England are the Comeback Kids. They looked to have no chance of winning the Second Test on the third afternoon but by the fourth had done so by six wickets. Such are the marvellous vagaries of Test cricket. The improbable win was set up first by some spendid spin bowling by Monty Panesar on a viperous pitch allied to some reckless New Zealand batting. The stuffing thus having been knocked out of the tourists, England ploughed their own furrow to victory with a virtuous hundred by Andrew Strauss. A welcome victory for sure, but it is hard to allay the feeling that England are still lacking some of the right stuff.
 |
Extra Time |
You are here : Home » Extra Time Home
 Subscribe to RSS BloggersOn this siteRecent PostsRecent Comments
|
« England v New Zealand 2008: Fraser and Brenkley at the Tests - Old Trafford, Day One | Main | Rugby League: An inevitable cull » 27 May 2008CommentsVerify your CommentPreviewing your CommentThis is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment
As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments. Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate. |
|
Yes Stephen, I feel a bit like scrooge. It was a marvellous comeback, the best since Headingley 1981 one paper said. But I still feel England are some way short of being the side they think they are.
Good teams like Australia, South Africa, India, Sri Lanka and probably Pakistan would never have allowed England back in the match from the position they were in on Sunday afternoon.
Monty Panesar bowed very well but New Zealand were awful. They just did not know what to do and when a side gets bowled out for 114 in no time the momentum changes hands. I always fancied England once New Zealand capitulated. I maybe being a bit harsh but New Zealand brought it on themselves. Daniel Flynn had to bat in each innings. A hit in the face hurts but you have to get back out there and the 30-40 runs he could have added with a batsman would have been vital. Jacob Oram too, droppibg down the order with a stiff neck. Get out there this is Test match cricket.
Posted by: Angus Fraser | 27 May 2008 at 10:15 AM
The tourists didn't cover themselves in glory. Flynn was clearly hurt but top level sport requires physical and mental courage. Otherwise, what's the point. Pity because Ross Taylor's hundred on Saturday was glorious. The question for victorious England (rah, rah, rah) is do they change a winning team? Of course you have to beat what's in front of you but the selectors also have an obligation to plan for campaigns to come, particularly South Africa. There is a case for omitting both Jimmy Anderson and Paul Collingwood. They probably won't but Anderson is much too wayward, Collingwood is grotesquely out of form. Where does loyalty and continuity end and respopnsibility to the side and to other contenders begin?
Posted by: Stephen Brenkley | 27 May 2008 at 10:23 AM
It is a difficult one but I think the selectors will pick the same side for the third Test. The players that played at Old Trafford have been rested from County cricket this wekk so there seems no desire to get any of them extra practice.
It certainly seems harder to get dropped from the side than selected for it. I admire the loyalty the selectors continue to show to the likes of Collingwood and Bell - Anderson is inconsistent but I do feel he deserves a decent run to find out one way or the other and he has not had that quite yet - because it was not around a decade or so ago and the team were worse off as a consequence.
But the attitude of the batting in the team does not annoy me. They seem to be saying 'I average 40, what's the problem.'Well there is a problem. Four of them are averaging under 40 - 35-38 to be precise - in the second half of their careers. Cook and Pietersen are the only two that aren't. The fear is they get found out when it counts ie ater this summer against South Africa and then next summer against Australia. A kick up the backside did Strauss some good. It could do the others.
Posted by: Angus Fraser | 27 May 2008 at 10:37 AM
Sorry, an extra word. The attitude of the batting does annoy me.
Posted by: Angus Fraser | 27 May 2008 at 10:38 AM
Agreed about Anderson. He really hasn't been given a proper run - four games in a row is his best since the very start of his career. And he did look much better in the Kiwis' second innings. The fact that it may well swing at Trent Bridge is an additional factor in his favour.The batsmen are getting to a stage where they are almost taking the mickey out of the watching public and the watching public aren't being fooled. I'm not in favour of chopping and changing or of knee jerk reactions but there seems to be form of selectorial intertia at present. Still, I think even curmudgeons like we are obnviously becoming could find room to praise both Strauss and Panesar. Strass played an extremely measured innings and Panesar's bowling said as much about what he could yet do as what he was doing at Old Trafford. It was intelligent cricket from both of them, wasn't it?
Posted by: Stephen Brenkley | 27 May 2008 at 10:44 AM
They were both magnificent. There are many who fee that Vettori is a better spinner than Panesar, I am not so sure. In one-day cricket Vettori is, no doubt, but Panesar has him in the longer form of the game. If New Zealand had achieved what England did yesterday the blame would have been placed firmy at the feet of Panesar but he rarely fails when conditions suit. He is outbowled by Warne and Muralitharan but they are two of the all time greats and there is no shame in that. Panesar hardly bowls a bad ball and facing him must be similar to Derek Underwood in many ways in that he is constantly pushing batsmen back. He deservedly won the man of the match.
Strauss' innings was faultless. For a while he was trying to be something he is not - an enforcer to replace Trescothick. He has realised that is not his game and moved back to what he is good at. In the first half of his innings he hardly played an aggressive shot or scored a run in front of square leg. Then, when he was happy with his and the teams position he opened up. It was class batting. England's top four suddenly looks very good - solid.
Posted by: Angus Fraser | 27 May 2008 at 10:57 AM
Yes, well let's not get too carried away. Vaughan's batting in England's first innings was most odd and bordered on the inexcusable. I still think there may - just may - ultimately be a case for playing him in the lower middle order. Strauss has certainly reconfigured his game and good for him. Panesar has to learn to bowl better on flat pitches - but he will. He still needs to work on his excitability and on other aspects of his game. But abundant promise is now being revealed. We'll talk about this in a few days, I guess, but England should surely now bury the Kiwis at Trent Bridge.
Posted by: Stephen Brenkley | 27 May 2008 at 11:16 AM
They should. The defeat will have completely knocked the stuffing out of the New Zealand. They do not seem to me to be a side that can come back from this. A 2-0 victory with one Test bady affected by the weather is not a bad performance if results are the only thing that counts. I do want to see England put in a more convincing all-round performance though and that means batting and bowling well in consecutive innings. If they can do that for several Tests in a row we can all start smiling.
Posted by: Angus Fraser | 27 May 2008 at 11:30 AM
The total might have been difficult had the second innings commenced on the afternoon of day 4, but time had everything to do with it. As Ian Smith said New zealand needed the rain.
Once Monty et all had destroyed them all out for 114 on day 3, it should have been obvious that england would have had to have ben really stupid to lose. 294 with over 2 days to get them. They had the time, they now knew the dangers of the pitch and Vittori. All it needed was careful but positive batting. It was not such a record breaking feat. Most 4th inings commence on the 4th day. Now if they had started then and won yes it would have been amazing.But they had over 2 days.
Posted by: Ian | 27 May 2008 at 05:12 PM