Cricket

^^^^ i am not, but i like a good spectacle, and that just didn't quite do it. It reminded me of the test against the windies either last year or the year before...

agree with you there OB was hoping for a bit of a battle at least going up to tea. THis will knock the confidence of the NZ line up as they matched England in the 1st innings, but were simply out played today

^^^^ i am not, but i like a good spectacle, and that just didn't quite do it. It reminded me of the test against the windies either last year or the year before...

True. Would have been nice to have seen a closer contest, one involving Swann.
But then again if that bowling really was as good as it sounded…can't take that away.

Broads late outswing is incredibly mean and very teasing so yeah, you cant knock it, but, with the same token, they are representing their country, so as good as the bowling is, as professionals...only two players, a lower middle order wicket keeper and a tail ender got to double figures

Should have enforced the follow-on!

My thoughts exactly. If it rains on Tuesday as forecast, England might only give themselves two sessions to bowl Kiwis out.

I don't necessarily agree with enforcing the follow-on every time, but definitely would have here.

Batting again means they've no chance of losing this series and gives them more preparation for the Ashes - it's already worked in getting Cook back into some form and showing that Compton hasn't got it at this level.

showing that Bairstow hasn't got it at this level.

Compton.

And he had 'it' at this level in New Zealand. But way too much wrong with his technique and his mindset to be a serious starter for the ashes.

Root into that spot when Billy Big Bollocks comes back

I don't necessarily agree with enforcing the follow-on every time, but definitely would have here.

I agree, but that situation called from some ruthless captaincy. I hope he doesn't make the same mistake against the Aussies, because it's looking even more like a completely bizarre decision now.

I agree, but that situation called from some ruthless captaincy. I hope he doesn't make the same mistake against the Aussies, because it's looking even more like a completely bizarre decision now.

I hope he does make the same 'mistake' against the Aussies.

I mean, what a twat. Ensuring the series is already won and giving the opposition absolutely not a fucking chance of levelling the series. Seems pretty ruthless to me.

The follow on could have given them a foot in the door, easier batting conditions, tired bowlers and a chance to skittle England's bats on a difficult day 4/5 pitch. Unlikely but not out of the question. Winning a series is about winning matches when you cannot lose them, and drawing matches when you might. Unless it's even stevens on the last test.

Possibly. It seems a little disrespectful to the opposition to me to start treating the match like a test run (for Compton) rather than going all out for the win.

Possibly. It seems a little disrespectful to the opposition to me to start treating the match like a test run (for Compton) rather than going all out for the win.

Don't forget people were expecting England to win this inside 3 days, we lost the whole of day 1 through weather.

I also think it's more respectful to acknowledge that the opposition held us to a draw in the last series only a few months ago and that they could have done it again if we gave them any chance at all.

Not sure England have actually been treating it as a test run, I think that's a rumour perpetuated by some of the press. There's a whole 6 weeks before Aus, plenty more cricket to test the likes of the hapless Compton.

I hope he does make the same 'mistake' against the Aussies.

I mean, what a twat. Ensuring the series is already won and giving the opposition absolutely not a fucking chance of levelling the series. Seems pretty ruthless to me.

The follow on could have given them a foot in the door, easier batting conditions, tired bowlers and a chance to skittle England's bats on a difficult day 4/5 pitch. Unlikely but not out of the question.

Tired bowlers? They only bowled 43 overs.

Tired bowlers? They only bowled 43 overs.

I think you misunderstood. Not tired after 43 overs, but tired after NZ (could have) got a foot in the door and capitalised in better batting conditions, like I said.

So far I haven't seen a convincing argument for enforcing the follow on in this game. Which is probably why they didn't.

The conditions were so conducive to our bowlers that we skittled them so cheaply. It was only a last wicket flog that saved them from humiliation. We still had a good three hours to bowl at them yesterday, which was all they last in their first innings.

I remember a couple of follow-on decisions like that where the batting side push on and take back the initiative. Sure, if England's bowlers tore threw them again, they'd have won it by now, but it's unnecessary.

Were the series 0-0 it would be stupid not to enforce it, but not following-on here guarantees NZ can't win and wins England the series.

You just don't get as many follow-ons these days unless there's a massive defecit and a really obvious win on the cards (like England beating Australia by an innings those times). The follow on in this case was 150 because of reduced play. They were, what 180 behind? If they'd been 250+ behind I reckon we would have made them go in again. But with that deficit there's always that outside chance of them batting better the 2nd time round and setting a nasty little target for us to get on a rough final day pitch, which may not have been possible with rain.

I think Prole is right that England would have won it comfortably, but why offer NZ any possibility of digging themselves out of it. Establish a lead and c'est la vie

Since Cook has been captain, he's only had one other opportunity to enforce a follow on: against NZ at Wellington. The result was a draw partly because of a 5th day washout, but mainly due to NZ resistance who finished 162/2 after 68 overs.

And people are accusing him of negative play on twitter/press etc.
Must be cricket newbs!

*Martin Guptill(rhb) 181 153 17 2 118.30

Last 5 ovs 79/0 RR 15.80

Test cricket is more important no?

http://www.theedge.co.nz/Black-Cap-Martin-Guptill-shows-us-his-toes/tabid/102/articleID/11301/Default.aspx

Test cricket is more important no?

Well yes. In that it's proper cricket.
Try as I might (even when England are doing well) I just can't get it on for limited overs games. 50 overs is crapola, T20 is better because you can watch it on telly and not get too bored. 50Ov is neither here nor there, not short enough to be engaging and not long enough for true strategy and beautiful periods of play.

In that case, you might enjoy watching the current Australia side play 50 overs.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/icc-champions-trophy-2013/engine/match/634966.html