NZ v England test matches, November 2019

[Slipstream]

@the_topspin
Jos Buttler an injury doubt for the second Test v NZ after tweaking his back in the gym this morning. Ollie Pope will take the gloves if he doesn't recover. Zak Crawley could come in for a Test debut if so. Chris Woakes an outside possibility too.

If Buttler doesn't play tomorrow Bairstow would be kicking himself.

Root not naming the team until tomorrow.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Is Bairstow still not out there?

[Arthur Crabtree]

Should have taken Foakes. This exposes the folly of not taking a reserve keeper. Pope has kept in five matches.

[sussexpob]

What on earth will the team do without Buttler's scintillating batting form? Its amazing what happens to your form when people start taking catches you offer.

[sussexpob]

That stat of batting averages was so bad, I had to look up more.

In the post-war years, this is the fourth worst averaging England line up, and the worst since 1999.
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine ... ;type=team

The years 1998-2001 and 1984-89 account for 9 of the top 16 worst, with 3 more in the 1950s.

It's also one of only 7 years when England have failed to pass 400 in any innings. And they've had more attempts this year than any other calendar year when they failed to make 400 once.
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine ... ;type=team

Finally, it's been a terrible year for individual hundreds. Not the worst (0 in 1972), but only twice (1972, of course, and yes, 1999 again) do we have a worse ratio of hundreds scored to innings batted.
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine ... pe=batting

So in conclusion, not quite the worst England batting year in my lifetime, as 1999 was worse, but only just. It's that bad.

Oh, and they've actually got one more test to get worse.

Very bizarre, because I get 1999 come up at a lower average (and makes it the worst year) 22.33. I was checking these stats for another thread, and cant work out why I get a different number from SG

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine ... pe=batting

[bigfluffylemon]

That's weird.

I checked your query - I did it by team runs, you did it by individual innings, but it has exactly the same matches.

Your query turns up 2881 runs in 148 innings with 19 not-outs giving an average of 22.33

Mine turns up 3219 runs for 130 team wickets giving an average of 24.25

The only explanation I can come up with is that I did it by team score, so it includes extras. Although 338 extras in 15 batting innings total seems like an awful lot - 22.5 runs per innings in extras, or effectively an extra batsman. But looking at a few scorecards, that seems to be the answer.

I can't work out why your method had 129 wickets and mine 130 though. The was a 0* as part of a declaration, maybe that affected things.

[Durhamfootman]

Good luck, boys

I think you might need it

[bigfluffylemon]

Should have taken Foakes. This exposes the folly of not taking a reserve keeper. Pope has kept in five matches.

Couldn't agree more. Why on earth is Foakes not even in the squad?

As it is, England give Crawley a debut, and Pope will keep.

This is not going to end well.

[bigfluffylemon]

Woakes replaces Leach as well. Another odd decision. And then England win the toss...

and bowl.

Eggs, meet one basket.

[Arthur Crabtree]

I hate England going out with five seamers and no spinner. It winds me up a bit. It's so defensive.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Good luck to Crawley and Mitchell on debuts.

I thought Crawley was son of John Crawley. But he isn't!

[Durhamfootman]

I wonder if he's called 'creepy' as well?

[Durhamfootman]

Can I take it the teams have been named now?

[backfootpunch]

I hate England going out with five seamers and no spinner. It winds me up a bit. It's so defensive.

Leach is one of our most reliable batsmen too

[bigfluffylemon]

Hmm. History actually says the team batting second at Hamilton has a slight advantage.
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine ... =aggregate

It's a reasonably batting friendly wicket though.

Incidentally, for all the talk of England having one of their worst ever batting line-ups, is the batting line-up that featured in the first test NZ's best ever? It had 6 out of 14 players in their history who average over 40, their top 2 averaging players ever, and their best wicketkeeper-batsman
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine ... ;type=team
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine ... pe=batting
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine ... ;type=team

Stats suggest that 2019 is NZ's best batting year ever in tests, by quite some distance. And of their top 8 averaging years, 4 have come in the last 6 years.

Definitely a golden era for NZ cricket. No wonder they're number 2 in the world.