On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 5:59:36 PM UTC+10, David North wrote:
> I'm guessing that you mean the decision to enforce the follow-on,

Yep, thanks

In message <2c417530-91d3-4579-ac4c-09fca7f969e7n@googlegroups.com>,
jack fredricks <jzfredricks@gmail.com> writes
>On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 8:40:350 >> Interesting game now.
>
>It was a bad declaration,

Did you mean bad decision to enforce the follow-on? The declaration of
England's first innings was excellently timed, I'd have said. Asking NZ
to follow on may have been influenced by the Basin Reserve pitch -
perhaps uniquely among Test venues - almost always becoming better for
batting throughout the match. England may have thought they would sooner
bowl on days 3 and 4 and bat on days 4 and 5 than the reverse.

> but I'm confident we'll win.

It was looking a bit dodgy at 478-6, but at 482 all out things were
looking pretty rosy. On this pitch, scoring 258 with no time pressure
ought not to be too challenging.

> Weather permitting of course.

The weather may have been another factor in the follow-on decision, as
being likely to lead to winning earlier than batting again and then
declaring would have done.

Looking at the scores on ESPNcricinfo this morning, I saw an ad from a
bookmaker offer odds of 8-13 that Robinson would be the first batsman
out in the morning and 9-4 that it would be Duckett. 9-4 looks pretty
generous, and if I was a betting man I'd be severely tempted.
--
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"

In message <k63676F5sg7U1@mid.individual.net>, David North
<nospam@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> writes
>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).

Without looking at the scorecard, I'm guessing they were Trueman, Rumsey
and Titmus. Was that Trueman's last Test, by any chance?
--
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"

In message <0e055c48-adf0-4ee4-923b-1b9c8aaaa0aan@googlegroups.com>,
Robert Henderson <anywhere156@gmail.com> writes
>On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 8:11:180 >> 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

Have you seen some of the catches that Pope has taken in this match?
--
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 Mon, 27 Feb 2023 10:19:23 +0000, John Hall
<john_nospam@jhall.co.uk> wrote:

>In message <0e055c48-adf0-4ee4-923b-1b9c8aaaa0aan@googlegroups.com>,
>Robert Henderson <anywhere156@gmail.com> writes
>>On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 8:11:180 >> 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
>
>Have you seen some of the catches that Pope has taken in this match?

I'm also interested to learn why "modern close to the wicket catching"
has anything to do with catches being dropped in the outfield. But
then I watch cricket rather than fantasise.

Cheers,

Mike

On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 10:36:13 +0000, Mike Holmans <spam@jackalope.uk>
wrote:

>On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 10:19:23 +0000, John Hall
><john_nospam@jhall.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In message <0e055c48-adf0-4ee4-923b-1b9c8aaaa0aan@googlegroups.com>,
>>Robert Henderson <anywhere156@gmail.com> writes
>>>On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 8:11:180 >> 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
>>
>>Have you seen some of the catches that Pope has taken in this match?
>
>I'm also interested to learn why "modern close to the wicket catching"
>has anything to do with catches being dropped in the outfield. But
>then I watch cricket rather than fantasise.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Mike

If, as it has been asserted here before that limited overs batting is
slogging with bigger more powerful bats then of course close fielding
will be much more difficult.
Back in the days of one dimensional cricket (if certain sources are to
be believed) a close catch coming from a mistimed tickle to get off
strike or a glove from a bouncer must have been common,.indeed
ubiquitous.This is taking as read that the batsmen of yesterday didn't
slog and played only legit cricket shots from the MCC manual..
Why then does this narrative come from only one single unbalanced
source? Why don't we hear pundits comms and former players saying that
a fielding was better in ye olde days?

max.it
..

On Monday, 27 February 2023 at 10:27:43 UTC, John Hall wrote:
> In message <k63676...@mid.individual.net>, David North
> <nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> writes
> >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).
> Without looking at the scorecard, I'm guessing they were Trueman, Rumsey
> and Titmus.

Correct, and I just noticed that one of the umpires was Fred Price.

> Was that Trueman's last Test, by any chance?

No, that was the following Test at Lord's, which was also Rumsey's last.

On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 10:27:43 AM UTC, John Hall wrote:
> In message <2c417530-91d3-4579...@googlegroups.com>,
> jack fredricks <jzfre...@gmail.com> writes
> >On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 8:40:350 >> Interesting game now.
> >
> >It was a bad declaration,
> Did you mean bad decision to enforce the follow-on? The declaration of
> England's first innings was excellently timed, I'd have said. Asking NZ
> to follow on may have been influenced by the Basin Reserve pitch -
> perhaps uniquely among Test venues - almost always becoming better for
> batting throughout the match. England may have thought they would sooner
> bowl on days 3 and 4 and bat on days 4 and 5 than the reverse.
> > but I'm confident we'll win.
> It was looking a bit dodgy at 478-6, but at 482 all out things were
> looking pretty rosy. On this pitch, scoring 258 with no time pressure
> ought not to be too challenging.
>

I read that 198 is the highest winning score by a side after enforcing the
follow on, which makes me feel rather more nervous than you, since
you know england wont want to hang about but take plenty of risks. we
saw that from 450-5 NZ suddenly fell away very quickly. Plus Stokes
hurt his knee again fielding the ball which led to bracewells strange
runout.

> > Weather permitting of course.
>
> The weather may have been another factor in the follow-on decision, as
> being likely to lead to winning earlier than batting again and then
> declaring would have done.

yes i agree. however the oldies in the team might be regretting it now 160
overs later. Broad and jimmy were reduced to almost medium pacers.
also exactly what was brook bowling? the Nzs seemed pretty bemused.
Sort of wobbly medium?

mike

In message <5770347a-e7d7-4ece-9f03-cc38d2b73960n@googlegroups.com>,
mike <dmike204@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 10:27:430 >> In message <2c417530-91d3-4579...@googlegroups.com>,
>> jack fredricks <jzfre...@gmail.com> writes
>> >On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 8:40:350 >> Interesting game now.
>> >
>> >It was a bad declaration,
>> Did you mean bad decision to enforce the follow-on? The declaration of
>> England's first innings was excellently timed, I'd have said. Asking NZ
>> to follow on may have been influenced by the Basin Reserve pitch -
>> perhaps uniquely among Test venues - almost always becoming better for
>> batting throughout the match. England may have thought they would sooner
>> bowl on days 3 and 4 and bat on days 4 and 5 than the reverse.
>> > but I'm confident we'll win.
>> It was looking a bit dodgy at 478-6, but at 482 all out things were
>> looking pretty rosy. On this pitch, scoring 258 with no time pressure
>> ought not to be too challenging.
>>
>
>I read that 198 is the highest winning score by a side after enforcing the
>follow on, which makes me feel rather more nervous than you, since
>you know england wont want to hang about but take plenty of risks. we
>saw that from 450-5 NZ suddenly fell away very quickly. Plus Stokes
>hurt his knee again fielding the ball which led to bracewells strange
>runout.

How often have sides needed to chase more than 198 after making the
opposition follow on, though? It can't be a very frequent occurrence.
And how many of those matches were drawn because time ran out, rather
than lost? Plus there can't have been many fifth day pitches as benign
as this one, though there is a bit of turn and bounce for the spinners.
I'm not sure that Bracewell is a good enough bowler to take full
advantage, though.

>
>> > Weather permitting of course.
>>
>> The weather may have been another factor in the follow-on decision, as
>> being likely to lead to winning earlier than batting again and then
>> declaring would have done.
>
>yes i agree. however the oldies in the team might be regretting it now 160
>overs later. Broad and jimmy were reduced to almost medium pacers.
>also exactly what was brook bowling? the Nzs seemed pretty bemused.
>Sort of wobbly medium?
>
>mike

Another factor in deciding to enforce the follow-on might have been the
knowledge that the next Test is about four months away, so that if the
bowlers were knackered by the end of the match it wouldn't matter too
much. Incidentally, from the highlights it looked as if throughout the
NZ second innings at least half the balls that were hit towards the
boundary had to be chased by Stuart Broad!
--
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 Mon, 27 Feb 2023 16:37:17 +0000, John Hall
<john_nospam@jhall.co.uk> wrote:

>In message <5770347a-e7d7-4ece-9f03-cc38d2b73960n@googlegroups.com>,
>mike <dmike204@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>>On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 10:27:430 >> In message <2c417530-91d3-4579...@googlegroups.com>,
>>> jack fredricks <jzfre...@gmail.com> writes
>>> >On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 8:40:350 >> Interesting game now.
>>> >
>>> >It was a bad declaration,
>>> Did you mean bad decision to enforce the follow-on? The declaration of
>>> England's first innings was excellently timed, I'd have said. Asking NZ
>>> to follow on may have been influenced by the Basin Reserve pitch -
>>> perhaps uniquely among Test venues - almost always becoming better for
>>> batting throughout the match. England may have thought they would sooner
>>> bowl on days 3 and 4 and bat on days 4 and 5 than the reverse.
>>> > but I'm confident we'll win.
>>> It was looking a bit dodgy at 478-6, but at 482 all out things were
>>> looking pretty rosy. On this pitch, scoring 258 with no time pressure
>>> ought not to be too challenging.
>>>
>>
>>I read that 198 is the highest winning score by a side after enforcing the
>>follow on, which makes me feel rather more nervous than you, since
>>you know england wont want to hang about but take plenty of risks. we
>>saw that from 450-5 NZ suddenly fell away very quickly. Plus Stokes
>>hurt his knee again fielding the ball which led to bracewells strange
>>runout.

We also know that only Australia lose after enforcing the follow-on.

Cheers,

Mike

On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 3:54:29 AM UTC+10, Mike Holmans wrote:
> We also know that only Australia lose after enforcing the follow-on.

Yep. I've not supported enforcing the follow on since Calcutta 2001.
Unless it's either against a minnow, or a heavily rain affected match.

There are almost no benefits to enforcing the follow-on.

Not enforcing gives your bowlers a rest, removes pressure from your batsmen in their 2nd innings, and makes the oppo bat in the 4th innings.

On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 6:37:31 PM UTC-5, jack fredricks wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 3:54:29 AM UTC+10, Mike Holmans wrote:
> > We also know that only Australia lose after enforcing the follow-on.
> Yep. I've not supported enforcing the follow on since Calcutta 2001.
> Unless it's either against a minnow, or a heavily rain affected match.
>
> There are almost no benefits to enforcing the follow-on.
>
> Not enforcing gives your bowlers a rest, removes pressure from your batsmen in their 2nd innings, and makes the oppo bat in the 4th innings.

Who is a better, best batsman? Smith, Root, Kohli, Williamson or Axar Patel?

On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 11:26:26 AM UTC+10, Dryes wrote:
> Who is a better, best batsman? Smith, Root, Kohli, Williamson or Axar Patel?

Tough call.

I'd pick Root, but I'm biased.
Then Williamson.
Smith is a cheat.
Kohli I respect, but just don't like.

On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 11:37:31 PM UTC, jack fredricks wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 3:54:29 AM UTC+10, Mike Holmans wrote:
> > We also know that only Australia lose after enforcing the follow-on.

atm it looks as if that might be about to change.

> Yep. I've not supported enforcing the follow on since Calcutta 2001.
> Unless it's either against a minnow, or a heavily rain affected match.
>
> There are almost no benefits to enforcing the follow-on.
>
> Not enforcing gives your bowlers a rest, removes pressure from your batsmen in their 2nd innings, and makes the oppo bat in the 4th innings.

especially if your bowlers are rather elderly and if one cant bowl at all.

mike

On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 1:14:46 PM UTC+11, mike wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 3:54:29 AM UTC+10, Mike Holmans wrote:
> > > We also know that only Australia lose after enforcing the follow-on.

> atm it looks as if that might be about to change.

Yep, and by golly that was exciting! One run!

-Moriarty

On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 19:10:53 -0800 (PST), Moriarty
<blues95@ivillage.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 1:14:46?PM UTC+11, mike wrote:
>> > On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 3:54:29?AM UTC+10, Mike Holmans wrote:
>> > > We also know that only Australia lose after enforcing the follow-on.
>
>> atm it looks as if that might be about to change.
>
>Yep, and by golly that was exciting! One run!

Brilliant game, and congrats to NZ.

I look forward to the moaners busily criticising the enforcement, the
batting in the second innings and all the usual drivel, but that was
far too good a game of cricket for such pettifogging wibbles.

Cheers,

Mike

On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 1:14:17 PM UTC+10, Mike Holmans wrote:
> Brilliant game, and congrats to NZ.

Yeah, as awesome. No other form of cricket can provide such entertainment.

> I look forward to the moaners busily criticising the enforcement, the
> batting in the second innings and all the usual drivel, but that was
> far too good a game of cricket for such pettifogging wibbles.

I look forward to the counter-mob - those who think Stokes and Bazball are infallible and everything he/it does is perfect.

It was a bad follow-on decision against a good opponent, but we almost pulled off a record win. Oh well.

Interesting to note that in Innings 4 only Root played Bazball. Broad possibly too... but not sure if he bats any other way now.

On Tuesday, 28 February 2023 at 03:14:17 UTC, Mike Holmans wrote:

> I look forward to the moaners busily criticising the enforcement, the
> batting in the second innings and all the usual drivel, but that was
> far too good a game of cricket for such pettifogging wibbles.

Imagine trying to apportion blame in a game lost by 1 run: you could blame literally dozens of things.

I've decided to blame Ben Stokes' knee where we could have run two but we only ran one.

Richard

On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 6:46:18 PM UTC+10, Richard Dixon wrote:
> I've decided to blame Ben Stokes' knee where we could have run two but we only ran one.

Root butchering Brook

Op dinsdag 28 februari 2023 om 09:46:18 UTC+1 schreef Richard Dixon:
> On Tuesday, 28 February 2023 at 03:14:17 UTC, Mike Holmans wrote:
>
> > I look forward to the moaners busily criticising the enforcement, the
> > batting in the second innings and all the usual drivel, but that was
> > far too good a game of cricket for such pettifogging wibbles.
> Imagine trying to apportion blame in a game lost by 1 run: you could blame literally dozens of things.
>
> I've decided to blame Ben Stokes' knee where we could have run two but we only ran one.
>
> Richard

So about Stokes's knee:

He must have known he was in no state to bowl in NZ's second innings. Also, no matter how good James Anderson is, het is 40yo and his body needs time to recuperate. I think I read somewhere that this was his longest wicketless spell in about 5 years. That is not a coincidence.

So Stokes chose to enforce the follow-on with only three fit bowlers (and what I said bout Anderson also goes for Broad). I believe England should have batted instead. For this reason, and not because they lost.

RtH

In message <42047c2f-be43-464c-9ffc-ae1bff1d064cn@googlegroups.com>,
Dryes <dryes1617@gmail.com> writes
>On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 6:37:310 >> On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 3:54:290 >> > We also know that only Australia lose after enforcing the follow-on.
>> Yep. I've not supported enforcing the follow on since Calcutta 2001.
>> Unless it's either against a minnow, or a heavily rain affected match.
>>
>> There are almost no benefits to enforcing the follow-on.
>>
>> Not enforcing gives your bowlers a rest, removes pressure from your
>>batsmen in their 2nd innings, and makes the oppo bat in the 4th innings.
>
>Who is a better, best batsman? Smith, Root, Kohli, Williamson or Axar Patel?

:)

I reckon that Lambuschagne is now a better batsman than Smith.
--
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"

In message <8bc22f51-2fbf-4853-b212-124f796699bdn@googlegroups.com>,
jack fredricks <jzfredricks@gmail.com> writes
>On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 3:54:290 >> We also know that only Australia lose after enforcing the follow-on.
>
>Yep. I've not supported enforcing the follow on since Calcutta 2001.
>Unless it's either against a minnow, or a heavily rain affected match.
>
>There are almost no benefits to enforcing the follow-on.
>
>Not enforcing gives your bowlers a rest, removes pressure from your
>batsmen in their 2nd innings, and makes the oppo bat in the 4th
>innings.
>

The big benefit of enforcing the follow-on is that you don't have to
decide when to declare. Declare too early, and you risk the opponents
reaching their target. Declare too late - the tendency of most England
captains prior to Stokes - and you may run out of time to bowl the
opposition out. That risk of running out of time is increased if the
weather is a bit dodgy. When you do win having enforced the f-o, you'll
generally win earlier than if you had batted again, and so are less
likely to be thwarted by the weather.
--
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 Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 10:31:15 AM UTC, Robbert ter Hart wrote:
> Op dinsdag 28 februari 2023 om 09:46:18 UTC+1 schreef Richard Dixon:
> > On Tuesday, 28 February 2023 at 03:14:17 UTC, Mike Holmans wrote:
> >
> > > I look forward to the moaners busily criticising the enforcement, the
> > > batting in the second innings and all the usual drivel, but that was
> > > far too good a game of cricket for such pettifogging wibbles.
> > Imagine trying to apportion blame in a game lost by 1 run: you could blame literally dozens of things.
> >
> > I've decided to blame Ben Stokes' knee where we could have run two but we only ran one.
> >
> > Richard
> So about Stokes's knee:
>
> He must have known he was in no state to bowl in NZ's second innings. Also, no matter how good James Anderson is, het is 40yo and his body needs time to recuperate. I think I read somewhere that this was his longest wicketless spell in about 5 years. That is not a coincidence.
>
> So Stokes chose to enforce the follow-on with only three fit bowlers (and what I said bout Anderson also goes for Broad). I believe England should have batted instead. For this reason, and not because they lost.
>
> RtH

It appears that Baz Ball has reached the state whereby its practitioners think it requires a reckless act of bravado/machismo to embellish it ...RH

In message <5e2240e1-8733-4eef-a09d-3c29651bc6a1n@googlegroups.com>,
Moriarty <blues95@ivillage.com> writes
>On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 1:14:460 >> > On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 3:54:290 >> > > We also know that only Australia lose after enforcing the follow-on.
>
>> atm it looks as if that might be about to change.
>
>Yep, and by golly that was exciting! One run!
>
>-Moriarty

Yep. I was waking up every 90 minutes through the night, rather than
every 3 hours or so as I usually do, and checking the score on my
smartphone. It seemed that every time I did so England had just lost a
wicket. The last time they were 256-9 and as I looked the score updated
to 256 all out.

Kudos to NZ, and especially to Wagner, who managed to recover from three
innings in which he had quite shocking figures. I see that NZ didn't
risk Mitchell, so used just four bowlers. And it looks like that was
reduced to three before the end, as three bowlers finished having bowled
only part of an over. So to win in those circumstances is even more to
their credit.

I feel like my unusual confidence about England's prospects of winning
may have "woofed" them. I'm normally far more pessimistic about them,
but their recent amazing run of success had changed that. At least my
prediction that Bracewell wouldn't be much of a threat was right.
--
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 Tuesday, 28 February 2023 at 11:09:51 UTC, John Hall wrote:

> I feel like my unusual confidence about England's prospects of winning
> may have "woofed" them. I'm normally far more pessimistic about them,
> but their recent amazing run of success had changed that. At least my
> prediction that Bracewell wouldn't be much of a threat was right.

Such is the remarkable nature of England's team that with about 95 runs left with Root and Stokes fairly well set (knees notwithstanding), Paddy Power had England at 1/9 to win.

Richard