England's winter of cricket 2024/25

Mousley is really fun to watch. I've no idea if there's longevity in what he's doing. I'm really happy that England are giving it a go though.

Yorkers from seamers have become less regular at the death as the margin for error is so small. It always was a small margin, but, if you hit it, then it couldn't get hit. Shots like the scoop changed that though. There's plenty of batters who can now turn a very good yorker into a boundary behind square on either side. Yorkers are still a weapon, but it's in an arsenal with other options. As opposed to guys like Flintoff who had a brilliant ODI record and rep as a death bowler largely by trying to bowl 5 yorkers an over.

Mousley bowling 75 mph yorkers off 3 paces in the Hundred was both effective and just really intriguing. Logically, 'spinners' are usually more accurate than seamers. The tiny run up that he flies through gives less time for a batter to shift their feet, look to scoop, etc. Plus, if they shape to scoop very early, then Mousley can take all the pace off, bowl a regular off-break and there's suddenly not enough there for the batter to work with. It's really interesting.

Part of me suspects that he might be found out. Trying to bowl yorkers off 3 paces like that, all from the shoulder, he does seem liable to bowl full tosses more often than others. Might batters adjust to the tiny runup and basically play him like a 75mph medium pacer bowling off a regular, longer runup? If Paul Collingwood was doing the same thing at the death off his runup then he'd be hit into space! Mousley really isn't putting much action on the ball either. It does seem to just be rapid arm balls. They've been very effective at times though. He might prove to be a one trick pony that gets worked out.

As said though, I'm just glad they're giving him the chance to find out either way. I really wish they'd done that with Benny Howell when he was at his peak. There was a period when Howell's stats in the middle overs were absurd. He was a similarly odd bowler. His cricinfo page says "right-arm medium". In reality, he was a 'quick spinner'. He had about a dozen slower balls that did different things. Many were genuinely deviating off the pitch too. Batters just couldn't hit him for a long period. He was very tough to get away square due to the pace. He bowled wicket to wicket with smart fields, got a ton of players caught at long-on and long-off with miss hits down the ground from the battery of slower balls. Some would dip. Some would turn. Batters couldn't line him up. England just weren't interested at that point in some weird medium pacer though, sadly. I think that Howell bowling in tandem with Dilly in the middle overs of T20i's could've been a brilliant weapon.

I'm glad they're having a look at something different this time. He shouldn't have played the ODIs but that's the schedule and having a T20 squad for 50 over games, so obviously not Mousley's fault!

king_carlos wrote:  

Part of me suspects that he might be found out. Trying to bowl yorkers off 3 paces like that, all from the shoulder, he does seem liable to bowl full tosses more often than others. Might batters adjust to the tiny runup and basically play him like a 75mph medium pacer bowling off a regular, longer runup?

Mousley will be observed carefully, strategies developed to counter him. However process of evolution is both ways, he should evolve too to bowl classic off spin at normal slow pace, even slower slighted deliveries and use the 75mph+ as a surprise odd delivery once every over or other over.
Hi USP is he can deliver without discernible change to action, maybe develop a seam-up version of the faster one, that will swing in the air.

In general T20 is driving cricket into a zone of innovation that I find exciting.
The reverse, switch hits became a norm, then the Dil-Scoop, ramps were normalized and audacious batters even attempt reverse scoops.
India has given license to openers like Abhishek sharma to play only 10 ball inning.... and go from ball-1 in an attempt to give them 16 runs from 6 ball or 24 off 10.
The era of get-set, see-off, build the inning & accelerate is over....if you delivered 300% in 6 balls or 200% in 10 balls at top, your job is done.

Bowling has had lesser innovations  though likes of Livingstone & Riyan parag are pushing the bar towards offering both off-spin & leg spin in addition to their primary batting skills.  Slow ball bouncers is probably the only innovation that faster men have shown.
FC & List A cricket has had ambidextrous bowlers who are yet to appear on the internal scene.
Mousley is the unique first offering express pace for a spinner.

I am waiting to see a seamer who can bowl spin though Beau Webster for Aus at the fringe of making debut routinely does in FC  and Great Sobers & the freak Syd Barnes did in historical times successfully.
Andrew Symonds & Pink/Purple haired Colin Miller of Aus also practiced both trades less successfully though.

Imagine the flexibility accorded by a bowler who is a 3rd/4th seamer  in the 1st inning who can be competent spinner in 2nd inning when pitch is turning.
Since the evolution of Franchise cricket that has brought money  in last 2 decades cricketing innovation  have evolved more than it did in 2 centuries before that

I'm really not sure about Barnes. Doesn't make sense to me there'd be no similar bowler since. I think he could well have been bowling cutters, which every bowler does now, but if you were one of the first and not even always bowling to professionals, I could see it could create havoc. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if Darren Stevens is a better bowler

Barnes wasn't the only combination bowler in the uncovered pitch era, just the best by a mile. Bob Appleyard also had an astonishing record bowling in a similar fashion. When he was lethal on wet pitches, Jim Laker basically bowled cutters at medium pace too of course. Alan Knott being one of many to observe Laker being a cutter bowler as much as a spinner.

Combination bowlers were relatively common until pitches were covered and seamers needed to get quicker. Where they largely disappeared. I think that points to the real question. Is it possible to consistently put those revs on the ball with a fast bowlers arm speed without injuring yourself? Mustafizur did it briefly and spellbindingly for Bangladesh, then ruined his shoulder. Tymal Mills and Anrich Nortje's back of the hand slower balls are basically googlies with 90+mph arm speed - both have had awful injuries. Pat Brown basically bowls like that with his slower balls - injured a lot. Bumrah more recently has done it whilst staying on the field a bit more. T20 is definitely bringing that skill back a bit. Putting proper revs on the ball as a seamer is a skill you can build a career on in T20 now. Whether it can be done with a modern seamers arm speed without ruining the bowlers body is the question.

Re how Barnes would stack up to modern bowlers. That's always the case. Obviously, if you compare someone without the benefit of a century of progress and development in a sport to someone with that, then they wont seem remarkable.

Frank Tyson was considered the fastest bowler ever in his day. If you watch footage, he runs in almost sideways, looking like he'll fall over, then has the follow through of a spinner. Compared to modern bowlers obviously he wasn't that quick. The important thing is how he stacked up to his peers though. If he was faster than anyone they'd faced, then he was rapid.

Barnes' record is astonishing compared to his peers. There are many pre 1900 bowlers in the best Test averages. Prior to WG Grace, batters played either off the front or back foot though. A hangover from underarm and then round arm bowling. Grace himself famously bowled roundarm rather than fully overarm until the end of his career due to the cross over for players such as him. Batters didn't go forward or back. They did one or the other to everything. Overarm bowling became rampant against that technique and no one was scoring runs. Batters had learnt how to bat against underarm and roundarm, suddenly they weren't facing that. In response to that change, Grace started going forward or back depending on where the ball pitched. Then batters steadily copied suit. There are several English and Aussie seamers in that late 1800's period with astonishing bowling averages as batters tried to adjust. Bowlers were on top for a long time. Then batters adjusted. Along came the likes of Jack Hobbs. Barnes bowled in that slightly later period when the batters he bowled at had learnt to play cricket facing overarm bowling. Within that period his record is anomalous compared to his peers. That's what matters for my money.

Basically all seamers coming through now learn how to bowl the outswinger, inswinger and wobble seam. A few decades ago, Test great seamers could have a chapter written in their autobiography about how learning the inswinger in their twenties changed them as a bowler. In the era when most seamers just bowled outswing, learning the inswinger made you the anomaly. That's how progress happens though. They learned the inswinger, so more of the next generation learn both coming through. Jimmy Anderson masters the wobble seam after watching Mohammad Asif. Now everyone bowls the wobble seam. The same will happen with the next development. Everyone has learned the wobble seam, someone will find the next thing batters haven't dealt with, everyone will copy it. The fact that Jimmy wont learn whatever that next skill is shouldn't diminish his achievements and influence in his time and among his peers. Malcolm Marshall didn't learn the wobble seam, he's still in the discussion for the best seamer ever due to his achievements in comparison to his peers. That's the real thing to look at in these discussions across eras. What was their record and impact like in the period they played.

Yeah, he was clearly the best of the era, but I was more addressing the point about waiting for there to be another fast spinner. My argument being there's probably hundreds of them bowling at the moment, but those skills are now the norm rather than the new type of bowling to adapt to

KC - Did you mean Jim Laker (who I always thought was a fairly conventional spinner) or Underwood? Your reference to Knott suggests the latter.

Also, there were plenty of good judges of players, including Benaud, who reckoned Tyson was proper fast, at least for a short period in the mid 50s before his body broke down. Plus was bowling to the back foot no ball rule and could slide a yard through the crease. I think it's safe to say that he topped 90 mph at least, which would still be my benchmark for true fast.

Agree though with most of the rest of your comments - A Sid Barnes born now wouldn't have success in first class and Test cricket as a bowler of medium paced cutters (although it might be interesting in T20 and T50 games, especially on wickets that offer a bit of grip - look how many wrist spinners / mystery spinners there are now in the game compared with the pre-Warne days), but then he'd have 150 years of advancement in bowling techniques to learn from , and be brought up on variously covered wickets and astro (at club junior levels) rather than on uncovered wickets.

https://youtu.be/1NJGLkiioiQ?si=K5IpuRYXbkwkluD_

Boycott on Syd Barnes for those interested in this mysterious character..
To be clear on difference between a bowler bowling seam and spin like.sobers or Symonds is one thing.....
Barnes could swing and cut the same delivery in two different direction ...like the few Wow magical deliveries seen from Akram.
Stats of Barnes
Test cricket avg 16 and 7 wkst/ test
All.FC and 2nd.class and test included avg 6
Last 120 test wickets at 12

No comments on England's era defining series win. Overton even had a bowl, and took a few wickets!

Would have commented, but I was obviously out of it after celebrating like Freddie in 2005 after this unbelievable, historic win.

The number eight bowling. Will it catch on?

It felt a bit like they're looking at Overton as a middle overs type bowler. Another potential Plunkett replacement. Quicker. Tall. Can potentially bowl back of a length and try to get wickets with inconsistent up and down bounce that hitting pitches hard sometimes extracts. He'll need to be more accurate. Plunkett developed that later as well though.

I rate Carse higher for that role. His start in Pakistan will hopefully lead to more time in the Test side though. Overton is a reasonable player to look at in that specific role I think. Plus, he can hit a long ball of course. They need more depth again.

I think it's good that they seem to be looking at that sort of clear role distinction again at least. It's something that Bayliss and Morgan were excellent at doing during that sides peak.

NZ have named their test squad for the series starting in just under two weeks:

Tom Latham (capt), Tom Blundell, Devon Conway, Jacob Duffy, Matt Henry, Daryl Mitchell, Will O'Rourke, Glenn Phillips, Rachin Ravindra, Mitchell Santner (Tests 2 and 3), Nathan Smith, Tim Southee, Kane Williamson, Will Young.

It's a small squad, so I imagine alterations will be made if necesssary.

Big news is Southee announcing his retirement and this will be his last series. It's obviously been on the cards, with a noticeable dip in his performance levels recently. He made his debut in a NZ home series v England in 2008, taking 5/55 in his first innings (Vaughan, Strauss and Pietersen included!), so things have come full circle. That was also the last test series England won in NZ. Southee has 385 wickets, so 400 wickets will likely elude him. His average is 29.88, he'll love to keep that below 30! I think Southee is also the last test player remaining who made his test debut in a pre-DRS era, with Anderson, Broad and Shakib all recently retiring.

As for the rest of the squad, Williamson has returned from a troubling injury which kept him out v India. Jamieson still injured, alas. No Patel and no Santner until test two. Smith is a potential debutant - he has 144 FC wickets @ 25.85 with some right arm medium fast stuff, and a FC batting average of 27.

Looks a fairly solid NZ team overall. A lot will depend on O'Rourke, who can be devastating and can be woeful, and Henry with the ball, as the other options don't look incredible (unless Smith turns out to be a find). NZ's batting looks strong with the return of Williamson. Conway and Mitchell also very good, Blundell likes batting v England also, and Latham's a 40+avg player at home.

Williamson played his first cricket since September, top scoring with 60 for Northern Districts in their score of 268 in a four day game. Good little tune up for Williamson ahead of the test series, which starts in eight days time.

Such a shame for Cox, gonna miss the series with a fairly freak injury. Young Bethells fast tracking is complete

Might be for the best to be honest, hasn't looked ready for international cricket in the limited overs matches. Bethell however seems to have the self belief and talent to succeed

England's idiocy and arrogance exposed once again.

No proper reserve bat or keeper picked, so looks like Bethell has to come in for the first test at least. FC batting average of 25, no FC centuries. And Pope will have to take the gloves, so can't focus 100% on his batting. Great job.

Really tough for Cox who may not get another chance to press his claims in the near future.

England's two day warm up game v a PM's XI was wild. England were set 201 to win in 22 overs and ended up 196/9! Close to both victory and defeat. Root led the chase with 82* and Stokes supported with 59. Crawley had hit 94 in the first innings.

Woakes, Atkinson, Carse and Stone all picked up a few wickets, but Potts went 0/35 in seven overs which might count him out of inclusion for the first test. Bashir hardly set the world alight with 2/142 in 30 overs, but Leach didn't press a claim with 0/66 in 19 overs.

Going to be an interesting series. Really glad it's three tests because I feel it could be 2-1 either way! It's going to be a big test for England's bats, who have only reached 300 once in the last six test innings, and have been bowled out inside 40 overs in three of those last six. A terrible record.

If England's batting carries on the same way, the series is only going NZ's way. They should find some friendlier batting pitches in NZ compared to the last two tests in Pakistan. Big series for Crawley and Pope and Stokes. If they falter again, questions have to be asked about their place for the India series. Would be nice to see something from Brook also. The batting has of course been weakened already by losing Smith, and now Cox, so the prospect of Bethell filling in for the first test has come into view.

I'm confident the quick bowlers will do well, though it's a good test for them against a solid NZ batting line up. There's a healthy competition for places for England's seamers, which is good. I'm hoping Woakes gets a proper run to evaluate his overseas credentials, again, ahead of a possible place for him in Australia. Bashir's got a lot to prove as well. Backed as England's number one, but soundly outbowled by Leach in Pakistan, and with a bowling average near 40 after 12 tests.

Not having a proper backup keeper was always a dumb selection - especially when you're taking three spinners. A shame for Cox personally to be denied his spot, but England really should have had Ollie Robinson out here in case of such a thing happening. Sounds like he will be here for the 2nd and 3rd tests, but not ideal for him and definitely not ideal for Pope who could use just focusing on batting!

I actually rate Pope as a gloveman. I think he's been good there for England when standing in. He looks a natural keeper to me. His short leg work shows how good his reflexes and hands are. His footwork has been good when I've seen him keep too. That's often the massive thing that lets part time keepers down.

I've suggested it before, albeit slightly tongue in cheek, but, I think Pope keeping and batting lower down the order does make some sense. He seems better suited to batting in the lower middle order to me. All flawed players do though admittedly. It's just easier to bat lower down. As a counter punching batter when the ball softens, he could be really dangerous though.

This could have been a great chance to then try Bohannon at 3 though if Pope is your reserve keeper.

If Bethell does play, then I hope the chance is at least taken for Stokes to bat at 3 again. His technique against pace is generally good and he likes the ball coming onto him. It seems a better spot for the sporadically bowling Stokes than 6. Especially given his playing of spin looks to have significantly decreased since the knee injury.

Lehmann was speaking after Australia were thrashed by 295 runs in the opening Test against India, with Kohli scoring his 30th Test ton overall and seventh in Australia.

"Nope, he [Root] is a rung below for that reason," said Lehmann on ABC Sport, when asked if Root was in the same category.

"They’ve made runs all over the world in difficult conditions against different oppositions, and that's the only thing stopping Joe Root. I think he's a great player, but is he an all-time great?

“I don't have him in that realm. I think you've got to make hundreds all around the world. Smith does, Williamson has, Kohli has, [Rohit] Sharma has - I mean they're world-class players.”

Utter nonsense here from Lehmann, which is bloody typical, questioning Root's all time great status.

To even compare the great Joe Root to a hometown bully like Rohit Sharma is laughable. Rohit's only hit two test centuries outside India!

In the fab four order overall across their careers, it's Smith, Root, Kohli and then Williamson.

But in the 2020s, Root is currently the best of the four, with Williamson behind, then Smith and Kohli bringing up the rear.

All four are in their thirties now. Root the youngest and still going strong. Williamson also powering on. Kohli is near the exit door and the first whispers of Smith's retirement are starting to be heard.

I wonder who the new fab four will be in five years time? Jaiswal, Brook and Pant perhaps looking the most exciting at the moment.

Never mind five years though, I'd like to see Root have a Vaughan-esque series in Australia next year and shut Lehmann up.

England team named. Bethell at 3. Pope at 6. Stokes at 7. Not quite Carlos’ wish!

Woakes, Carse, Atkinson and Bashir form the attack.

Hilarious, rank amateur selection policy.

Can't say I am thrilled at the nomination of Bethell as the new number three - though I guess it was almost inevitable given there was no other reserve batsman in the squad (which I thought at the time was a mistake). His FC record doesn't inspire great confidence for his prospects of succeeding in this tricky position ; but maybe this will prove the "wild card" selection that works. Maybe.

Not so bothered about Pope keeping. He has done it before , 3 times now ; and he has one century and two other fifties from those matches : while England won two of them and drew the other. So not really a concern from that angle - and it may even suit him to bat down the order for a change and help him recover a bit of form with the bat.

Bashir still the anointed spinner ? Can't see him having much impact in NZ : but we might get an idea as to whether he has any future outside Asia from how he manages to perform in this series.

And yes , KC and others would doubtless have preferred Stokes at three but I can't say I was expecting to see that. And Duty obviously isn't happy with this line-up ; so perhaps we should start a petition to call Moeen back to bat at three

They really are backing Bashir and that high release point/decent clip on YouTube. In NZ I'd rather deploy a spinner who can at least hold a bat, as the home side are likely to do. The batting order does seem a mess!

I've backed plenty of Bazball decisions but the selection for this tour has been muddled at best, unhinged hubris at worst, right from the initial decision to take three spinners (???), no reserve WK (would they do this for the Ashes next winter? No. Why is it happening now then) and a punt as reserve bat.

Yes it is unfortunate that Cox got hurt, but that initial selection left them open to this muddled scenario.

I like what I've seen from Bethell, but you're now throwing in a kid who has never scored a hundred at any level of professional first team cricket, into his test debut (!) against a very strong NZ side, and you're making him do it at 3? Nonsense.
At very very worst, Stokes should be stepping up to the mantle and batting 3, if Pope isn't going to bat there cos he's keeping.

Oh and it's also being reported Ollie Robinson (wk) is going to be delayed getting out to NZ because he needs his passport renewed...

Are all Ollie Robinson's just idiots?

So, to sum up:

- Crawley still being given a spot in the XI, despite averaging 32 after 50 tests, with a terrible number of centuries to innings ratio.
- Bethell, FC average of 25, forced up to 3, where he’s never batted before. A true hospital pass. Stuff like this can really harm his development…remember Bracey?! And all because England couldn’t be bothered to pick a reserve bat or two. Pretty sure Bethell was never intended to play a test on this tour, he was just taken along for the experience. Bethell will likely be dropped after test one, as England scramble to get a replacement.
- Pope shoved down to 6 and given the gloves. Out of his usual spot and will have to focus on both keeping and batting, because of the aforementioned lack of replacement.
- Stokes, disgracefully, hiding away at 7. No reason why he shouldn’t be at 3. But he’s hiding away, more and more like a specialist captain these days, without much captaincy ability, and letting a rookie take the hit of the new ball. Pathetic.
- Anderson forced into premature retirement, so that England can pick Woakes overseas. Woakes averages nearly 53 overseas.
- Bashir retains his spot, despite being the third best of England’s spinners in Pakistan, and also offering nothing with the bat. Might also go back to the weirdness of England taking three spinners on a NZ tour!

Duty281 wrote:Lehmann was speaking after Australia were thrashed by 295 runs in the opening Test against India, with Kohli scoring his 30th Test ton overall and seventh in Australia.

"Nope, he [Root] is a rung below for that reason," said Lehmann on ABC Sport, when asked if Root was in the same category.

"They’ve made runs all over the world in difficult conditions against different oppositions, and that's the only thing stopping Joe Root. I think he's a great player, but is he an all-time great?

“I don't have him in that realm. I think you've got to make hundreds all around the world. Smith does, Williamson has, Kohli has, [Rohit] Sharma has - I mean they're world-class players.”

Utter nonsense here from Lehmann, which is bloody typical, questioning Root's all time great status.

To even compare the great Joe Root to a hometown bully like Rohit Sharma is laughable. Rohit's only hit two test centuries outside India!

In the fab four order overall across their careers, it's Smith, Root, Kohli and then Williamson.

But in the 2020s, Root is currently the best of the four, with Williamson behind, then Smith and Kohli bringing up the rear.

All four are in their thirties now. Root the youngest and still going strong. Williamson also powering on. Kohli is near the exit door and the first whispers of Smith's retirement are starting to be heard.

I wonder who the new fab four will be in five years time? Jaiswal, Brook and Pant perhaps looking the most exciting at the moment.

Never mind five years though, I'd like to see Root have a Vaughan-esque series in Australia next year and shut Lehmann up.

Root to me is by the far best batsman in the world in last 4 years....he still continues at his peak while all the fab3 or fab 4 or fab-5 have fallen to varying degree of lesser levels.
So why is Lehmann saying this?
Its used to be called pricking a raw nerve to poke fun at opponents.....now in SM times it's called trolling
Roots Century in Aus and Anderson's bowling average there are used to troll poms.

Talking of Trolls Michael Vaughan, a good commentator on the Fox team for these tests is in general a high level Troll...doesn't Troll Aussies but rather his home team / players mostly and also gets after Indians on twitter sometimes

I get the feeling no one is happy with the England team selection

Can't say I am either but will be interested to see what they actually manage to do on the field against a NZ side on a bit of a high after their unexpected triumph in NZ . Like mote Test series these days I reckon it could easily go either way as I do not believe there is any great gulf between any of the serious Test teams at present.

This is an important series for England as they are in some danger of slipping away after the initial (and fairly significant) advances they made after the advent of Stokes and McCullum . Granted their recent defeats owe much to their inability to compete on seriously spin friendly pitches (something still needing to be addressed but somewhat on the back burner for now , given the future touring calendar) ; but the "careless" loss to Sri Lanka points to a tendency to lose focus once a series is decided - a bad habit to develop. And one that also contributed to having to settle for a drawn series in NZ last time around. For all the grumbling their record outside of India/Pakistan (spinny version) remains rather good ; but they need to get back to regular winning ways ahead of a couple of tough series at home to India and in Australia or all the early success may end up going down in history as "new manager bounce". Which would be a pity ; as they really did bring both a refreshing attitude and some excellent cricket , to rekindle a lot of interest among many people who had become somewhat disillusioned with the state of the game in England .

Can they succeed where the last few touring sides have not in winning on NZ soil ? Certainly won't be easy : Kiwis are flying (Williamson back to add to the batting) ; and there are obvious question marks on the England batting and spin bowling (oddly the fast bowling seems to be handling the moving on from Broad and Anderson quite well !). Think a lot depends as ever on Root who remains the heart of the batting line-up ; but also on Stokes . Never mind his less than spectacular overall figures , he is a man who turns matches on their heads ; and what we have seen from him recently - due to injury and personal issues - is a shadow of what he is capable. If he can get back to his inspirational best I think he can lead them to a win as there is enough talent around , even in the unfortunate absence of Smith who has shown so much promise in his brief career so far. But if Ben is struggling I am not sure the rest will be able to do the job - unless Bethell turns out to be the New Superstar

Hoping for some good cricket and pitches not too flat.

alfie wrote:This is an important series for England as they are in some danger of slipping away after the initial (and fairly significant) advances they made after the advent of Stokes and McCullum .

That ship sailed a *long* time ago. 2022 induced hysteria in many, but 2023 onwards has seen the crash back to earth. Hammered in India, beaten in Pakistan, losing to NZ after enforcing the follow-on, and failed to beat Australia at home. Only fairly basic home series wins over SL and WI to cling onto in the last two years. This series is must win.

alfie wrote: For all the grumbling their record outside of India/Pakistan (spinny version) remains rather good ;

I mean, England under this regime have only played in four different countries, and only have a positive series record in England, a place where England are usually strong anyway.

alfie wrote:Hoping for some good cricket and pitches not too flat.

Will be interesting to see what the pitches are. Bit of a double edged sword for NZ. They usually prepare flat wickets, and their batsmen love it, especially Williamson who has managed 11 test tons in his last 27 home innings! But that also brings England into the game. On challenging pitches, England usually struggle, but this of course carries the risk of bringing England's heralded quick bowlers into it more.

If I were NZ, I'd probably take the risk of a flat deck for test one, but if they go 0-1, as Pakistan did, they should shake it up and prepare a low-scorer for tests two onwards.

Out of interest, what's your prediction for this series?

New Zealand: (possible) 1 Tom Latham (capt), 2 Devon Conway, 3 Kane Williamson, 4 Rachin Ravindra, 5 Daryl Mitchell, 6 Tom Blundell (wk), 7 Glenn Phillips, 8 Nathan Smith, 9 Tim Southee, 10 Matt Henry, 11 William O'Rourke.

That's the predicted NZ team from Cricinfo. Santner's unavailable for the first test, so it's an all pace frontline attack, with maybe Ravindra and Phillips putting up some part time spin.

O'Rourke's made a strong start to his test career so far - 26 wickets @ 19.42 - and he'll joined by the soon to depart Southee and Henry. Smith is in line to make a debut at 8. He's an all rounder, averages just under 26 with the ball, and 27 with the bat, in FC cricket.

The batting we're also all familiar with. Latham and Conway's overall numbers perhaps not the strongest, but they're 40 avg players at home. Williamson posts insane numbers at home, his overall home average is 67, and he's managed 11 test tons in his last 27 home innings, but he only averages 37 overall when playing the big three test nations, compared to a 68avg v the rest of the test world. I'd call him a stat padder, but he'd probably respond by belting a double ton.

Mitchell and Blundell once batted for an entire summer v England. Mitchell's very strong overall. Perhaps the biggest question mark in the order hangs over the relatively inexperienced Ravindra. Phillips can be a bloody nuisance at 7 with licence to whack a few.

Overall, I think it's a very nice team, and they're on a high of beating India in India, which was jawdropping. But, it must be remembered, before that they were on a four test losing streak, with their batting really struggling v Australia and Sri Lanka. Their bowling might also be a concern, with no frontline spinner, Smith is a newbie, and Southee's levels have recently dropped off. Henry and O'Rourke can be destructive, but the latter is still quite raw.

The pitch is apparently quite green at the moment, with some rain around. Teams often get deceived by the green on NZ wickets, opting to bowl first, only to discover it's actually a belter of a batting wicket! It's usually a spinners' graveyard, so not sure of the worth of picking Bashir.

NZ haven't lost a home series to non-Australian opposition since early 2012, but it's very rare they play a three test series, so three of the last five series fitting that criteria have been draws, which includes England's last visit here.

I think England can damage New Zealand with ball in hand, although Woakes' inclusion is a question mark, but the bats are going to have show a hell of a lot more form. This bowling line up that NZ have will be the toughest test England have faced since India, and it looks to be a stronger bowling unit than NZ had for the last time England toured in early 2023, when the likes of Tickner and Kuggsomething and Bracewell were sending down a lot of overs. Can't afford the likes of Crawley, Pope and Stokes to be passengers. And need Brook to stand up in testing conditions.

My tentative prediction is for 0-0, just like in 2013, NZ to edge the series 2-1, as their batting looks a little stronger. But England definitely have the weapons to win this series. And they must win it. Must.

Duty281 wrote:

alfie wrote:This is an important series for England as they are in some danger of slipping away after the initial (and fairly significant) advances they made after the advent of Stokes and McCullum .

That ship sailed a *long* time ago. 2022 induced hysteria in many, but 2023 onwards has seen the crash back to earth. Hammered in India, beaten in Pakistan, losing to NZ after enforcing the follow-on, and failed to beat Australia at home. Only fairly basic home series wins over SL and WI to cling onto in the last two years. This series is must win.

alfie wrote: For all the grumbling their record outside of India/Pakistan (spinny version) remains rather good ;

I mean, England under this regime have only played in four different countries, and only have a positive series record in England, a place where England are usually strong anyway.

alfie wrote:Hoping for some good cricket and pitches not too flat.

Will be interesting to see what the pitches are. Bit of a double edged sword for NZ. They usually prepare flat wickets, and their batsmen love it, especially Williamson who has managed 11 test tons in his last 27 home innings! But that also brings England into the game. On challenging pitches, England usually struggle, but this of course carries the risk of bringing England's heralded quick bowlers into it more.

If I were NZ, I'd probably take the risk of a flat deck for test one, but if they go 0-1, as Pakistan did, they should shake it up and prepare a low-scorer for tests two onwards.

Out of interest, what's your prediction for this series?

Wouldn't have expected you to back down from your set position that Stokes/McCullum have basically brought nothing good to England (though I note that you confidently predicted they'd win 3-0 again in Pakistan a short while ago ) As I said myself , I reckon progress seems to have stalled for the moment but I am both (a) prepared to give them time to get things back on track - hopefully starting here ; and (b) still grateful for what I consider to have been a lot of mostly exciting and positive cricket over the last two or three years . Apart from that disappointing tour of India ( which did by the way include a rather spectacular come from behind win and a couple of other highly competitive matches before the wheels came off completely ) they have played 27 for 19 wins to 7 losses...not too bad , I'd suggest ; though I don't think anyone claimed this made them World Champions...more work in progress.

You are of course entitled to feel dissatisfied with less than perfection . But it seems to me that you are so determined to disparage whatever they achieve that any loss has been treated as clear evidence that they are a mediocre outfit at best ; while any victories can be dismissed as virtually meaningless because the opposition were themselves useless/injury affected/unsuited by the conditions...so that even an historical 3-0 win in Pakistan hardly registers as an achievement. We won't ever see eye to eye on this so will leave it there.

I don't make predictions in advance of a series - well not McGrath type 5-0 stuff anyway : such statements , which are essentially guesses anyway unless there is a real chasm between the two teams , tend to just make you look silly when they go awry (lot of people probably regretted sweeping comments before the recent India/NZ series ) . I think we are likely to see a fairly tightly contested series , 2-1 either way , perhaps ? Or maybe 1-1 and a draw? But could be completely wrong and one side will prove far stronger. That is the beauty of sport - or should be ; no one really knows what is going to happen until it does...I for one get a bit bored with too much domination by any team , even the ones I support. But I honestly haven't a clue how this one will go.

As you say , the pitches will probably be fairly flat - but rain can make a difference especially early in a match. The way England play draws are rather rare unless a lot of time is lost to the weather. One interesting point from team selections is that NZ seem happy to rely on part time spin while England are sticking with Bashir. Home teams usually have a better idea of how the pitches will play - we will see. Certainly the pace bowling of both sides looks adequate , and there is a fair degree of batting depth. A lot may come down to who holds their catches ?

A historical 3-0 win in Pakistan hardly registers as an achievement because Pakistan are utterly dreadful. If England had been the only team to nil them in Pakistan, it would be great. But Australia, NZ and Bangladesh have all done likewise. And that’s Bangladesh that have lost eight tests in a row outside of that Pakistan series.

I’ve never claimed England are mediocre. They’re the 3rd/4th best team in test cricket, which is exactly where they’ve been for the last decade, although losing three of the last four tests is putting that under strain.

I was curious to hear your prediction because I thought someone who believed that England had made progress under the current regime would be confident of an England series win. But seems you think it’ll be the usual tight affair between these teams in NZ.

Duty281 wrote:A historical 3-0 win in Pakistan hardly registers as an achievement because Pakistan are utterly dreadful. If England had been the only team to nil them in Pakistan, it would be great. But Australia, NZ and Bangladesh have all done likewise. And that’s Bangladesh that have lost eight tests in a row outside of that Pakistan series.

I’ve never claimed England are mediocre. They’re the 3rd/4th best team in test cricket, which is exactly where they’ve been for the last decade, although losing three of the last four tests is putting that under strain.

I was curious to hear your prediction because I thought someone who believed that England had made progress under the current regime would be confident of an England series win. But seems you think it’ll be the usual tight affair between these teams in NZ.

I think I made a not-emotionally-connected observers note on Eng in tests at the end of Pak series & I summarize again
Stokes / McCullum started with a bang, then flattened and by the end of Pak series they had regressed.
Regression started towards the end of Indian tour.....capped by losing a test to Lanka , after being stretched in first test and abject loss in Pak. These are not freak defeats, but there are flaws in method & mentality & worryingly they are hoping to get out of it thru grand talks in media.
Comparison is with Root's era.

Stokes, Baz & his side created a perception & constantly, deliberately feed that perception with "wordsmithed" talks & left field selections

I don't see Eng winning in NZ......a drawn series is the best bet I would make a bet on & defeat won't be surprising. The perception-bubble would have outlived it's life if they lose Ashes easily. That's the limit of time stokes & Baz have I think.

KP_fan wrote:

Duty281 wrote:A historical 3-0 win in Pakistan hardly registers as an achievement because Pakistan are utterly dreadful. If England had been the only team to nil them in Pakistan, it would be great. But Australia, NZ and Bangladesh have all done likewise. And that’s Bangladesh that have lost eight tests in a row outside of that Pakistan series.

I’ve never claimed England are mediocre. They’re the 3rd/4th best team in test cricket, which is exactly where they’ve been for the last decade, although losing three of the last four tests is putting that under strain.

I was curious to hear your prediction because I thought someone who believed that England had made progress under the current regime would be confident of an England series win. But seems you think it’ll be the usual tight affair between these teams in NZ.

I think I made a not-emotionally-connected observers note on Eng in tests at the end of Pak series & I summarize again
Stokes / McCullum started with a bang, then flattened and by the end of Pak series they had regressed.
Regression started towards the end of Indian tour.....capped by losing  a test to Lanka , after being stretched in first test and abject loss in Pak. These are not freak defeats, but there are flaws in method & mentality & worryingly they are hoping to get out of it thru grand talks in media.
Comparison is with Root's era.

Stokes, Baz & his side created a perception & constantly, deliberately  feed that perception with "wordsmithed" talks & left field selections

I don't see Eng winning in NZ......a drawn series is the best bet I would make a bet on & defeat won't be surprising. The perception-bubble would have outlived it's life if they lose Ashes easily. That's the limit of time stokes & Baz have I think.

Definitely flaws in mentality. I think England at their best can win this series, but they've looked off that in recent times, and team/squad selection is unnecessarily handicapping themselves. Confidence may also be an issue.

I think Stokes will only last until the end of the next Ashes at best, as both player and captain. McCullum is a little more complicated as he has a contract until the end of 2027, so would be a hefty pay off if the ECB wanted to dispense with his services in January 2026. Plus, McCullum is also in charge of the white ball teams, which I think was a poor move because of workload, so there would be other complications.

Anyway, things must be rocky, because Shemilt's latest article for the BBC refers to this series being 'judgement day' for Bazball. When one of the true believers is talking in those terms, you know it's concerning times. Plus, I don't think Shemilt squeezed in a single pop culture reference in his article, which is a sign of how seriously everything is being taken!

I think how Bazball will be remembered will be decided by these next three series. Three tests away to NZ. Five tests at home to India in 2025. Then the Ashes. Three series over the next 14 months.

I think a 'par result' would involve a narrow defeat to NZ, a home series win over India, and the customary toweling in Australia where, like the visit to India earlier in the year, even getting one test win should be seen as a bonus. This would pretty much be the same trajectory as England have been on for the last decade and I think would be fairly underwhelming.

The disaster scenario would involve getting beaten by NZ, losing the home series to India (which hasn't happened since 2007) and getting annihilated in Australia. Bazball will not be remembered fondly.

A good outcome would be beating NZ and India, maybe putting India away with a few wins, then coming up with one test win in Australia and maybe running them close in another test. This is what England should be aiming for, and would give them good scope to push for a WTC final in 2027.  

And there's obviously the dream, where England sweep all three series. A feat of unbelievable sporting excellence and should see McCullum get a lifetime contract and he can write whatever numbers he likes.

Maybe not judgement day. But the start of 13 judgement tests.

I think part of the issue Stokes and McCullum have now is results kinda preceded process. A team that needed revitalisation to become world class again was producing thrilling victories and an impression that methodology alone could trump talent. Whereas Stokes and McCullum were taking some longer term bets on players.

Jury's kinda out on whether that's paid full dividends. Duckett an undoubted success, Crawley divides opinion. Picking Smith to keep even though he doesn't for his county looks astute compared to what Foakes was giving them as a conventional pick. Pope hasn't justified the faith in him and Bashir probably needs to take the leap sooner than later at this point.

But then as others I think have pointed out in the past, the conventional picks have also had a go at various points. You drop Crawley and bring in Lees? 31 years old, played 10 tests a couple of years ago, averaged 23 and made 2 50s. In the nicest sense, England are not exactly leaving Cook and Strauss at home to pick Crawley. Pope isn't keeping Jonathan Trott out of the side.

Which kinda got me thinking. Since England won down under in 2011, who are the best players to join the test side since. 1/2 are obviously Root and Stokes but after that? Harry Brook maybe? Woakes when he plays at home? Bazball sucks up so much oxygen whenever England win or lose but there's probably a fair simpler truth that the team just isn't that talented. Which is probably the cause for adopting an unconventional strategy to building the team.

Not sure it's uniquely an England problem either in a white ball dominated sport. Australia lined up this week with one player under the age of 30. Granted Green is injured but Smith was opening when he played! And that's two teams that actually have the funding to play test cricket seriously

So I get the judgement stuff in terms of the long term strategy they should really be judged against needs to start bearing fruit. But we may be marking against a success that isn't really attainable unless a new golden generation emerges.

Just my two cents.

As for the squad selection, I guess they'd argue Cox was the reserve keeper and Pope was the reserve reserve keeper already. So bringing Robinson would've been picking a third keeper if he wasn't going to be picked before Pope.

Stokes should probably go up to 3 but I'd probably view it as faith in Bethell over Stokes ducking it after what he's gone through to make it back into the team as a bowling option at all. Probably be better served if he'd been talked out of some ideas like unretiring from white ball stuff to go to the world cup. Big ask for the youngster but is someone England have clearly made a priority to fast track for the white ball teams

GSC wrote:But then as others I think have pointed out in the past, the conventional picks have also had a go at various points. You drop Crawley and bring in Lees? 31 years old, played 10 tests a couple of years ago, averaged 23 and made 2 50s. In the nicest sense, England are not exactly leaving Cook and Strauss at home to pick Crawley. Pope isn't keeping Jonathan Trott out of the side.

This is very important when discussing Crawley or the openers. The other options scoring runs in the CC have all been tried, had even worse averages, without the upside of Crawley's odd incredible innings and ability to put pressure back on. Duty always calls for Crawley to be dropped but rarely says who the better option is...?

The middle order is a tiny bit different as there is Bohannon. He has a good F-C record. The guy he'd replace is Pope though. Who unavoidably has a significantly better F-C record that Bohannon. I'm not the biggest Pope fan, but, is there a danger of what repeatedly happened with a younger Bairstow there? YJB would get dropped as he was a flawed Test player. He'd get replaced by someone in the CC with a worse F-C record. They'd be much worse than the flawed Bairstow. Jonny would score 3 tons in about 5 CC knocks. Jonny comes back.

There isn't much batting talent about.

Not sure it's uniquely an England problem either in a white ball dominated sport. Australia lined up this week with one player under the age of 30. Granted Green is injured but Smith was opening when he played! And that's two teams that actually have the funding to play test cricket seriously

With the white ball dominated thing, I think it's important to note it was common for teams to have periods of poor Test sides and low talent when red ball dominated too. There's plenty of England and Australia batters in the late 70s and 80s who got plenty of Tests with average records as there just weren't the alternatives.

It's one of the deceptive things when you look back, that we tend to remember the good players and even then, remember them at their peak. If you look at a scorecard with great names, you presume it was a great Test. Whereas, when Stokes is one scorecard, you might have Stokes from 2019 or one legged Stokes playing spin like his eyes are painted on. Over time, you forget the mediocre and remember the great. Which means that previous generations get looked back on with rose tinted glasses.

I think a few Ashes series in the 80s are like that. There are great players in both XIs. But many weren't at their best at times in the 80s. Beefy's career famously fell off a cliff after he got lazy. Thommo destroyed his shoulder and wasn't the same after. Gooch went on the apartheid tour and took a while to rebound. Steve Waugh debuted in '85 but his batting took a long time to come good, he stayed in the side by bowling angry medium pace. There were players who were previously great at their best or would get great, but several weren't so hot later in the 80s. Whilst there are plenty of guys with really average or outright bad records getting caps. There's some very average cricket through that decade.

Some of England's selections have been sensible. You look at the likes of Atkinson, Brook and Smith, and those are sensible choices with strong FC records. Although I wouldn't say Smith has justified his place as a keeper yet, he was poor in Pakistan with the gloves, but certainly a strong batting option.

But it seems Key and co want to be seen as being cleverer than anyone else. So they entered some madhouse picks. Bashir, Hartley, Hull and Bethell. Getting gradually stranger and stranger. And they have strong loyalty to some players.

As for replacing Crawley or Pope, well throw a dart at some county bats and you'll likely end up with someone who does no worse. Plenty of options out there to replace two players who average below 34. Pope, for all his county brilliance, is someone who has never taken well to the test arena. He's a modern day, slightly better in test numbers, version of Hick or Ramprakash. Crawley just isn't it and has never been it.

And it's not as if they haven't been given time. Both have played fifty tests! And after all that Crawley's average is in a tight tussle with Buttler and Flintoff, while Pope is doing a valiant battle with Botham and trying to catch up to Butcher.

If Pope gets dropped and goes back to county cricket, a further suggestion would be to ignore his future county numbers. He's proved he won't be a top quality test player, so don't go rushing back like a jilted lover when he scores 150 v Lancashire.

I think we've spoken before about the lack of quality coming through. For a while, Root was the last top quality specialist bat who had come through the ranks. But I think things are different now with Brook, who definitely has the talent, and quite possibly Smith. I don't think England have had a shortage of good quality pace bowlers coming through. The main frustration there has been injury. Spinners there has been a lack of quality, but that's expected.

I do think England are a talented team. They're not at the level of the 2009-2011 vintage, but they've got numerous quality players, though the recent losses of Broad and Anderson have obviously been impactful.

England win the toss and will bowl first. Looks green, but these NZ pitches can be deceptive.

Going to need to make the first hour count.

Interesting sub plot which has gone slightly under the radar is how Brydon Carse goes in more traditionally bowler friendly conditions. He went far better than expected in Pakistan, but his FC numbers remain bang average.

His career economy of 3.86 is my major concern - he was difficult to play and worried Test players in Pakistan, which was a major tick but England have chosen to bowl first on the proviso this is going to be a bowler friendly pitch* on Day 1. When it is a bowler friendly pitch and runs should be at premium, you can't afford to go at 4 an over.

*My priors on NZ pitches are they always look green, but end up being roads so we shall see..

Ollie Robinson officially added to the squad. Will likely take the gloves for test two. Must be a weird feeling for Bethell.

And Atkinson gets the first of the series! Slow pitch and Conway is through the drive too early, and an excellent tumbling catch from Atkinson on the follow through.

In comes Williamson.

Not much for the bowlers here. Not much pace or bounce in the wicket, barely any swing so far.

Latham's cashed in when he can, though Williamson's not put bat on anything yet.

Woakes' radar a bit inconsistent in his first three overs..and not helped by Bashir donating four overthrows.

25/1 after 6.

These two struggling to breach 82mph. Might as well have called up Sam Cook!

Atkinson frequently punished for overpitching and seems to be having issues with his run up.

Looks a good batting wicket and a good toss to lose, although Woakes did get one to jag off the seam.

37/1 after 9. Time for Carse.

Good start from Atkinson but they'll need more in the morning session if this pitch flattens out as NZ pitches often do. I'm hoping Stokes can properly bowl given he's batting 7.

Duty281 wrote:
As for replacing Crawley or Pope, well throw a dart at some county bats and you'll likely end up with someone who does no worse. Plenty of options out there to replace two players who average below 34. Pope, for all his county brilliance, is someone who has never taken well to the test arena. He's a modern day, slightly better in test numbers, version of Hick or Ramprakash. Crawley just isn't it and has never been it.

Sorry Duty, but that's just incorrect based on what we've seen from the openers. The guys you could throw a dart at have been tried and did do worse. The best England qualified openers in Div 1 last season were Hameed, Burns, Jennings, Lees and Sibley. All tried. All did worse than Crawley. Untried options would be Alex Davies and Ben Slater having solid years or throwing Lammonby in after a good summer. Div 2 performers were Lyth, Robson and Bracey. See Burns etc.

When there isn't obvious talent putting their hand up yet, why would you go back to players who did do worse on average and lacked the upside of Crawley's stroke making when he gets going? What you're saying doesn't add up with what's in the CC when it comes to openers. If there was someone who hadn't already done worse in Tests regularly pumping out runs, it'd make sense. There isn't though!

Rod Tucker widing Carse for an over head height ball? Interesting he does think that rules applies in NZ this time round!

England will need Stokes to bowl on this early evidence. Bashir will likely be required to get through a fair few overs as well, on what is typically a spinners' graveyard.

Has been a scratchy and hesitant start from Williamson.

Bowlers and now Williamson losing their footing. Seems very loose around the crease for the morning session of D1.

An odd surface so far. Some have absolutely flown through to Pope. Others not so much.

It doesn't seem the fastest outfield. A few well timed strokes not even close to making it the boundary.

Latham is doing a really good job of blunting the new ball after Conway went early.

Hagley is such a beautiful venue. It's right up there on my list of ground I'd like to see a Test at. It's like a Test quality village cricket ground.

58/1 at drinks. Batting paradise. Unlike the usual deception, nothing much happened with the ball for the first hour!

Some deep thinking required from Stokes.

Good wicket. Deserved for Carse who has looked the most dangerous of the three. Might slow the scoring down, too!

That's very well bowled by Carse. Three quarter seam wobble ball, bang on the needed line and length. He's looked like an excellent pick by the selectors so far.

Atkinson is straying a bit too full too often though.