nd no ball in the match out of a total of 59 extras (including 16 wides). Only Williamson. Mitchell and Phillips have contributed more to NZ's runs.
Don't understand these tactics. Just set normal fields with slips etc & bowl to them. We have plenty of runs to play with. Even if Mitchell hits a few 4's so what.
Best way to get them out is if they start playing shots. Not playing defensively & stealing the odd single.
104-2 off 12.4 overs with Bethell reaching his maiden 50 off the final ball of the match. England win in a canter by 8 wickets.
Bethell 50* (37) Root 23* (15)
The emergence of Bethell, the poor form of Crawley, the fact that England have flown Robinson out to keep wicket and the potential injury to Stokes/possible need to play a fifth bowler, all means that picking the side for the second Test might prove more tricky than actually winning this Test did.
Stokes says that it's been pretty heavy for the body this week, that coming off mid-over was more of a precaution and that he would be fit for Wellington. He wouldn't answer Gower's question re the situation regarding how Robinson arriving might affect selection.
Given what is to come with big series against India and Australia, I wouldn't be surprised if Robinson did play and Bethell is left out if only to make things a straight shoot out between Crawley and Pope for Bethell to then come in for one of them in the summer. They've had it confirmed that Bethell's technique (first innings) and attacking style (second innings) fits with their modus operandi and would have seen enough to suggest that he could do the job that has been asked of Crawley but, equally, he might displace Pope. It would also give them the opportunity to look at Robinson with both bat and gloves, not as Smith's immediate replacement but as that back up come the Ashes and ultimately should Smith move up to 3.
Bizarre results in world cricket after, for years it was all about home advantage this century.
New Zealand win 3-0 in India.
India win 1st test away against Australia
England now win 1st test away in New Zealand.
As England were playing a lot of fringe players in Pakistan I wasn't surprised we lost 2-1 especially with the spin twins for Pakistan in tests 2 and 3.
Jayden Seales' bowling figures in Bangladesh's first innings just now are completely unthinkable
So excited to see him in Div 1 next season - even if it's just for the first 5 games. Unbelievable talent that I hope the Windies can keep away from the franchise circuit.
It's interesting that Bethell has said that it has been a long held desire to bat in the top four - not at three or four necessarily. I don't see England dropping Crawley necessarily for the next Test but there has to come a point when they will do so and if he doesn't get any runs in the next Test then that might be the excuse (not that the management appear to be looking for one) to move Bethell up, put pressure on Pope to perform at 3 and take a look at Robinson.
To demonstrate how fortunate Crawley has been, there are just 56 players in the history of Test cricket that have had 90 or more innings batting from 1-3. Crawley averages 31.37, compared to the best, Sangakkara, who averaged 59.87 from 216 innings when batting in those positions. He averaged 40.48 when keeping for 81 of those innings. There are 12 other English batsmen to have batted at least 90 times in those positions namely Cook (45.17), Atherton (37.70), Gooch (43.86), Boycott (48.16), Strauss (40.90), Trescothick (43.87), Hutton (56.47), Butcher (34.82), Edrich (42.43), Stewart (44.33), Vaughan (43.68) and Hobbs (53.01). Pope has batted 48 times in the top three and averages 39.42 and Duckett's average is 42.06 from 52 innings compared to Crawley's 31.37.
Crawley has just four Test hundreds and we only won one of those matches in which he did that and on that occasion three others hit a ton in the same innings. He is a flat track bully, whether that is playing for club or country and the second that a ball starts to move, he can be found wanting - unlike Hick who averaged 52.23 in First Class cricket and 34.57 from 35 innings when batting in the top three in Tests. The most damning evidence that Crawley isn't contributing in a major way is his average of 27.83 when we have won as opposed to 24.70 when we've lost and a massive 57.92 when we've drawn games.
We might argue that a quick 30 (and he's failed to do even that in nine of this last ten innings) puts the opposition on the back foot, but perhaps we should consider the fact that getting out inside the first half a dozen overs actually does less damage to the longevity of the opposing seamers in the match and gets our other batters to the crease and facing the new ball sooner than ideal.
Three things have saved Crawley from being dropped in my opinion. McCullum's loyalty to those he believes in (which could be argued has now been overdone though had the England management shown a bit more of the same to Ramprakash and Hick we might well have seen more from them instead of the constant revolving door they had to walk through), his closeness to Key and the fact that no obvious openers have come to the fore to challenge him. McCullum, though, has proven that he can look in the wrong place for one - he did it with Duckett who wasn't a red ball opener and he might do it with Bethell too.
It's interesting that Bethell has said that it has been a long held desire to bat in the top four - not at three or four necessarily. I don't see England dropping Crawley necessarily for the next Test but there has to come a point when they will do so and if he doesn't get any runs in the next Test then that might be the excuse (not that the management appear to be looking for one) to move Bethell up, put pressure on Pope to perform at 3 and take a look at Robinson.
To demonstrate how fortunate Crawley has been, there are just 56 players in the history of Test cricket that have had 90 or more innings batting from 1-3. Crawley averages 31.37, compared to the best, Sangakkara, who averaged 59.87 from 216 innings when batting in those positions. He averaged 40.48 when keeping for 81 of those innings. There are 12 other English batsmen to have batted at least 90 times in those positions namely Cook (45.17), Atherton (37.70), Gooch (43.86), Boycott (48.16), Strauss (40.90), Trescothick (43.87), Hutton (56.47), Butcher (34.82), Edrich (42.43), Stewart (44.33), Vaughan (43.68) and Hobbs (53.01). Pope has batted 48 times in the top three and averages 39.42 and Duckett's average is 42.06 from 52 innings compared to Crawley's 31.37.
Crawley has just four Test hundreds and we only won one of those matches in which he did that and on that occasion three others hit a ton in the same innings. He is a flat track bully, whether that is playing for club or country and the second that a ball starts to move, he can be found wanting - unlike Hick who averaged 52.23 in First Class cricket and 34.57 from 35 innings when batting in the top three in Tests. The most damning evidence that Crawley isn't contributing in a major way is his average of 27.83 when we have won as opposed to 24.70 when we've lost and a massive 57.92 when we've drawn games.
We might argue that a quick 30 (and he's failed to do even that in nine of this last ten innings) puts the opposition on the back foot, but perhaps we should consider the fact that getting out inside the first half a dozen overs actually does less damage to the longevity of the opposing seamers in the match and gets our other batters to the crease and facing the new ball sooner than ideal.
Three things have saved Crawley from being dropped in my opinion. McCullum's loyalty to those he believes in (which could be argued has now been overdone though had the England management shown a bit more of the same to Ramprakash and Hick we might well have seen more from them instead of the constant revolving door they had to walk through), his closeness to Key and the fact that no obvious openers have come to the fore to challenge him. McCullum, though, has proven that he can look in the wrong place for one - he did it with Duckett who wasn't a red ball opener and he might do it with Bethell too.
Crawley did well for the 12 months before Pakistan .
It's interesting that Bethell has said that it has been a long held desire to bat in the top four - not at three or four necessarily. I don't see England dropping Crawley necessarily for the next Test but there has to come a point when they will do so and if he doesn't get any runs in the next Test then that might be the excuse (not that the management appear to be looking for one) to move Bethell up, put pressure on Pope to perform at 3 and take a look at Robinson.
To demonstrate how fortunate Crawley has been, there are just 56 players in the history of Test cricket that have had 90 or more innings batting from 1-3. Crawley averages 31.37, compared to the best, Sangakkara, who averaged 59.87 from 216 innings when batting in those positions. He averaged 40.48 when keeping for 81 of those innings. There are 12 other English batsmen to have batted at least 90 times in those positions namely Cook (45.17), Atherton (37.70), Gooch (43.86), Boycott (48.16), Strauss (40.90), Trescothick (43.87), Hutton (56.47), Butcher (34.82), Edrich (42.43), Stewart (44.33), Vaughan (43.68) and Hobbs (53.01). Pope has batted 48 times in the top three and averages 39.42 and Duckett's average is 42.06 from 52 innings compared to Crawley's 31.37.
Crawley has just four Test hundreds and we only won one of those matches in which he did that and on that occasion three others hit a ton in the same innings. He is a flat track bully, whether that is playing for club or country and the second that a ball starts to move, he can be found wanting - unlike Hick who averaged 52.23 in First Class cricket and 34.57 from 35 innings when batting in the top three in Tests. The most damning evidence that Crawley isn't contributing in a major way is his average of 27.83 when we have won as opposed to 24.70 when we've lost and a massive 57.92 when we've drawn games.
We might argue that a quick 30 (and he's failed to do even that in nine of this last ten innings) puts the opposition on the back foot, but perhaps we should consider the fact that getting out inside the first half a dozen overs actually does less damage to the longevity of the opposing seamers in the match and gets our other batters to the crease and facing the new ball sooner than ideal.
Three things have saved Crawley from being dropped in my opinion. McCullum's loyalty to those he believes in (which could be argued has now been overdone though had the England management shown a bit more of the same to Ramprakash and Hick we might well have seen more from them instead of the constant revolving door they had to walk through), his closeness to Key and the fact that no obvious openers have come to the fore to challenge him. McCullum, though, has proven that he can look in the wrong place for one - he did it with Duckett who wasn't a red ball opener and he might do it with Bethell too.
Crawley did well for the 12 months before Pakistan .
The 12 months prior to Pakistan would take us to October 2023 and would only include, for Crawley, the series at home to West Indies and the one in India so assume that you mean the period from the middle of June 2023 to the end of July 2024 which would incorporate the home Ashes series too. During that period he scored 984 runs at 42.78 from 23 innings. He hit one hundred, in the drawn Test in Manchester and in that same innings all the batsmen from 3-7 inclusive (Moeen, Root, Brook, Stokes and Bairstow) hit 50s in a total of 592. His second highest score was 79 during that period.
So Crawley did do relatively well but that massive hundred only serves to re-affirm what I have been saying about him for years - he will excel when there is little or no seam movement when he can dominate. Look at his three other hundreds - that 267 in the drawn Test against Pakistan out of a total of 583-8 (Buttler scored 152 in the same innings), 121 in the drawn Test against West Indies (Root hit 109 in that innings) and 122 in the win against Pakistan out of a total of 657 in which Duckett (107), Pope (108) and Brook (153) all hit tons too.
Crawley struggles in exactly the same way when those conditions prevail in England which is why his CC average is no better than his Test average. Again it was a case for Kent last season of one absolute feast and absolute starvation the rest of the time. He averaged 32.20 from 10 innings but 238 of his 322 runs came in one stint at the crease. Without that, he would have averaged 9.33. Again that 238 came on a road in a drawn game where Banton and Rew made 133 and 114 out of a Somerset total of 554.
It really depends what we are trying to achieve when selecting the team - for now or for the future. Crawley's average at home is 36.63 and away is 27.47. His combined average Down Under is 17.38. To me, he has to do something in the next two Tests (assuming he gets an opportunity to play in both) because, if he doesn't contribute meaningfully and we persist with him then, the danger is that, we will have no one lined up to replace him for the Ashes. Do we want to be in a position where we are forced to throw a Cox or a Bethell or a Robinson into the Ashes without them having any meaningful Test experience?
I do wonder who could be next off the production line in terms of actual openers. A lot of the leading runs scorers in Div 1 last season were either overseas or players that have been and gone in terms of an international career.
There's not a lot of obvious names in county scene , not that scoring bulk runs at championship level seems to bother Key or Baz. Someone like Tom Haines has had an average last 12-18 months and probably isn't on the list anymore and the Lions squad in SA doesn't offer any real clues either.
I do wonder who could be next off the production line in terms of actual openers. A lot of the leading runs scorers in Div 1 last season were either overseas or players that have been and gone in terms of an international career.
There's not a lot of obvious names in county scene , not that scoring bulk runs at championship level seems to bother Key or Baz. Someone like Tom Haines has had an average last 12-18 months and probably isn't on the list anymore and the Lions squad in SA doesn't offer any real clues either.
It's not just the average, it's the speed and aggressiveness that is important to the Bazball ethos. An Alastair Cook type accumulator isn't what they are after.
Indeed you feel that they'd rather a Crawley type, averaging 30ish, rather than a slow accumulator, averaging 40.
Comments
209-9 and 58 ahead
Best way to get them out is if they start playing shots. Not playing defensively & stealing the odd single.
254 all out
O'Rourke 5* (39)
England require 104 to win. Fully expect Crawley and Duckett to come out with all guns blazing post lunch!
1-1
I thought it might take us 20 overs to knock off the runs but I think we'll be done & dusted inside 15.
Duckett 27* (17)
Bethell 26* (18)
England going at 8 an over. 9 needed to win....so work out how many overs will be needed to finish the game But no....they now stop for drinks.
This is the same game where the lunch break can (and was) delayed due to being 9 down. So "hydration" wasn't an issue an hour ago.
Please make it make sense.
Edit.
Game finishes 4 balls after the drinks break.
Bethell 50* (37)
Root 23* (15)
The emergence of Bethell, the poor form of Crawley, the fact that England have flown Robinson out to keep wicket and the potential injury to Stokes/possible need to play a fifth bowler, all means that picking the side for the second Test might prove more tricky than actually winning this Test did.
Given what is to come with big series against India and Australia, I wouldn't be surprised if Robinson did play and Bethell is left out if only to make things a straight shoot out between Crawley and Pope for Bethell to then come in for one of them in the summer. They've had it confirmed that Bethell's technique (first innings) and attacking style (second innings) fits with their modus operandi and would have seen enough to suggest that he could do the job that has been asked of Crawley but, equally, he might displace Pope. It would also give them the opportunity to look at Robinson with both bat and gloves, not as Smith's immediate replacement but as that back up come the Ashes and ultimately should Smith move up to 3.
New Zealand win 3-0 in India.
India win 1st test away against Australia
England now win 1st test away in New Zealand.
As England were playing a lot of fringe players in Pakistan I wasn't surprised we lost 2-1 especially with the spin twins for Pakistan in tests 2 and 3.
So excited to see him in Div 1 next season - even if it's just for the first 5 games. Unbelievable talent that I hope the Windies can keep away from the franchise circuit.
To demonstrate how fortunate Crawley has been, there are just 56 players in the history of Test cricket that have had 90 or more innings batting from 1-3. Crawley averages 31.37, compared to the best, Sangakkara, who averaged 59.87 from 216 innings when batting in those positions. He averaged 40.48 when keeping for 81 of those innings. There are 12 other English batsmen to have batted at least 90 times in those positions namely Cook (45.17), Atherton (37.70), Gooch (43.86), Boycott (48.16), Strauss (40.90), Trescothick (43.87), Hutton (56.47), Butcher (34.82), Edrich (42.43), Stewart (44.33), Vaughan (43.68) and Hobbs (53.01). Pope has batted 48 times in the top three and averages 39.42 and Duckett's average is 42.06 from 52 innings compared to Crawley's 31.37.
Crawley has just four Test hundreds and we only won one of those matches in which he did that and on that occasion three others hit a ton in the same innings. He is a flat track bully, whether that is playing for club or country and the second that a ball starts to move, he can be found wanting - unlike Hick who averaged 52.23 in First Class cricket and 34.57 from 35 innings when batting in the top three in Tests. The most damning evidence that Crawley isn't contributing in a major way is his average of 27.83 when we have won as opposed to 24.70 when we've lost and a massive 57.92 when we've drawn games.
We might argue that a quick 30 (and he's failed to do even that in nine of this last ten innings) puts the opposition on the back foot, but perhaps we should consider the fact that getting out inside the first half a dozen overs actually does less damage to the longevity of the opposing seamers in the match and gets our other batters to the crease and facing the new ball sooner than ideal.
Three things have saved Crawley from being dropped in my opinion. McCullum's loyalty to those he believes in (which could be argued has now been overdone though had the England management shown a bit more of the same to Ramprakash and Hick we might well have seen more from them instead of the constant revolving door they had to walk through), his closeness to Key and the fact that no obvious openers have come to the fore to challenge him. McCullum, though, has proven that he can look in the wrong place for one - he did it with Duckett who wasn't a red ball opener and he might do it with Bethell too.
So Crawley did do relatively well but that massive hundred only serves to re-affirm what I have been saying about him for years - he will excel when there is little or no seam movement when he can dominate. Look at his three other hundreds - that 267 in the drawn Test against Pakistan out of a total of 583-8 (Buttler scored 152 in the same innings), 121 in the drawn Test against West Indies (Root hit 109 in that innings) and 122 in the win against Pakistan out of a total of 657 in which Duckett (107), Pope (108) and Brook (153) all hit tons too.
Crawley struggles in exactly the same way when those conditions prevail in England which is why his CC average is no better than his Test average. Again it was a case for Kent last season of one absolute feast and absolute starvation the rest of the time. He averaged 32.20 from 10 innings but 238 of his 322 runs came in one stint at the crease. Without that, he would have averaged 9.33. Again that 238 came on a road in a drawn game where Banton and Rew made 133 and 114 out of a Somerset total of 554.
It really depends what we are trying to achieve when selecting the team - for now or for the future. Crawley's average at home is 36.63 and away is 27.47. His combined average Down Under is 17.38. To me, he has to do something in the next two Tests (assuming he gets an opportunity to play in both) because, if he doesn't contribute meaningfully and we persist with him then, the danger is that, we will have no one lined up to replace him for the Ashes. Do we want to be in a position where we are forced to throw a Cox or a Bethell or a Robinson into the Ashes without them having any meaningful Test experience?
There's not a lot of obvious names in county scene , not that scoring bulk runs at championship level seems to bother Key or Baz. Someone like Tom Haines has had an average last 12-18 months and probably isn't on the list anymore and the Lions squad in SA doesn't offer any real clues either.
Indeed you feel that they'd rather a Crawley type, averaging 30ish, rather than a slow accumulator, averaging 40.