2 - we played some reckless shots and didn't take enough wickets
3 - Nobody knows the answer to that question
But you are still missing the point. You are saying we should win the WC because he have match winners and then ignoring Taylors match winning knock?
3. I think we do - you can only score 20 off 3 balls if you bowl a succession of no balls. And I trust us not to do that!
I'm not ignoring Taylor's innings - far from it. I am saying that we should have got a lot more runs than we did and to put Taylor's innings in context, two of our batsmen got hundreds too evidencing the fact that it was a very good batting wicket with short boundaries. Which is why I haven't blamed our bowling for the defeat but have said that the five or six batsmen that were reckless cost us the match.
In terms of match winners, how many teams have a line up of batsmen who are capable of getting big scores all the way down to Woakes? But that is only meaningful if those batsmen think about the match situation and we have had a couple of instances recently where we haven't got the total we should have done.
As I say I got stick for suggesting that Williamson should have got MOM last week. This time I've got it wrong because I haven't lauded Taylor's innings for being the best ever seen. Can't win but I'm more than happy to read and learn from those on here.
That's not how it works though is it. If you need 30 to win off 30 balls and win the ball off the last ball of the match, doesn't mean you wouldn't win if it had been 30 off 29.
So Trevor Clueless says he's surprised by Alex Hales' decision to go down the white ball only route but not surprised at Rashid to do the same. Well he shouldn't be seeing as he basically destroyed Rashid's Test career.
2 - we played some reckless shots and didn't take enough wickets
3 - Nobody knows the answer to that question
But you are still missing the point. You are saying we should win the WC because he have match winners and then ignoring Taylors match winning knock?
3. I think we do - you can only score 20 off 3 balls if you bowl a succession of no balls. And I trust us not to do that!
I'm not ignoring Taylor's innings - far from it. I am saying that we should have got a lot more runs than we did and to put Taylor's innings in context, two of our batsmen got hundreds too evidencing the fact that it was a very good batting wicket with short boundaries. Which is why I haven't blamed our bowling for the defeat but have said that the five or six batsmen that were reckless cost us the match.
In terms of match winners, how many teams have a line up of batsmen who are capable of getting big scores all the way down to Woakes? But that is only meaningful if those batsmen think about the match situation and we have had a couple of instances recently where we haven't got the total we should have done.
As I say I got stick for suggesting that Williamson should have got MOM last week. This time I've got it wrong because I haven't lauded Taylor's innings for being the best ever seen. Can't win but I'm more than happy to read and learn from those on here.
That's not how it works though is it. If you need 30 to win off 30 balls and win the ball off the last ball of the match, doesn't mean you wouldn't win if it had been 30 off 29.
This is what I said on Wednesday:
"We should not be losing 6 wickets for 21 runs - Buttler, Morgan, Stokes and Woakes only faced 12 balls between them before they got out and it is simply no use thinking that we have xyz to come if they are all going to bat the same way. And despite Morgan saying this is the first time this has happened, it isn't - we've been all out before and not used all our overs. Another 10 or so runs from numbers 4-8 would have seen us home and given that we were on target to get 370 plus that should have been well within our capabilities."
Just read Derek Pringle's article in today's The Cricket Paper on that game - it is headed " A lack of gamecraft, not skill led to England's Dunedin demise". He goes on to say:
".....with such a great platform why would you place the whole project in jeopardy by taking excessive risks?
So what happened? New Zealand's tall wrist-spinner, Ish Sodhi. whose first six overs had cost 42 runs and produced just one wicket, suddenly found some turn and extra bounce. But instead of milking him until they could better assess his threat, England's incoming batsmen set about trying to launch him for six in the arc between mid-wicket and long-off.......a 12 year old could tell you the dangers of attempting that"
"With 78 balls remaining England were 267-1 and should have been targeting 380-400. Instead they lost their next six wickets for 21 runs in a flurry of machismo and misadventure"
As good as Taylor's innings was NZ should not have been in the game. I never played at the highest level but Pringle did. So did Nasser. And Atherton. And they have all said the same thing. It's not "bashing" us. It's saying that it's no use having the talent if you're not going to use your head. And that is why we lost the game. Not because of Taylor's innings. He won it for them and there is a difference between the two.
Blimey even Bairstow is in denial - "it wasn't as if they (the shots) were hacks. They were proper cricket shots". Yes they were - all in the same area but if you don't get to the pitch of it you aren't going to hit it cleanly! And if you haven't assessed the pace and bounce of the track it is difficult to do so.
England win the toss and bowl first in the series decider.
In other news, Australia bowled out for 243 in the second test against South Africa after reaching 98 for no loss. Rabada took 5 wickets including Steve Smith lbw for 25.
And yet again SA have produced a questionable track. Last 17 innings there in Test matches and the most India, Australia and SA have been able to produce in one innings is 351.
2 - we played some reckless shots and didn't take enough wickets
3 - Nobody knows the answer to that question
But you are still missing the point. You are saying we should win the WC because he have match winners and then ignoring Taylors match winning knock?
3. I think we do - you can only score 20 off 3 balls if you bowl a succession of no balls. And I trust us not to do that!
I'm not ignoring Taylor's innings - far from it. I am saying that we should have got a lot more runs than we did and to put Taylor's innings in context, two of our batsmen got hundreds too evidencing the fact that it was a very good batting wicket with short boundaries. Which is why I haven't blamed our bowling for the defeat but have said that the five or six batsmen that were reckless cost us the match.
In terms of match winners, how many teams have a line up of batsmen who are capable of getting big scores all the way down to Woakes? But that is only meaningful if those batsmen think about the match situation and we have had a couple of instances recently where we haven't got the total we should have done.
As I say I got stick for suggesting that Williamson should have got MOM last week. This time I've got it wrong because I haven't lauded Taylor's innings for being the best ever seen. Can't win but I'm more than happy to read and learn from those on here.
That's not how it works though is it. If you need 30 to win off 30 balls and win the ball off the last ball of the match, doesn't mean you wouldn't win if it had been 30 off 29.
This is what I said on Wednesday:
"We should not be losing 6 wickets for 21 runs - Buttler, Morgan, Stokes and Woakes only faced 12 balls between them before they got out and it is simply no use thinking that we have xyz to come if they are all going to bat the same way. And despite Morgan saying this is the first time this has happened, it isn't - we've been all out before and not used all our overs. Another 10 or so runs from numbers 4-8 would have seen us home and given that we were on target to get 370 plus that should have been well within our capabilities."
Just read Derek Pringle's article in today's The Cricket Paper on that game - it is headed " A lack of gamecraft, not skill led to England's Dunedin demise". He goes on to say:
".....with such a great platform why would you place the whole project in jeopardy by taking excessive risks?
So what happened? New Zealand's tall wrist-spinner, Ish Sodhi. whose first six overs had cost 42 runs and produced just one wicket, suddenly found some turn and extra bounce. But instead of milking him until they could better assess his threat, England's incoming batsmen set about trying to launch him for six in the arc between mid-wicket and long-off.......a 12 year old could tell you the dangers of attempting that"
"With 78 balls remaining England were 267-1 and should have been targeting 380-400. Instead they lost their next six wickets for 21 runs in a flurry of machismo and misadventure"
As good as Taylor's innings was NZ should not have been in the game. I never played at the highest level but Pringle did. So did Nasser. And Atherton. And they have all said the same thing. It's not "bashing" us. It's saying that it's no use having the talent if you're not going to use your head. And that is why we lost the game. Not because of Taylor's innings. He won it for them and there is a difference between the two.
To be fair you have a point, nobody is dismissing the fact that it was a terrible collapse. England prone to it but its still something we see less and less in ODI cricket. I don't see the need for an overreaction because its going to happen to all teams at some point. We also cant criticize when it goes wrong and lavish praise when it hits right (and its gone right a lot more than wrong over the last couple of years).
Still don't buy the fact we would have won with another 20 runs. It's a different chase then as NZ wouldn't have left it to leave 26 over the last over. Of course we might have got wickets when they attempted to accelerate, but its not as simple as saying 20 more runs would have won it because they would have chased it differently.
Bottom line is I am sure you were frustrated at our poor shots/collapse and I get that.
It was a shocker. And I'm going to say something contentious here - it was worse, given the circumstances, than any of our middle order played in the last match!
Comments
"We should not be losing 6 wickets for 21 runs - Buttler, Morgan, Stokes and Woakes only faced 12 balls between them before they got out and it is simply no use thinking that we have xyz to come if they are all going to bat the same way. And despite Morgan saying this is the first time this has happened, it isn't - we've been all out before and not used all our overs. Another 10 or so runs from numbers 4-8 would have seen us home and given that we were on target to get 370 plus that should have been well within our capabilities."
Just read Derek Pringle's article in today's The Cricket Paper on that game - it is headed " A lack of gamecraft, not skill led to England's Dunedin demise". He goes on to say:
".....with such a great platform why would you place the whole project in jeopardy by taking excessive risks?
So what happened? New Zealand's tall wrist-spinner, Ish Sodhi. whose first six overs had cost 42 runs and produced just one wicket, suddenly found some turn and extra bounce. But instead of milking him until they could better assess his threat, England's incoming batsmen set about trying to launch him for six in the arc between mid-wicket and long-off.......a 12 year old could tell you the dangers of attempting that"
"With 78 balls remaining England were 267-1 and should have been targeting 380-400. Instead they lost their next six wickets for 21 runs in a flurry of machismo and misadventure"
As good as Taylor's innings was NZ should not have been in the game. I never played at the highest level but Pringle did. So did Nasser. And Atherton. And they have all said the same thing. It's not "bashing" us. It's saying that it's no use having the talent if you're not going to use your head. And that is why we lost the game. Not because of Taylor's innings. He won it for them and there is a difference between the two.
In other news, Australia bowled out for 243 in the second test against South Africa after reaching 98 for no loss.
Rabada took 5 wickets including Steve Smith lbw for 25. Then came out as nightwatchman and hit 17 off 14 balls.
https://streamable.com/41ujq
1-1, 0.3 overs
Let's hope not 9 in the decider
Test cricket at the mo @ 2 an over after 8 overs
Great accurate start from England
Still don't buy the fact we would have won with another 20 runs. It's a different chase then as NZ wouldn't have left it to leave 26 over the last over. Of course we might have got wickets when they attempted to accelerate, but its not as simple as saying 20 more runs would have won it because they would have chased it differently.
Bottom line is I am sure you were frustrated at our poor shots/collapse and I get that.
Rashid gets Latham for 10.
Chapman bowled by Ali for 0.
Guptill gone to Rashid. Great catch by Stokes.
1 more quick wicket and surely that's enough?
Sure there is a twist to come... We are watching England cricket!
It is never easy, it's like watching CAFC 2-0 up with 10 mins to go....
Rashid gets de Grandhomme.
Nicholls 48*
Santner 30*
Nicholls gone for 54 to Curran.
Santner finally gone for 67. First ball of Woakes's last over.