There’s still a lot of runs for England to get. Just put a cheeky fiver on NZ to win at 6/1. Hopefully I lose that money.
Bairstow has gone, but he’s pretty much knocked it on the head, England now need 27 to win with Stokes and Foakes at the crease. NZ not out of it, but their hopes fading.
Edit: Winviz has England 98% winners. Foakes jabs for 4. Pitch is true, ball is dead.
And that is that. Hit right on the number. England by 1 run & 5 wickets.
Apparently one of the top scoring Test matches in history to be hosted in England.
1675 runs and 35 wickets. Can’t complain really.
Credit to Bairstow for turning a game that could go both ways into a foregone conclusion.
That’s why Bairstow is my MotM. Yes, Mitchell and Root scored more runs, but Bairstow grabbed the game by the neck and throttled it.
Got his century in just 77 balls and finished with 136 from 92. Did someone tell him it was T20? 
Not to rain on anyones parade, but what does Zak Crawley need to do to get dropped?
Crawley has twice in this game walked back to the pavilion muttering something about a 'bloody minefield.
In all seriousness, he got properly set up in the first innings. But I’d rather Rory Burns opened next game than Crawley.
England’s batsmen combined innings scores:
Lees - 111
Crawley - 4
Pope - 163
Root - 179
Bairstow - 144
Stokes - 121*
Foakes - 68*
But he “went to the right schools” and “looks the part”!
I’ve literally heard both of these from commentators during this series. And also that they had to persist with Gatting for many years before he came good.
This asshat’s FC average is 31. It’s not like he’s burning it up at that level making him impossible to drop.
In lighter news, the US is taking on Nepal in an ICC World Cup League 2 ODI.
Currently:
USA 245/7
Nepal 12/0 (45 overs remaining)
Haven’t gotten any wickets yet, but the Nepalese are well behind the required RR to chase.
Hey, I’m a USA cricket fan. I’ve been waiting over 30 years for the US cricket administration to get their shit together. It’s finally happening. Don’t mock us.
No mocking intended, but it’s certainly not top-tier Test cricket. 
Happy to report we’re doing well so far.
USA 245/7
Nepal 93/5 (28 overs remaining)
Current RR: 4.22 • Required RR: 5.46 • Last 5 ov (RR): 22/2 (4.40)
So, more seriously, it does seem like our side is mostly imported players from more traditional cricket playing countries. Are they required to be US citizens or just declare residency here?
A sideshow to the test series, but England played their first-ever ODI in the Netherlands today.
Missing Root, Bairstow and Stokes due to Test commitments, they lost Roy for 1 and Morgan first ball - another famous England embarrassment on the cards?
Not exactly - Phil Salt and Dawid Malan had them 223-2 in the 30th over - at which point in walked Jos Buttler and things got messy. Buttler clobbered 162 off 70, and was overshadowed by Liam Livingstone who thrashed 66 off 22 at the end. The final count was 498-4, which was not just the highest ODI total ever but the highest List A total as well.
Nine balls were lost, various other records were broken, and while I admit they need the exposure, you do have to wonder about the wisdom of throwing Associates to the wolves like this, especially as the Netherlands were missing several regular players on county duty.
Probably cost more than the gate takings
On the other hand it is long past time that England repaid humiliation on the Netherlands for the Raid on the Medway in 1667
Whilst this is something to think about, this England batting lineup is something else - the record they broke was their own, inflicted on Australia, and whilst NED never looked liked chasing them down they didn’t embarrass themselves in the chase.
Just curious if this is actually possible. I’m not meaning to nitpick, but I’m wondering what esoteria I might have missed.
I’ve seen batsmen bowled and caught. The ball grazed the bat but hit the stumps anyway and the wicketkeeper caught the ball afterward. I can imagine a batman being LBW and stumped. Batsman is forward of the crease, ball hits his pad and ricochets upward and behind him, wicketkeeper catches the ball and stumps the batsman. But how do the rest of these work? Would bowled and stumped be if a batsman is bowled while forward of the crease, but only one bail falls off, and then the wicketkeeper knocks off the other bail? That could then lead to bowled, caught and stumped. But how can you be LBW and caught? If the ball touches the bat, you can’t be LBW; if it doesn’t, you can’t be caught. Same with LBW and bowled. LBW means the batsman obstructed the wicket. If the ball hits the wicket, there was no obstruction even if it did touch his pads. (Although Ben Stokes had appeals for both launched against him earlier this year. England's Ben Stokes caught laughing after ball slams into his stump but the bails DON'T fall off! | Daily Mail Online )
Funnily, I remember a batsman being LBW and hit wicket. The batsman misread a ball and his bat and stance were off. He tried to adjust, but ended up losing his balance and both getting struck by the ball and stumbling into his wicket. Also, if somebody was really trying to achieve as many reasons for dismissal as possible, or more likely an avatar in a simulation, then Hit the Ball Twice and Obstructing the Field could also be added to a sequence.
The stumping can be effected even if both bails fall. The keeper needs to lift or knock a stump out of the ground while holding the ball in the same glove.
This is not correct.
If the ball touches the bat before the pads then yes, the possibility of LBW is invalidated.
But if after first touching the pad the ball touches the bat or glove holding the bat before a catch is effected then the batter is out caught.
Again no.
The LBW decision is based on the original path of the ball as delivered.
Being out bowled can occur at any time the ball is live until touched by a fielder.
If after hitting the pad, bat or body the ball ricochets onto the stumps or lands on the pitch then spins/bounces/rolls back onto the stumps the batter is out bowled.
Being simultaneously LBW, Bowled, Caught and Stumped off the one ball isn’t the most outlandish dismissal.
It is (just barely) possible to be out LBW, Bowled, Caught, Stumped and Hit Wicket off the one ball. But this would notionally require the batsman to knock off one bail with their bat or body while the other is knocked off by the ball for the bowled dismissal.
If in being out Hit Wicket the batsman removes both bails off before the ball hits the stumps then they can only be given out bowled if the delivery knocks a stump out of the ground.
There have been plenty of examples of batters knocking their own stumps over after being dismissed, but this is usually regarded only as a fit of pique or poor sportsmanship, not a dismissal.
So Eng/NZ match 3 is stumps on Day 2.
New Zealand 329
England 264/6
Both teams lost a wicket in the first over of their at-bat. England bowled out NZ in 117.3 overs (RR: 2.8) to leave a gettable chase.
England then went on an epic collapse to 55/6 in just 11+ overs. Then Jamie Overton joined Jonny Bairstow and the pair have gone on to score 209 together. Bairstow is 130 off 126 for his 2nd Test century in a row with an SR of over 100. Overton is 89 off 106. Just an incredible stand after it looked like England were going to be completely humiliated.
Thanks. Your summary makes me much more interested in watching this weekend.