Gotta feel for O'Brien...

All those overs, working hard to partner Vettori, tries 1 slower ball, decent attempt (i guess?) to catch if it off Colly. Same process, does for Bell 100%, goes to it with the right kinda motion, 2 hands, and drops one of the easiest catches you can get as a bowler

Unlucky O'Brien, sometimes they can make ya look foolish, hope he carries on this sorta bowling for Trent Bridge, though.

__________________
Hoggy Hoggy Hoggy...OI OI OI!!!

navsites.co.uk <<< Join, post and have fun

This NZ side are built to make any reasonable Test look good.
They have no Test quality batsmen their two opener average in the low 30's in demostic cricket.
Their bowlers are a bit better Vettori being the one world class.
They have done well in this match and made England work.

__________________
"Checkout the big brain on Brett" Pulp Fiction

Either he's good enough to be selected... in which case he should be expected to turn around a bad start... or the selectors screwed up: on the evidence of this Test... O'Brien is the guy who should be opening the bowling with Martin.
With hindsight... the NZ side would presumably have picked Jeetan Patel ahead of one of the seamers... but the way the game went... can anyone really dispute that Sinclair would have been of more use than Mills?

A memorable Test in the end, with both sides clearly feeling the pressure each time they got their nose ahead and recognised that the game was within reach.

Well, this is a bit strange, isn't it? Almost three hours after the match and no-one has quite been able to say it - so I will:

Congratulations to England on a win which, at lunch time yesterday, looked impossible. We seem to have a thread here knocking the guys, so, just in the interest of balance, let's recognise the efforts of the batsmen today, especially Michael Vaughan, Andrew Strauss and Kevin Pietersen. First class knocks and the dawn of the new age? Well, maybe not: but when the chips were down, these are the chaps who chased down the highest ever winning fourth innings score at Old Trafford. So well done them. And hats off to to Monty Panesar whose 6-37 yesterday not only laid the foundation for the batsmen today but was a career best for him. I guess that's why he was Man of the Match.

Honourable mentions to the New Zealanders as well: Taylor's first innings 154 not out, also a career best, surely deserves it, as does Vettori's first innings return of 5-66.

Thanks to both teams for a memorable and exciting game.

For the record, since it is also not mentioned in the thread yet, England won by six wickets.

__________________
Money won't buy you friends. But it gets you a better class of enemy.
Spike Milligan

Yes, that should be applauded, but to be honest OF, it's nothing more than any of us expect from them. It's hard to get too excited about this considering how hard they tried to lose the game and NZ must consider themselves very unfortunate.

It just goes to show, that when England move it up a gear, NZ have no answer, but again it's nothing any of don't already know. This is why you don't hear me ranting about the batting - we know what they can do and they continually dissapoint us, until on these rare occasions they pull their finger out and bat sensibly. Why can't they do that all the time?

Neither can we forget how poor Englands bowlers have been in this Test Match. Apart from Panesar in the second NZ innings the others have been poor and generally unthreatening.

Let's not think that just because they've won this Test Match by the skin of their teeth against a NZ side a batsman down that things are okay - they aren't.

I don't disagree with any of that, Scott - but, as you say, the win should be acknowledged, and I thought I'd better do it before this thread disappears from view!

The third test is at Trent Bridge a week on Thursday: let's see if they can do it again. I think they need a good win behind them to be honest before the South Africans arrive for the second half of the summer. They must surely be expected to give England a run for their money.

__________________
Money won't buy you friends. But it gets you a better class of enemy.
Spike Milligan

How about he just had an off day Rachael, or is he not allowed to have one of those?

On the evidence of this Test I'd probably agree, but what's that got to do with Mills having an off day?

Yes I'd dispute it, because I don't see how Sinclair would have done any better than Mills considering Mills' score in the first innings was 57, and playing him certainly would not have altered the outcome of this match.

It was a game of two halves Rachael. New Zealands game in the first half and Englands in the second, but England had the quality of Panesar in conditions that suit him and our batsmen finally showing us what they can do when they concentrate.

When England play well, New Zealand can't touch them, the only problem is, they only play well in spasms.

Yes it should be acknowledged, but you'll understand if many of us do so through gritted teeth, its really only the normal frustrations of an England fan and I know you'll know what I mean by that.

If they don't change anything, I'm expecting more of the same, what are you expecting?

I expect the South Africans to do what the New Zealanders are failing to do for the principle reason that South Africa are a much stronger side and they won't get out of jail by bowling them out cheaply.

Batting and Bowling figures in the series so far

Cricinfo - Records - New Zealand in England Test Series, 2008 - Most runs

Cricinfo - Records - New Zealand in England Test Series, 2008 - Most wickets

Congratulations England and Pansear. But I would look at it another way the Kiwi's did very well to get in such a good position. There team is rubbish how many of their batsmen get in a county side?
Martin is their best seam bowler and he is not very good. Astle and Fleming have left a whole in the batting.
Pansears six wickets should be put in context. Which good Test bowler would object to bowling at these batsmen.

__________________
"Checkout the big brain on Brett" Pulp Fiction