England v NZ, 1st NatWest ODI, Lord's May 31, 2013

Guptill ton gives New Zealand series lead


New Zealand 231 for 5 (Guptill 103*, Taylor 54, Anderson 3-31) beat England 227 for 9 (Southee 3-37) by five wickets
Scorecard and ball-by-ball details

Martin Guptill's Test career hangs in the balance but his one-day standing was given a huge lift as he produced a match-winning hundred to earn New Zealand their third win in three one-day internationals at Lord's. The last time Guptill faced England in an ODI he was also the hero - batting virtually on one leg in Hamilton - and he again looked free from the tentativeness that characterises his longer-form batting.

Guptill's eighth boundary, a pull off Tim Bresnan, took him to his third ODI hundred - just and secured the victory for New Zealand with 19 balls to spare. He is just the second New Zealander to make an ODI hundred in England after Mark Greatbach who did it twice in three days in 1990. Guptill also struck four sixes - the best a straight drive over long-on - but almost came up short of his ton when, with five needed, Jos Buttler let the ball through his legs for four byes the delivery after England reviewed for an lbw. Then, though, Bresnan dropped short, Guptill latched on and raised his arms in triumph.

What made the victory more impressive was that after five balls of the chase New Zealand were 1 for 2 following James Anderson's two sharp outswingers to remove Luke Ronchi and Kane Williamson. That type of start could easily have reopened wounds from the Test match here two weeks ago, when they crumbled to 68 all out chasing 239, but this time the response was a world away from that timid display, with Guptill and Ross Taylor adding the defining stand of the match worth 120 in 24 overs.

The batting of Guptill and Taylor proved that England's earlier difficulties as they lurched to 227 for 9 were largely self-inflicted. They were kept under wraps by losing wickets in batches through poor shot selection, with four of the batsmen falling between 30 and 36, and then an attack lacking Stuart Broad (knee) and Steven Finn (shin) could not support the outstanding Anderson.

Jade Dernbach, a late addition to the squad, initially as cover from Bresnan, went for two boundaries in his first over and, although his third was a maiden, he frequently dropped short in his opening spell. Chris Woakes was especially unimpressive, conceding 45 in six overs, although things might have been different for him had Bresnan managed to get underneath Guptill's top-edged hook at fine leg. Instead, Bresnan was in from the boundary and could only palm the ball for six as he ran backwards.

It had been Taylor who first steadied New Zealand's nerves. He was quickly into double figures with three boundaries, latching on to width from Dernbach and the occasional overpitched delivery from Anderson. He also took a brace of boundaries off Woakes during a 71-ball half-century and it required Bresnan and Graeme Swann to bring some control, although New Zealand knew they did not have to force the pace.

It was Anderson, though, who gave England a lift when he returned to produce another exacting delivery to have Taylor caught behind but the batsmen had done enough to break the back of the chase. Grant Elliott, reprieved on 13 when he was given lbw to a Dernbach slower-ball yorker despite edging it, was rarely fluent but helped Guptill add 47 before Swann bowled him through the gate.

Brendon McCullum's dismissal, carving to deep cover, was lazy given the lack of pressure from run rate, but there was no unravelling from New Zealand with Guptill easing them across the line.

Both captains had wanted to bowl first on a cloudy morning; it was McCullum who got his wish. England, though, had appeared to have laid a decent foundation before the openers departed in consecutive overs from Tim Southee and then the middle order lost 3 for 9 in 17 balls after Jonathan Trott and Joe Root had set the base with a stand of 67. Nathan McCullum, who conceded just one boundary in his 10 overs, started the slide when Root was bowled reverse sweeping, a manner of dismissal later repeated by Buttler as any attempt to lift the scoring was stymied.

Somewhat surprisingly, considering his success here in the Test when he claimed ten wickets, Southee was not given the new ball but soon had an impact when brought on as first change from the Pavilion End - where he did most of the damage with the red ball. In the 11th over - Southee's third - Bell drove without sufficient footwork and gave wicketkeeper Ronchi his first catch as a New Zealand international.

In his next over, Southee struck again when Alastair Cook, like Bell, drove away from his body - much to the captain's frustration after he had been forced to fight hard against Mitchell McClenaghan's opening spell when the left-armer, who has not played since the one-day series in New Zealand, beat him four times in succession. Southee completed consecutive wicket maidens and ended his first spell with figure of 5-2-12-2.

Just when the work of Trott and Root appeared to have overcome those losses, the innings started to fall away. Root, who had been sparky at the crease, exposed his stumps with the reverse sweep against McCullum and then Trott, shaping to be the anchor for the innings as he so often is, picked out deep midwicket.

Eoin Morgan and Buttler, who are viewed as vital in the last 10 overs, therefore had twice that time to build their innings but neither found fluency. For Morgan it was just his second innings since returning from the IPL - his first was a golden duck against Yorkshire in the YB40 - and after a sweetly struck straight drive to get off the mark he put himself in a tangle against McClenaghan. The bowler noticed him advancing down the pitch, banged the ball in short and Morgan's attempt to abort his pull only resorted in a healthy top edge to the wicketkeeper. When Buttler fell in the Powerplay, England's last hope of a powerful finish went with him.

Andrew McGlashan is a senior assistant editor at ESPNcricinfo

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • Carl on June 3, 2013, 12:45 GMT

    @JG2704 I think that Trott showed what he could do given the time to bat yesterday.He's got to be given the time to build an innings (or there's no point in having him there). Bell can adapt his game a little more that Trott and can be slightly more aggressive. Still think I'd have both Bell and Trott in the team and think that Trott opening gives him the time to build an innings and if that mean Bell drops out so be it (although I'm not sure there is a proven alternative and Bells fielding is normally pretty good as well).

    KP is (sadly) the key to us having any chance of being a decent ODI and T20 side. If he can score quickly it allows the other to play closer to their natural game.

    I still say that Cook is the biggest issue as he's such a good player but I could see a Trott/Carburry (or someone similar) partnership being our most effective, balanced partnership

  • Dummy4 on June 3, 2013, 3:33 GMT

    @cric_j. What about Cooky,Trotty,Woakesy,Derbachy,Bresnany ..you get the point ..lol

  • John on June 2, 2013, 21:31 GMT

    @Pyketts on (June 2, 2013, 11:31 GMT) You're going to think I hate Bell as I was dead against him coming back into the OD side , but to be fair he's done ok. His first (unsuccessful) run in the ODI side he was batting all over the place but I seem to remember him playing alot between 3 and 5. I just think Trott and Bell are too similar (tempo wise) so moving Trott to open ahead of Bell when Bell has has been the in his best ODI form would seem pointless as Trott will not likely do anything different from Bell. Personally (and I've always said this) , I'd like to see a faster scorer opening although up til this series the Cook,Bell,Trott top 3 has worked well. I just wonder if when/if KP returns if they could rotate Bell and Trott ?

  • Carl on June 2, 2013, 11:31 GMT

    @JG2074 good point re moving the order around but Trott's never really going to have a S/R of 100+ on a consistant basis so if he opens it gives him time to build his innings (I know the way England bat at times he's in early anyway!). I also feel Bell would be more effective (if he can get beyond 30) coming in at 4 or 5.

    I feel that Cook is the odd man out but they won't drop him (and to be honest, even though I'm contradicting myself, I probably wouldn't at this point).

    Bres did well but I think that we've got better (when fit) but he's a good back up.

  • Martin on June 2, 2013, 7:16 GMT

    @Shan156 on (June 2, 2013, 2:28 GMT) Lol mate I thought there had to be some good explanation....

  • John on June 2, 2013, 7:11 GMT

    @Shan - Yeah I forgot , it's that transition time that teams seem to go through when Eng beat them

  • Shanmugam on June 2, 2013, 2:28 GMT

    @JG2704, you still don't get it, do you? Eng. won in Ind. because Ind. were rebuilding. If Sachin, Zaheer, and Harbhajan were in full form and Dravid, Laxman, Kumble, Ganguly, Srinath, Kapil, Vengsarkar, Amarnath, Gavaskar, Borde, and Wadekar had not retired, Eng. would have been whitewashed 4-0 not only in India but also in Eng. They should have been whitewashed anyway in India but they were lucky that they scored more runs and took more wickets than did India. They got several decisions in their favor, the pitches were not turning when the Indian spinners bowled, the pitch got bad for batting for Indian batsmen played and global warming helped Eng too.

    A few words of advice for you - before you post anything, write something like "Eng. were thrashed by SA at home and Pak. away, so they don't deserve to play cricket", "Eng. got lucky to win in India" (don't mention "Eng. beat India"), "Eng. batsmen and bowlers are the worst", and "SRT is God". Don't ever refer to the 2011 series.

  • Alan on June 2, 2013, 1:49 GMT

    Tried to post yesterday but couldn't :(

    @kapcharlie, I have to disagree regarding sportsmanship. As a kiwi I didn't see anything wrong with reviewing that. Firstly, it was only going to be overturned if t was clearly out, in which case he would have deserved to be out and England would have fully deserved the wicket. Secondly, I don't think you want to just give him a hundred, make him wait, add to the nerves. Cricket is all about confidence, a hundred makes you feel much better than 99, especially if you don't have the best conversion rate. There should be no free rides in professional sport, and i think england were right to reveiw that. Ultimately in that game it would have been meaningless, but in terms of the series....who knows. That's my take on it anyway.

  • John on June 1, 2013, 19:47 GMT

    @Krunal Patel on (June 1, 2013, 9:00 GMT) What a charming post. Full of the joys of summer. TBH - I'm not really seeing these "We don't care" comms

    Out of interest what has Steyn,Sub Continent Pitches and India have to do with this thread? - Just that I thought this was about the 1st ODI of a series vs NZ?

    Just one point , I do remember SA beat us at home but they earned that win by playing better cricket , just like in turn England earned their win vs India last year which I believe was away - as in your home?

  • John on June 1, 2013, 19:36 GMT

    @trav29 on (June 1, 2013, 13:00 GMT) Yeah , I know you were just saying that Prior is not the answer. It's strange because you'd think he's be ideal for shorter formats. I suppose also , he'd ended up being rested half the time anyway and I don't theink it would work. I'm not sure with Jos. I've seen him keep for Somerset when Craig has been on Eng duty and he's done ok so I wonder if it's a pressure thing - with Somerset (2011/12) he'd just be standing in and knew it wasn't permenant.