Test cricket on the box, sadly not free to air. Ireland have a rare match (their 13th in 9 years), and it’s all a bit one sided. It is a beautiful ground.
The truly dispiriting thing is the bowling. There are a couple of off-spinners, although I don’t think they will spin the ball much, otherwise it’s a diet of right-arm medium to medium-fast. One or two genuine swing bowlers add some relief and actually challenge the batsmen, but that’s all we have.
I hope Ireland do better in their second innings, having followed on 300+ behind ☹️
And that is it. Ireland is not a bad side, but they need to play much more red ball cricket to get competitive. While New Zealand now have three tests against England, Ireland are tossed aside and I am not a happy bunny. I have no complaints with New Zealand cricket but the big three, India, England and Australia need to get their finger out.
Ahead of the first men's test between England and New Zealand, the hosts have announced their 12 man squad. Given the weather and forecast, I was surprised to see any specialist spinner in the squad. Bashir has been surplus to requirement most times, but if he makes it to the starting 11, then England will be effectively a man down from the outset.
Was not keen on seeing Jamie Smith keep his place. I don't think he's a bad player, but he had a bad Ashes and getting bounced out by Labuschagne was humiliating. I would have preferred to give the gloves to an actual wicketkeeper and see James Rew added to the team, as I feel he's earned a chance.
England have plenty of bowlers in the squad: four pace bowlers, one spinner and three all-rounders if you include Bethell’s slow left arm, which could be a handy option.
Stokes will do some bowling, probably too much for his own good if New Zealand dig in, but the state of the pitch will determine whether England leave Bashir out.
A propos of nothing? I was very sad when the Lost Ball law was excised from the books.
This stated that, in the event of the ball being irretrievably lost *within the field of play*, on "Lost ball!" being called, five runs would be added to the batting side's total.
It's the bit about *within the field of play* that was so charming, a hangover from the days of rabbit-riddled cow pastures still hanging on as a (vanishingly remote) possibility in international cricket.
That had me thinking about those grounds that have a tree in the playing area, but they are treated as the boundary: if the ball hits the tree, four runs are scored while six are scored if the tree is cleared. The fielder cannot catch the ball off the tree!
I had wondered about the ball getting stuck in the tree and fielders climbing the tree to retrieve it, or even catch it, if the ball had not bounced!
I'm fairly sure that's been asked more than once on the Ask The Umpire section on TMS. As soon as the ball hits the tree, the boundary is signalled and the ball is dead, so cannot be out.
The one question I never got a straight answer to (even from my father, who was an umpire) was whether the umpire has to be sure about the method of dismissal. E.g. the ball passes extremely close to the bat, flicks off the pad and is caught at first slip. The umpire can be sure that if the ball nicked the bat, it's caught and if not, then it's LBW, but (s)he harbours doubts over whether or not contact was actually made between bat and ball.
I'm fairly sure that's been asked more than once on the Ask The Umpire section on TMS. As soon as the ball hits the tree, the boundary is signalled and the ball is dead, so cannot be out.
There is, I think, provision laid down in the laws for local variations, so if a ground decided that the ball would be live if it hit the tree ..
So far it looks like each side has one capable batsman, both playing in the same aggressive manner. Bowlers are being rewarded for line and length, on a typical Lord’s wicket. England just ahead, but not by much.
Interesting thought in the comments on the BBC article - the pitch was almost certainly being watered a lot last week in the heat, suddenly the weather changes dramatically for thecweek of the Test, how as a groundsman do you handle that?
This has a horrible echo of the 1st Test of the Ashes this winter just gone. I fear England may get a small lead and then blow it, leaving New Zealand a straightforward chase, winning by 7 or 8 wickets.
This has a horrible echo of the 1st Test of the Ashes this winter just gone. I fear England may get a small lead and then blow it, leaving New Zealand a straightforward chase, winning by 7 or 8 wickets.
Well, if England don’t drive home their advantage AND make a better fist of it second time around, New Zealand might only need a couple of hundred.
The Kiwis could however take a gamble, have a merry thrash for an hour, and get England in sooner rather than later, on what will still be a bowler friendly wicket. All over by Saturday lunchtime.
That’s the first innings over and I can’t help thinking England have conceded a few too many runs. Jamieson did indeed have a thrash but he was aided and abetted by some pretty poor bowling. Still, a lead is a lead and the batsmen really have to earn their crust now.
Well, we've set them 254 to win. Good to see Emilio get a half century on debut on a clearly substandard pitch. Bethell will be rightly miffed at the daisycutter he got.
Some decent bowling and it won't be easy, but I don't expect Williamson and Ravindra to fall asleep cheaply as they did in the 1st innings.
Aside from the Test, did you catch of of the brouhaha in the Nepal v Bhutan match? After a golden duck for the opener, the number 3 wasn't quite ready and Nepal appealed for Timed Out, which was given. Bhutan were not happy!
Had to look up Daisy cutter. The term makes complete sense. As a Canadian, who only watches cricket occasionally, I enjoy the educative aspects of this thread.
The Australians use a term for that which has a variety of spellings.All derived from 'Goes Under' but they might refer to a gazunda, gurzunder, gezundah, etc. It's usually spoken more than it's written, hence the variations in the spellings.
Had to look up Daisy cutter. The term makes complete sense. As a Canadian, who only watches cricket occasionally, I enjoy the educative aspects of this thread.
By the way, tomorrow (June 6) at 10:30 am EST, Canada and USA will play a match in the ICC Cricket World Cup League 2.
50 overs, so I am calling it an ODI. I may be wrong about that designation, but my little brain can only handle so much detail.
Trivia: The earliest international sports contest (since the Ancient Greek Olympics at least) was a cricket match between Canada and USA, in 1844.
England have started well against New Zealand in the fourth innings. Three down including Williamson and it looks like New Zealand’s poor catching could cost them the match. Apart of Robinson bowling some short stuff for a brief period all the bowlers have done very well (apart from Bashir who looks to have been a pointless selection).
Surely, there will be complaints about this pitch? I suppose it makes it entertaining.
Oh there have been. This problem is that the MCC, which owns Lord’s cricket ground. has such a sense of entitlement to hosting international cricket, and refuses to entertain the possibility of losing first class cricket for while the square is replaced and settled. Michael Vaughan has this to say on the subject.
Well, it’s over, which given the condition of the pitch is no bad thing. New Zealand lost one of their front line bowlers then put down five catches, which could well have made all the difference in a low scoring game.
I don’t think it gives many clues about England’s future, although Emilio Gay looks composed and Ollie Robinson is in better shape.
Oh dearie, dearie me. It would appear that England captain Ben Stokes has got into some kind of trouble in a nightclub. Naturally, he wasn’t on his own, and it looks like England players were socialising with some rugby players from the Saracens club, with whom they have long been friends, so this seems a bit odd for this to be a substantial “incident”. Is some part of the media or the cricket establishment out to get England’s most talismanic cricketer? Anyone remember David Gower, Ian Botham and Freddie Flintoff? Fred Trueman going back sixty years.
Sportsman celebrates victory with a few pints with his friends
I don't know the background to this, but really? On what planet does that make news?
Did Mr Stokes do anything illegal? Or is it just the media being its usual prurient self?
It reminds me of the story told about John Kruk, a baseball player with the Philadelphia Phillies. As he tells it:
There's a story, a funny story, about me sitting in a restaurant. I'm eating this big meal and maybe having a couple of beers and smoking a cigarette. A woman comes by the table. She recognizes me and she's shocked because it seems like I should be in training or something. She's getting all over me, saying that a professional athlete should take better care of himself. I lean back and I say to her, "I ain't an athlete, lady. I'm a baseball player."
It was a little more than just drinks with friends; there was a curfew which they broke.
Though from the limited details about the incident, it seems that the punch was thrown by the rugby player not the cricketers.
Had it been prior to the Test, perhaps something more than a slap on the wrist would be necessary, but given it was after the Test, and more than a week before the next one, I don't think the offence was that bad (pending further revelations, of course).
You would have thought that the designated vice-captain would have been appointed for this test, but then Harry Brook doesn’t have a spotless record (also a night club incident on the Ashes tour).
Appointing Joe Root is I suppose designed to indicate the temporary nature of his captaincy, but the establishment seems to have become slaves to the letter of the law, not to its intent.
Stokes patience must be wearing thin. I feel for him and Atkinson, and I wonder what will happen to the member of the England security staff who took one from a hefty young rugby player.
Aside from the self inflicted controversy around the England Men's team, Kane Williamson has retired from all international cricket. So he won't be playing in the 2nd or 3rd Tests. Best batter New Zealand have ever had and the best national captain to have not won the 50 over world cup. He finishes with a Test batting average of 54 and a total of 9,515 runs.
Okay, I appreciate that cricket matches between Canada and USA are not designed to interest most people. But get a load of this score line from the ICC Cricket World Cup League 2:
Canada 275/8 (50)
USA 276/5 (50)
Yeah. Going into the last over, USA trailed by 14 runs. Ball one: 3 runs, played toward point. Ball two: 1 run, played toward square leg. Ball three: 1 run, played toward mid on.
Okay, that is halfway through the over and only 5 of the needed 14+ runs.
Ball four: 2 runs, played toward square leg. Ball five: 6 runs! Finally, but that still only gets us to 13 runs with one ball to play!
Ball six: 2 runs, played toward mid on.
Wow. Edge of seat stuff. Wish I had been able to actually SEE it. What a finish!
I thought USA v Canada was the oldest sporting contest between any two existing countries. Let alone cricket. I might be wrong, though.
Caught some of the T20 World Cup last night. Was pleasantly surprised that it was being streamed on YouTube (the sky cricket channel) as I expected it to be stuck behind a paywall. It was a total non contest, but was amazed to see Danni Wyatt-Hodge hit a century just 3 weeks after giving birth.
Day 1 of the Second Test between England and New Zealand was very mixed. England made five changes to the team that won the First Test but this wicket was, is and forever shall be, very different.
For a start it has pace and it is flat; ie, it does not have a seven foot slope from one side to the other. I don’t think a village cricket ground should have that feature, and when there are so many other grounds with better quality wickets, I’m baffled why Test match cricket is still played at Lord’s.
On the cricket front New Zealand must be disappointed: six batsmen faced more than 50 balls but only one passed 50, and that narrowly. Then again, the innings isn’t over and Glenn Phillips deserves a Test match hundred and England’s inexperienced bowlers could provide him the perfect opportunity.
New Zealand’s bowling is a different matter entirely. They are all on the young side and they are improving while already being good. England may struggle to make 350 unless they bat with care.
I didn't realise how green the bowling attack was until I read that the leading wicket taker in it was Roooot! Though I think the story about how he had to retrieve his captain's blazer from being crumpled up in a box in his garage said a lot about what the job does to people. I know Nasser was wrestling with IBS and depression by the end of his stint.
While that was going on, the women's game saw a chaotic group game between Pakistan and Siuth Africa where SA reduced Pakistan to 50-8 at just about halfway, before the skipper almost single-handedly dragged them to 126-9. SA then made a Horlicks of the reply and stumbled over the line with two wickets in hand. It was an entertaining listen, but rarely for the right reasons!
I shall catch as much as I can today - my one complaint about Scotland is that it's a tough place to listen to cricket in!
Oh Harry Brook, what are you doing? We need you out there for two sessions minimum, but you bat as if the bowlers and fielding side is playing under limited overs conditions. Brilliant strokes. Poor cricket.
Oh Harry Brook, what are you doing? We need you out there for two sessions minimum, but you bat as if the bowlers and fielding side is playing under limited overs conditions. Brilliant strokes. Poor cricket.
Agreed. Scintillating 50s do not win Test matches, eapecially when you are a shitload of runs behind.
We go up, because I don’t think we can go down. I’m sure Stokes and Atkinson will return but I believe Robinson is unfit. Baker doesn’t look really yet so I expect England to line up;
Oh Harry Brook, what are you doing? We need you out there for two sessions minimum, but you bat as if the bowlers and fielding side is playing under limited overs conditions. Brilliant strokes. Poor cricket.
Agreed. Scintillating 50s do not win Test matches, eapecially when you are a shitload of runs behind.
I think he took the correct approach. They were never going to bat out a day and a half. He might as well have a go at glory. In fact he only got out once he'd been forced onto the defensive.
After the fiasco of the last test, without two of England’s leading players for being dirty stop outs, England now have 10/11s of their first test side, which won comfortably.
And so it came to pass that today New Zealand made hay and passed 300 for none. England then took two quick wickets, but they must be absolutely knackered, being given the run around like that.
Expect a declaration just before teatime tomorrow and some misfortune for England.
I am still very much a newbie when it comes to cricket, but I have learned to be wary of the word "expect."
I have long asserted that only an idiot bets on baseball, and I am coming to the conclusion that that is a principle that applies to Cousin Cricket as well.
I am still very much a newbie when it comes to cricket, but I have learned to be wary of the word "expect."
I have long asserted that only an idiot bets on baseball, and I am coming to the conclusion that that is a principle that applies to Cousin Cricket as well.
Good point. I can only say that I’m looking at percentages. England have played a high risk game for about four years. It worked well for two years but certain players have retired, others are injured, some have lost form and a few are out of favour. It’s not a happy group at the moment and they aren’t achieving their potential.
Comments
The truly dispiriting thing is the bowling. There are a couple of off-spinners, although I don’t think they will spin the ball much, otherwise it’s a diet of right-arm medium to medium-fast. One or two genuine swing bowlers add some relief and actually challenge the batsmen, but that’s all we have.
I hope Ireland do better in their second innings, having followed on 300+ behind ☹️
Was not keen on seeing Jamie Smith keep his place. I don't think he's a bad player, but he had a bad Ashes and getting bounced out by Labuschagne was humiliating. I would have preferred to give the gloves to an actual wicketkeeper and see James Rew added to the team, as I feel he's earned a chance.
Stokes will do some bowling, probably too much for his own good if New Zealand dig in, but the state of the pitch will determine whether England leave Bashir out.
This stated that, in the event of the ball being irretrievably lost *within the field of play*, on "Lost ball!" being called, five runs would be added to the batting side's total.
It's the bit about *within the field of play* that was so charming, a hangover from the days of rabbit-riddled cow pastures still hanging on as a (vanishingly remote) possibility in international cricket.
I had wondered about the ball getting stuck in the tree and fielders climbing the tree to retrieve it, or even catch it, if the ball had not bounced!
The one question I never got a straight answer to (even from my father, who was an umpire) was whether the umpire has to be sure about the method of dismissal. E.g. the ball passes extremely close to the bat, flicks off the pad and is caught at first slip. The umpire can be sure that if the ball nicked the bat, it's caught and if not, then it's LBW, but (s)he harbours doubts over whether or not contact was actually made between bat and ball.
There is, I think, provision laid down in the laws for local variations, so if a ground decided that the ball would be live if it hit the tree ..
Though tomorrow we'll be able to say Emilio Gay should have stayed at home yesterday.
So far it looks like each side has one capable batsman, both playing in the same aggressive manner. Bowlers are being rewarded for line and length, on a typical Lord’s wicket. England just ahead, but not by much.
The Kiwis could however take a gamble, have a merry thrash for an hour, and get England in sooner rather than later, on what will still be a bowler friendly wicket. All over by Saturday lunchtime.
Some decent bowling and it won't be easy, but I don't expect Williamson and Ravindra to fall asleep cheaply as they did in the 1st innings.
Aside from the Test, did you catch of of the brouhaha in the Nepal v Bhutan match? After a golden duck for the opener, the number 3 wasn't quite ready and Nepal appealed for Timed Out, which was given. Bhutan were not happy!
By the way, tomorrow (June 6) at 10:30 am EST, Canada and USA will play a match in the ICC Cricket World Cup League 2.
50 overs, so I am calling it an ODI. I may be wrong about that designation, but my little brain can only handle so much detail.
Trivia: The earliest international sports contest (since the Ancient Greek Olympics at least) was a cricket match between Canada and USA, in 1844.
Oh there have been. This problem is that the MCC, which owns Lord’s cricket ground. has such a sense of entitlement to hosting international cricket, and refuses to entertain the possibility of losing first class cricket for while the square is replaced and settled.
Michael Vaughan has this to say on the subject.
I don’t think it gives many clues about England’s future, although Emilio Gay looks composed and Ollie Robinson is in better shape.
I don't know the background to this, but really? On what planet does that make news?
Did Mr Stokes do anything illegal? Or is it just the media being its usual prurient self?
It was a little more than just drinks with friends; there was a curfew which they broke.
Though from the limited details about the incident, it seems that the punch was thrown by the rugby player not the cricketers.
Had it been prior to the Test, perhaps something more than a slap on the wrist would be necessary, but given it was after the Test, and more than a week before the next one, I don't think the offence was that bad (pending further revelations, of course).
Appointing Joe Root is I suppose designed to indicate the temporary nature of his captaincy, but the establishment seems to have become slaves to the letter of the law, not to its intent.
Stokes patience must be wearing thin. I feel for him and Atkinson, and I wonder what will happen to the member of the England security staff who took one from a hefty young rugby player.
Okay, I appreciate that cricket matches between Canada and USA are not designed to interest most people. But get a load of this score line from the ICC Cricket World Cup League 2:
Canada 275/8 (50)
USA 276/5 (50)
Yeah. Going into the last over, USA trailed by 14 runs. Ball one: 3 runs, played toward point. Ball two: 1 run, played toward square leg. Ball three: 1 run, played toward mid on.
Okay, that is halfway through the over and only 5 of the needed 14+ runs.
Ball four: 2 runs, played toward square leg. Ball five: 6 runs! Finally, but that still only gets us to 13 runs with one ball to play!
Ball six: 2 runs, played toward mid on.
Wow. Edge of seat stuff. Wish I had been able to actually SEE it. What a finish!
Caught some of the T20 World Cup last night. Was pleasantly surprised that it was being streamed on YouTube (the sky cricket channel) as I expected it to be stuck behind a paywall. It was a total non contest, but was amazed to see Danni Wyatt-Hodge hit a century just 3 weeks after giving birth.
Ah, no, it's Danni's wife who gave birth.
For a start it has pace and it is flat; ie, it does not have a seven foot slope from one side to the other. I don’t think a village cricket ground should have that feature, and when there are so many other grounds with better quality wickets, I’m baffled why Test match cricket is still played at Lord’s.
On the cricket front New Zealand must be disappointed: six batsmen faced more than 50 balls but only one passed 50, and that narrowly. Then again, the innings isn’t over and Glenn Phillips deserves a Test match hundred and England’s inexperienced bowlers could provide him the perfect opportunity.
New Zealand’s bowling is a different matter entirely. They are all on the young side and they are improving while already being good. England may struggle to make 350 unless they bat with care.
While that was going on, the women's game saw a chaotic group game between Pakistan and Siuth Africa where SA reduced Pakistan to 50-8 at just about halfway, before the skipper almost single-handedly dragged them to 126-9. SA then made a Horlicks of the reply and stumbled over the line with two wickets in hand. It was an entertaining listen, but rarely for the right reasons!
I shall catch as much as I can today - my one complaint about Scotland is that it's a tough place to listen to cricket in!
Agreed. Scintillating 50s do not win Test matches, eapecially when you are a shitload of runs behind.
We go up, because I don’t think we can go down. I’m sure Stokes and Atkinson will return but I believe Robinson is unfit. Baker doesn’t look really yet so I expect England to line up;
Duckett
Gay
Bethell
Root
Brook
Stokes
Smith
Atkinson
Archer
Fisher
Tongue
Sorry Rew and Cox, we’ll be back, although it might be Rew jnr next time.
I think he took the correct approach. They were never going to bat out a day and a half. He might as well have a go at glory. In fact he only got out once he'd been forced onto the defensive.
And so it came to pass that today New Zealand made hay and passed 300 for none. England then took two quick wickets, but they must be absolutely knackered, being given the run around like that.
Expect a declaration just before teatime tomorrow and some misfortune for England.
I have long asserted that only an idiot bets on baseball, and I am coming to the conclusion that that is a principle that applies to Cousin Cricket as well.
Good point. I can only say that I’m looking at percentages. England have played a high risk game for about four years. It worked well for two years but certain players have retired, others are injured, some have lost form and a few are out of favour. It’s not a happy group at the moment and they aren’t achieving their potential.