NZ Test tour of Eng, June 2-27

[The Professor]

"Why is Alastair Cook talking about the match being delicately poised?" I wondered when listening to TMS yesterday while Root and Stokes were batting. "England will not even come close to the total." But  Root was outstanding, doing what he does so well, and full credit goes to Foakes for his steady yet effective innings and calm demeanour.

[alfie]

over the line with no alarms, presumably. Well done England for recovering sufficiently well enough to win a match that should never have been in doubt after bowling out NZ for 130

It was a very sensible idea to finish the job before the new ball became due. Good old Joe

Not only that : he got the job done inside 15 overs so the crowd got a refund on their tickets

A true man of the people .

[Durhamfootman]

The ECB will make him sit on the naughty step

refund tickets?

They'll take it out of Joe's wages

[alfie]

Winning start for Brandon, but one that delivers more negatives than positives.

With the greatest of respect , Arthur , I am really rather surprised you can take such a view of this result ? A win against last year's WTC champions ; achieved after the situation had looked seriously dire at the halfway point of the contest - and after the awful recent run the team has endured... Surely that is worth celebrating ? I acknowledge the fact that NZ were disadvantaged somewhat by the usual short preparation (although they probably had more than a lot of touring sides everywhere do these days!) and the injury to CDG ; but England lost their own first choice spinner ten minutes in and had to rush a new boy down from The North in a hurry...ups and downs of luck with tosses , no balls , close calls - all part of cricket...

Not for a moment do I suggest that this means all problems are solved : even the immediate series remains in doubt as I am sure the Kiwis will come back hard. And no question England's batting frailties were anything but solved in this match ; but one might note that since NZ's top order fared no better than England's it is probably fair to suggest batting against the new ball on this pitch was far from easy. In any case , we were aware in advance that the rejigged order was a bit of an experiment : that it didn't prove a smashing success at its first try doesn't really make anything worse. I'd call the batting issues "neutral" rather than negative for now.

And as for the bowling : was there anything not to like ? One good NZ partnership they couldn't break ; and sure it might have been nice to have had a Wood or an Archer to inject some extra pace at that point but again worth noting NZ's pace men were unable to do much once the ball got old and soft. Parkinson doesn't look like the New Warne but what else is new ? Potts surely a plus. And the fielding has improved out of sight...

Curious to hear why you see a predominantly negative overall return from this match ?

[Durhamfootman]

The fielding has been terrific, particularly given how awful it was down under. Agree about Potts too (but England will probably drop him like stone once other bowlers return to fitness) and I'll add that it feels like a while since Stuey had one of 'those' spells that precipitates a collapse.... and what a collapse it was... catastrophic

It still all feels a bit seat of the pants, so very few of the questions posed before the test have been answered. In a match where NZ were skittled for 132 first up, the sense of relief that England got over the line was palpable.... which can't be good

[Durhamfootman]

but better than not getting over the line, of course

[Arthur Crabtree]

Curious to hear why you see a predominantly negative overall return from this match ?

I could of course make a list of for and against which I could game to suit my argument. But my gut feeling is that deep, established flaws were overcome by the only real strengths England can consistently call on, a fine new ball attack and Joe Root. Which makes this win one of those anomolies that will occasionally happen, but not the start of a new trend.

[sussexpob]

In fairness to AC, I think that the 1st test in the India tour in 20/21 gives us a good context for how to position a surprise England win against top quality opposition when its based off the back of performances from their core of established talent. Root scored 260-270 runs in the test, Stokes got near a 100, Anderson took 6 wickets for 50 runs.... England won comfortably. And then Root averaged 10 for the rest of the series. Anderson took 2 wickets in the rest of the tour. Stokes made another 100 runs in 7 innings.... England only passed 200 once in 7 innings,6 of which were under 150 runs. India romped to a series win.

Of course, England's victory will forever stand out as one of the greatest away test performances achieved in a period where India have been untouchable at home.... but aside from that isolated point worthy of congratulation (Root's innings is worthy of mention in GOAT efforts for England), it didnt mean anything to the future.

And I am hasten to agree with AC. This test changes so little to the dynamic of the current teams success .... either Root, Stokes or Anderson win us the game, or we dont win.

[sussexpob]

I mean, I do get the impression from what I seen that a lot went for England. England lost a bowler to injury but were able to replace him. NZ lost a bowler in the 4th innings and it really cost them. Said bowler had Stokes all over the place, and had just ripped his stump out on a no ball mm's over the line. Stokes made a match changing 50 after.

The pitch really couldnt have been better for England to lose the toss on. Anderson was unplayable with the swing, the wicket of Young moved in a yard, swung away late and by a huge distance, and seamed a long way to boot ( not eve Bradman was getting near that). And Potts extracted uneven bounce all over. But Root inside edged three times mms past his stumps, Mitchell got bat on a short ball that bounced straight on.... Bairstow dropped a catch that looped up straight into hands.

It was that sort of match for England. It felt like everything that could have gone their way did....

Having said that, even in helpful conditions, the skill Anderson displayed was exceptional. Potts had the nous to just keep the batsman playing and let the pitch do the rest. Root and Stokes made the best of their fortune. Foakes played a sensible and calm winning contribution.

So we still have to acknowledge England seized on what they were given, and that is not something we have been able to say in a while. I gave them clsoe to 0 chance with near 300 to chase.... so in the end, despite all that, well done to them. Lets see them build on it

[sussexpob]

What I would really like is for Foakes particularly to kick on. He came in with the match in the balance, and played the perfect foil for Root to win the match.

The Kane (I think it was that wicket) catch in the first innings I also think would have been dropped by Bairstow or Buttler.... got down low around his own right foot, and most importantly, got both his hands across to the ball to smother it just as it was bouncing. Those ones look easy for great keepers, but so many go one handed at them and drop them.

At 10-3, getting arguably the best test bat around could have been the difference.... Foakes is miles better than any keeper England have, but the myth of having a better batsman will men Foakes wont get many more chances. So its good to see him add an important batting innings to his overall contribution

[Durhamfootman]

CDG ruled out for the rest of the series

[bigfluffylemon]

So we still have to acknowledge England seized on what they were given, and that is not something we have been able to say in a while. I gave them clsoe to 0 chance with near 300 to chase.... so in the end, despite all that, well done to them. Lets see them build on it

I agree with your and AC's comments, but have to emphasise this point. So many times in the last 18 months England have been in a decent position, either with early opposition wickets, or starting to build a platform, only to lose it and hand the initiative and the game to the opposition. So the fact that they were actually able to close this one out is praiseworthy. Of course they could and should have closed it out in the first innings - should have had a lead of 150+, but recovering from 50-odd for 4 in the second was a fine performance, however you cut it.

Yes, it doesn't say England's problems are solved, far from it, as the usual suspects mostly won us the match (plus Potts, let's hope he stays fit) and the batting looks as shaky as ever apart from Root, but beating the number 1 team in the world after two home series losses last summer - baby steps.

[bigfluffylemon]

CDG ruled out for the rest of the series

Ouch.

[bigfluffylemon]

The Kane (I think it was that wicket) catch in the first innings I also think would have been dropped by Bairstow or Buttler.... got down low around his own right foot, and most importantly, got both his hands across to the ball to smother it just as it was bouncing. Those ones look easy for great keepers, but so many go one handed at them and drop them.

Yep, that was excellent.

[bigfluffylemon]

The Kane (I think it was that wicket) catch in the first innings I also think would have been dropped by Bairstow or Buttler.... got down low around his own right foot, and most importantly, got both his hands across to the ball to smother it just as it was bouncing. Those ones look easy for great keepers, but so many go one handed at them and drop them.

Yep, that was excellent.

Still, I dispute that Foakes is England's best wicket keeper. I'd give that honour to Sarah Taylor, although I guess she's retired now. Best keeper I've ever seen play live - her reaction time was just stunning.