Mark Richardson
Former New Zealand opener; now a television commentator and cricket columnist

A few alarms but no surprises

New Zealand's showing in the ODIs against England was about par for the course for them

Mark Richardson

July 4, 2008

Comments: 4 | Text size: A | A



New Zealand arrived at the expected series result, but not before some early hiccups © Cricket Europe
Enlarge

It's been lauded as a great turnaround, New Zealand winning the ODI series against England, but I'd argue it was nothing more than could be expected.

Off the back of a 0-2 Test series loss New Zealand were soundly beaten in the Twenty20 fixture and then in the first ODI. All of a sudden they were being described as some sort of devastated rabble lacking in the skills of the game. But New Zealand have been losing Test matches from winning positions for the last six years, so nothing new there. And for no good reason they are not the strength they perhaps should be in Twenty20. One-day cricket is their forte, without doubt, so when they followed up their prior poor results in this tour with a loss in game one of the ODI series, everyone immediately pushed the panic button... myself included. However, looking at that game objectively, one of cricket's most talented and destructive players, Kevin Pietersen, played a blinder - and in ODIs one man's batting display can often decide a match. Sure, New Zealand lost by 114 runs but when one team makes over 300, a batting collapse is always on the cards in the second innings as caution is thrown to the wind.

I doubt that result destroyed New Zealand's belief, but as far as getting things falling their way again went, they probably needed a catalyst. That came in game two from an unlikely source. Well, two sources actually. The rain and England's captain, Paul Collingwood. In a shortened game, defending an inadequate total, Collingwood went on a go-slow, hoping the weather would save him. It did, by one over. Nineteen overs into New Zealand's reply and right on target for a Duckworth-Lewis victory at the 20-overs mark, rain halted play for good. It was a no-result that left New Zealand feeling cheated. I know personally that there are some nasty characters in this New Zealand side and when they get their backs up, it brings the best out of them rather than a loss of control.

Anger was effectively channelled into determination in game three and when you find yourselves six down for 75, you need a bit of determination. It was grit-your-teeth stuff that saw New Zealand through to a defendable 182. I say "defendable" because of the conditions that prevailed that day in Bristol. I've always believed New Zealand sides play best when they have their backs up, and also when they're up against the wall, but I also believe New Zealand performs comparatively better in bowler-friendly conditions. In defending 182, this side did what could be expected.

Once you let the better side back into a contest, that side is invariably the victor. Good sides absorb pressure, ride it out, turn it round, and when given the opening, heap it back on tenfold. Better sides also seem to prevail in the close games because they have belief and that belief ensures heads remain comparatively clear.

 
 
I've always believed New Zealand cricket sides play best when they have their backs up, and also when they're up against the wall, but I also believe the New Zealand side performs comparatively better in bowler-friendly conditions
 

Game four was close all right, New Zealand winning from the last ball with only one wicket in hand. You could also argue that heads were not clear but rather clouded with rage following another Collingwood misdemeanour, when he failed to recall New Zealand's Grant Elliot after he was run out in the aftermath of a mid-pitch collision with bowler Ryan Sidebottom during an attempt at a quick single.

The subtext from this game read all wrong for England. New Zealand now had a key man back in form in Scott Styris; Jacob Oram was back from injury and had some runs under his belt; a young fast bowler, Tim Southee, had announced himself to the world; and there was renewed belief and a lust for revenge against an England team they perceived as doing them wrong. England on the other hand looked a rabble, were apologetic, and now were without their captain, who had been suspended for the slow over-rate of game four.

So it was no real surprise then that in game five New Zealand pulled off a display of controlled domination. Their 51-run victory at Lord's was as good a display of ODI cricket as you are likely to see. Having lost the toss they were put in in conditions that were offering just a little. They quickly summed up the situation, developed a strategy that would have cautioned conservatism against England's quality frontline seamers, and an exploitation of England's weaker fourth, fifth and sixth options, knowing that the best chance for piling on the runs would come in the last ten overs. If that was the plan, they effected it perfectly. Even Brendan McCullum was circumspect at the top, and Styris was outstanding at the death. England had no answer and crumbled.

Perhaps this New Zealand team arrived at the appropriate series result in a slightly covert fashion, given their ICC ODI ranking of No. 3, but under closer inspection they dominated key moments and made them match-winning moments. Rather like what the superior England did in the Test matches. As far as I'm concerned, what we got was normal transmission.

Former New Zealand opener Mark Richardson is now a television commentator and cricket columnist

RSS Feeds: Mark Richardson

© ESPN Sports Media Ltd.

Posted by heruramba on (July 4, 2008, 15:17 GMT)

newzeland is a good team.they have a good leader.jessey ryders inclusion would give there batting side an edge.there main dissapointment is there batting.remember that styris ,oram and elliot have played important role in there teams victory.there plus is elliot .there weakness is batting .richardson sir has done a great job.if they play amore numberof tests they can improve.

Posted by Rubberbee on (July 4, 2008, 14:57 GMT)

One sentence in this article is particularly intriguing: There are some nasty characters in the NZ side. Don't leave us hanging - tell us who they are, and how they manifest this nastiness! Do they run people out in sneaky ways? Do they bowl bouncers at tail-enders? Or do they roam the streets of Auckland robbing grannies and kicking dogs? We're all ears ...

Posted by Zoik on (July 4, 2008, 10:40 GMT)

A very good article please send it to NZ newspapers, radio stations and TV sports news outlets. It has become apparent in New Zealand that it is a badge of honour to claim underdog status when it is blatently not so. Both Test and one day results followed currant and form. If New Zealand had won the test series and England the one day series; now that would have been a real upset. Having said that I do get so fed up with the clichéd statement about psychological advantage carried from test to another or from one day games to tests or vice versa. The games are so different and often have different players. So please all of those armature armchair psychologists stick to navel gazing and drop the clichés.

Posted by ashwin_547 on (July 4, 2008, 8:19 GMT)

In the ODI's New Zealand perform best when they are down and may have been written off. Similar performances should happen in Test Cricket for them though. I remember in Fleming's final Test New Zealand were down needing a hero but none of the batsmen stood up. New Zealand are powerful contenders for the Champions Trophy and could even win it.

Comments have now been closed for this article

FeedbackTop
Email Feedback Print
Share
E-mail
Feedback
Print
Mark RichardsonClose
Mark Richardson An opening batsman in the classical mould (though he started out as a left-arm spinner who turned to batting after suffering the yips) Mark Richardson held his place in the New Zealand Test team with distinction. His average, nearly 45, is impressive for a man who found it difficult to convert fifties into hundreds, but 23 scores of above 50 in 38 Tests meant that he did his job more often than not. His retirement at the age of 33 seemed premature, but Richardson made a seamless transition from the dressing room to the Sky commentary box, where he added a touch of humour to his meticulousness.
Related Links
Players/Officials: Paul Collingwood | Scott Styris
Series/Tournaments: England tour of New Zealand
Teams: New Zealand

    New Zealand must look in the mirror

Martin Crowe: If they are to live up to their potential in next year's World Cup at home, they need to look within

    Impressing Viv and Greg

Five Firsts: Former Pakistan batsman Haroon Rasheed on the compliments he received, and his admiration for Gavaskar

    Still plenty of ifs for Butt

Rob Steen: Salman Butt insists players should refrain from "wrongdoing" but that shouldn't gain him back the trust of those he duped

Outside the Grace Gate

Shot Selection: You think MCC members have it easy when it comes to watching a Test at Lord's? Think again

A measure for batting and bowling effectiveness in T20

Kartikeya Date: Strike rates and economy rates do not quite tell the whole story. Here's a new standard

News | Features Last 7 days

UAE all set to host lavish welcoming party

The controversy surrounding the IPL has done little to deter fans in UAE from flocking the stadiums, as they gear up to watch the Indian stars in action for the first time since 2006

Attention on Yuvraj, Gambhir in IPL 2014

ESPNcricinfo picks five players for whom this IPL is of bigger significance

India: cricket's Brazil

It's difficult to beat a huge talent base exposed to good facilities, and possessed of a long history of competing as a nation

Fifty for the pantheon

What if you had to narrow all of cricket greatness down to 50 names?

'I love to take batsmen on'

Wahab Riaz, the Pakistan left-arm quick, on the pain of missing out on a ten-for, and his love for numbers and batting

News | Features Last 7 days