[Cricket] Cricket- New Zealand v England Test Series- November 27-December 13 2024

[Triggaaar]

I maybe being sarcastic

Oh ok

 

[Triggaaar]

Close

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

Obsessed with the wind is Katey the commentator

 

[Eeyore]

Obsessed with the wind is Katey the commentator

To be fair, Wellington is a VERY windy city.

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

Have I ever mentioned that Shane Bond's my all time favourite bowler?

Only including those I've actually watched "live" in person or on TV. Which is some way from being "all time" but that's neither here nor there.

Anyway, he was great. Everything a fast bowler can and should be.

 

[Triggaaar]

Could we have 1 more wicket please, so I can go to bed happy

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

Nice ball to get rid of Mitchell.

 

[Eeyore]

Gus, don't give back chat to New Zealand batsman. They don't do the sledge thing and it makes us look silly and petulant.

 

[Eeyore]

Blundell is quality when he gets going.

 

[London Irish]

Apologies if this has already been covered but can any cricket buff explain to me how this New Zealand team beat India so convincingly away? Can see their bowling looks decent but their batting so far this series has lacked the doggedness you need for such a statement win over India. Puzzled of Preston Park

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

Apologies if this has already been covered but can any cricket buff explain to me how this New Zealand team beat India so convincingly away? Can see their bowling looks decent but their batting so far this series has lacked the doggedness you need for such a statement win over India. Puzzled of Preston Park

I didn't actually see much (any?) of that India series, but from what I can tell:

NZ's top wicket takers were Ajaz Patel and Mitchell Santner, neither are playing in this series because they don't expect the pitches to have much for the spinners. Santner in particular played one match and took 13 wickets, which is wildly out of kilter with the rest of his career - he went into that match with an average over 42 and 0 five wicket hauls.

Their player of the series and 2nd highest run scorer isn't playing, because he's been dropped for Williamson. There are a few players who've been struggling for form for a while.

It was a low scoring series, which generally acts as a leveller. If you look at the scorecards, there's one match where they bowled India out for 42 on the first morning, one where Santner took 13 wickets and a final match where Ajaz Patel took 11. It's a great performance but it's not a blueprint for success in New Zealand.

This England team are, notwithstanding their struggles in spinning conditions, very good. In particular, Brook currently has more than twice as many runs as the next England player and most of those runs have been scored in the first innings to set the two games up.

 

[Eeyore]

Next Test starts Friday, dear cricket chums. Just after HIGNFY and before a weekend of rugby and football, them lot up the road here on Sunday. It's almost too much.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Have I ever mentioned that Shane Bond's my all time favourite bowler?

Only including those I've actually watched "live" in person or on TV. Which is some way from being "all time" but that's neither here nor there.

Anyway, he was great. Everything a fast bowler can and should be.

I'm not sure who mine is.

Going by your criteria of only those I have watched live, it is one of:

Sir Jimmy, Malcolm Marshall, or Mushy

Extended to those I have only seen on TV, Sir Richard Hadlee enters the conversation.

I've seen Imran, Holding, Ambrose, Garner, Donald, etc live too, but I've always sided with the bowlers who in the absence of really express pace, had to rely more on their skills. Ambrose was utterly fearsome - I watched in awe of how anybody could manufacture any shots to just keep him out, let alone score a few runs. But having a huge natural advantage (height in his case) seems a bit of a cheat in this discussion.

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

I'm not sure who mine is.

Going by your criteria of only those I have watched live, it is one of:

Sir Jimmy, Malcolm Marshall, or Mushy

Extended to those I have only seen on TV, Sir Richard Hadlee enters the conversation.

I've seen Imran, Holding, Ambrose, Garner, Donald, etc live too, but I've always sided with the bowlers who in the absence of really express pace, had to rely more on their skills. Ambrose was utterly fearsome - I watched in awe of how anybody could manufacture any shots to just keep him out, let alone score a few runs. But having a huge natural advantage (height in his case) seems a bit of a cheat in this discussion.

I've a soft spot for the really genuinely fast bowlers who seem to be made of glass.

Bond definitely fit in that category. Mark Wood as well nowadays. I liked Cummins when he took a load of wickets on debut and then immediatly disappeared with back fractures for about 2years, he's ruined it since.

Watching them there's that fantastic sense of something incredibly primal and fearsome and yet incredibly fragile. Also, the genuinely quick bowlers pretty much always seem to be lovely people.

Also (and this is an aside really), it's worth remembering that it's much harder, skill wise, to bowl faster than it is to bowl the same deliveries at a lower speed. Partly because everything's moving faster, but also because the trajectory being flatter means you're literally aiming for a smaller target. There's a bit in that book I can't remember the name of by the England team statisticians where they talk about a difference of a foot (might even be a yard) in length for a fast bowler being equivalent, at the point of release, to the width of the bullseye for a darts player. It's mental.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

I've a soft spot for the really genuinely fast bowlers who seem to be made of glass.

Bond definitely fit in that category. Mark Wood as well nowadays. I liked Cummins when he took a load of wickets on debut and then immediatly disappeared with back fractures for about 2years, he's ruined it since.

Watching them there's that fantastic sense of something incredibly primal and fearsome and yet incredibly fragile. Also, the genuinely quick bowlers pretty much always seem to be lovely people.

Also (and this is an aside really), it's worth remembering that it's much harder, skill wise, to bowl faster than it is to bowl the same deliveries at a lower speed. Partly because everything's moving faster, but also because the trajectory being flatter means you're literally aiming for a smaller target. There's a bit in that book I can't remember the name of by the England team statisticians where they talk about a difference of a foot (might even be a yard) in length for a fast bowler being equivalent, at the point of release, to the width of the bullseye for a darts player. It's mental.

In general though, they simply DON‘T bowl the ‘same deliveries’. They rely on bowling at a pace that gives the batsman that critical fraction less time to react to any movement or irregular bounce they can muster up. For me there’s a lot less skill in that, than someone like Anderson having the ball on a proverbial string - bowling away swingers, inswinging yorkers, and off-breaks, all at a still considerable pace, and all without a perceptible change in action.

 

[Eeyore]

In general though, they simply DON‘T bowl the ‘same deliveries’. They rely on bowling at a pace that gives the batsman that critical fraction less time to react to any movement or irregular bounce they can muster up. For me there’s a lot less skill in that, than someone like Anderson having the ball on a proverbial string - bowling away swingers, inswinging yorkers, and off-breaks, all at a still considerable pace, and all without a perceptible change in action.

Anderson was quite some talent. Especially post 30 years. I agree about some of the quicks.

Often some of the best bowlers have been dull. Mcgrath was an example.

For me, it's about some of the best bowlers that never were. Chris Tremlett was one of the best I have seen. He finally peaked briefly in Australia in THAT series. He had everything, but injuries just kept coming. Shane Warne said he was best fast bowler he had seen.

One of my favourite cricket moments ever

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

In general though, they simply DON‘T bowl the ‘same deliveries’. They rely on bowling at a pace that gives the batsman that critical fraction less time to react to any movement or irregular bounce they can muster up. For me there’s a lot less skill in that, than someone like Anderson having the ball on a proverbial string - bowling away swingers, inswinging yorkers, and off-breaks, all at a still considerable pace, and all without a perceptible change in action.

Most of them don't, at least not most of the time, but that was a more general point about how difficult it is even aside from needing the physical ability to bowl that quick. I don't think either of us are really thinking about your common or garden 90mph bowlers.

Even now Anderson would be one of the quicker bowlers on the county scene if he goes back to play for Lancashire next season. It's ridiculous how good he is/was, aside from the miracle of nature that he can still bowl like that now.

 

[Mackenzie]

I'm not sure who mine is.

Going by your criteria of only those I have watched live, it is one of:

Sir Jimmy, Malcolm Marshall, or Mushy

Extended to those I have only seen on TV, Sir Richard Hadlee enters the conversation.

I've seen Imran, Holding, Ambrose, Garner, Donald, etc live too, but I've always sided with the bowlers who in the absence of really express pace, had to rely more on their skills. Ambrose was utterly fearsome - I watched in awe of how anybody could manufacture any shots to just keep him out, let alone score a few runs. But having a huge natural advantage (height in his case) seems a bit of a cheat in this discussion.

Mine is Allan Donald. His duel with Atherton was the most enthralling passage of cricket I’ve ever witnessed (alongside Abergavenny U15s chasing down 161 in the Gwent 20 over cup final with a 4 off the last ball to win by 1 run).

 

[Eeyore]

I think if I was asked who the best fast bowler I have ever seen it might be Malcolm Marshall. Every batsman was a wicket waiting to happen. The Windies team of that era had just about the best of everything. With only England and Australia, perhaps, challenging them in the wicket keeper department.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Anderson was quite some talent. Especially post 30 years. I agree about some of the quicks.

Often some of the best bowlers have been dull. Mcgrath was an example.

For me, it's about some of the best bowlers that never were. Chris Tremlett was one of the best I have seen. He finally peaked briefly in Australia in THAT series. He had everything, but injuries just kept coming. Shane Warne said he was best fast bowler he had seen.

One of my favourite cricket moments ever

He went to my boys’ secondary school, Tremlett.
(12 years before them)