New Zealand v England, 1st ODI, Hamilton February 17, 2013

B McCullum seals thrilling New Zealand win

98

New Zealand 259 for 7 (Williamson 74, B McCullum 69*) beat England 258 (Trott 68, Bell 64, Root 56, McClenaghan 4-56) by three wickets
Scorecard and ball-by-ball details

Martin Guptill, batting on one leg after a hamstring injury, helped his captain Brendon McCullum seal a nip-and-tuck chase in the opening ODI in Hamilton, as New Zealand squeezed home by three wickets with seven balls to spare. McCullum, who pushed himself down to No. 6, played a wonderfully paced innings, but kept losing partners to leave England with their noses in front until the final stages, when Guptill contributed vital boundaries to help limit his running.

There were three crucial mini passages of play in the final 12 overs after England had seemingly taken control at 155 for 5. James Anderson, who sent down eight world-class overs, was taken for 17 in his ninth when he started dropping short at McCullum. Then Guptill picked up 10 runs off his first two deliveries back at the crease - including a ramp over third man for six - which was followed by the decisive over, when Chris Woakes was taken for 13 off his last, with Guptill adding two further boundaries as he scored 24 from 10 balls after returning. Such was the adrenalin he sprinted off for runs in the seconds it took for the pain to register.

That left 13 needed off 12 balls. New Zealand only needed five more deliveries with McCullum clearing the midwicket boundary off Stuart Broad - all England's quicks bowled too short to him - before the limping Guptill hit the winning runs. New Zealanders talk of the 'Kiwi Spirit' and you will not see a better example as to what it actually means.

Guptill had retired hurt in sixth over after pulling up on completing a tight single to mid-off. He tried to carry on - without a runner as per the new regulations - but soon signalled he would have to leave the field. It was announced he would bat if required and with Kyle Mills - a capable lower-order player - still to come he shuffled back out to the middle for what may, depending on the seriousness of the injury, be his last contribution of the series.

McCullum's decision to hold himself back at the fall of Ross Taylor's wicket reignited the debate about where he should bat. There was already disquiet about him being as low as No. 5, but he is keen to be able to exploit the batting Powerplay and final 10 overs much in the way England try to use Eoin Morgan and Jos Buttler. With a steely glint in his eye, and a never-say-die focus, he showed his judgement to be spot on. However, England will need a debrief over their tactics.

What will frustrate Alastair Cook is that the fast bowlers did so much impressive work, yet their poor overs were so costly that the game was lost. Anderson, for his first eight, did not look like a man who had not bowled in anger since mid-December. His inswinger to BJ Watling was perfect and made him England's most successful international bowler when all formats are combined. Woakes, who has this series to convince he can be the bowling allrounder, nipped out two in the middle order before the latest point on a tough learning curve.

The fielding earned a wicket, too, when Ian Bell's dive at midwicket caused confusion between McCullum and Kane Williamson, who had anchored the chase with a measured 74, and Woakes collected the ball superbly at the stumps. James Franklin was bounced out by Steven Finn, but Nathan McCullum and Andrew Ellis formed important little partnerships to ensure the target was never out of sight.

The closing stages of both innings cost England, because with the bat they lost 7 for 68 in the last 9.3 overs as they failed to use up their allocation. Mitchell McClenaghan, who also picked up an injury when he suffered a side strain - which will keep him out of the rest of the ODI series - took four wickets while Mills showed his experience with an accurate 10 overs.

England's innings was constructed in an old-fashioned style: see off the two new balls when they nipped around, consolidate in the middle with the aim of exploding at the end. Only two-thirds of that worked as Morgan fell early and Buttler, after briefly dazzling, was cut off short of a decisive contribution.

England's top four were all having their first knocks of the tour; Bell and Cook arrived last week after not being part of the Twenty20 squad, Jonathan Trott had been rested since the end of the India Test series and Root did not play the warm-ups on this trip and wasn't needed with the bat in Wellington two days ago. The downtime affected some more than others. Not much can be deduced from Cook's brief stay, Bell looked in decent touch, Trott struggled early before finding some rhythm and Root was the most impressive of the lot.

It was the latest stage in Root's seamless transition to the top level. Arriving shortly before the midway mark he was busy and alert from his first delivery. There was one moment of fortune. On 32 he was given out caught behind off Mills, as he dropped his hands to a short ball, and immediately called for a review that led to the decision being overturned when the TV umpire decided there was conclusive evidence it had come off his sleeve. Opinions from the ground were split. Still, it was a highly mature innings.

While Trott batted in his own bubble, Root worked the gaps and made sure he pushed the fielders. Those attributes made up for the slight lack of power in his game - he also produced the scoop past the keeper - as he went to 50 from 57 balls. But he could not stay to close out the innings and England were at least 20 short of what they should have reached. They were made to pay.

Andrew McGlashan is an assistant editor at ESPNcricinfo

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • nicevans on February 17, 2013, 9:52 GMT

    Wow, what a finish from maccullum and guptil! Really thought we were gone at 155/5. Was very suprised Boult was dropped for this game, thought we were one bowler short, hopefully he will be back for the next game now due to injuries. A big shame for Mcclenaghan, he was looking NZs biggest wicket taking threat going foward. Well played Kane as well, he looked the most assured of all the NZ batsmen against a very good english bowling unit.

  • jmcilhinney on February 17, 2013, 5:00 GMT

    England's plan of starting steadily, keeping wickets in hand and then blazing away at the end is all well and good and has worked for them on many occasions but the weakness is that, if the middle order fail to fire as they did here, it's too late to do anything about it. If you try to go harder early and lose a few wickets then at least the middle order have a chance to steady the ship, consolidate and still look to hit out at the end. The England brains trust do say that they have statistics on their side though and, despite most fans seeming to think that England are no good at ODI cricket, they have been hovering around the top of the rankings for a while now.

  • jmcilhinney on February 18, 2013, 23:59 GMT

    @Nathan Bell on (February 18, 2013, 14:54 GMT), I'm not sure why people are still going on about Broad because it seems fairly clear that his slump in form was in large part due to injuries and, if he's past those, there's a very good chance that he will be able to perform at his best again. He was very good in two of the three T20s and all the England bowlers other than Anderson had very similar figures in this game so he certainly didn't stand out as being worse than the rest. I do agree with the lack of a plan B and I have said so a number of times. I don't necessarily see this a failing of the bowlers though, or at least not them alone. Many fans have voiced this same gripe for some time so surely it must be a decision made by the coaching staff, including Flower, Saker and Giles. I saw Woakes try a Yorker or two and they didn't come off against Guptill but the way they kept feeding McCullum and he just kept whacking them through or over midwicket was very frustrating.

  • Sombrehombre on February 18, 2013, 23:49 GMT

    From an NZ perspective I just want to say thank you to the English fans who have mostly been gracious in defeat and not shy in praising our average NZ team. Thanks guys, credit to your country and in direct contrast to the sheer arrogance of other countries' fans. Bring on game 2!!!!

  • JG2704 on February 18, 2013, 20:40 GMT

    @zenboomerang on (February 18, 2013, 10:14 GMT) My personal theory is that last year KP wanted time off so he could play IPL and thought he would get his way. When this didn't happen , after months of stubbornness - probably from both sides - KP decided to unretire from shorter formats ... But because KP was going on about his workload , I think ECB have made a point by not playing him in 3 of the 4 shorter format series since his reintegration. Do you or does anyone believe KP is happy at playing so little shorter formats cricket?

  • on February 18, 2013, 17:33 GMT

    McCullum has shown that he should be keeping wicket in test matches and batting at 5 or 6. McCullum in test matches even though hes captain isn't strong enough to stay in the team as a specialist batsman. To make the balance of the team right for test matches McCullum needs to keep wicket.

    The team NZ for the 1st test against England should be...

    Watling Rutherford Brownlie Taylor Ryder Williamson McCullum (c) & (wkt) Bracewell Bruce Martin/Vettori(if fit) Boult Mills/Southee

    NZ need to look around for two good test openers as thats there major weakness at the moment. For the time being Watling would open as he looked more disciplined/ better against the new ball than McCullum. McCullum showed with a stunning catch in the first ODI that hes the strongest batsmen wicket keeper in NZ. Mills would come into the side as he has shown good control in ODI and would be a alternative if Southee wasnt fit or in form.

  • on February 18, 2013, 14:54 GMT

    Was a great game. As for the English bowlers... Poor! Broad is lucky to still have a place in the side. Anderson and Woakes consistently bowling short to McCullum was below par. Shows that the English bowlers lack a plan B in those situations.

  • jmcilhinney on February 18, 2013, 13:06 GMT

    @zenboomerang on (February 18, 2013, 2:45 GMT), agreed. I expect to see a bit of improvement from those England players coming in cold too but that's not to take anything away from NZ, who deserved the win. As for KP, I can only imagine that, now that the ECB have managed to reintegrate him without losing face, they are trying to give him plenty of time off to avoid a repeat performance. I'm sure that they consider being as ready as possible for the Champion's Trophy and, longer term, the World Cup as far more important than these bilateral series. Keeping KP happy and ready to play in those tournaments would be a factor, I'm sure.

  • dunger.bob on February 18, 2013, 11:45 GMT

    NZ can be a genuine surprise packet, especially in L.O cricket. McCullum in full flight is like a frenzied axe murderer and reputations mean nothing to him. .. I would say that England was showing some signs of rust which is not surprising given the long lay offs some of your key players have had .. to be honest, it was a pretty good effort to get as close as you did. .. England should improve game by game but you should never under estimate those Kiwi's either. They do have spirit and way more talent than most people give them credit for.

  • zenboomerang on February 18, 2013, 10:14 GMT

    @JG2704... Re: KP... At so many levels I wish he would just be the great batsman that he is & yet his comms let him down, while the public want to demonize him... Personally I don't want him playing against Oz for the simple fact that he is so destructive (arrogant, belligerent, etc...) & can be a game changer at any moment... That said, I respect his abilities & wish that he performs at his best... He has been poorly handled, which for me must put the onus back on the ECB...

  • nicevans on February 17, 2013, 9:52 GMT

    Wow, what a finish from maccullum and guptil! Really thought we were gone at 155/5. Was very suprised Boult was dropped for this game, thought we were one bowler short, hopefully he will be back for the next game now due to injuries. A big shame for Mcclenaghan, he was looking NZs biggest wicket taking threat going foward. Well played Kane as well, he looked the most assured of all the NZ batsmen against a very good english bowling unit.

  • jmcilhinney on February 17, 2013, 5:00 GMT

    England's plan of starting steadily, keeping wickets in hand and then blazing away at the end is all well and good and has worked for them on many occasions but the weakness is that, if the middle order fail to fire as they did here, it's too late to do anything about it. If you try to go harder early and lose a few wickets then at least the middle order have a chance to steady the ship, consolidate and still look to hit out at the end. The England brains trust do say that they have statistics on their side though and, despite most fans seeming to think that England are no good at ODI cricket, they have been hovering around the top of the rankings for a while now.

  • jmcilhinney on February 18, 2013, 23:59 GMT

    @Nathan Bell on (February 18, 2013, 14:54 GMT), I'm not sure why people are still going on about Broad because it seems fairly clear that his slump in form was in large part due to injuries and, if he's past those, there's a very good chance that he will be able to perform at his best again. He was very good in two of the three T20s and all the England bowlers other than Anderson had very similar figures in this game so he certainly didn't stand out as being worse than the rest. I do agree with the lack of a plan B and I have said so a number of times. I don't necessarily see this a failing of the bowlers though, or at least not them alone. Many fans have voiced this same gripe for some time so surely it must be a decision made by the coaching staff, including Flower, Saker and Giles. I saw Woakes try a Yorker or two and they didn't come off against Guptill but the way they kept feeding McCullum and he just kept whacking them through or over midwicket was very frustrating.

  • Sombrehombre on February 18, 2013, 23:49 GMT

    From an NZ perspective I just want to say thank you to the English fans who have mostly been gracious in defeat and not shy in praising our average NZ team. Thanks guys, credit to your country and in direct contrast to the sheer arrogance of other countries' fans. Bring on game 2!!!!

  • JG2704 on February 18, 2013, 20:40 GMT

    @zenboomerang on (February 18, 2013, 10:14 GMT) My personal theory is that last year KP wanted time off so he could play IPL and thought he would get his way. When this didn't happen , after months of stubbornness - probably from both sides - KP decided to unretire from shorter formats ... But because KP was going on about his workload , I think ECB have made a point by not playing him in 3 of the 4 shorter format series since his reintegration. Do you or does anyone believe KP is happy at playing so little shorter formats cricket?

  • on February 18, 2013, 17:33 GMT

    McCullum has shown that he should be keeping wicket in test matches and batting at 5 or 6. McCullum in test matches even though hes captain isn't strong enough to stay in the team as a specialist batsman. To make the balance of the team right for test matches McCullum needs to keep wicket.

    The team NZ for the 1st test against England should be...

    Watling Rutherford Brownlie Taylor Ryder Williamson McCullum (c) & (wkt) Bracewell Bruce Martin/Vettori(if fit) Boult Mills/Southee

    NZ need to look around for two good test openers as thats there major weakness at the moment. For the time being Watling would open as he looked more disciplined/ better against the new ball than McCullum. McCullum showed with a stunning catch in the first ODI that hes the strongest batsmen wicket keeper in NZ. Mills would come into the side as he has shown good control in ODI and would be a alternative if Southee wasnt fit or in form.

  • on February 18, 2013, 14:54 GMT

    Was a great game. As for the English bowlers... Poor! Broad is lucky to still have a place in the side. Anderson and Woakes consistently bowling short to McCullum was below par. Shows that the English bowlers lack a plan B in those situations.

  • jmcilhinney on February 18, 2013, 13:06 GMT

    @zenboomerang on (February 18, 2013, 2:45 GMT), agreed. I expect to see a bit of improvement from those England players coming in cold too but that's not to take anything away from NZ, who deserved the win. As for KP, I can only imagine that, now that the ECB have managed to reintegrate him without losing face, they are trying to give him plenty of time off to avoid a repeat performance. I'm sure that they consider being as ready as possible for the Champion's Trophy and, longer term, the World Cup as far more important than these bilateral series. Keeping KP happy and ready to play in those tournaments would be a factor, I'm sure.

  • dunger.bob on February 18, 2013, 11:45 GMT

    NZ can be a genuine surprise packet, especially in L.O cricket. McCullum in full flight is like a frenzied axe murderer and reputations mean nothing to him. .. I would say that England was showing some signs of rust which is not surprising given the long lay offs some of your key players have had .. to be honest, it was a pretty good effort to get as close as you did. .. England should improve game by game but you should never under estimate those Kiwi's either. They do have spirit and way more talent than most people give them credit for.

  • zenboomerang on February 18, 2013, 10:14 GMT

    @JG2704... Re: KP... At so many levels I wish he would just be the great batsman that he is & yet his comms let him down, while the public want to demonize him... Personally I don't want him playing against Oz for the simple fact that he is so destructive (arrogant, belligerent, etc...) & can be a game changer at any moment... That said, I respect his abilities & wish that he performs at his best... He has been poorly handled, which for me must put the onus back on the ECB...

  • wibblewibble on February 18, 2013, 9:59 GMT

    NZ played well to knock off the target, but this was no fault of the bowlers as is indicated in this article. England were easily 30 runs light with the bat, given the collapse from the 40th over.

    If we had posted a par score, our bowlers would have won easily.

  • Front-Foot_lunge on February 18, 2013, 9:29 GMT

    No doubt, there will be fellow English fans, speaking at length about their teams prospects. But there is a simple guide you can follow. Last year, England were Number 1 in ODI's. Now, we're below Australia and now ranked 3rd. That, by anyones stretch of the imagination, is what we call a "plummet", a descent faster than a child sweep down a Dickensian chimney. I always want to see my country portrayed in the best light, and hope, that perhaps some of the hubris shown by my countrymen might be tempered with this stat. The fact is, we're simply not as good as our media and fans want us to believe.

  • JG2704 on February 18, 2013, 9:12 GMT

    @zenboomerang on (February 18, 2013, 2:45 GMT) Probably he is jaded after the huge amount of international cricket he's played in the last 8 months or so.

    Seriously though , it seems a joke going through all those negotiations to get your marquee shorter formats player back and then rest him for 3 of the 1st 4 shorter formats series. I wonder if ECB are kind of saying "You want rest , You've got rest" after KP was saying he was overworked earlier in 2012,

  • R_U_4_REAL_NICK on February 18, 2013, 9:11 GMT

    Congratulations Jimmy Anderson! Well done NZ for winning a thrilling game. My only quip at England is why did they not use Root for an over or two bowling? It's not like the seamers were dominating...

  • on February 18, 2013, 8:32 GMT

    There's something a little bit suspect about the rules of cricket when an injured top order batsman can go off the field when the game is tight and he's been totally pinned down by the bowlers, then get jammed full of painkillers and come back at the death when the bowlers are tired, with no pressure on him whatsoever. Fair play to Guptill, he played well, but in my humble opinion I don't think he should have been allowed back on.

  • landl47 on February 18, 2013, 6:54 GMT

    Well done, New Zealand- a wonderful effort from Brendon McCullum and very brave play by Guptill. I hope he didn't do himself more damage in the process, but he probably thinks it was worthwhile to secure such a famour victory. Williamson played very well, too- at 22 he looks one of the best young batsmen in the game.

    As for England, a frustrating loss, especially as they seemed to have control a couple of times and let it slip away. After 35 overs, with the powerplay to come and only 2 wickets down, they seemed set for a score in the 280-300 range. I disagree with those criticizing Trott, he did his job and if anyone in the last 7 had got runs then the total would have been enough.

    Again, in the NZ innings, England looked to have control until they decided to bowl short at McCullum- the one thing they should have avoided. Whether it was failure of planning or of execution I don't know, but they need to have a long look at the film before the next game. Congrats, NZ, you deserved it.

  • Fast_Track_Bully on February 18, 2013, 6:01 GMT

    Nice to see that England got thrashing from everywhere! From no:1 ODI team and from bottom ranked team!.

  • nicevans on February 18, 2013, 5:23 GMT

    Wow, what a finish from maccullum and guptil! Really thought we were gone at 155/5. Was very suprised Boult was dropped for this game, thought we were one bowler short, hopefully he will be back for the next game now due to injuries. A big shame for Mcclenaghan, he was looking NZs biggest wicket taking threat going foward. Well played Kane as well, he looked the most assured of all the NZ batsmen against a very good english bowling unit.

  • on February 18, 2013, 4:28 GMT

    As a kiwi i am just so proud of the boys put a HUGE smile on the face. Thought when Brendon ran out Kane then the steady loss of wickets might do it for us but nope in true kiwi fashion we stuck it to them.

    Bring on game 2 :)

  • on February 18, 2013, 3:20 GMT

    whats happening with Luke Ronchi? id prefer him in the side as the keeper/batsmen,

  • zenboomerang on February 18, 2013, 2:45 GMT

    Not making excuses for England, "but" why has Pietersen been left out of both the T20 & ODI teams?... Surely Eng best No.3 with an ODI ave over 40 & s.r. @86.75 - think the selectors need to examine their motives in all of this... Some players obviously are coming into this series a bit under-done, so expecting some improvement...

    That said, its good to see the Kiwi's one up & makes the rest of the series now much more enjoyable... The next 2 games are win or break for Eng...

  • Patchmaster on February 18, 2013, 2:12 GMT

    Trotts slow innings was the difference between the two sides - his lack of awareness as to the state of the game, is staggering, he just ambles around, and sure it's fine if he is needed to steady the ship or help re-build, but if can;t find another gear then he has to be dropped, with so many batsmen waiting in the wings, it's just criminal to have him wandering along with a strike rate of 50.

  • on February 18, 2013, 0:07 GMT

    It was my birthday. We ALWAYS win on my birthday! So I was never in doubt.

  • PatrickRossiter on February 17, 2013, 23:18 GMT

    Excuse me? Was I watching the same game? Kane Williamson was outstanding holding the whole chase together until B McCullum needlessly ran him out with a "Yes" (to which Williamson responded as he should), then a "No" and Williamson couldn't get back. McCullum is stupidly aggressive at times, and this run out was a perfect example. The game was essentially in the bag as long as Williamson was there. When McCullum had his rush of blood to the head he put the game into jeopardy. Why is no-one else commenting on this? Why is there only passing mention of the fact that Williamson was run out, with faint praise of his knock. To be honest, I don't think there is enough comment on Guptill's guts either. Everyone seems mesmerised by B McCullum, when all I see is a glory hound that still has an average in the low 30s. Certainly no superstar.

  • jmcilhinney on February 17, 2013, 23:08 GMT

    @Snick_To_Backward_Point on (February 17, 2013, 15:04 GMT), I am certainly not placing the blame solely on Trott's shoulders but to say that he had nothing to do with the loss is also a bit naive I think. Firstly, be made his runs at a strike rate of 75.55, not 80. Secondly, while the likes of Morgan and, to a lesser extent, Buttler did fail, we need to recognise that their job is inherently higher risk than Trott's. I don't see that it's right to praise Trott too highly for having a high average when he takes very few risks and criticise others too heavily when they are expected to play a very high risk game. You can see how Cook has modified his style for the 50-over game and been successful. If Trott can do that too and maintain his average then I'll be lauding him but, at the moment, there's no doubt in my mind that his slowish scoring is placing extra pressure on the middle order.

  • jmcilhinney on February 17, 2013, 23:01 GMT

    @Barry Glynn on (February 17, 2013, 15:25 GMT), it's an inbuilt margin for error in the use of Hawk Eye and similar technologies. The predicted path can never be 100% certain so the ICC have applied a nominal margin for error and, within that, the decision stays with the on-field umpire because Hawk Eye is not conclusive proof that the original decision was wrong. This has been explained over and over by commentators and commentors alike so please pay attention.

  • JG2704 on February 17, 2013, 22:38 GMT

    @jmcilhinney (11:50 GMT) Thought both were fair and re NM - to me - when they did the zoom in on it , I was more convinced it was out. I feel a Gayle déjà vu coming on here. Also do the commentators not realise that DRS can only reverse an umpire's decision if the decision is conclusively incorrect - it's not about giving the batsman or bowler the benefit of the doubt . The NZ commentator went on for ages about it

    @SamRoy (, 10:42 GMT) - Will bow to your greater knowledge. Guess it was worth the risk then

    @jackiethepen on (, 18:06 GMT) True - but over the years Sehwag had been a very key player and he is certainly no accumulator

    @5wombats - Hope all is better with you now. Tried to post a similar message the other day but moderators rejected it

    PLEASE PUBLISH THIS TIME - NOTHING OF OFFENCE TO ANYONE

  • yorkshire-86 on February 17, 2013, 19:16 GMT

    Having no firepower at the top of the order has 'worked' for England for one reason - the bowling. The current crop of English fast bowlers in English conditions are virtually unplayable. Its ok to plod along and score 220 at an English ground because you know the bowlers wont let the opposition get over 200, especially with two new balls seaming around like boumerangs. Abroad its a different matter - NEW BALLS have no benefit to the bowlers, they only benefit the batsmen as they fly further when they are hit, indeed in the subcontinent the fielding team do thier best to rough up and age the new balls to soften them up! Like I said before, we cant rely on the sloggers to get us a competitive total every game, sometimes the BATSMEN have to get the runs instead!

  • Kirstenfan on February 17, 2013, 19:15 GMT

    Just goes to show, you don't have to be good, just bowl enough overs and average in the 30s and you'll be number 1, well bowled Jimmy, always knew you'd be a world class, Ian Botham and Fred Trueman must be having a toast on you tonight, you all time legend of English cricket, and you've had so many hair styles along the way, what a true all rounder!

  • Cpt.Meanster on February 17, 2013, 19:10 GMT

    Good game by the Black Caps. England didn't play well and lost the game. This goes to show England are not yet consistent enough in ODI cricket. NZ have always punched above their weight and have proven they won't be easy pushovers. England committing the same mistakes that they did against India. In the small NZ grounds, 258 is no where enough. 300 should be the aim should England bat first. NZ will be quietly confident here on. A spicy series ahead.

  • Kirstenfan on February 17, 2013, 19:07 GMT

    Oh please - any list where Jimmy Anderson is number 1 needs massive qualification, give me Fred Trueman any day, and don't get my bile up by mentioning Jimmy in the same paragraph as Dale Steyn...muppets

  • AKS286 on February 17, 2013, 18:32 GMT

    @yorkshire-86 on (February 17, 2013, 17:13 GMT) yes you are right about jimmy limited over performance but he replaces dernbach do want want to see dernbach in ODIs & T20? answer is NO. eng don't have left arm fast bowler, i want to see TOPLEY in the team. Broad is inconsistant in his whole career. Trott scored slowly.Root is young and smart he should be a opening partner with cook. COOK, Hales, root, bell, morgan, bairstow, wright, swanny, anderson, finn, topley.

  • kiwicricketnut on February 17, 2013, 18:27 GMT

    @ nathan bell we'd all love ryder back but he's just not an option at the moment. Yeah i like neesham thought he was pretty harshly treated by both selectors and captain in south africa and didn't much chance to show his talent but i also think the same could be said for anderson, they both had fielding slip ups, i put that down to nerves. Don't just judge anderson on that south africa performance its a baptisim of fire over there he is one talented kid just needs a definative role in the team and a decent crack at it either of the two are better than ellis anyway

  • WonkyBail on February 17, 2013, 18:13 GMT

    I watched most of this game and thought England came undone a bit and were 20-30 short, saying that I also thought they had got away with it. Root continues to impress and Woakes is an improvement on Dernbach, if Buttler had stayed on a while and Morgan hadn't been caught, but if your Auntie was a man she'd be your uncle. GSinge7- not really sure England got hammered but at least India remain top of rankings, now that the rankings are relevant again, Sachin for pope!

  • 5wombats on February 17, 2013, 18:10 GMT

    Excellent game and very well played by New Zealand. Threw it away in the last 5 overs there with bad bowling after we had NZ 5/150ish. Even so - excellent play by New Zealand batsmen. I didn't like the way we batted - far too timid. And I could throttle Trott!!! @Rooboy (February 17, 2013, 9:52 GMT). And there we were thinking that it was only people like RandyOZ who came onto other peoples forums in order to gloat.... now it turns out that even you can't resist it. Tell us @Rooboy - when Australia last played England in a ODI series - How was that for you?

  • jackiethepen on February 17, 2013, 18:06 GMT

    Those who want hard hitting batsmen at the top of the order should consider why Dhoni bats where he does and why McCullum moved down the order to take advantage of the batting powerplay at 35 overs. Do they really think these top class hard hitting batsmen would not choose to bat at 1 or 2 if it benefitted them more? The reality is that if Dhoni or McCullum took on the field and were out early at the start of the innings, then their opportunity to make a crucial brutal attack would be gone. It isn't old fashioned cricket India, England and NZ are playing. They are taking advantage of new rules which makes 35 hours plus the hardest part of the game to defend. Isn't this obvious?

  • Htc-Android on February 17, 2013, 17:41 GMT

    congratz new zealand. you surely deserved that win Kane williamson keeps improving. He is surely going to be new zealands next nathan Astle.

  • on February 17, 2013, 17:30 GMT

    To lose this match from where they were in their innings must be very demoralising for England. That is the sort of thing that used to happen to NZ - but now seems to be happening to England and South Africa as well in ODIs.

  • yorkshire-86 on February 17, 2013, 17:13 GMT

    We need to be more aggressive at the start of the innings. Two hard new balls to play with should not mean you have to pat back the first thirty overs and rely on lower order slogging to get a competitive total. We need a hard hitting batsmen or two in the top 3 to take advantage of the harder balls. As for 'our best attack', Anderson and Swann do not have great records in limited overs cricket - Anderson often gets carted and Swann takes barely over a wicket a game.

  • bonobo on February 17, 2013, 17:07 GMT

    credit to New Zealand. But have to say am really disappointed England left Patel out, I think he is a constantly undervalued player, his early performances, test form and over expectation of his bowling mean his talent and contribution as an ODI batsman. It feels every game, however he performs, he is having to justify his place in the team. Since the last WC, he has avergaed 40, at a strike rate of over 90 and has constantly helped England finish games, when used to flag in the middle order. He seems ambitious and wants a place higher up the order and with KP out, it would have been an ideal opportunity. I really like Root, but him Trott, Cook and Bell is not a balanced top order and today for all the value of their runs, a combined strike rate in the 70s is one of the problems with England performance today. Patel in combination with Morgan and Buttler is very dangerous. I really feel people need to look at the record books and see how consistent Patel has actually been

  • Indefatigible on February 17, 2013, 16:38 GMT

    What a cracker of a game. NZ beat Eng in an absolute humdinger. To be honest, I thought Brendon McCullum made a mistake, by batting so low down the order. But he anchored the latter part of the chase really well, after the initial good work done by Kane Williamson. Also, kudos to Martin Guptill for battling through pain to see his side through at the end. A rather tense chase but a good win for New Zealand. Well done Black Caps!

  • sandy_bangalore on February 17, 2013, 16:19 GMT

    I am Indian, but NZ are my facourite cricketing side by a mile, especially against teams like Aus and NZ. I was gutted when they lost to Eng 2 days back, but they did fantastically well to win today. But what a shame that Mccleneghan will miss the rest of the series. He was outstanding. But finally, i see some depth emerging in the Black caps bowling department. Southee/Bracewell are adequate replacements.Hope the black caps win the series!

  • andrew27994 on February 17, 2013, 16:01 GMT

    Also if players like Colin Munro and BJ Watling are provided extended opportunities they might reap the rewards as we have seen Williamson do of recent.

    I'm an Indian fan but do appreciate good performance from other sides.

    England might have lost this match but they can take some of the positives like Root's contribution, Buttler's cameo and Woakes' bowling performance.

  • andrew27994 on February 17, 2013, 15:54 GMT

    @TheVillain : If you read the entire comment, I was stating that "if" a player like McCullum can score more consistently only then NZ can make it to the top 4 in the ICC ODI Rankings. They have always had a decent pace attack and their spinners have been managing quite well so the problem is just their batting.

  • Front-Foot-Lunge on February 17, 2013, 15:53 GMT

    What a bat Mccullum is, pulling good balls off a length and getting NZ over the finish line with just a few balls to spare. A classic, tight ODI match this: England were all but home with a few overs to spare and then lost it at the death. A great match.

  • Energetic. on February 17, 2013, 15:31 GMT

    @andrew27994 - lool! don't get carried away mate with New Zealand breaking into top 4. They're really going downhill no talent, no fans nothing.

  • on February 17, 2013, 15:25 GMT

    DRS should either be used or not. All this tosh about staying with the umpires on field decision etc. If the umpire has given an lbw not out and hawkeye shows it to be clipping the outside of the stump, it still stays not out. But if the Umpire to the same ball said out , the decision would have stayed out. Where is the logic in that?

    I suppose the answer is adopt the Indian way and just stay stuck in the last century and not use it at all.

  • Snick_To_Backward_Point on February 17, 2013, 15:04 GMT

    jmcilhinney, IMO this had nothing to do with Trott's 'slow' SR. In fact his SR of 80 ish given his consistency (avg just below 50) would be accepted by most teams. This was a failure of the middle order to push on from over 40 (when Trott had helped to set a perfectly respectable launching pad). Time and time again England seems to have a collective failure in the 50 over format when they have to up the rate in the latter stages. It's something we seem to struggle with. Morgan is one of the few who can do this when he's on song. Instead of bashing Trott for making 60 odd @ an SR of 80 why not have a pop at Morgan et al for failing?

  • on February 17, 2013, 14:41 GMT

    Happy for NZ, but really surprised by English loss considering they played their best attack in this match.Now, i started to believe that England are really poor in ODIs.

  • gnanzcupid on February 17, 2013, 14:41 GMT

    As we all know the poms' losses continue in one dayers

  • andrew27994 on February 17, 2013, 13:46 GMT

    Wow, what a fightback by New Zealand! Guptill was the real hero in this match. And finally McCullum delivered for New Zealand. He's extremely talented but very inconsistent. If he can produce innings like this on a consistent basis there's no reason why New Zealand can't get into the top 4 of the ICC ODI Rankings. I would like to see Guptill show some improvement in Tests though.

    I think England's middle order batsmen just got a bit carried away. I think if the likes of Morgan and Buttler had tried to play themselves in, England were bound to score about 280-290.

  • jmcilhinney on February 17, 2013, 12:26 GMT

    @Rooboy on (February 17, 2013, 9:52 GMT), I think the most recent time was when they beat Australia 4-0 in their last meeting. Short memory or selective memory?

  • on February 17, 2013, 12:02 GMT

    Well played mccullum...a captains knock....playing down the order realy works for him..

  • jmcilhinney on February 17, 2013, 11:50 GMT

    As for Nathan McCullum's review, he was given out by the on-field umpire and there is no way that anyone could say conclusively that the ball hit the bat first based on the replays. The third umpire's job is not to decide whether the batsman is out or not but to review the decision of the on-field umpire. In this case there was no proof that that decision was incorrect so it stood and the batsman was out. When it comes to benefit of the doubt, the third umpire errs in favour of the on-field umpire. It's for the on-field umpire to err in favour of the batsman. In this case he didn't feel that there was enough doubt to give the benefit of to the batsman. Looking at the replays, I felt that the ball probably hit the pad first but Snicko suggested that it may have been bat first. Either way it was not conclusive and Snicko is not part of DRS anyway so, under the rules of DRS, the correct decision was made. McCullum was out without DRS so there's no net loss anyway.

  • jmcilhinney on February 17, 2013, 11:44 GMT

    I have to say something about the two significant DRS decisions in this game because there are a great many people who tend to view such reviews with a bias towards their own team, an ignorance of the rules of DRS, an ignorance of the laws of physics or all of the above. In the case of Joe Root, the front-on replay should clearly that the ball hit the batsman's elbow and not the glove or the shoulder of the bat. It showed that, if the ball hit the bat, it would have to have been about 6-8 inches down the edge. HotSpot showed clearly that the ball did not hit 6-8 inches down the edge and could only have hit the shoulder of the bat. Put the two together and DRS shows conclusively that the ball did not hit the glove or the bat so the batsman was rightly given not out.

  • jmcilhinney on February 17, 2013, 11:34 GMT

    @jackiethepen on (February 17, 2013, 9:18 GMT), I've seen the same approach from England many times so I'm quite capable of talking to what I consider to be its strengths and weaknesses before the match has concluded. As I said, England have been at or near the top of the rankings for a while now, so they must be doing something right, but that doesn't mean that their approach is perfect and today we saw why. One of the main problems is that Trott is their most consistent batsman but also their slowest. He's quite capable of scoring at a run a ball if he makes a big score but it takes him quite a while to accelerate so his strike rate is never great unless his score is really substantial. Today he was the slowest of the batsman who made a significant contribution, as is usually the case. If Root continues to show the aptitude that he has so far, I see him replacing Trott in the long term.

  • jmcilhinney on February 17, 2013, 11:23 GMT

    @nzcricket174 on (February 17, 2013, 9:28 GMT), by "past performance" do you mean the T20 series that immediately preceded this ODI series where Broad took 4/24 and 3/15? England know that, at his best, Broad can be a match-winner and, quite frankly, anyone who doesn't has not being paying attention to England cricket. He's been off his best for a while but that appears to have been mostly injury-related. If he's over those injuries then there's no reason to believe that he can't be back to his best. Given that this tour goes shortest format to longest, it makes sense that England would test Broad in each format to see if he's ready for the next. So far he's looked good. Most of the England bowlers had similar figures today so he wasn't any worse than anyone else bar Anderson. I agree that there was too much short stuff but that seems to be a team plan and not just Broad's doing.

  • RandyOZ on February 17, 2013, 11:09 GMT

    The inevitable slide for England is in full swing. The ineptitude of their bowlers is amazing, with only Anderson ever looking like taking a wicket. As for the batting, well the less said about that the better.

  • gsingh7 on February 17, 2013, 11:05 GMT

    poms getting thrashed by kiwis is nothing new. well deserved win for nz, this english team just got beaten by mediocre indian side 3-2 last month, india jumped to number 1 rank after series win and since then nz beaten sa and england which are number 2 and 3 sides,so indian place at top of rankings looks safe for some time to come.

  • Apocalypse_EX on February 17, 2013, 11:00 GMT

    @Shoitto Probaho Southee just returned from injury. He did take 9 wickets(&scored 80-odd from 50-odd balls) but I dont think the selectors will rush him before the tests. I'm also pretty sure Oram announced his retirement recently.

  • Whatsgoinoffoutthere on February 17, 2013, 10:54 GMT

    Congratulations NZ. Says everything about McCullum's batting: wasted as an opener. They should consider using him flexibly in ODIs, coming in at the right time rather than with a fixed place in the batting order.

    Note another fifty for Joe Root, who continues to impress. Who will he displace? Hard to condemn a man with an ODI average of just under 50 and a solid contribution in this game, but is Trott's strike rate something England can afford?

  • SamRoy on February 17, 2013, 10:42 GMT

    @JG2704 Guptill is a bad test batsman and it would be better if he was unfit for selection throughout the test series. Fine limited overs batsman though.

  • on February 17, 2013, 10:19 GMT

    wow!!! they beat SA in SA now gud start 2 da ODI really impressing day by day bt da Q is TIM SOUTHEE is where? I can't think a complete squade without southee n Oram. they should certainly bring back them. Anrew ellis is not a proper choice i think.

  • Hammond on February 17, 2013, 10:13 GMT

    @rooboy, actually, England were officially number 1 in odi's since August last year. Cricket is actually played in other parts of the world and outside the Australian summer you know.

  • Hammond on February 17, 2013, 10:09 GMT

    Gutsy effort from Guptill, well played New Zealand!

  • Apocalypse_EX on February 17, 2013, 9:52 GMT

    It was a bit of an upset considering this was England's first choice attack. But what a amazing few months the kiwis have been having in the ODI format. Defeated SA and started promisingly against England. Cook needs to shed the rust as soon as possible.

  • Rooboy on February 17, 2013, 9:52 GMT

    Remember when the poms were a good one day side? Nah, me neither. pommy80 - there and their ... they'res a difference. lol. Literacy 101

  • on February 17, 2013, 9:51 GMT

    @ kiwicricketnut. Whilst i agree with you on the Ellis situation. Corey Anderson is unbelievably out of his depth at international cricket. He proved that in South Africa. He looked horrible. Jimmy Neesham is by far the better choice. Looked comfy with the pace of steyn and morks. Didn't score many runs, but he scored more than Anderso and looked better. However, i would rather see the return of Ryder as a playing all rounder batting 3/4.

    Guptill, Watling, Williamson, Taylor, Ryder, McCullum, Elliot, Franklin, N McCullum, Southee, Mills, McCleneghan. 8 bowling options in there and finally a formidable batting lineup, providing all are fit.

  • AK47_pk on February 17, 2013, 9:44 GMT

    England is worst odi side in the history. Sadly they, ll never win world cup if they keep playing like this

  • JG2704 on February 17, 2013, 9:40 GMT

    Congratulations NZ and brilliant from Mccullam and brilliant/heroic from Guptill although I wonder if the short term success (winning the game) may have harmed him/NZ in the long run (risking missing the 1st test?) Re England - our score could have been so much more had we not made SUCH a slow start and had we not gonne too bold , too early at the end of the inns. On hindsight Jos tried to play too many shots but I suppose he can be forgiven the way he's been hitting the ball lately and had he even stayed around for another 3 overs we could well have been near the 300 mark. Re bowling , I think our bowlers can get a little stuck in their ways and while back of a lenth may be a good idea to many batsmen , it's probably meat and drink for someone like BM. Having said all this I must say on this occasion I'd rather give more credit to NZ

  • jackthelad on February 17, 2013, 9:35 GMT

    It was a good One-Day game, won by a New Zealand team that had a game plan and stuck to it, lost by an England team which couldn't carry out its intentions - England start too slowly, which puts pressure on the middle order, which often isn't up to it. As ODIs do not count towards career averages (somebody should tell the England openers this) the light is on for adventurous starts ... 70 or 80 runs and 3 wickets in the first seven or eight overs should be understood as correct One-Day statistics.

  • Uppercut07 on February 17, 2013, 9:34 GMT

    so wat happened to the 'DOMINANT' English heroes?? who were bigshots in some inconsequent T20!

  • oze13 on February 17, 2013, 9:33 GMT

    Slow batting and brainless short bowling from Finn, Broad and Anderson cost England this game. They also learnt that Woakes dibbly dobblers aren't good enough for a full 10 over spell.

  • nzcricket174 on February 17, 2013, 9:28 GMT

    Bad bowling by England at the end. McCullum hit everything short for four or six, yet the England seamers kept dishing them up. Stuart Broad lucky to be in the team holding his place on past performance.

  • on February 17, 2013, 9:24 GMT

    It's sad that players can't have a runner now.

  • jmcilhinney on February 17, 2013, 9:23 GMT

    Well played NZ. I hope Guptill hasn't done significant additional damage by going back out to bat but NZ may not have made it home without him. It was frustrating watching England's bowlers feeding McCullum's pull shot. Still no imagination when plan A isn't working. Hopefully Cook and Trott in particular were a bit rusty and will look better in the next game. How much will NZ miss Guptill and McClenaghan?

  • jackiethepen on February 17, 2013, 9:18 GMT

    jhinney should wait until the second innings before he comments on England's strategy on the pitch as being defective. NZ who won the toss opted for the same approach. Even holding Brendon Mccullum back. Morgan prides himself on being the finisher. Well, he came in during the 38th over. Dhoni has shown that there is always time to get yourself in and then you can take advantage of the fielding changes in the last 10 overs. They have become an 'extension' of the powerplay. What a tight game! It could have gone either way before Guptill hobbled back out. England looked a bit rusty. This was really their warm up match!

  • nzcricket174 on February 17, 2013, 9:15 GMT

    Guptill's injury turned out to be a blessing in disguise. He was able to return at the slog-stage where he could just stand and deliver.

  • Front-Foot-Lunge on February 17, 2013, 9:15 GMT

    What a bat Mccullum is, pulling good balls off a length and getting NZ over the finish line with just a few balls to spare. A classic, tight ODI match this: England were all but home with a few overs to spare and then lost it at the death. A great match.

  • kiwicricketnut on February 17, 2013, 9:12 GMT

    @ Bhujo that guy you mentioned that you dont have to worry about just won us the game, admidatly he nearly lost us the game running out williamson but he made up for that. Take a bow guptil lion hearted effort you'll go down as a hero. In a topsy turvy tour losing two main players for the foreseeable future means england hold the upper hand going into the second game but well done lads. Adding to the ellis debate, yeah he's an ok player but is ok what you want, my opinion corey anderson is a far more complete allrounder i'd have him instead. Go the black caps send the boys in blue packing

  • pommy80 on February 17, 2013, 9:06 GMT

    Congrats to NZ, a team that never gives in against England, unlike there Tasman friends, for a deserving win. The collapse towards the end of our innings cost us atleast 30 runs, however NZ bowling did well to constrain us. Again, our gameplan for our bowling at the end cost us another win. Onto the next one!

  • on February 17, 2013, 9:02 GMT

    Notwithstanding the fact that, due to England's now traditional slow start, they were 20-25 runs short of par, it was their four seamers who collectively lost them this game by continuing to bang it in short time after time against McCullum & Guptill even after the two Kiwi batsmen had cut or pulled almost every short delivery they'd received for Four or Six. Unbelievable, really: unbelievably brainless.

  • bobmartin on February 17, 2013, 8:56 GMT

    Have the English "death" bowlers learned nothing ? Broad in particular... He watched McCullum cart anything short for six... so what does he do... bowl short.. Good thinking.. I would suggest someone sits him down with a video of Malinga... he might .... only might... learn something

  • lukecannon on February 17, 2013, 8:56 GMT

    Whoaa !!! What a knock from Mccullum and hats off Guptill you beauty!!! He has to be made of steel that man. Good luck in the rest of the series NZ . We want 2-1 victory atleast.

  • Klgn on February 17, 2013, 8:56 GMT

    England cant win without Spin attack...can't rely only on pace bowlers..Where is Monty Panesher?? Swann seems blunt bowler and not have earn single wicket!!! Broad is just a mindless bowler!! Woakes should not been given death over. Jimmy's 1 over left!! Roots not been called for bowling!! cook is short of thoughts!! 258 is defend able total. And this was the winning match for eng but they lost it!!! Ian Botham and Nasser Hussain should require to give advice to eng team!!!!

  • Klgn on February 17, 2013, 8:49 GMT

    Stuart Broad should be thrown out of the team!!!

  • A_Vacant_Slip on February 17, 2013, 7:59 GMT

    Look like bowler are bowling us back into this one. 155/5 now and Kiwi looking suspect against shorter pitch stuff. I am sorry but I don't see Trott as ODI player. He is pure class odd style Test grinder - why is he even considered in this format? Don't get me wrong I really like Trott as Test player.

  • Klgn on February 17, 2013, 7:48 GMT

    there is nothing to afraid of the batting of b.maccullum as if england bowler bowls tight not give short, room and attack him with spin bowling..he can be out easily. He is not technically sound batsman.

  • Klgn on February 17, 2013, 7:30 GMT

    England needs to attack by spin bowling. Fast bowlers should not bowl legside or too much room on off side, short deliveries. Tight bowling at entire game, do not loose at any stage!! Fielding should be attacking!!!

  • on February 17, 2013, 6:17 GMT

    Kane Williamson looks like class. Spotted him when NZ visited the W.I. He can be really good.

  • on February 17, 2013, 5:52 GMT

    Precisely, jmcilhinney: which is what quite a few of us (including, no doubt, you) have been saying on these forums for quite a while now. I hate to say anything negative about Trott as I have nothing but respect for him as a Test batsman, but eating up 60 deliveries to reach 30 is unacceptable in ODI cricket as, irrespective of one's final contribution, it puts way too much pressure on one's partners. As admirably as Bell & Root played, the bottom line was that the top four didn't leave enough time for Morgan, Buttler & Woakes to play themselves in before teeing off; hence their early dismissals. I still reckon we have an even chance of clawing this one back, but if we do it'll be *despite* our formulaic stratagem of trying to keep wickets in hand by going in with four Stayers at the top rather than because of it.

  • jmcilhinney on February 17, 2013, 5:30 GMT

    I'm not really sure how opinion could be split on the reversal of Root's caught behind decision. The ball clearly came off his elbow. There was a bit of bright spot on the shoulder of the bat momentarily on HotSpot but the front-on replay clearly showed that the ball didn't hit that part of the bat so, as it looked on HotSpot to start with, there was no edge. and clearly no contact with the glove.

  • jmcilhinney on February 17, 2013, 5:15 GMT

    That's a tough break for McClenaghan. He's looked good on this tour and NZ will undoubtedly miss him if, as you would expect, he will miss the rest of this series. NZ obviously aren't immune to the world-wide epidemic of injuries to fast bowlers. It would be really interesting to keep figures on how many fast bowlers are out of action around the world at any one time.

  • Crinklyoldbugger on February 17, 2013, 5:08 GMT

    I thought Ellis actually bowled pretty well in the context of the match...I am not sure what you are basing your profound observation on

  • on February 17, 2013, 4:27 GMT

    Why on earth is Ellis in the side? hes totally useless with bat and ball

  • Trickstar on February 17, 2013, 3:17 GMT

    Trott's first 50 balls was pure torture to watch but as usual Trott manages to get his runs on the ball and this time increase his strike rate somewhat.

  • Trickstar on February 17, 2013, 1:44 GMT

    Well so far both Cook & Trott don't look like they've even held a bat since the Indian tour both look rubbish and well out of sorts tbf so far, both have even managed to have played maidens out in the power play, that takes some doing lol.

  • Trickstar on February 17, 2013, 1:33 GMT

    This will be NZ best chance of beating England in this first game, with Cook. Trott, Bell, Swann & Anderson not playing any cricket in a far while and have had no warm up games or anything leading into this, may prove to be a costly mistake.

  • Trickstar on February 17, 2013, 1:33 GMT

    This will be NZ best chance of beating England in this first game, with Cook. Trott, Bell, Swann & Anderson not playing any cricket in a far while and have had no warm up games or anything leading into this, may prove to be a costly mistake.

  • Trickstar on February 17, 2013, 1:44 GMT

    Well so far both Cook & Trott don't look like they've even held a bat since the Indian tour both look rubbish and well out of sorts tbf so far, both have even managed to have played maidens out in the power play, that takes some doing lol.

  • Trickstar on February 17, 2013, 3:17 GMT

    Trott's first 50 balls was pure torture to watch but as usual Trott manages to get his runs on the ball and this time increase his strike rate somewhat.

  • on February 17, 2013, 4:27 GMT

    Why on earth is Ellis in the side? hes totally useless with bat and ball

  • Crinklyoldbugger on February 17, 2013, 5:08 GMT

    I thought Ellis actually bowled pretty well in the context of the match...I am not sure what you are basing your profound observation on

  • jmcilhinney on February 17, 2013, 5:15 GMT

    That's a tough break for McClenaghan. He's looked good on this tour and NZ will undoubtedly miss him if, as you would expect, he will miss the rest of this series. NZ obviously aren't immune to the world-wide epidemic of injuries to fast bowlers. It would be really interesting to keep figures on how many fast bowlers are out of action around the world at any one time.

  • jmcilhinney on February 17, 2013, 5:30 GMT

    I'm not really sure how opinion could be split on the reversal of Root's caught behind decision. The ball clearly came off his elbow. There was a bit of bright spot on the shoulder of the bat momentarily on HotSpot but the front-on replay clearly showed that the ball didn't hit that part of the bat so, as it looked on HotSpot to start with, there was no edge. and clearly no contact with the glove.

  • on February 17, 2013, 5:52 GMT

    Precisely, jmcilhinney: which is what quite a few of us (including, no doubt, you) have been saying on these forums for quite a while now. I hate to say anything negative about Trott as I have nothing but respect for him as a Test batsman, but eating up 60 deliveries to reach 30 is unacceptable in ODI cricket as, irrespective of one's final contribution, it puts way too much pressure on one's partners. As admirably as Bell & Root played, the bottom line was that the top four didn't leave enough time for Morgan, Buttler & Woakes to play themselves in before teeing off; hence their early dismissals. I still reckon we have an even chance of clawing this one back, but if we do it'll be *despite* our formulaic stratagem of trying to keep wickets in hand by going in with four Stayers at the top rather than because of it.

  • on February 17, 2013, 6:17 GMT

    Kane Williamson looks like class. Spotted him when NZ visited the W.I. He can be really good.

  • Klgn on February 17, 2013, 7:30 GMT

    England needs to attack by spin bowling. Fast bowlers should not bowl legside or too much room on off side, short deliveries. Tight bowling at entire game, do not loose at any stage!! Fielding should be attacking!!!