22 thoughts on “The T20 Match – England v New Zealand”
Larry David NivenJun 23, 2015 / 5:29 pm
Farbrace is a refreshing and cliche free interview subject. If they attempt to replicate the white ball approach with the test side, specifically the captain setting the tone and motivating the players, England have no chance.
So, the NZ part of the summer is over and the team get ready to depart with the praise of those who two months ago didn’t know Tom Latham from BJ Watling, and who appear to think England are now going to play NZ more regularly, ringing in their ears. Plucky NZ played their designated role – didn’t win a series, gave some entertainment and didn’t upset the natives. Pardon me if all that praise is a bit hollow.
NZ should be disappointed with this tour. They perhaps struggled to rouse themselves fully after the heady heights of the WC and certainly struggled to rouse themselves after Headingley (notice how big contributors at Headingley like Ronchi had very flat ODI series). They were poor in the ODI series except the middle order batting. The openers and lower middle order flattered to deceive. The bowling was ordinary at best and frequently poor. Injuries to bowlers are starting to pile up (which has been a major problem for NZ in the last two decades) and they missed Shane Bond big time. They dropped catches and McCullum’s captaincy showed he has been overrated in terms of on-field strategy (like the use of a short third man to Rashid when it is clearly one of his major scoring areas). In the longer term, NZ appear to have found two good cricketers in Santner and Wheeler which is their main plus from the back end of the tour.
Good eggs and nice losers? NZ have enough talent not to be happy with that. At full strength, and playing to maximum potential, NZ are a stronger side than England (although not massively so).
I am inclined to agree. The only cricket I saw live was the ODI chase at Durham, and frankly any fielding side that failed to win that match from 40-5 should be as embarrassed as Cook wasn’t after the Headingley debacle of 2014.
The loss of Boult for the ODIs means that England still haven’t won a series of any kind in two years, where the opposition’s main bowling threat was fit throughout.
It surprised me how old some of the NZ players were – in my head they were a really fresh young, talented squad. Colin Munroe, who I assumed to be a young prospect, is 28. Elliot, NMcCullum and Ronchi all mid 30s. McLenaghan and Watling are both five years older than I’d assumed, at 29. Lots of these are journeymen cricketers who until the past couple of years haven’t really produced anything of note.
The positive is the bowling unit, who are spearheaded by two ‘experienced’ players in Boult/Southee at just 26, and have Milne and Henry coming through 23. Kane Williamson is exceptional, and Taylor a class act – McCullum didn’t fire at any point, had he done so I would have favoured NZ winning at least one of the two tight series – ignoring the one off T20.
Wrongun, plenty of NZ players are genuinely young. Corey Anderson and Jimmy Neesham are both 24 (as is Williamson). Latham, Henry, Milne, Wheeler and Santner are all 23.
A crucial time for NZ is fast approaching when Williamson becomes captain. McCullum has well known back problems and may step down from ODIs fairly soon. I don’t get the impression that Williamson will be content to be popular losers. He may bring a more ruthless edge to their play. Also, it is possible he may not work out as captain – he might be one of those introverted batsmen who don’t make good captains and, if he demands as much of others with less talent as he demands of himself, the team might become more tense and less welcoming. It could go either way.
That’s fair comment Simon. However, I don’t mind that NZ failed to dominate. England’s one day team now has a good platform and confidence to build on. If NZ had mashed us, it would have been all change again.
Oh yes, importantly, I thoroughly enjoyed watching.
I agree NZ should be a tad disappointed, you would hope they would be, but they should also be proud of the fact that they competed on level terms against a country with resources they could only dream of. They were a touch undercooked for the 1st test, but should not have lost from a 130-odd run 1st innings lead. the second test was probably the only time they really hit their straps, they outplayed England in all departments and were worthy of at least a share of the series. They must have been taken aback by the approach of England in the ODI, I know all of us here were, most were predicting 4-1 or 5-0 to NZ before a ball was bowled (me included). Of their big guns, McCullum and Southee did not quite fire. Boult is a class act and was missed in the final matches. At times Mccullum batted like a pillock playing premeditated heaves at balls (did he make those double and triple hundreds playing like that? really?). Their on-field manners are an example to us all. It’s a game not a bloody war FFS. The authorities should have clamped down on player conduct years ago, but have proved to be weak and spineless and stuck their heads in the sand. It will take an act of physical violence before anything is done.
I think NZ rocked up a little undercooked for the first test match of the series. That said, they were well in command of the first 3.5 days of the Lords test. Only losing control on the 4th day.
As for the ODI series they may have underestimated England, and who could blame them? Having seen what a shambles the team England sent to the World cup was, it would only be natural to think that must have been Englands best team. (After all, who in their right mind would select a sub standard team and a poor coach? ) They probably thought the new players must have been kept away from the World Cup because they were not as good as the players they ended up replacing.
England is not a easy team to study because they do really stupid things; like select the wrong players on a regular basis, and appoint hopeless coaches, and keep a hereditary aristocratic system for replacing captains.
Re your comment about nz underestimating the new players doesn’t Kane Williamson play for Yorkshire? So he must be aware of ability of bairstow and rashid at very least. And I can’t believe they didn’t do their homework on the whole team
It was an entertaining match, but I also thought NZ were maybe a touch ‘demob happy’ (as someone mentioned above I think).
It does seem strange to just tack one t20 on at teh end of the series. Nothing could build to it or from it. It was just an exhibition match.
I read somewhere (here or TFT most likely) that the powers that be should have followed the same format as over in NZ or 3 tests, 3 ODI & 3 t20. I agree that it worked and built momentum and could have been done here as well (although perhaps not in the same year as a Ashes series due to the demands of that).
All said and done it’s been a breath of fresh air and I feel a few cobwebs have been blown away and dare I say it, a few ghosts laid to rest.
It will be interesting to see what the next ODI series looks like, but even more so, it will be interesting to see what happens within the squad when the test players are parachuted back in.
The core of the test squad played in the ODI’s as well so how well will the ABC trio fit into the fun and energetic atmosphere.
One thing I feel I should mention is that for all the plaudits Fabrace has been getting for this series (and potentially rightly so), he was still around at the WC etc and would surely have had a fairly big say on tactics & selection – even if he was just a sounding board.
I so agree with that last point, Andy. Either he was a silent partner and wasn’t doing his job properly, in which case I’m worried, or he was not silent, and Moores is an either bigger failure than we gave him credit for. Let’s see. I’m never judging anyone on how well they appear on TV. I might think they show aplomb on that basis.
I thought NZ were tired by the end of the tour, and it seemed McCullum was on autopilot a bit at times in the later matches. Hardly surprising.
The transformation in England’s one-day approach was surely the result of the WC humiliation. It slapped a brick wall in front of England OD cricket. People had to accept that what they’d been doing didn’t work and was never going to work. Perhaps the players were able to say that they weren’t going to put up with it any more. Changes in personnel were made and Farbrace knew that whatever he did, it couldn’t be what was done at the WC.
So in some ways it was like what happened to NZ when their team imploded and they had to re-boot completely. Maybe part of the good atmosphere was that these were two born-again teams.
What a shame something similar didn’t happen with the Test team in 2014.
Yeah, I liked that bit too. And someone who states *in the same article* that NZ are a better Test side than SA calls other people stupid for misinterpreting things. It’s a feast, that thread.
Meanwhile, Chris Rogers has been stopped from doing something that might involve money and cricket but not doing it through the ECB. Remember in future, Chris, you have to render unto Giles that which is Giles’s.
Being Outside Cricket 
Farbrace is a refreshing and cliche free interview subject. If they attempt to replicate the white ball approach with the test side, specifically the captain setting the tone and motivating the players, England have no chance.
LikeLike
Loving it so far
LikeLike
Hard to avoid the phrase “demob happy” looking at some of the NZ batting…
A 1 off game at the end of the tour is always vulnerable to that I think…
LikeLike
Good T20. Lots of happy kids watching in the evening sun. The way it ought to be.
So, when are the ODIs against Australia?
LikeLike
Somewhere in a village near Essex a man of entitlement sticks pins in a doll that looks a little Irish.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Morgan has been presented with more cheques with England written on them in the last 3 days than Cook has in nearly 2 years hasn’t he?
LikeLiked by 1 person
So, the NZ part of the summer is over and the team get ready to depart with the praise of those who two months ago didn’t know Tom Latham from BJ Watling, and who appear to think England are now going to play NZ more regularly, ringing in their ears. Plucky NZ played their designated role – didn’t win a series, gave some entertainment and didn’t upset the natives. Pardon me if all that praise is a bit hollow.
NZ should be disappointed with this tour. They perhaps struggled to rouse themselves fully after the heady heights of the WC and certainly struggled to rouse themselves after Headingley (notice how big contributors at Headingley like Ronchi had very flat ODI series). They were poor in the ODI series except the middle order batting. The openers and lower middle order flattered to deceive. The bowling was ordinary at best and frequently poor. Injuries to bowlers are starting to pile up (which has been a major problem for NZ in the last two decades) and they missed Shane Bond big time. They dropped catches and McCullum’s captaincy showed he has been overrated in terms of on-field strategy (like the use of a short third man to Rashid when it is clearly one of his major scoring areas). In the longer term, NZ appear to have found two good cricketers in Santner and Wheeler which is their main plus from the back end of the tour.
Good eggs and nice losers? NZ have enough talent not to be happy with that. At full strength, and playing to maximum potential, NZ are a stronger side than England (although not massively so).
LikeLike
I am inclined to agree. The only cricket I saw live was the ODI chase at Durham, and frankly any fielding side that failed to win that match from 40-5 should be as embarrassed as Cook wasn’t after the Headingley debacle of 2014.
The loss of Boult for the ODIs means that England still haven’t won a series of any kind in two years, where the opposition’s main bowling threat was fit throughout.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It surprised me how old some of the NZ players were – in my head they were a really fresh young, talented squad. Colin Munroe, who I assumed to be a young prospect, is 28. Elliot, NMcCullum and Ronchi all mid 30s. McLenaghan and Watling are both five years older than I’d assumed, at 29. Lots of these are journeymen cricketers who until the past couple of years haven’t really produced anything of note.
The positive is the bowling unit, who are spearheaded by two ‘experienced’ players in Boult/Southee at just 26, and have Milne and Henry coming through 23. Kane Williamson is exceptional, and Taylor a class act – McCullum didn’t fire at any point, had he done so I would have favoured NZ winning at least one of the two tight series – ignoring the one off T20.
LikeLike
Wrongun, plenty of NZ players are genuinely young. Corey Anderson and Jimmy Neesham are both 24 (as is Williamson). Latham, Henry, Milne, Wheeler and Santner are all 23.
A crucial time for NZ is fast approaching when Williamson becomes captain. McCullum has well known back problems and may step down from ODIs fairly soon. I don’t get the impression that Williamson will be content to be popular losers. He may bring a more ruthless edge to their play. Also, it is possible he may not work out as captain – he might be one of those introverted batsmen who don’t make good captains and, if he demands as much of others with less talent as he demands of himself, the team might become more tense and less welcoming. It could go either way.
LikeLike
That’s fair comment Simon. However, I don’t mind that NZ failed to dominate. England’s one day team now has a good platform and confidence to build on. If NZ had mashed us, it would have been all change again.
Oh yes, importantly, I thoroughly enjoyed watching.
LikeLike
I agree NZ should be a tad disappointed, you would hope they would be, but they should also be proud of the fact that they competed on level terms against a country with resources they could only dream of. They were a touch undercooked for the 1st test, but should not have lost from a 130-odd run 1st innings lead. the second test was probably the only time they really hit their straps, they outplayed England in all departments and were worthy of at least a share of the series. They must have been taken aback by the approach of England in the ODI, I know all of us here were, most were predicting 4-1 or 5-0 to NZ before a ball was bowled (me included). Of their big guns, McCullum and Southee did not quite fire. Boult is a class act and was missed in the final matches. At times Mccullum batted like a pillock playing premeditated heaves at balls (did he make those double and triple hundreds playing like that? really?). Their on-field manners are an example to us all. It’s a game not a bloody war FFS. The authorities should have clamped down on player conduct years ago, but have proved to be weak and spineless and stuck their heads in the sand. It will take an act of physical violence before anything is done.
Cheers NZ, it’s been an all too short pleasure
LikeLike
I think NZ rocked up a little undercooked for the first test match of the series. That said, they were well in command of the first 3.5 days of the Lords test. Only losing control on the 4th day.
As for the ODI series they may have underestimated England, and who could blame them? Having seen what a shambles the team England sent to the World cup was, it would only be natural to think that must have been Englands best team. (After all, who in their right mind would select a sub standard team and a poor coach? ) They probably thought the new players must have been kept away from the World Cup because they were not as good as the players they ended up replacing.
England is not a easy team to study because they do really stupid things; like select the wrong players on a regular basis, and appoint hopeless coaches, and keep a hereditary aristocratic system for replacing captains.
LikeLike
Re your comment about nz underestimating the new players doesn’t Kane Williamson play for Yorkshire? So he must be aware of ability of bairstow and rashid at very least. And I can’t believe they didn’t do their homework on the whole team
LikeLike
It was an entertaining match, but I also thought NZ were maybe a touch ‘demob happy’ (as someone mentioned above I think).
It does seem strange to just tack one t20 on at teh end of the series. Nothing could build to it or from it. It was just an exhibition match.
I read somewhere (here or TFT most likely) that the powers that be should have followed the same format as over in NZ or 3 tests, 3 ODI & 3 t20. I agree that it worked and built momentum and could have been done here as well (although perhaps not in the same year as a Ashes series due to the demands of that).
All said and done it’s been a breath of fresh air and I feel a few cobwebs have been blown away and dare I say it, a few ghosts laid to rest.
It will be interesting to see what the next ODI series looks like, but even more so, it will be interesting to see what happens within the squad when the test players are parachuted back in.
The core of the test squad played in the ODI’s as well so how well will the ABC trio fit into the fun and energetic atmosphere.
One thing I feel I should mention is that for all the plaudits Fabrace has been getting for this series (and potentially rightly so), he was still around at the WC etc and would surely have had a fairly big say on tactics & selection – even if he was just a sounding board.
LikeLike
I so agree with that last point, Andy. Either he was a silent partner and wasn’t doing his job properly, in which case I’m worried, or he was not silent, and Moores is an either bigger failure than we gave him credit for. Let’s see. I’m never judging anyone on how well they appear on TV. I might think they show aplomb on that basis.
LikeLike
I seem to remember hearing a report/rumour that he was a bit unhappy with his role, didn’t have enough responsibility.
LikeLike
I thought NZ were tired by the end of the tour, and it seemed McCullum was on autopilot a bit at times in the later matches. Hardly surprising.
The transformation in England’s one-day approach was surely the result of the WC humiliation. It slapped a brick wall in front of England OD cricket. People had to accept that what they’d been doing didn’t work and was never going to work. Perhaps the players were able to say that they weren’t going to put up with it any more. Changes in personnel were made and Farbrace knew that whatever he did, it couldn’t be what was done at the WC.
So in some ways it was like what happened to NZ when their team imploded and they had to re-boot completely. Maybe part of the good atmosphere was that these were two born-again teams.
What a shame something similar didn’t happen with the Test team in 2014.
LikeLike
However did we miss this beauty, by the way?
(do click for replies!)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Selfey doesn’t read comments. Ooooh.
LikeLike
Yeah, I liked that bit too. And someone who states *in the same article* that NZ are a better Test side than SA calls other people stupid for misinterpreting things. It’s a feast, that thread.
LikeLike
Meanwhile, Chris Rogers has been stopped from doing something that might involve money and cricket but not doing it through the ECB. Remember in future, Chris, you have to render unto Giles that which is Giles’s.
LikeLike