´óÏó´«Ã½

That is almost certainly the worst days cricket I’ve watched England play since the Ashes in 06/07. The bowling looked lifeless, negative, inconsistent and perhaps most worryingly impotent. The fielding was sloppy and the overthrows thoughtless, and finally the batting was unbelievably negative, and made an average attack look like world beaters who never bowled a bad ball. We’ve gone from being a really positive outfit, scoring at four runs per over and always looking for wickets and taking extremely good catches to being incredibly negative, scoring at two and a half runs per over, looking like an unthreatening bowling attack, baring Sidebottom, and regularly spilling catches and lacking thought in the field.
Look at the way New Zealand dominated Panesar, and yet our approach to Vettori was like they were facing Shane Warne on a fifth day pitch. So the ball was turning, it did when Monty was bowling too.
This is New Zealand we are playing, who South Africa annihilated at home. If this is bad, just wait until the South Africans get here, and even worse the Australians next summer. Things could get very ugly!
We have gone from arguably the best team in the world to being the sixth best in less than three years.
One more thing, why oh why is Anderson in the side? He is consistently inconsistent and has regularly leaked runs and not taken wickets, how was Hoggard overlooked for him for the first Test?

Another dismal day for England, and another great one for New Zealand, who are playing without fear... ironically, rather like England did when they beat them 3-0 in 2004. This England side is currently a shadow of that 2004 model, and seem to be taking their cue from Gordon Brown - the more they try to put things right after each setback, the worse they seem to perform. I hope I'm not right, but in this form, and playing so negatively, we could lose both series this summer.

to chris, anderson took 4 wickets, bowled better than anyone else, bowled at 90mph regularly, hit oram and flynn repeatedly, and retired flynn. plus he's now england's top wicket taker with nine in the series so far. thats why he's in the side. think before you post. hoggard was poor in the lions game. if anyone tremlett should have replaced broad, who in my opinino, although talented, is staggeringly overrated.

England are too easily put off - they spend so much time focusing on how New Zealand are getting on that they forget about their own game.

Following New Zealand's high total they immediately slipped into a negative mindset which resulted in the light roller, the night watchman and they seem to be playing for a draw on the second day!

We were devoid of ideas and class when working for wickets. I'm tempted to blame the captaincy, but I don't think MV is culpable here from the TMS commentary. I honestly don't know what the problem is - maybe it's just that we're missing a Flintoff to take the game by the horns and force something to happen.

to snoopy, he bowled ok in the innings, but look at his recored over 24 test matches he averages around 37, and look at hoggards. 200 test wickets at 30, look at the way he won the series for us in South Africa in 2005. Harmison I can understand, he has been poor for a while, but Hoggard has had two bad games in recent times, one in Sri Lanka and the first test of the series in New Zealand. I agree, Broad is over rated at this stage in his career, he is not quick enough, and although everyone says hes accurate, he often bowls short and wide deliveries, which he did twice in one over to Taylor yesterday. We need Flintioff back in the side to add some pace and hostility.

Pure garbage from Strauss and Vaughan...(this is a fab track: it must be based on the ease a very ordinairy even poor batting line up smashed 380 runs)....letting very average bowling that would not get wickets in county cricket div two dominate....we need to bring in some new batters quickly...Sale for one Gidman another to name just two who would not bat leaden footed like this....Cooks dismissal an absolute disgrace....we are getting too many duff lbws from these so called top umpires who are nothing of the sort...they also need a shake up....it is costing England at the moment these bad decisions

I live in NZ so I've just woken up to read all about it. I have one question... how many yorkers were bowled to Taylor and Mills?

When NZ are batting well it's when they approach it like a one dayer and dominate by attacking. We always seem to bowl length or short balls in these circumstances. If they're going to bat like it's a limited overs game then give them some limited overs bowling. Saying that, we can't bowl yorkers in the short form either.

The same thing happens over and over again (no pun intended). How often do lower order sloggers get their test bests against England?

Finally, the media need to have a look at themselves after some of the embarrassingly arrogant and dismissive comments about the NZ side before the tour. They may be a young and inexperienced team but they've got good players who don't need extra motivation from UK journalists who also add to an air of complacency among players and public.

A few things, random bits that have really been winding me up! Connect the dots, people! 1:- why are we harping back to 2005 ashes constantly?

2:- Trails are citing Vaughan as 'the man who knows how to beat Ponting'

3:- What an insult for Vaughan to say NZ are 'workman like'

4:- Oh, and when he sat in the dressing rooms in Aus in 2006/07 tour, why didn't he tell Captain Freddie how to 'beat Ponting'
5:- Batting today was Village Green from england, or should I say,'a workman like knock'??

Snails,Snails,Snails. Some one wrote about(Sir) Geoffrey Boycott being slow the otherday well compared to this lot he was an absolute hare. How can New Zealand score at over 4 per over yet we barley manage 2 1/2 per over? Amazing!

Once again Vaughan makes Boycott at his most stubborn look like Afridi in his pomp.

How many more times are we going to have to suffer through him scoring 25 off 100 balls then getting out?

He'd be better off bludgeoning 25 off 25 and getting out because he'd leave time for real batsmen to have a go. Sickening.

It's one thing if all the players are scoring sloooowly, but even the NZ tailenders made it look a reasonable track.

At least Cooks appalling LBW decision was balanced by KP staying in when he should have gone.

England. For shame.

I couldn't agree more with chrischets2209. This was an absolutely pathetic performance and I'm glad I wasn't watching it, only listening to it on TMS. At least I had that pleasure.

Did the pitch really become that different, that difficult, in the ten minutes between the innings? The cracks were there even yesterday and the pitch was taking more spin yesterday than today. This was basically an easy batting wicket and NZ proved it today, moving at well over four runs an over from 202 to 381. You only have to read the bowling figures. Anderson would seem to escape censure, with his four wickets, but he gets tonked all over the place over and over again. He does not yet deserve his place in the team.

However, in my opinion (again) it is the batsmen who are failing us. What was the thinking when England went in to bat? The pitch could get very difficult in the fourth innings; it is essential to build a very big score and hope not to have to bat again; that requires maximum application, no frills, just hard graft! If, this evening, England stood at 152 for no wicket, however boring that might have been for the spectators, the strategic mission would have been accomplished. This is a test match after all. Tomorrow, the third day, might have seen a couple of centuries and the grinding down of the opposition. But the 152 runs, garnered at about 2 1/2 runs an over - a rate lost in the annals of time - have cost four wickets, three of them England's "finest".

England have lost the mind game again. And that must cast some doubt on the leadership.

It is the batsmen who win games and the ones we have just now, with exceptions, are simply not up to it.

I have a friend who still claims that it was Bob Willis that won the Headingley 1981 Ashes game. And I still have to remind him that, if it hadn't been for Botham, Willis would have been out on the golf-course, or wherever, the day he took his 8-43. Read all about it.

In 2005, England seemed to have learnt the lesson. The finest bowling attack in the world was put to the sword four times out of five. None of the bowlers of that series (Harmison, Hoggard, Jones, Flintoff and Ashley Giles, the "King of Spain") are in the current test team but nearly all the batsmen are, and it was the batsmen who repeatedly gave England the platform for victory. The only important absence - and we have learnt just how important it is - is that of Tresco. (Well, I mustn't forget Freddie!).

So I continue to maintain that it is the batsmen who are failing us, and failing us disastrously. What is it about the NZ bowling line-up that has put fear into batsmen that, three years ago, were regularly (not always!) making mincemeat of McGrath, Lee, Kasprovicz and Shane Warne, on the same English pitches?

And I continue to believe that, until England almost totally renew the batting resources and probably the captaincy, it will be a long, long time before we again see scenes like those of September 12, 2005.

i love it. first, this "average county side" (as more than one pommie "fan" has labelled them) "escapes with a draw" (???) - Agnew - in the first test, then shows the poms how to play positive cricket (something they know little about) and everyone (over there) is surprised.

maybe if you lot took off your double-rose-tinted specs you'd begin to appreciate that the Kiwis have some talent, and its about time you treated them with respect. then you might have a genuine chance - as NZ now do. go Kiwis!

Oh dear....another one of those days for England where not much went right. However I don't think it need all be doom and gloom. 150 for 4 can quickly turn into something more promising with a bit of application and good fortune. My guess is that England will get somewhere around NZ (just below probably) which will probably have used up time to have ensured this game will be a draw. NZ are not a bad side at all and talk of England being the clear favourites was nonesense anyway if you ask me. They beat us in the first Test over there remember? What I do think is that England miss the Flintoff X factor in terms of bowling option and potency particularly as they have lost pace as a unit. A couple of years ago under Fletcher the big boast of the bowling unit was that three of the England attack could do their stuff at 90 mph!! I know its way too premature really and probably rather irritating for some folks to hear but is anyone else quietly praying that Simon Jones is going to make a miraculous phenomenal first season return to tip top form? He hasn't had a bad couple of first matches!

What is obvious is that the current England attack will not see through the South Africa series. Of the four, only Sidebottom can be reasonably certain of his place to the end of the summer. As in 2004, Jimmy Anderson may well lose out to a rejuvenated Simon Jones and Andrew Flintoff will surely replace Stuart Broad (who will be back touring this winter).

The sadest one is Monty Panesar. Since summer 2006 he has had one good series and that against the hapless West Indians. He seems to have lost some confidence and a willingness to attack for wickets.

Three medium pacers is not an attack that going to bowl out South Africa. In retrospect, Steve Harmison should have played in this game: he might have bowled some 4-balls, but he'd have taken wickets and even as a one-off selection, he should have been there.

dear me what a pessimistic bunch we are. Sure the bowling was poor but we could easily make 400 tomorrow. There are lots of comments about the slow scoring rate, but if the batsmen had played big shots and got out I'm sure the same people would be complaining about that. There is plenty of time left and NZ posted a big score. Let the batsmen play as they wish. I would be happy to place a bet on a small 1st innings lead for England. Keep the faith, it would be boring it it was easy.

You lot need to be a little kinder. England are digging in and scrapping away, and will boundless improve. This constant over-inflation of your abilities is what got you into this mess. I was loving it when everyone was trashing New Zealand before the series, didn't exactly put the pressure on us.

This best in the world lark is a bit of a fantasy. Yes England beat Australia, at the 8th time of asking. I reckon even we could manage that. You get a crack at them every two years, so if you can't beat them sooner or later you really are mugs. To be considered a world power you'd have to reproduce that form for at least a couple of seasons, not royally stuffed 5 nothing.

Don't get me wrong, England have some great players and much more depth than New Zealand, but you're not the Brazil of cricket. Lose a few key players and you can look, um, workmanlike.

In NZ earlier in the year we also batted at around 2.5 runs per over and lost the first test . That run rate was par for the course in the 70's but not in the 2000's.
Even KP seems to have been told to go slow.
How can our batters have become lethargic unless it is down to some silly coaching tactics?
One wonders how much of this negative batting is down to Peter Moores? What did he achieve before succeeding Duncan Fletcher? I don't remember Sussex dominating Domestic Cricket in recent years.
Why was he picked?
How on earth are we going to compete with the Proteas?

Since when did England have a devine right to beat anyone just by turning up? I think its time some England fans accepted that the cricket team is not the all conquering one of 2005. We still have lessons to be learnt, we still need tuning and we need to accept that NZ are better than people seem to be thinking.

I for one am glad this team is not going gung ho and being reckless. Its not always pretty to watch but sometimes, it what it takes

CynicalPom(8):

3:- What an insult for Vaughan to say NZ are 'workman like'
--------------------------------------------------

I wouldn't call that an insult, I'd say it was a pretty accurate description. We(NZ) do what we have to do with what we've got. Usually. There's no fire and brimstone in our team, either batting or bowling, so we just have to focus on being steady and patient and not doing anything rash. I'd say that qualifies as being workmanlike. It's when we do try the fire and brimstone stuff that things tend to go t!ts up.

I don't know what's going on with England. Too much short-pitched stuff, and not much intent in the batting. It's like they'd rather be somewhere else.

Congrats to Taylor, btw. Excellent innings. I was having horror visions after his showing at Lords that he'd returned to the hack and slash style that saw him being dropped the first time, so I'm glad he's pulled his head in a bit. Congrats to Mills, too. Fine knock.

Brainless, poor, inexperienced England bowling - got excited by the pacy, bouncy track and tried to knock NZ teeth out instead of aiming at the top of off stump. Panesar shouldn't have had to do so much bowling in the first innings. NZ were running themselves out luckily for England. Strauss and Vaughan batted sensibly I thought but overall very poor test cricket as usual.

Its worth noting that, good as Monty is, a better spinner in the guise of Saqulain Mushtaq is now England qualified.

Just a quick point. Anderson did take 4 wickets but 3 of those were tail-enders.
His figures would have looked appalling if he hadn`t have mopped up the tail. I can`t see how the selectors can justify picking him time and time again.

Its pretty depressing to see England already playing for the draw - on the second day of the match.

What is worrying about England cricket is the amount of "spin" (political, not Monty-like) that surrounds the whole setup now.

Last summer Vaughan was shown to be a liar - a mistake we might say. But, there seems to be a constant flow of odd reversals-of-truth that emanate from some members of the team and management.

Moores declared during the first Test that Strauss had been in very good form "for quite some time". Err, no, before his 179 in NZ he had done nothing to make us believe his woeful form had changed.

Vaughan told Aggers before this Test that he "always preferred batting at No.3". What? Even Aggers picked him up on that and the reply was "well, I've always said that since I became captain". It's a shame Aggers didn't go back to the tapes as he said he might.

And what's this about keeping the same side for "consistency and to give the guys a chance"? We all know that if Flintoff was even 3/4 fit a member of this team would be ditched whether they were performing consistently, or not.

Then there are Vaughan's comments before this Test that he felt the team were becoming as consistent as that before the last Ashes. Rubbish! Who's he trying to kid?

To top it all is the attempt to blame England's failure to move a game forward on conditions when the real cause is stodgy and unadventurous play.

The truth is England are a not very good side with a few passengers in the team (Vaughan unfortunately being one of them right now - particularly as regards his captaincy). They talk themselves up and twist the truth. But, we can surely all see they are nowhere near the team they were in 2004/5.

In NZ we have the opposite: straightforward, realistic and making the best of what they have.

The most apt indictment of England right now is the fact that England are being outplayed by a team they consider beneath them.

"Then there are Vaughan's comments before this Test that he felt the team were becoming as consistent as that before the last Ashes."

No, actually, I think he's right. Consistently overrated, underachieving and seemingly unable to hold form for three Tests.

And let's not forget Pietersen's outstanding volte face, from:

"I have no intention of playing in the IPL...yet"

to

I want to play IPL, or I won't sign my central contract (paraphrase)

in the space of a few weeks! (or when he found out how much he could earn).

@Shinyallspark: We certainly aren't the team of 05, but it wouldn't hurt if we actually made the effort.

The bowling typically gets an early wicket, couple of cheap ones, then we bowl just waiting for the other side to make a mistake so we can have a go at the tail. And once we DO have a go at the tail we bowl like we're expecting them to just get out. Gah.

The batting is abysmal though. Got to get yourself in, but then you do actually have to try and hit the ball. SportingNonsense is actually being too kind saying we're playing for the draw. To play for the draw implies a sterling effort to save a test match.

We're just playing to pass five days and see what happens at the end.

Cue Vaughan "Well the Upper Volta second XI are a useful outfit and we knew it would be tough. We lost a couple of early wickets and were always on the back foot"...

Meh.

Pleased to see you've left the derogatory comments behind today Aggers, can't say I was impressed with the James Marshall comment. Give the guy a break, three low scores doesn't suddenly mean he's not much of a player.

At any rate, what's with all these comments about NZ being workmanlike? I've never understood them, because with players like Fleming, Astle and Cairns in the past, and Taylor, Oram and McCullum today, how much entertainment do you need? Does over 4 runs an over qualify as something more than workmanlike? And on that note, isn't it time NZ got 4 tests in late summer instead of 3 in spring? It's not as though they're the equivalent of Bangaldesh or Zimbabwe, and have proven themselves England's equal numerous times recently.

Polite Boobie is right. This England set-up like the last, vainly focusses on false positives. It needs more of the Ferguson hairdryer and less Blairite spin. Agnew is correct also and wasn't this a similar attitude to the one throughout the whitewash down-under? Whilst NZ 2nds are probably satisfied with England's light(weight) buffet, the Saffers are now wisely fasting in preparation for their scheduled late-summer blowout. At this rate, more than a few England players are going to see some zeros removed from their potential IPL contracts.

It's worth remembering that England in 2005 weren't actually as good as they thought they were. The won the second test by 2 runs thanks to a doubtful umpiring decision. If that had gone the other way then it could easily have been a 2-0 lead to Australia and who knows what would have happened then. But as usual the press exagerated the series win and England were suddenly the greatest team ever.

England should always get good results at home because of the conditions here but they don't seem to be able to punch their true weight against moderate opponents.

They should make sure they deliver on the pitch where it counts and not keep making boastful comments to the press

Gartsy observes " the media need to have a look at themselves after some of the embarrassingly arrogant and dismissive comments about the NZ side before the tour".
Listening to the commentary on the radio the biggest cheer I have heard today is when Broad scored to avoid the follow on. Well done.
The attitude displayed by the English media toward NZ cricket/ers is nothing new and doesnt bother most NZ cricket supporters, it just makes it all the sweeter when we put up a good show, (as I write this the English innings ends for 202, a first innings deficit of 179).
Lets hope this test isnt decided by the weather.

England have two serious problems.

Firstly the opening pair score too slowly which means that there is no momentum to the innings and the it becomes a slow scoring grind.

Secondly they have too many inexperienced men and too few tough characters for when the chips are down.

It's good to bring in new boys but you need the old heads and tough nuts for when the chips are down. There is no batsmen who we can rely on to stop a collapse

Sorry you poor Kiwis who think us english are downgrading your side...we are actually just reflecting your abject performances for the last few years...I think you need to read what we write...me I think your bowling is barely county standard...with the exception of Vettori, who is good but not that good (his test figures do not actually wow me). No we are just saying how poor this english team actually is when they think themselves good. Todays batting (can we call it that) was dreadful and was not the result of great bowling if you exmaine the poor shot selection and confidence. No where is the stupid squad system more highlighted than in our batting...as a former club player I knew my best form always came from playing competitive cricket as much as poss: these batters hardly ever seem to play nowadays. Worse to gain a place in the elite is almost impossible as judged by the Strauss dropping and then as soon as he gets a few he is back for the next couple of years. No Kiwis you are only the second worse team in the Test arena..we beat you there as the worst and action is needed now. Drop Bell, Collingwood and yes maybe Pieterson now before it is too late. Let these guys fight for their places please!!!! Vaughans place must also be in doubt and he needs to make some runs in his next few knocks also.

This might sound reactionary, but I think Vaughan's useful time as captain might have come to an end. People said the same about Fletcher as coach - shelf life and all that.

I don't think Vaughan is a bad captain (far from it), or has lost his proficiency with the bat, but it is a very fortunate team which can chop, change and still progress over the years under the same captain.

His laid back, no-pressure style was a welcome antidote to Nasser's full-on, high-intensity captaincy, and produced an amazing run of results and performances.

But perhaps it is time for a return to that perform-or-you'll-get-a-kick-up-the-backside ethic.

I think it could work wonders with KP for instance, and maybe Harmy, if he's not already a lost cause.