England v New Zealand Test Series 2026

[sussexpob]

The last two balls have numbed what was going to be an absolutely epic rant, but I am still just dumbstruck by some of the choices this side make. England have shown they have zero trust in Bashir, they dropped him as late as last week on a flat pitch, they didn't once call on him during a disaster tour of Australia. And yet here he is, bowling filth in a series decider. But all this pales in comparison to Archer's selection. If there is a time when you hand a fast bowler the ball and ask him to whip up a storm, its somewhere between 100-0 and 320-0; Archer bowled 6 overs in 70 odd overs bowled in that time. SIX !!!

Unless Archer refused to bowl, and he didn't appear to nor was he injured or left the field, I can only assume that the team leadership knew that he is currently incapable of higher workloads, and yet decided that it was worth picking him even in the event that he hardly bowled. When England needed desperately to make a partnership, and 200 runs after also, he was nowhere to be seen.

But hey ho.... if we get thrashed by day 5, at least this will be the last batsh*t decision these bunch of useless chancers get to make.

[Durhamfootman]

Unless Archer refused to bowl, and he didn't appear to nor was he injured or left the field, I can only assume that the team leadership knew that he is currently incapable of higher workloads, and yet decided that it was worth picking him even in the event that he hardly bowled. When England needed desperately to make a partnership, and 200 runs after also, he was nowhere to be seen.

Last match he was in the red zone, whatever that is, and they couldn't risk bowling him. Maybe this is also the case?

[Arthur Crabtree]

Presume NZ left out Jamieson because of the Kiwi version of the red zone.

[andy]

Jamieson was pretty annoyed about it apparently he's fit had some rhthyem then they rested him...it's bizarre bowlers need rhythm if they're fit just play them

[Arthur Crabtree]

Presumably there's a pattern of injury that this is responding to. And Jamieson has a history of serious injury.

Cloudy and fresh early this morning, but now another scorcher.

[andy]

Has anyone ever considered though that a lot of these injuries are through not bowling on a regular basis? Bowlers used to bowl a lot lot more than they do and didn't break down as much..the body needs to get into the routine of bowlong on a regular basis

[Arthur Crabtree]

I expect they have. Injuries among pace bowlers are obviously commonplace. So they introduce guidelines. No doubt people will question the guidelines and suggest they be adopted with the use of 'common sense'. But that just means you start risking the bowlers' injuries whenever it's convenient and get into a row about when is convenient and the research gets sidelined. Better just stick with the scientific advice.

Maybe Jamieson should write a research paper quantifying rhythm and looking at its impact on further injury! Professional hunches weren't working. Careers were being squandered...

[sussexpob]

Cricket is a sport that isn't very honest with its past, so we get a lot of myths accepted as truths when making assessments across eras. Thommo was out a couple of months ago in the press claiming he bowled 115mph at his peak, but in the only scientific environment his speed was measured, he struggle to get past the high 80s at his very peak. We like to say quick bowlers get injured more because they don't bowl, the truth is quick bowlers are just quicker now, and have more stresses.

Almost all the legends of the peak fast bowler era would not be considered "Fast" bowlers now. Holding was second fastest of the greats, mid-80s when measured scientifically. The rest were low 80s or even mid 70s.... all listed as "fast" when they would be listed "medium to medium-fast" now.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Assembled from multiple Stuart Broad texts!

[sussexpob]

Back to the match....England need to throw everything at new Zealand for an hour. 34-35 degrees forecast, you don't want another partnership building and having to bowl in the afternoon in this heat. NZ go to lunch 5-6 down it could be a long afternoon

If NZ get to tomorrow having only bowled for one session, it's a huge advantage

[sussexpob]

England will have an opportunity early doors. For reasons I dont understand they sent in a bunny at the non-strikers end last night for one over.....

[alfie]

I was actually hoping they would revert to the XI from the first match rather than retaining Archer at Robinson's expense. But not really surprised to see them going the other way.

Robinson's average is now basically the same as Glenn McGrath's. Would you have been surprised in the 90-00s if Australia had dropped McGrath after taking 8/70 in a game, and replaced him with Andy Bichel or Michael Kasprowicz for the sole reason the other two bowled quicker? You'd think that was psychotic wouldn't you? Because there is no difference here.

We can say everything we want about style/pace or what not, but Robinson's actual performance is up there in the 99th percentile of all players ever to bowl. Over nearly 100 wickets, its been all-time great numbers, and he is one decent innings away from being the statistically best bowler England have fielded since Sydney Barnes in the Victorian Age.

In any other sport, in any situation, why would that make sense? This is like England dropping Harry Kane for Ivan Toney because, you know, the manager thinks despite Kane thrashing goals in for 15 years constantly, he's not that good.

I didn't say I agreed with it ! But after watching that first day I doubt Robinson would have fared any better than the bowlers who played : he might actually be well out of this one...

And while I do have a lot of time for Robinson , a comparison with McGrath is not something I'd be making !

[sussexpob]

I didn't say I agreed with it ! But after watching that first day I doubt Robinson would have fared any better than the bowlers who played : he might actually be well out of this one...

Its almost like we have an objective way of assessing how players play over their career. I mean, would an F1 driver who consistently beats his team mate by 0.5 seconds a lap not just be better than the other driver? You wouldn't watch 10 races where the fast driver consistently beats him, then get to the next race replacing him because you decided there are too many left turns for him at that track, with no actual data to show he can't take left turns. They average 8-9 runs per wicket different. Its not remotely close in terms of real, objectifiable verifiable performance data. And since 2019, Archer has averaged 36.8 in an era of dropping scores. Robinson in the same time averages 21.9....

The lengths you have to go to, to argue that Robinson is inferior, takes such an unbelievable amount of bad faith and pure rejection of every single metric they can be ranked on. And this is before we take into account Archer is not even fit enough to bowl a significant amount of overs. You are not only saying that Robinson is worse, you are saying he's so much worse Archer will achieve more in 10 overs a day than Robinson will over 25.

And would Robinson have fared worse? Well, what is the flattest wicket England have ever played in according to data? Rawalpindi 2022.....

Who won England the game? Who was MOTM that game???

Ah yeah... it was Robinson wasnt it. But he can't bowl on flat wickets because, er..... well, I dont know

[sussexpob]

Jamie Smith puts down another from Stokes....

[sussexpob]

Stokes thinks he has Mitchell caught behind, and has reviewed. Not sure that touched bat, but lets see....

Well the bat is near the pad, and no visual evidence is conclusive... over to snicko which has a spike and hes gone. Hmmm... another one of those "where does the noise come from".... Not sure he has hit that, the noise might be something else