England v New Zealand – ODI #3 – The Ageas Bowl

After the day-night nonsense on Friday, there’s a very short turnaround for game 3 of this compelling series. The teams will do battle at the Ageas Bowl and England won’t want to remember the last time we met at that venue….


This game was just before the Champions Trophy, and the score of 359 was an asbolute blockbuster for this country. Now it seems around par. What the hell is going on? I seem to recall Jonathan Trott getting a bit of stick for his century at just over a run a ball, but then again, we sort of blamed him for most things in ODIs when he was a decent performer. But with the euphoria of the last two matches, Jonathan Trott appears to be the Betamax to this team’s VHS. It’s odd how things have turned in two years.

There also was the clue for Guptill’s double ton in the World Cup writ large in that fixture. He went off in the last 10 overs. It was a great batting wicket, he got in, he cashed in. Also, it can’t be helped, but Jade Dernbach posted some mighty fine numbers in that game.

So to the game at the Ageas. England will be forced to make a minimum of two changes. Chris Jordan being ruled out was no surprise as he was shunted down the order, clearly inhibited by his injury, but Liam Plunkett’s absence falls into the “oh damn” category. While his bowling has been no worse than the others, his punchy hitting in the last two games has shown a real liveliness, and he gave England hope when there was little on Friday. Damn. Craig Overton has already been called up, and there’s speculation on the wires over the other, with many wanting Footit to have his day.

As it is, tomorrow might see two of the squad members play, with Mark Wood and David Willey surely in line to play (otherwise, why are they in the squad?) There then remains the question over whether Sam Billings keeps his place. It would appear slightly strange to drop him as his replacement would need to be James Taylor and he’s not a number 7. Or he shouldn’t be. We don’t want Buttler coming in at 7, nor Stokes, so there is a logjam there. I’ll let them call that one.

After a hammering in Game 1, the New Zealanders showed their batting class, and had the real difference maker on the day, Trent Boult, in their line-up. McCullum might be due a big one if he can just cut out the 100% give it a lash approach, but that’s the joy with this team; they can hurt you in so many ways.

Here’s hoping for another belter. Comments below.

It was good to see the people coming out of the ether to discuss thelegglance’s piece with us today. It was an excellent discussion and gave us some food for thought. There’s a key point not to treat the print media as a homogenous unit, but the old guard are certainly in the firing line. One read of Pringle’s article in this month’s Cricketer which speaks again of KP’s propaganda machine and of Strauss calling him a c–t being quite endearing, is just embarrassing. I’ve been advised by more than one source to stop letting this sort of thing wind me up. Well, if I didn’t, you lot wouldn’t be here………

Set your alarm clocks. Bunkers at 8:30 am.

All the best.

@DmitriOld @collythorpe @outsidecricket


72 thoughts on “England v New Zealand – ODI #3 – The Ageas Bowl

  1. dvyk Jun 13, 2015 / 9:37 pm

    Thanks for letting it get you wound up Dmitri. That’s blogs are for. And to anyone who thinks Dmitri shouldn’t get wound up about it, I say, don’t let yourself get wound up by Dmitri’s reaction!

    M Clarke has just declared rather than using WI for batting practice like i thought he would. I keep unthinkingly seeing this series as a warm up for the Ashes. It’s good to be corrected by the Aust captain who clearly understands the game and the situation better than I do. Unlike me, he’s purely focused on winning this test and gaining maximum advantage out of the situation. He also — unlike me — doesn’t think he needs any batting practice.

    And Starc takes a wicket 3rd ball.


    • LordCanisLupus Jun 13, 2015 / 9:40 pm

      Didn’t like the declaration, if truth be told. Thought it a bit “look at me” and he wasn’t exactly upping the ante before it either. But I’ve been told off about Clarke before by you lot.

      The wickets prove nothing. This WIndies batting line-up is brittle.


      • dvyk Jun 14, 2015 / 7:35 am

        Well that was my initial thought too. Or it could also be that he had his eye on an extra day at the beach/hotel pool rather than having to putz around on day 5 for a couple of wickets.


      • Tuffers86 Jun 14, 2015 / 10:00 am

        To be fair batting against them proves nothing either. Test cricket is about taking 20 wickets to win and if he is handicapping himself and his bowlers then it’s certainly far better than setting them 600 to win.


  2. dvyk Jun 13, 2015 / 10:03 pm

    Watching WI v Aust, and Hawkeye v Reality. Hawkeye wins.


  3. Mark Jun 13, 2015 / 10:07 pm

    I don’t read the Cricketer magazine. I think the editor is a pillock. But I am staggered that even he lets Pringle play the KP is a c*** card again. And they say we are obssesed with Kevin. By the way. Pringle is very lucky that he has a mate at the Cricketer to hire him after leaving the Telegraph

    What I Find really funny about all this is that these guys dish it out on a daily or weekly basis, and then when one lonely blogger, who no one reads (according to them)”gives a bit back they get all upity and clutch their pearls.

    As for the match tomorrow, a bit of pressure is now on NZ. England have proved twice they are able to score 350 plus. If a team starts to do that regularly they put huge pressure on the opposition batsman to deliver. Why the hell this great series of Test matches and ODI s is in an Ashes year I do not know. NZ would have been better as the main event last year instead of India. They won’t be back until 2020. Maybe Selvey could write a piece on it, if he understood it.

    Liked by 1 person

      • Mark Jun 13, 2015 / 10:34 pm

        FFS how much does he get paid to dish out this very low fare?

        So Strauss calling someone a c*** can humanise him can it? Oh well, if I call Pringle a duplicitous fat lump of Essex shit who has his tongue up Cook and Strauss’s arse that will just make me human then.

        “Although Strauss is not one to bare a grudge”. HA HA HA

        “He wrong footed everyone by appointing Bayliss.” Really? I thought England wouldnt pay Gillespie what he wanted.

        Whatever The Cricketer magazine is paying him is a waste of money. They could get a chimp from the zoo to fling his shit at the paper for a few bananas and it would be better value for money.

        Shakes head in disbelief and then leaves……..


        • LordCanisLupus Jun 13, 2015 / 10:35 pm

          It gets better. He consults Rob Andrew later in the piece. And I know how much the rugby cognoscenti on here adore Rob!


      • Benny Jun 14, 2015 / 1:16 am

        Isn’t this all old news? Why should anyone pay for old news?


      • Amit Garg Jun 14, 2015 / 2:35 am

        This lot will not acknowledge it, but KP is the reason they still get to put food on table. Without him, what would they be writing about? They’ve not really shown their investigative nous in last 2 years. Haven’t asked the right questions and ignored the problems that actually exist. DP’s a joke; a big fat one at that. But even DP knows that nothing else that he writes will ever get a response from readers, so here we are with KP again.
        And he was supposed to have been a cricketer. Whatever happened to respect a fellow professional? Oh wait, he’s NOT a professional.


      • dvyk Jun 14, 2015 / 8:06 am

        I feel offended reading that. No one should feel offended reading a bloody sports article. What a sordid cabal of losers these fellows are. No wonder they see anyone who can write as a threat. And no wonder they don’t need to read Dmitri to know that he’s out-gunning them in every department except propaganda and sycophancy.

        Calling someone a cunt “in an unguarded moment” (as the song goes) does not “humanise” someone, you demented fuckwit. No one at all thought that. What they thought was “Haha Strauss fucked up — finally he’s done something more entertaining than his woeful droning commentary.” And what’s the bet Pringle will next be complaining about the Aussies’ sledging.

        And it’s a tacit admission that even Pringle has noticed what a dull bucket of clag Strauss is, if the bar for his perceived humanness is set so low that it can be raised by making such a fool of himself.


      • Zephirine Jun 14, 2015 / 1:19 pm

        Humanise? No.

        Strauss went right down in my estimation, revealing himself to be crass in his use of language, stupid in his lack of studio microphone awareness and above all pathetic in insulting a former team-mate and fellow Ashes winner in order to get along better with Nick Knight.

        PS How exactly does one message a shibboleth?


  4. PepperSydney Jun 14, 2015 / 6:00 am

    It is my contention that NZ will win todays ODI, on the grounds that they are firmer in their conviction of being able to win than the current Eng team. This isn’t to say that the current ENG team (ODI) is rubbish…. merely, that on form , on capacity to pull together, and on the demonstrated ability to plough on thru, I think NZ has the edge.

    Who I am disappointed in , is Brendon.. he can be like this at times, it drives me nuts, but he has made me throw myself backwards and howl with fury many times over these Test and ODI series in England.. Tonight, ( my time ) I am hoping he will play is straight and no fancy improvisationary brain fades.


    • metatone Jun 14, 2015 / 7:56 am

      Looking at the weather, the toss could have some influence.
      There may be a patch of showers that upsets whoever bats first.


  5. d'Arthez Jun 14, 2015 / 6:42 am

    Are not the rules changed for ODIs after October 1st? Or are those proposed changes still waiting for ICC Board approval.

    We are talking about, most notably the removal of the batting powerplay, and most notably allowing 5 fielders outside of the circle in the 41st-50th over. So, the rules will be a bit less extreme than they are now.


    • metatone Jun 14, 2015 / 7:53 am

      Well, if they can then hold the rules constant, it won’t be too bad.
      The fear is, of course, that they won’t be able to resist tinkering some more.


  6. SimonH Jun 14, 2015 / 9:39 am

    It’s being reported that Boult is missing the game through a stress-related back injury and has been sent for a scan.

    That doesn’t sound good.


    • metatone Jun 14, 2015 / 9:48 am

      He’s not playing.
      Let’s hope it’s not a fracture.


      • metatone Jun 14, 2015 / 9:50 am

        And of course, it bears noting that he’s a big loss for NZ in this game.


  7. metatone Jun 14, 2015 / 9:41 am

    One point on the team – I think Billings deserves more time. Especially because there is no emergency. Of course I’d swap him for KP if that was an option – but doubtless it won’t be. I haven’t seen enough of Billings to really have an opinion on him, but his averages in CC suggest he’s worthy of a good try…


    • SimonH Jun 14, 2015 / 11:13 am

      I’d like Billings to play as keeper and No.6 in the last couple of games. Give Buttler a rest (he could play as a specialist batsman higher up the order in one of them) and give Billings more of a chance to show what he can do.

      I’d like England to make some team changes just to show the new regime has some flexibility and some boldness.


  8. PepperSydney Jun 14, 2015 / 9:48 am

    oh Hales is so good. Southee or Wheeler have to get him out, and rather snappily too.. the longer he is in, the more the run rate rises ……


  9. PepperSydney Jun 14, 2015 / 9:59 am

    and Southee and Wheeler have got both out in jig time…… Hales is a terrific opener if only he can stay in!


  10. PepperSydney Jun 14, 2015 / 10:09 am

    And a sort of familiar fear seems to have infected Root and Morgan… a conservative approach, a hesitant approach………


  11. Tuffers86 Jun 14, 2015 / 10:17 am

    Well, it’s going to be unfair to say this, but on first look at ODI level, I’m not 100% convinced with Jason Roy.

    He looks splendid at CC/List A, and deserves a long run in this side but out of him and Moeen, I think Moeen is the better choice.


    • SimonH Jun 14, 2015 / 11:14 am

      Maybe Roy should bat in the middle order for a couple of matches and try an alternative opener (Buttler or Billings perhaps).


      • Tuffers86 Jun 14, 2015 / 11:38 am

        Yeah don’t get me wrong, he needs a dozen or so games minimum. Sometimes you see a player and think, nah, not quite there.


  12. PepperSydney Jun 14, 2015 / 10:18 am

    Root is doing his best to drag Morgan thru these dangerous overs, Morgan being a bit recalcitrant, a tad nervous.. Root throwing every thing he has now….


  13. PepperSydney Jun 14, 2015 / 10:31 am

    I just love watching McClenaghan bowl…


  14. PepperSydney Jun 14, 2015 / 10:44 am

    that is.. I would love it to bits if ONLY McClenaghan stopped leaking runs,,, Root, and by extension Hales ( even though he is prone to being bowled early ) are very good….very very good…


  15. thelegglance Jun 14, 2015 / 11:06 am

    Just something I’ve been idly wondering about, and want to know what you all think.

    There’s been a lot of talk about the game now not being a balance between bat and ball. And with scores of 400+, that’s true enough. Yet the first two games have grabbed the attention of the public. That being the case, isn’t this exactly what people want? And that being the case, all the stuff about equalising it is completely wrong. If the public want fours and sixes and bowlers smashed to all parts, who are we to disagree?


    • PepperSydney Jun 14, 2015 / 11:15 am

      I don’t think the conclusion re unbalanced etc, per bat and ball holds good as a concrete thing.. it really depends on who is playing in the match at any given time.. At this point in time, in England eg.. it may appear to be high scoring run matches, but also, high scoring wicket takings as well..

      When Eng play AU soon, the picture may change, to low scoring innings, and high wicket taking totals.. its entirely dependant on the actual players as a team, at any given moment.


    • metatone Jun 14, 2015 / 11:17 am

      I think that the public are interested in:

      1) 50 over games that largely go the distance.
      (i.e. no getting bowled out in over 33 on a regular basis)

      2) A close contest – if the home team doesn’t win, might they have done on another day?

      3) I think people are interested in England scoring big runs because we’ve seen at the WC that you need to do it – and England’s previous inability summed up our inept approach to ODIs. The big scores are symbolic of England being able to mix it with the better teams. (Which brings us back to 2, perhaps.)

      All of which is to say that I don’t think people are attention grabbed by 400+ (beyond the rarity value) – after all, who was watching? One man and his dog who have Sky and a bunch of people at the ground – who bought tickets before we even knew England could be this good…


    • Benny Jun 14, 2015 / 11:41 am

      My quick answer to that is – Chris Gayle. In any form of cricket, being able to watch something special is a joy.

      Generally, I agree with Metatone’s 1, 2 and 3, again in any form, I want to watch international players giving us brilliant performances with bat and ball.

      Yes, I’m watching on Sky but don’t have a dog


    • escort Jun 14, 2015 / 12:12 pm

      I don’t really mind the way that ODIs have change to be honest. One day Cricket HAS to be entertaining so if batsman hitting the ball into the stands is going to be the way forward then why not?


    • d'Arthez Jun 14, 2015 / 1:04 pm

      The thing is, if someone who has a proven record of doing the outrageous can do something outrageous in an ODI, that is okay. Whether 50 or 500 is par, that makes no real difference to that. You don’t mind to see a great ODI batsman rack up a massive score. Same with bowlers. The problem is, that when the balance is lost, that even average players do these things on a regular basis. This applies to all formats. And across conditions.

      Take a look at the Ranji Trophy, wiht regards to FC batting, and to some extent FC bowling. Seemingly average batsmen score runs by the bucketload, and hardly ever get a look in for national honours. Presumably because the selectors know how to weigh these runs and wickets.
      Closer to home, there is the prejudice that runs at Taunton are easier to come by than at other venues. A decent seam bowler may pick up wickets by the bucket in May in England, and average 20. But does that mean he is a great bowler, or is a bowler who can take advantage of conditions? Check his stats for the remainder of the season to get a clue.

      Is Root a great ODI batsman, or a batsman who can make hay when the rules are stacked in his favour? Is Narine a great bowler, or one who can (/could) exploit the need for batsmen to score runs quickly in T20s?

      These are difficult matters to assess reliably, especially when you only pay attention to some of these players, whenever your team is playing against them.

      That people feel the balance is lost, or altered, is simply a statement reflecting historical trends. 270 would have been a good, probably winning score on most pitches just a few years ago. 270, under these rules is often quite a comfortably chase. As such, one feels that batting averages give an inflated perspective of batsmen’s abilities, while bowling averages may well under-estimate bowlers’ abilities.


      • thelegglance Jun 14, 2015 / 1:19 pm

        I get what you’re saying. My point is a simpler one though – if high scores and batting dominating gets people piling in through the gates to watch, then can it be said to be wrong?


    • BigKev67 Jun 14, 2015 / 1:57 pm

      I’m probably going to be in a minority of one here (not for the first time!) – but the higher the scores go in ODI’s and the more bowling is reduced to an afterthought in the pursuit of more bash and crash, the less interested I am. To steal an image from George Dobell, short form cricket is coming to resemble seal clubbing.
      But whether I’m out of kilter with the rest of the cricket world on this is neither here nor there. At the end of the day I can go and watch baseball, if I want to see a game where pitching still wins championships. The problem is going to be finding people who grow up wanting to bowl. I’m not saying we’re at that point yet but give it another 5 years of escalating totals and ask yourself – would you want a career as a bowler? Job description – cannon fodder for the real superstars of the game. If we’re not careful that’s the way the game is heading.


      • thelegglance Jun 14, 2015 / 1:59 pm

        Thing is Kev, I’m a fair way with you on that. But….what if we’re wrong? What if we’re being old fashioned purists and it’s not what gets people to go?


      • dvyk Jun 14, 2015 / 2:48 pm

        I’m pretty much in agreement. The biggest problem I see is administrators seeing the game purely as a spectator sport. Ultimately the “true form of the game” is that it’s a game played by kids using a tennis ball and a stick, with a small black and white dog fielding in the covers or midwicket.

        More than any other game, cricket is a game you more or less need to have played it to appreciate what’s going on, or to have developed the necessary coping mechanisms for how absurdly boring it can be for long stretches. I mean, the approach to the game is much easier if you’ve played it a bit. If it loses that base of players at the local level, then we’ve lost a great game.

        And ultimately i think the game will sort itself out. The biggest threat is not innovations, so much as administrative idiocy and corruption.

        The ECB’s vision seems to be a nation of paying spectators and a handfull of elite players, just enough to keep their coaching program ticking over and to farm out enough money to keep their cronies onside, while players are treated like performing acrobats who are chosen for looks, obedience and marketing potential.


      • metatone Jun 14, 2015 / 4:32 pm

        To be clear, I’m actually arguing that people like close ODI games and aren’t deeply addicted to big batting totals. They wouldn’t want every game to be a low-scoring bowler-dominated game, but they aren’t actually coming through the gates because England are scoring big (although 400 obviously made for headlines, being a first) but because England are finally competing – and scoring big on those pitches where the opposition score big.

        All that said, many of our grounds could be much improved. Absent those improvements, you do start to wonder why you are there when “the boring middle overs” take a grip… but again, said middle overs are boring because teams in the past, especially England, would go on auto-pilot in those overs. Part of the thing about big scores is that they mean risks are taken all the way through – which gives the right bowlers some chances as well.

        Anyway, that;s all opinion and hearsay from people I know about, none of it adds up to data…


      • Zephirine Jun 14, 2015 / 6:37 pm

        Ultimately the “true form of the game” is that it’s a game played by kids using a tennis ball and a stick, with a small black and white dog fielding in the covers or midwicket.

        Lovely image.


  16. PepperSydney Jun 14, 2015 / 11:16 am

    oh come ON nz. a wicket… two wickets again is needed!….. . McCullum must be asleep in the outfield somewhere….


    • escort Jun 14, 2015 / 4:45 pm

      Good comment by Geoffrey… A cock sucking mission by “The Analyst” and The England test captain. As has been noted before.. “All to matey with all involved” Sad isn’t it?


  17. Sherwick Jun 14, 2015 / 11:24 am

    I think that even in high scoring games, it’s still a balance of bat and ball, i.e. the best bowlers will go for less. Just that the balance has shifted a bit, which doesn’t bother me..


    • Tuffers86 Jun 14, 2015 / 11:35 am

      Exactly. I think any seam bowler at the moment with an economy rate under six is doing really well.


  18. PepperSydney Jun 14, 2015 / 11:39 am

    Mc Clenaghan has Morgan buffaloed, but Stokes isn’t buffaloed by either McClenaghan or Santner.


  19. Benny Jun 14, 2015 / 11:46 am

    Rather troubled at seeing both Root and Morgan indicating back problems today. Just hope the medics look after them more sensibly than they’ve treated problems in the past. If they need rest, give it to them – don’t just patch them up. Beating NZ is not as important as these guys’ health


  20. BoerInAustria Jun 14, 2015 / 12:29 pm

    Ed the intellectual on TMS
    “Buttler is a phenomenal talent. One of the best I have ever seen take the field for England.”
    Will they never learn?


  21. PepperSydney Jun 14, 2015 / 1:01 pm

    right. that’s it, then…. ENg out with 5 overs to go.. NZ was severely at a disadvantage without Boult, ….some of the bowlers, in the middle section of the match were mighty expensive…. Stokes was good, Billings was surprisingly good, Hales will one day be very good,

    the overall runrate only hit the high 6’s intermittently, and rarely. it jogged along around 5/ 5.5ish

    I still think NZ can bat this score and more, and faster…


  22. d'Arthez Jun 14, 2015 / 1:06 pm

    283/5 after 41 overs became 302 all out after 45.2. The tail was blown away, and this may well be the difference between victory and defeat.


    • thelegglance Jun 14, 2015 / 1:16 pm

      It may well be, but they carried on playing shots and this time it didn’t work. It could have gone wrong at 202-6 at Edgbaston. It’ll be interesting to see whether they get criticised for this in the match reports later, and trust me, I’ll go nuts if they are.

      If England are going to play like this, sometimes it will go wrong.

      Liked by 1 person

      • metatone Jun 14, 2015 / 1:31 pm

        I’d add that even if you go out with a blocking mentality, the top (or so) have to take the responsibility for the majority of the runs. You have to (even in the unbalanced ODI game) retain the ability to pick bowlers for bowling, not batting…


    • d'Arthez Jun 14, 2015 / 1:24 pm

      No arguments there.


  23. metatone Jun 14, 2015 / 1:45 pm

    Not totally thrilled by the selection of Wood – seems to me given his action that we need to manage him carefully this summer… I’d rather we explored other avenues for the ODI team.


  24. PepperSydney Jun 14, 2015 / 2:02 pm

    NZ are batting to slow for my liking currently… * nervous*


  25. PepperSydney Jun 14, 2015 / 2:18 pm

    and bloody McCullum has disappointed me again!.. deeply..


  26. SimonH Jun 14, 2015 / 3:43 pm

    Serious concerns for two players (Rory Burns and Henriques) after a collision in the field at Arundel.

    Match has been abandoned.


    • SimonH Jun 14, 2015 / 3:46 pm

      Latest Tweet from Surrey sounds better than the initial reports which sounded bad about Burns in particular.


  27. escort Jun 14, 2015 / 4:52 pm

    Australia well on course to win. West Indies 7 down for 70


  28. Ian Jones Jun 14, 2015 / 4:59 pm

    Does any one else day dream about tying Nick Knight to a pole at one end of a cricket pitch in an upright position, then shoving a set of bails sideways into his mouth, retiring to the other end of the pitch and then bowling bouncers at him with the intent of knocking them down his throat.


    Must be just me then.


    • Benny Jun 14, 2015 / 5:32 pm

      Happy to join the queue. If Ian Smith moans about England not batting 50 overs one more time, I’ll line him up too


      • escort Jun 14, 2015 / 5:40 pm

        You will have plenty to aim at with Smith….


      • LordCanisLupus Jun 14, 2015 / 5:46 pm

        I sort of agree with him, Your match scribe sort of doesn’t agree with me. Let the tournament begin.

        By feeling this way, I am on the side of Derek the Relevant. This probably means I’m wrong.


  29. SimonH Jun 14, 2015 / 5:19 pm

    Wood’s 10-0-48-1 the most economical spell in the three matches.


  30. man in a barrel Jun 14, 2015 / 9:18 pm

    Lord Viv, Clive Lloyd, Sanga etc would not have let an innings vanish as England did. They would rule out big shots and work 2’s…another 50 odd runs in the last 5 overs. That would have made the match more tense instead of folding like Stokes.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s