NZ get 350, generally feeling is that it’s not enough… and it doesn’t look like it’s going to be. 283/2, 64 to win off 81 balls, Morgan about to get 100 off 70-odd.
New attitude to English ODI cricket starting to look good.
EDIT: Gets his hundred with a 6, 73 balls!
what a great series for positive batting. Looks like it’ll be a decider at the riverside and to be honest that is exactly the finale that the series deserves.
England chased down 350 and made it look easy. 7 overs to go and 20 wanted, they got them all off one. Unbelievable.
4th highest successful run chase in ODI history and the 4th time in succession that England have hit over 300. Looks like a new “plan A” is in effect and I like it.
Second game in a row we haven’t batted out our overs…
This series has followed a similar pattern to many World Cup games, where big totals are posted and then chased down. It’s becoming difficult to determine what a Good Score actually is - Morgan said in the post-match interview that he thought the NZ score was 25 above par, but that they felt confident chasing anything below 340.
Roll on Durham!
I don’t understand much of anything you guys are saying, but it does make cricket sound exciting!
Quite the opposite. Imagine if some arsehole made rule changes in baseball that team just started hitting home runs all the bloody time.
The rules haven’t substantially changed though, just a combination of a more attacking mindset and pitches that were set-up for batting. The one-day game has moved towards a T20 style rather than test-match innings-building.
I am somewhat ambivalent about the way that the limited overs game is going. On the one hand, I’d prefer close contests between bat and ball, rather than a hitting competition governing who wins the game, with bowlers simply being limiting, rather than attacking factors. On the other hand, people seem to want to see hitting contests; it’s bringing money into the game and putting people in seats. Given the attendances for Test cricket are reasonably poor everywhere other than England* and Australia, I’d rather money was coming into the game rather than it being allowed to wither and die, as interest drains away from the traditional mode of cricket
*I noted that both Tests against NZ didn’t sell out the first 4 days at either venue this year - tickets were available on the door at both Lord’s and Headingley - which is a touch depressing given how well the two teams played; I for one am sorry that we’re about to lose the NZ team for the rest of the summer - I’ve really enjoyed this set of games, more so than much of the cricket England have been involved in for the last two or three years, and NZ have played a big part in that. The Ashes are sold out but I’m a little concerned that we can’t sell out grounds for exciting games of cricket between two relatively closely matched sides - and if we can’t do it, how likely are other nations who are even less invested in Test cricket going to do it?
Law changes may help bowlers and limit some of the scoring but I’m not convinced they’re looking in the areas I would. Where the fielders are allowed to stand only matters if there are opportunities for them to field the ball, for instance. I was at The Oval this year for Surrey-Leics in the County Championship. There’s no fielding restrictions at all in that game and I saw Pietersen go from 198-310 in about an hour on the evening of Day 2 and Surrey chase 220 in 24 overs in the 4th innings on the final evening, again with all the fielders on the boundary. It’s not even a case of them just hitting the ball over the fielders either - the ball comes off the bat so quickly and the outfields are so quick that unless the ball is hit reasonably close to the fielders in the first place, it becomes difficult to cut off 4s unless you’re Usain Bolt.
If they really want to limit scoring and bring bowlers back into the game, I’d do a couple of things. One is put more limits on the bat itself. Having just checked the laws, I can’t see that there’s a limit to the thickness of the bat in Appendix E (that governs the dimensions of the bat). So I’d start with that. If done, I’d also consider a limit to the number of bats that a batsman can use in his innings - probably setting the limit at 2. Reading around the subject it seems bats aren’t oiled and treated much anymore - they’re very dry to help with hitting power. If you limit the thickness of the bat and they keep the bats dry, then one assumes more bats will break. So I’d say: You get one replacement bat; if the second breaks, you’re out. What will probably happen is players will have a traditionally oiled and maintained bat as their replacement and a super dry, spring loaded one as their main bat - but at least it will be something, especially if the thickness of the bat is limited to start with.
The other thing I’d do is I would allow the fielding side to choose the balls used for their fielding innings. Not just the specific ball - I think they do this anyway, choosing ones with a prouder seam, etc - but also the model of the ball. So if your bowlers prefer a Kookaburra and you’re playing in England who might otherwise provide Dukes, or in India, where they generally use SGs, you can choose to use the Kookaburra. At least you get an opportunity to be most comfortable with what you’ve got in your hand and it might help bowlers produce deliveries that get batsmen out.
As I said though, I’m ambivalent on this. Do we really want to reduce scoring rates in limited overs cricket? I might but I feel like I am in the minority on this in terms of world cricket. It’s possible that the way the game (at least in limited overs) is going, could wind up being better for its health.
One final (sarcastic) note - it’s obvious that something needs to be done to limit scoring, if even England can start putting up 300+ on a regular basis. More seriously, how fucking stupid has our ODI strategy been for the last 6 or 7 years?
It is a tricky one isn’t it?
It is very difficult to find that sweet-spot of conflict between bat and ball. So many variables at work, pitch, ball type, weather. And let’s not forget the big one…The NZ and England bowling attacks at the moment are not of the highest order so the high scoring in this series may be down in part to these teams both being skewed towards batting. The really interesting thing will be when this “new-style” England take on Australia, can they replicate this form? Can they apply sustained pressure and resists the Aussie attack?
One thing is for certain, the crowds love it even without the drama of quality seam and spin bowling. I still think that the 5-day format is the finest form of the game and the place most likely to see that ebb and flow of bat and ball unfold. Still, the Riverside will be a sell-out and if it brings more people to the game then so much the better. If England can then bottle some of that attacking flair and unleash it at the opportune moment in a test match then even better still.
Oh, and perhaps Morgan back into the test side instead of Bell? Nice to have an extra captains head on the field .
The boundaries have been brought in now. There now typically is about 10 or so meters between the stands and the advertising boards and at least 3 meters between the boundary and the boards.
A shot which would have seen you hole out in the deep previously nowadays is a six. I say at least 80 m between the creases and the boundary should be mandatory.
It’s obviously an issue that will take some 6s out of the game and warrants looking at. It will almost certainly remove mis-hit top edge 6s for instance. A hell of a lot of the boundaries in this series are going into the crowd though (Ross Taylor clouting at least 2 sixes into the second tier of the Vauxhall End at The Oval for instance). There’s not much the position of the rope will do for those.
Obviously. Not much you can do for ahit like this from Afridi. That would probably clearly a second ground.
But what about these successive sixes to defeat India in 2014?. I loved it, but lers be fair, he mishit both shots and should have been out, except the rope seemed to be around the region of the 30 yard circle (sarcasm).
You mean that strategy that saw us at the top of the ODI rankings for the first time a mere 3 years ago?
We were light years behind in the World Cup though, that much was obvious and, whatever changes have been made to bring about this new attitude, I welcome it.
As for the scoring rates, it’s not just the sixes, really. Many of the balls going along the ground for 4 would get cut off if the rope was further back.
The boundary creeping in to increase scoring rate is certainly having an effect, and I think the ball at each end rule is also keeping the ball harder and reducing the effect of reverse swing at the end of the innings.
This actually makes our ODI strategy over the last 6 or 7 years even worse in my view - we got to a point where we were good and had no plan for sustainability of success, almost certainly as a result of our failure to move strategies on that other teams managed, as well as the myriad ways that we’ve managed to shoot ourselves in the foot at a selectorial and managerial level.
It’s a fair point that moving the rope back will help people cut off 4s. My point earlier about it being difficult to cut the runs off due to fast outfields and harder hit cricket balls is further compounded by this factor.
Hopefully the decider will be worthy of the series.
Personally I’m against too much tinkering with the rules, although I’d welcome bigger boundaries, and a relaxation of the fielding restrictions (doing away with the batting power play would be a good start). I think we’ll see bowling and fielding develop over time to counteract the big bats era.
At the very least I hope England’s form means finally closing the door on that twat Pietersen.
England collapsing here chasing what isn’t much of a total. This is the sort of thing that’s going to happen with this sort of attitude (it happened to New Zealand in the first game of the series, when England set them 400).
121 to win off 84 balls. Gettable, but 5 wickets already down, it’s New Zealands to lose.
He has been very, very quiet hasn’t he? Thank christ.
196 off 26 is still a challenging total and to be fair, they’ve still stuck to their plan and gone for it. I think the England of three months ago wouldn’t have had a prayer but they’ve done amazingly well to beat NZ in a five-match series.
All bets are off against a much better bowling attack, but still…very entertaining and I’ll take my good cheer where I can find it.