Well NZ put England again on an even greener wkt. Apparently
our old men who we call bowlers were all feeling knackered
after the last match, but when they saw the wkt, all declared
themselves fit. I was tempted to put a spot bet on Root
getting out to a reverse sweep, but if I did I bet he wouldnt,
but now I havnt, I spose he will. Or on how many balls Crawley
will last.

mike

at lunch we're 101/3.

Brook came out at 21/3 and has scored 51 off 52. That takes some real cojones.

On Thu, 23 Feb 2023 13:46:53 -0800 (PST), mike <dmike204@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

>Well NZ put England again on an even greener wkt. Apparently
>our old men who we call bowlers were all feeling knackered
>after the last match, but when they saw the wkt, all declared
>themselves fit. I was tempted to put a spot bet on Root
>getting out to a reverse sweep, but if I did I bet he wouldnt,
>but now I havnt, I spose he will. Or on how many balls Crawley
>will last.

Crawley lasted very few balls, as we would expect. Root may yet get
out to a reverse sweep.

If they manage another 46 runs tomorrow, they will reach their
highest-ever total after being 21-3 or worse.

Cheers,

Mike

On 24/02/2023 00:27, jack fredricks wrote:
> at lunch we're 101/3.
>
> Brook came out at 21/3 and has scored 51 off 52. That takes some real cojones.

294 added for the 4th wicket so far. No 4th-wicket Test partnership has
ever added as many runs when starting from as low a score.

--
David North

On Friday, February 24, 2023 at 5:07:02 PM UTC+10, David North wrote:
> On 24/02/2023 00:27, jack fredricks wrote:
> > at lunch we're 101/3.
> >
> > Brook came out at 21/3 and has scored 51 off 52. That takes some real cojones.
> 294 added for the 4th wicket so far. No 4th-wicket Test partnership has
> ever added as many runs when starting from as low a score.

I got to watch the entire day's play and it was some of the best cricket I've seen. So damn entertaining.
NZ didn't even bowl badly.
I'm starting to wonder if there's a counter to Bazball. And if there isn't, which change it will have on Test cricket.

On Friday, February 24, 2023 at 7:19:58 AM UTC, jack fredricks wrote:
> On Friday, February 24, 2023 at 5:07:02 PM UTC+10, David North wrote:
> > On 24/02/2023 00:27, jack fredricks wrote:
> > > at lunch we're 101/3.
> > >
> > > Brook came out at 21/3 and has scored 51 off 52. That takes some real cojones.
> > 294 added for the 4th wicket so far. No 4th-wicket Test partnership has
> > ever added as many runs when starting from as low a score.
> I got to watch the entire day's play and it was some of the best cricket I've seen. So damn entertaining.
> NZ didn't even bowl badly.
> I'm starting to wonder if there's a counter to Bazball. And if there isn't, which change it will have on Test cricket.

It will shift the dominance from the bowler to the batsman., RH

On Thursday, February 23, 2023 at 9:46:54 PM UTC, mike wrote:
> Well NZ put England again on an even greener wkt. Apparently
> our old men who we call bowlers were all feeling knackered
> after the last match, but when they saw the wkt, all declared
> themselves fit. I was tempted to put a spot bet on Root
> getting out to a reverse sweep, but if I did I bet he wouldnt,
> but now I havnt, I spose he will. Or on how many balls Crawley
> will last.
>
> mike

Wagner's bowling slaughtered for the second match in succession:
171101 0
https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/england-tour-of-new-zealand-2022-23-1322349/new-zealand-vs-england-2nd-test-1322356/full-scorecard#:~:text=Neil%20Wagner-,17,0,-5.94

RH

In message <k5r60kF2sp0U1@mid.individual.net>, David North
<nospam@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> writes
>On 24/02/2023 00:27, jack fredricks wrote:
>> at lunch we're 101/3.
>> Brook came out at 21/3 and has scored 51 off 52. That takes some
>>real cojones.
>
>294 added for the 4th wicket so far. No 4th-wicket Test partnership has
>ever added as many runs when starting from as low a score.
>

Anyone who went to bed after 30 or 60 minutes play fearing the worst
will have been pleasantly surprised in the morning.

The partnership made me wonder where it figures in the list of highest
partnerships by players from the same county. The higher ones that I
know of are:

382 by Hutton and Leyland against Australia at The Oval in 1938
(Yorkshire)
370 by Bill Edrich and Compton against South Africa in 1947 (Middlesex)
369 by John Edrich and Barrington against NZ in 1965 (Surrey)

I think - but haven't checked - that those may be the highest
partnerships by any two players for England against A, SA and NZ
respectively.
--
John Hall "Do you have cornflakes in America?"
"Well, actually, they're American."
"So what brings you to Britain then if you have cornflakes already?"
Bill Bryson: "Notes from a Small Island"

On Fri, 24 Feb 2023 09:58:12 +0000, John Hall
<john_nospam@jhall.co.uk> wrote:

>In message <k5r60kF2sp0U1@mid.individual.net>, David North
><nospam@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> writes
>>On 24/02/2023 00:27, jack fredricks wrote:
>>> at lunch we're 101/3.
>>> Brook came out at 21/3 and has scored 51 off 52. That takes some
>>>real cojones.
>>
>>294 added for the 4th wicket so far. No 4th-wicket Test partnership has
>>ever added as many runs when starting from as low a score.
>>
>
>Anyone who went to bed after 30 or 60 minutes play fearing the worst
>will have been pleasantly surprised in the morning.

I retired at 60-3 and woke up again at tea. Staggering out, I looked
at the screen and saw the score and a team name and thought we must
have really collapsed badly if NZ were already 246-3. It took some
frantic score-checking to realise my mistake.

Cheers,

Mike

On Fri, 24 Feb 2023 07:06:58 +0000, David North
<nospam@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:

>On 24/02/2023 00:27, jack fredricks wrote:
>> at lunch we're 101/3.
>>
>> Brook came out at 21/3 and has scored 51 off 52. That takes some real cojones.
>
>294 added for the 4th wicket so far. No 4th-wicket Test partnership has
>ever added as many runs when starting from as low a score.

Looking through some recoveries from 3 down, I came across the 4th
wicket stand of 237 between Larry Gomes and Clive Lloyd against India
when they had been 1-3 (Greenidge 0, Haynes 0, IVAR 1).

Cheers,

Mike

On Friday, February 24, 2023 at 7:05:07 AM UTC, Mike Holmans wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Feb 2023 13:46:53 -0800 (PST), mike <dmik...@yahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
> >Well NZ put England again on an even greener wkt. Apparently
> >our old men who we call bowlers were all feeling knackered
> >after the last match, but when they saw the wkt, all declared
> >themselves fit. I was tempted to put a spot bet on Root
> >getting out to a reverse sweep, but if I did I bet he wouldnt,
> >but now I havnt, I spose he will. Or on how many balls Crawley
> >will last.
> Crawley lasted very few balls, as we would expect. Root may yet get
> out to a reverse sweep.

On 88 he tried the reverse scoopy thing but this time it went for 4.
i remember when gooch was having his purple patch in early
90s, i think he said something like he had cut out all the risky
shots and just concentrated on the basics which did best for him
But roots going tother way, as he gets older hes taking more risks.

I just wonder if under this new regime, a couple of batters might
be the equivalent of the designated drivers in the pub, and not drink
from the well of bazball. Root would be the ideal candidate for this
as hes quite capable of dominating the bowling without these t20
style shots. But i guess its what he wants to do.

Also yellow bat handles? Ugh.

>
> If they manage another 46 runs tomorrow, they will reach their
> highest-ever total after being 21-3 or worse.
>

lets hope the rain stays away. big crowd of english at the ground it seemed..
whenever it rained when i was in the antipodes, they said, oh youve brought your
weather with you. every time.

mike

On 24/02/2023 09:58, John Hall wrote:
> In message <k5r60kF2sp0U1@mid.individual.net>, David North
> <nospam@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> writes
>> On 24/02/2023 00:27, jack fredricks wrote:
>>> at lunch we're 101/3.
>>>  Brook came out at 21/3 and has scored 51 off 52. That takes some
>>> real cojones.
>>
>> 294 added for the 4th wicket so far. No 4th-wicket Test partnership
>> has ever added as many runs when starting from as low a score.
>>
>
> Anyone who went to bed after 30 or 60 minutes play fearing the worst
> will have been pleasantly surprised in the morning.
>
> The partnership made me wonder where it figures in the list of highest
> partnerships by players from the same county. The higher ones that I
> know of are:
>
> 382 by Hutton and Leyland against Australia at The Oval in 1938 (Yorkshire)
> 370 by Bill Edrich and Compton against South Africa in 1947 (Middlesex)
> 369 by John Edrich and Barrington against NZ in 1965 (Surrey)

Those are the top 3 (and 3rd, 4th and 5th in the list of all England
partnerships). Root and Brook are 4th. 5th is Root and Bairstow's 269* v
India and Edgbaston last summer.

> I think - but haven't checked - that those may be the highest
> partnerships by any two players for England against A, SA and NZ
> respectively.

Not SA - beaten by Stokes and Bairstow's 399 at Cape Town in 2015/16.

--
David North

On Fri, 24 Feb 2023 08:12:56 -0800 (PST), mike <dmike204@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

>I just wonder if under this new regime, a couple of batters might
>be the equivalent of the designated drivers in the pub, and not drink
>from the well of bazball. Root would be the ideal candidate for this
>as hes quite capable of dominating the bowling without these t20
>style shots. But i guess its what he wants to do.

He wants the ramp shot in his armoury because he knows how much it
upsets fast bowlers, and he wants to upset Australian fast bowlers.

I think he's going to realise that he can be very useful playing the
way he's always done, but that's not going to stop him wanting to add
to his repertoire out of simple athletic pride.

Cheers,

Mike

In message <k5s773F885pU1@mid.individual.net>, David North
<nospam@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> writes
>On 24/02/2023 09:58, John Hall wrote:
>> In message <k5r60kF2sp0U1@mid.individual.net>, David North
>><nospam@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> writes
>>> On 24/02/2023 00:27, jack fredricks wrote:
>>>> at lunch we're 101/3.
>>>>  Brook came out at 21/3 and has scored 51 off 52. That takes some
>>>>real cojones.
>>>
>>> 294 added for the 4th wicket so far. No 4th-wicket Test partnership
>>>has ever added as many runs when starting from as low a score.
>>>
>> Anyone who went to bed after 30 or 60 minutes play fearing the worst
>>will have been pleasantly surprised in the morning.
>> The partnership made me wonder where it figures in the list of
>>highest partnerships by players from the same county. The higher ones
>>that I know of are:
>> 382 by Hutton and Leyland against Australia at The Oval in 1938
>>(Yorkshire)
>> 370 by Bill Edrich and Compton against South Africa in 1947 (Middlesex)
>> 369 by John Edrich and Barrington against NZ in 1965 (Surrey)
>
>Those are the top 3 (and 3rd, 4th and 5th in the list of all England
>partnerships). Root and Brook are 4th. 5th is Root and Bairstow's 269*
>v India and Edgbaston last summer.

Thanks, David.
>
>> I think - but haven't checked - that those may be the highest
>>partnerships by any two players for England against A, SA and NZ
>>respectively.
>
>Not SA - beaten by Stokes and Bairstow's 399 at Cape Town in 2015/16.
>

Ah yes, that was too recent for me to have remembered it. :) Those two
were playing bazball seven years early.
--
John Hall "Do you have cornflakes in America?"
"Well, actually, they're American."
"So what brings you to Britain then if you have cornflakes already?"
Bill Bryson: "Notes from a Small Island"

On Saturday, February 25, 2023 at 4:27:45 AM UTC+10, John Hall wrote:
> Ah yes, that was too recent for me to have remembered it. :) Those two
> were playing bazball seven years early.

I'm still willing to die on the "bazball started with KP" hill :)

In message <a24hvhtq21l6r3ib7lq83ilaut2if17kht@4ax.com>, Mike Holmans
<spam@jackalope.uk> writes
>On Fri, 24 Feb 2023 09:58:12 +0000, John Hall
><john_nospam@jhall.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In message <k5r60kF2sp0U1@mid.individual.net>, David North
>><nospam@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> writes
>>>On 24/02/2023 00:27, jack fredricks wrote:
>>>> at lunch we're 101/3.
>>>> Brook came out at 21/3 and has scored 51 off 52. That takes some
>>>>real cojones.
>>>
>>>294 added for the 4th wicket so far. No 4th-wicket Test partnership has
>>>ever added as many runs when starting from as low a score.
>>>
>>
>>Anyone who went to bed after 30 or 60 minutes play fearing the worst
>>will have been pleasantly surprised in the morning.
>
>I retired at 60-3 and woke up again at tea. Staggering out, I looked
>at the screen and saw the score and a team name and thought we must
>have really collapsed badly if NZ were already 246-3. It took some
>frantic score-checking to realise my mistake.

Judging by how England batted on the morning of day 2 - which seems to
have been hyper-attacking even by their standards - it looks as though
they were well aware that there was likely to be a further substantial
loss of time to the weather. I always have supported the idea that Tests
should be scheduled for five days, but England are rather blowing that
out of the water. In fact when England are playing we could almost go
back to 3-day Tests, as was the case for most matches held in England
prior to the 1930s. It's really only the reduced over rates that mean
that three days wouldn't generally be enough. I wonder if the various
national boards and ground authorities are starting to worry about the
loss of income caused by most of England's Tests finishing in three or
four days.
--
John Hall "Do you have cornflakes in America?"
"Well, actually, they're American."
"So what brings you to Britain then if you have cornflakes already?"
Bill Bryson: "Notes from a Small Island"

On Saturday, February 25, 2023 at 10:37:06 AM UTC, John Hall wrote:
> In message <a24hvhtq21l6r3ib7...@4ax.com>, Mike Holmans
> <sp...@jackalope.uk> writes
> >On Fri, 24 Feb 2023 09:58:12 +0000, John Hall
> ><john_...@jhall.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >>In message <k5r60k...@mid.individual.net>, David North
> >><nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> writes
> >>>On 24/02/2023 00:27, jack fredricks wrote:
> >>>> at lunch we're 101/3.
> >>>> Brook came out at 21/3 and has scored 51 off 52. That takes some
> >>>>real cojones.
> >>>
> >>>294 added for the 4th wicket so far. No 4th-wicket Test partnership has
> >>>ever added as many runs when starting from as low a score.
> >>>

it was a pity Brook couldnt get his double which i'm sure he would have if the
rain hadnt come yestreday. The coaching staff at YCCC must have been doing
something right when they wernt being racist.

> Judging by how England batted on the morning of day 2 - which seems to
> have been hyper-attacking even by their standards - it looks as though
> they were well aware that there was likely to be a further substantial
> loss of time to the weather.

I think stokes declaration was very wise seeing how uncertain
the weather is over the next few days, and this time i think
their slogging was justified.

> I always have supported the idea that Tests
> should be scheduled for five days, but England are rather blowing that
> out of the water. In fact when England are playing we could almost go
> back to 3-day Tests, as was the case for most matches held in England
> prior to the 1930s. It's really only the reduced over rates that mean
> that three days wouldn't generally be enough. I wonder if the various
> national boards and ground authorities are starting to worry about the
> loss of income caused by most of England's Tests finishing in three or
> four days.
> --

Someone would need to do a cost/benefit analysis [?] of the amount
of revenue derived from england tests on the 4th & 5th days, and also
how many days englands tests have lasted on average. But its not only
england, oz have had some pretty short matches recently.

mike

On Saturday, February 25, 2023 at 12:26:02 PM UTC, mike wrote:
> On Saturday, February 25, 2023 at 10:37:06 AM UTC, John Hall wrote:
> > In message <a24hvhtq21l6r3ib7...@4ax.com>, Mike Holmans
> > <sp...@jackalope.uk> writes
> > >On Fri, 24 Feb 2023 09:58:12 +0000, John Hall
> > ><john_...@jhall.co.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > >>In message <k5r60k...@mid.individual.net>, David North
> > >><nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> writes
> > >>>On 24/02/2023 00:27, jack fredricks wrote:
> > >>>> at lunch we're 101/3.
> > >>>> Brook came out at 21/3 and has scored 51 off 52. That takes some
> > >>>>real cojones.
> > >>>
> > >>>294 added for the 4th wicket so far. No 4th-wicket Test partnership has
> > >>>ever added as many runs when starting from as low a score.
> > >>>
> it was a pity Brook couldnt get his double which i'm sure he would have if the
> rain hadnt come yestreday. The coaching staff at YCCC must have been doing
> something right when they wernt being racist.
> > Judging by how England batted on the morning of day 2 - which seems to
> > have been hyper-attacking even by their standards - it looks as though
> > they were well aware that there was likely to be a further substantial
> > loss of time to the weather.
> I think stokes declaration was very wise seeing how uncertain
> the weather is over the next few days, and this time i think
> their slogging was justified.
> > I always have supported the idea that Tests
> > should be scheduled for five days, but England are rather blowing that
> > out of the water. In fact when England are playing we could almost go
> > back to 3-day Tests, as was the case for most matches held in England
> > prior to the 1930s. It's really only the reduced over rates that mean
> > that three days wouldn't generally be enough. I wonder if the various
> > national boards and ground authorities are starting to worry about the
> > loss of income caused by most of England's Tests finishing in three or
> > four days.
> > --
> Someone would need to do a cost/benefit analysis [?] of the amount
> of revenue derived from england tests on the 4th & 5th days, and also
> how many days englands tests have lasted on average. But its not only
> england, oz have had some pretty short matches recently.
>
> mike

England might need all the 5 days in this match. The last time we enforced
the follow on, it didnt quite go as expected. No reverse sweeps so far,
and no wkts. Maybe a 1950s style day?

mike

On Sunday, February 26, 2023 at 12:30:54 AM UTC, mike wrote:
> On Saturday, February 25, 2023 at 12:26:02 PM UTC, mike wrote:
> > On Saturday, February 25, 2023 at 10:37:06 AM UTC, John Hall wrote:
> > > In message <a24hvhtq21l6r3ib7...@4ax.com>, Mike Holmans
> > > <sp...@jackalope.uk> writes
> > > >On Fri, 24 Feb 2023 09:58:12 +0000, John Hall
> > > ><john_...@jhall.co.uk> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >>In message <k5r60k...@mid.individual.net>, David North
> > > >><nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> writes
> > > >>>On 24/02/2023 00:27, jack fredricks wrote:
> > > >>>> at lunch we're 101/3.
> > > >>>> Brook came out at 21/3 and has scored 51 off 52. That takes some
> > > >>>>real cojones.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>294 added for the 4th wicket so far. No 4th-wicket Test partnership has
> > > >>>ever added as many runs when starting from as low a score.
> > > >>>
> > it was a pity Brook couldnt get his double which i'm sure he would have if the
> > rain hadnt come yestreday. The coaching staff at YCCC must have been doing
> > something right when they wernt being racist.
> > > Judging by how England batted on the morning of day 2 - which seems to
> > > have been hyper-attacking even by their standards - it looks as though
> > > they were well aware that there was likely to be a further substantial
> > > loss of time to the weather.
> > I think stokes declaration was very wise seeing how uncertain
> > the weather is over the next few days, and this time i think
> > their slogging was justified.
> > > I always have supported the idea that Tests
> > > should be scheduled for five days, but England are rather blowing that
> > > out of the water. In fact when England are playing we could almost go
> > > back to 3-day Tests, as was the case for most matches held in England
> > > prior to the 1930s. It's really only the reduced over rates that mean
> > > that three days wouldn't generally be enough. I wonder if the various
> > > national boards and ground authorities are starting to worry about the
> > > loss of income caused by most of England's Tests finishing in three or
> > > four days.
> > > --
> > Someone would need to do a cost/benefit analysis [?] of the amount
> > of revenue derived from england tests on the 4th & 5th days, and also
> > how many days englands tests have lasted on average. But its not only
> > england, oz have had some pretty short matches recently.
> >
> > mike
> England might need all the 5 days in this match. The last time we enforced
> the follow on, it didnt quite go as expected. No reverse sweeps so far,
> and no wkts. Maybe a 1950s style day?

NZ batting very sensibly. Pitch looks very easy paced now in the sun,
and although there are some dark crumbly patches Leach hasnt got
many to turn sharply. Most edges falling short of the slips, maybe
they should come in a bit? Crowd urging Stokes to bowl. Old style
test cricket today.

mike

In message <bc585826-aece-4672-9c21-cfe697a56d55n@googlegroups.com>,
mike <dmike204@yahoo.co.uk> writes
<snip>
>
>England might need all the 5 days in this match. The last time we enforced
>the follow on, it didnt quite go as expected. No reverse sweeps so far,
>and no wkts. Maybe a 1950s style day?
>
>mike

It rather was.

I saw the early play before going to bed, and heard the TV commentators
speculating about whether England would enforce the follow-on. In
retrospect, when England opened the bowling with Robinson and Leach
rather than Anderson and Broad it should have been obvious. The plan was
obviously to keep A and B fresh to open the bowling in the second
innings when NZ followed on. Of course thanks to Southee, who has always
espoused bazball in his batting if not in his captaincy, that didn't
quite work out.
--
John Hall "Do you have cornflakes in America?"
"Well, actually, they're American."
"So what brings you to Britain then if you have cornflakes already?"
Bill Bryson: "Notes from a Small Island"

On Sunday, 26 February 2023 at 10:14:19 UTC, John Hall wrote:

> I saw the early play before going to bed, and heard the TV commentators
> speculating about whether England would enforce the follow-on. In
> retrospect, when England opened the bowling with Robinson and Leach
> rather than Anderson and Broad it should have been obvious.

Interesting game now. And also intriguing to see how England cope with someone (Mitchell) who's clearly decided to have a pop in the style of their own Bazball game.

Richard

On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 8:40:35 AM UTC+10, Richard Dixon wrote:
> Interesting game now.

It was a bad declaration, but I'm confident we'll win. Weather permitting of course.

On 27/02/2023 07:20, jack fredricks wrote:
> On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 8:40:35 AM UTC+10, Richard Dixon wrote:
>> Interesting game now.
>
> It was a bad declaration, but I'm confident we'll win. Weather permitting of course.

I'm guessing that you mean the decision to enforce the follow-on, rather
than the declaration.

483 is NZ's highest score after following on, beating their 413 at
Edgbaston in 1965 (in a match where England's first 3 bowlers were all
called Fred).

https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/new-zealand-tour-of-england-1965-62079/england-vs-new-zealand-1st-test-62977/full-scorecard

--
David North

On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 07:59:34 +0000, David North
<nospam@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:

>On 27/02/2023 07:20, jack fredricks wrote:
>> On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 8:40:35?AM UTC+10, Richard Dixon wrote:
>>> Interesting game now.
>>
>> It was a bad declaration, but I'm confident we'll win. Weather permitting of course.
>
>I'm guessing that you mean the decision to enforce the follow-on, rather
>than the declaration.

Nothing wrong with enforcing. Failing to hold catches, on the other
hand, seems an exceedingly poor tactic having done so. I saw 6 go
down, and I wasn't watching all the time.

Cheers,

Mike

On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 8:11:18 AM UTC, Mike Holmans wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 07:59:34 +0000, David North
> <nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >On 27/02/2023 07:20, jack fredricks wrote:
> >> On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 8:40:35?AM UTC+10, Richard Dixon wrote:
> >>> Interesting game now.
> >>
> >> It was a bad declaration, but I'm confident we'll win. Weather permitting of course.
> >
> >I'm guessing that you mean the decision to enforce the follow-on, rather
> >than the declaration.
> Nothing wrong with enforcing. Failing to hold catches, on the other
> hand, seems an exceedingly poor tactic having done so. I saw 6 go
> down, and I wasn't watching all the time.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mike

As I have pointed out many times, modern close to the wicket catching are not a patch on what they were before limited overs cricket... RH