creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

[BWFC_Insane]

Been that much going on, I missed the fact there was actually a test series on, let alone that we were 1-0 to the good. Thanks for the reminder TD.

England put in and get to 21-3 on a green wicket doing all sorts.

Went to bed. Expecting to wake up to NZ 4 down or something after England all out for say 200.

Instead England piled on the runs and finished 315-3.

Brook 184. Root 101.

I’ve run out of superlatives to describe this England transformation but it’s just ‘something else’.

Brook has been superb since he's come in. I wonder what happens when Bairstow (who broke lots of scoring records in his run), is back fit...hmmm

Aussie quicks might trouble Brook. But I’d have him and Bairstow in probably and Crawley might be one to miss out. In this side I don’t think we even have traditional openers so anyone can bat at the top.

[TANGODANCER]

Disaster (for Harry Brook) caught and bowled without scoring. End of a magnificent innings.

[TANGODANCER]

361-5 at this moment, and Brook and Ben Stokes gone.

[TANGODANCER]

Oh dear, it's raining wickets. Foakes trips himself up, nosedives into the turf and is stumped.

[TANGODANCER]

401-7 and Joe Root still in there. Broad gone L.B.W. Thinking about bed...

[Worthy4England]

Apparently, despite paying £100 a month, I don't get this test cricket. I'm thinking I'm shortly going to be £100 quid a month richer

[TANGODANCER]

Apparently, despite paying £100 a month, I don't get this test cricket. I'm thinking I'm shortly going to be £100 quid a month richer

I follow the B.B.C Commentary under Sport/Cricket Worthy. It's pretty decent and I see the highlights later.

[TANGODANCER]

Rain stopped play at N.Z 138-7 as England dominated things. Starts again at 9-30 our time tonight.

[Worthy4England]

I'm starting to think Jimmy might still be improving...

[TANGODANCER]

I'm starting to think Jimmy might still be improving...

He really is something else isn't he. Anderson and Broad are two names opposition don't want to see on our team sheet.

[TANGODANCER]

N.Z. All out 209 and following on.

[jimbo]

I posted back in summer about how there will be opportunities to criticise the Bazball approach when things don’t seem to go to plan, so let’s refer to this as ‘questioning’ instead. What are people’s thoughts on the follow on here? To me, NZs only route to victory felt like batting well while following on and then hoping we mess up a chase of 150-200. We’ve given them the chance to do that. I’d have been tempted to bat again and just put the game beyond them.

[TANGODANCER]

I see it all as perfectly normal international cricket. Did we really expect a great cricket side like New Zealand to be blown aside twice is a test match without a fight? I certainly didn't. So many things can affect a cricket match, pitch, weather, player availability and who is currently in form etc. Not the least captaincy. Right now England are in the ascendancy, but it isn't always the case and it can all change. You put your trust in the captain and his players and hope for the best.

Like one of the pundits sensibly said:

"A decision made by a captain to enforce a follow-on or declare (which England did in their innings) is only ever judged in hindsight.".

For me. there's always the "What a difference a day makes factor. ".I expect us to win this test and the series in style and Ben Stokes is a personal hero to me.

[Worthy4England]

I posted back in summer about how there will be opportunities to criticise the Bazball approach when things don’t seem to go to plan, so let’s refer to this as ‘questioning’ instead. What are people’s thoughts on the follow on here? To me, NZs only route to victory felt like batting well while following on and then hoping we mess up a chase of 150-200. We’ve given them the chance to do that. I’d have been tempted to bat again and just put the game beyond them.

Interesting innit. I'd pretty much always enforce the follow on - there'd have to be something circumstantial in the weather or the wicket for me not to. Had a look to see what the stats were - and that was quite interesting - there have only been 3 test examples of a side being made to follow-on and winning. Conversely there's only one occasion of a side not being made to follow on (obvs when the follow on was a possibility), and then winning. I think it is possible to conclude from that, the side who enforced/could have enforced don't lose many. The draw after enforcing the follow on is about 20%. So you're at about 79% win chance.

So what happens when the follow-on isn't enforced? Your chances of losing double - but very small sample and very low numbers 1.8% vs 1.0% roughly. The draw halves - but again on smaller sample sized than when the follow-on could have been used, you decrease the draw chance by ~8% in favour mainly of win.

Given the relativities (and I used to think this was a consequential decision), I'm less certain that it is that consequential...

So to this match - they've not batted well over three innings - the highest they've hit is 300. In that circumstance, I'm still probably going to back my bowlers more often than not as we were more than double their first innings, and I'm going to back us to get 150 - Our lowest innings so far has been 325 and that was declared.

[Prufrock]

I thought they were all about entertainment, finishing every test in three days is going to stop people going

Think I agree with Worthy, if you're in a position to enforce it in the first place, your odds are good.

Can see how time would point towards it (have we time to get again and get them out), whereas a factor the other way is how fresh are the bowlers (if time is an issue, probably spent a fair while in the field). Psychology can go both ways too. Send them straight back in after a bad showing without much time to reset v having to drag yourself onto the field to get flayed around for a quick 200 and then straight back in.

It's a good problem to have!

[BWFC_Insane]

I posted back in summer about how there will be opportunities to criticise the Bazball approach when things don’t seem to go to plan, so let’s refer to this as ‘questioning’ instead. What are people’s thoughts on the follow on here? To me, NZs only route to victory felt like batting well while following on and then hoping we mess up a chase of 150-200. We’ve given them the chance to do that. I’d have been tempted to bat again and just put the game beyond them.

Counter argument is if wicket is flattening out as it seems to be, that batting again putting game beyond them but leaving less time to bowl them out leads to a draw. Stokes and Mccullum don’t want draws.

I think it’s more important they do what their bowlers want. Most of ‘bazball’ is about empowering players to do what they want and express themselves and play without the pressure. It seems to work. At some point it will look stupid but I think you have to accept that. Nothing is going to be perfect. Trying to play ‘normal’ test match cricket has been utterly miserable for England in the last few years so I’m happy we are doing something else. I think it’s less about how we play and more about how it has empowered players to play without fear.

[TANGODANCER]

I know lads, let's forget catches and have a go at the stumps....just a thought.

[Worthy4England]

At 250, I think it's probably a bit more interesting than ideal...Far too long, rolling 6 & 7 out, but a decent removal of the rest of the tail.

[BWFC_Insane]

This is bazball though. It’s what he wants. We’ve set up a thrilling final day. Could win, could lose but it’s entertainment.

Alternatively we could have batted again and took the game away entirely and then spent a turgid day and a half trying to bowl them out on a relatively flat track (now) with them just blocking and everyone going to sleep.

We need to get used to this. This is exactly the philosophy. Do everything possible to win a test but that also means risking losing it too. And most of all offer entertainment.

[Worthy4England]

This is bazball though. It’s what he wants. We’ve set up a thrilling final day. Could win, could lose but it’s entertainment.

Alternatively we could have batted again and took the game away entirely and then spent a turgid day and a half trying to bowl them out on a relatively flat track (now) with them just blocking and everyone going to sleep.

We need to get used to this. This is exactly the philosophy. Do everything possible to win a test but that also means risking losing it too. And most of all offer entertainment.

I'm not against it...I'd have put them back in too!

Losing by trying to win intelligently is fine. Losing just because we're following an -ology less so and it'll need refinement, for example Crawley going all out with two overs left "Bazball" or "a tad injudicious" - no one will care if we win of course, so it's not an indictment of Bazball.