RugbyRebels

He can bat ..qed.
2 late wickets took the shine off a bit - draw most likely but both teams have a smidge of something to go at.
Eng need JR''s runs - these have diminished since becoming captain,a role in which he can do the expected steadily enough but slow to adjust things when needed and doing it oft oddly it seems.
Morgan's an astute leader, but for the Test arena and future proofing maybe Broad / Buttler short term.but Burns has domestic success as captain and will be on the list.

It would be nice to play a 3 (or god forbid 5) test series for a change. We get so shortchanged here. We seriously play half the number of tests that India does.

Root must have been delighted to get a double ton, then see his team mates fold like paper.

On the radio just they said the wickets came as the team started to press for quicker runs, and that's an understandable aim if so

Good to see Burns continuing to impress and Pope getting a score.

Digby wrote:On the radio just they said the wickets came as the team started to press for quicker runs, and that's an understandable aim if so

...well yes. The slight problem being no runs.

It’s also good to not have to write ffs after a days play.

Looks like job done NZ. A couple more scalps before close and prospect of a full day's play on day 5 and it would have been game on.Azzitappens, wickets in hand, and overly moist conditions forecast point to a 'series' loss for Eng's travails.

Mellsblue wrote:It’s also good to not have to write ffs after a days play.

I think the last couple of hours of today's play warrant a FS

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:On the radio just they said the wickets came as the team started to press for quicker runs, and that's an understandable aim if so

...well yes. The slight problem being no runs.

I can accept they felt a need to push the game forward needing a win to bring the series level, and clearly looking to push the game on isn't easy on the pitches we've had on this tour

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:On the radio just they said the wickets came as the team started to press for quicker runs, and that's an understandable aim if so

...well yes. The slight problem being no runs.

I can accept they felt a need to push the game forward needing a win to bring the series level, and clearly looking to push the game on isn't easy on the pitches we've had on this tour

I accept the need sort of (there was plenty of time left in the game, and maybe adding 50 or 60 sensibly to the final total would have had NZ under a lot more pressure) but they fckd it up spectacularly, lasting 6 overs from Pope's dismissal. The pitches have been pretty blameless.

Looks like it will bucket down most of tomorrow, so all a bit moot.

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote: ...well yes. The slight problem being no runs.

I can accept they felt a need to push the game forward needing a win to bring the series level, and clearly looking to push the game on isn't easy on the pitches we've had on this tour

I accept the need sort of (there was plenty of time left in the game, and maybe adding 50 or 60 sensibly to the final total would have had NZ under a lot more pressure) but they fckd it up spectacularly, lasting 6 overs from Pope's dismissal. The pitches have been pretty blameless.

The pitches are I suspect more than a little two paced given how batsman are prospering when scoring around 2.5 runs per over. I've not watched much so it's possible the bowling has been on a truly high quality line and length and that's what's holding the run rate in check.

The problem for me isn't they tried to push the run rate in this game, it's not applying themselves to the conditions as they were in the previous game. Though it's a bit of a pity they pitches here in NZ (though it's hardly only NZ pitches) didn't offer more than the safe batting providing you're not trying to score approach, a bit more consistency of pace and actually a little more pace would be appreciated

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:
I can accept they felt a need to push the game forward needing a win to bring the series level, and clearly looking to push the game on isn't easy on the pitches we've had on this tour

I accept the need sort of (there was plenty of time left in the game, and maybe adding 50 or 60 sensibly to the final total would have had NZ under a lot more pressure) but they fckd it up spectacularly, lasting 6 overs from Pope's dismissal. The pitches have been pretty blameless.

The pitches are I suspect more than a little two paced given how batsman are prospering when scoring around 2.5 runs per over. I've not watched much so it's possible the bowling has been on a truly high quality line and length and that's what's holding the run rate in check.

The problem for me isn't they tried to push the run rate in this game, it's not applying themselves to the conditions as they were in the previous game. Though it's a bit of a pity they pitches here in NZ (though it's hardly only NZ pitches) didn't offer more than the safe batting providing you're not trying to score approach, a bit more consistency of pace and actually a little more pace would be appreciated

Its called test batting, and both sides were near 3 an over in their first innings. I really don't understand why you think losing 5 wickets in 6 overs is ok, even when chasing runs- even IF two paced, you can accumulate runs sensibly without hitting boundaries.

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote: I accept the need sort of (there was plenty of time left in the game, and maybe adding 50 or 60 sensibly to the final total would have had NZ under a lot more pressure) but they fckd it up spectacularly, lasting 6 overs from Pope's dismissal. The pitches have been pretty blameless.

The pitches are I suspect more than a little two paced given how batsman are prospering when scoring around 2.5 runs per over. I've not watched much so it's possible the bowling has been on a truly high quality line and length and that's what's holding the run rate in check.

The problem for me isn't they tried to push the run rate in this game, it's not applying themselves to the conditions as they were in the previous game. Though it's a bit of a pity they pitches here in NZ (though it's hardly only NZ pitches) didn't offer more than the safe batting providing you're not trying to score approach, a bit more consistency of pace and actually a little more pace would be appreciated

Its called test batting, and both sides were near 3 an over in their first innings. I really don't understand why you think losing 5 wickets in 6 overs is ok, even when chasing runs- even IF two paced, you can accumulate runs sensibly without hitting boundaries.

I think it's disappointing to lose those wickets, and it's almost certainly binned any chance to force a win. There's perhaps an argument we should have looked more to alternate the strike more in looking to up tempo, again I've not seen the game, but it's got to be hard if you can't hit through the line confidently to work the ball into gaps, or hard when you're backed (absent of just bad deliveries) into a decision to play late and straight as that doesn't allow many actual scoring shots

I'd also think there's maybe a fair point to thinking we've tried to push on but lost two wickets, now we need to reset before we look to go again.

How much they looked at a problematic forecast tomorrow and thought nah, let's just try and get this done I don't know

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:
The pitches are I suspect more than a little two paced given how batsman are prospering when scoring around 2.5 runs per over. I've not watched much so it's possible the bowling has been on a truly high quality line and length and that's what's holding the run rate in check.

The problem for me isn't they tried to push the run rate in this game, it's not applying themselves to the conditions as they were in the previous game. Though it's a bit of a pity they pitches here in NZ (though it's hardly only NZ pitches) didn't offer more than the safe batting providing you're not trying to score approach, a bit more consistency of pace and actually a little more pace would be appreciated

Its called test batting, and both sides were near 3 an over in their first innings. I really don't understand why you think losing 5 wickets in 6 overs is ok, even when chasing runs- even IF two paced, you can accumulate runs sensibly without hitting boundaries.

I think it's disappointing to lose those wickets, and it's almost certainly binned any chance to force a win. There's perhaps an argument we should have looked more to alternate the strike more in looking to up tempo, again I've not seen the game, but it's got to be hard if you can't hit through the line confidently to work the ball into gaps, or hard when you're backed (absent of just bad deliveries) into a decision to play late and straight as that doesn't allow many actual scoring shots

I'd also think there's maybe a fair point to thinking we've tried to push on but lost two wickets, now we need to reset before we look to go again.

How much they looked at a problematic forecast tomorrow and thought nah, let's just try and get this done I don't know

There you go, though I still don't quite buy that upping the run rate was that hard.

Mr.Hope has left the building.

One can only hope the Denly drop was the TMS champagne moment, it'd be unusual not to award achievement, but it was so, so bad it feels deserving

did it matter?

Only in the sense a side has standards or it doesn't. We don't, but that's not really news, we're too nice, we'll even over bowl Archer to help another side out

Digby wrote:Only in the sense a side has standards or it doesn't. We don't, but that's not really news, we're too nice, we'll even over bowl Archer to help another side out

yep, Silverwood seems to have 'transformed' Archer.

RIP Bob

I'm confident he's already complaining. Nonetheless his career as a bowler was top notch

Great for Midlands cricket when he chose Warks after his breakthrough Ashes tour.Potent force when fit and with his tail up, his captaincy style more Root than Brearley.
His tv commentary had good value derived from his personal experiences.
RIP Goose.Good innings.

Digby wrote:I'm confident he's already complaining. Nonetheless his career as a bowler was top notch

he was a top bloke

ffs. early Burns demise after first ball escape.
More than useful SA new ball attack and wicket with summut in it innit, will be good test of Eng. resolve.

u/d: 15 - 2 Sibley gone. pace & unpredictable bounce.
Tough hour or so ahead.