I wonder what is the reaction in NZ about the umpiring blunder by a local umpire? I am sure everyone will find words to defend the decision, which was basically inefficient umpiring. If an umpire from the sub-continent had been involved, the criticism would have been beyond imagination.

Very true Kasamse,that thought crossed my mind at the time.I bet this gets totally ignored but if it had been an Asian umpire the press would be straight on to it.

Very true that desicion was absolute rubbish, even the ever patriotic Martin Crowe thought that was a terribe call. I don't quite know if it cost England the game however, although it is 1 of the many 'what if' stories cricket have.

Fantastic game anyway, I'm glad Prime had it on free-to-air for once

__________________
Second is the first loser

To be honest Kasamse, the criticism would have been like any other in a NZ/England game. They would have criticised him, got it off their chest, and two days later it would all have been forgotten. Not some long drawn out drama resulting in the umpires sacking, that's for sure.

For the record, i saw the game live like everyone else, and the bat seemed grounded the whole time IMO.

And the game was an absolute cracker and one where neither team deserved to lose.

__________________

i dont know what u saw Seamer, I saw martin crowe say it was a terrible call. it was like that lasith malinga freak run-out in perth, where the bat lifted up after he initially grounded it. but i wont go as far as saying that cost england the match, it was an absolute cracker of a match.

I dont know whether it cost england the match or not. But one thing i must say, it was a cracker of a match. New Zealand somehow managed not to win in the end, after the terrific innings of how. After 40 overs, I thought the series was as good as over for england, but somehow they pulled it back.

__________________
"They look like a team destined to win the world cup"......
Ian Chappel during Ind v SA in the World Cup 20-20

Well I watched the game from start to finish - and am knackered after being busy today also.

As far as one day games go this is one of the best.

England played proper cricket shots 90% of the time, pity they don't bat as well as this in the test arena.

The England players had character, mainly Anderson and Broad why were targeted - but came good at the death,

Also Mustard made a couple of mistakes, but was under immense pressure, looks a much better bet than Prior.

All credit to New Zealand, most teams would have curled up and died facing 341 to win - but they also showed characture.

Can take or leave one day cricket, but this match was in a class of it's own - and being England had got that score, and New Zealand had batted that well - and the England bowlers came back from the dead.

A tie was a fitting result.

__________________
Ern

Let's not forget Ryan Sidebottm here. In those circumstances, to go under 6 an over is a pretty good effort, but to go under 5 an over is truly remarkable. I hope he's still around when England next play Australia (I guess next year) because I think he could provide them with a serious challenge- as could Anderson and Broad.

And all credit to Jamie How, who never lost his head by trying too many things, but just basically played his natural game at an accelerated rate. I always suspected that there was still room in ODI cricket for orthodox strokeplay, and in this case, at least, I was right.

But I think England really need to recall a specialist spinner, either Swann or this Tredwell who's in the squad, and to look at other options apart from Shah to fill in the number 6 position, as he hasn't performed in a long time.

No I am not forgetting Sidebottom, he was the pick without doubt.

My point was that NZ targeted Broad and Anderson, both came back well at the end when the heat was on.


No I don't agree England need a spinner, in particular on grounds like yesterday with short boundaries.

__________________
Ern

I rather suspect that some of this is pointed at me following my views on How after the last ODI - which is fair enough - but I'm not changing my opinion just yet.

How isn't ideally suited to ODI in my opinion as he plays too conventionally and scores too slowly. Just because he scored a century on a very good batting pitch with no lateral movement whatsoever does not change that opinion. Add in a fast outfield and short boundaries and it's easy to see how anyone playing conventional cricket strokes could amass a decent score on that pitch fairly quickly by simply playing through the line of the ball. Englands top 5 batsmen all scored 40+ on the same pitch, with Englands equivalant to How, Cook scoring 69.

Where How will fail is on pitches with more juice in them that makes scoring quickly more difficult and perilous - that's where you need to adapt your game to the conditions and use more unconventional scoring strokes to score runs - How only seems to be able to bat one way - slowly and conventionally.

How only plays because currently they don't have anyone better, and in my mind that isn't a strong enough reason to play someone not ideally suited to the short format game.

I agree on the first point and it's one of the reasons England failed to defend that total, they had to fiddle 20 overs from part time bowlers - Collingwood, Shah, Wright and Mascarenhas. That's 2/5ths of the total overs from non-specialist bowlers on a good batting pitch, not only that Collingwood, Mascarenhas and Wright all bowl at virtually the same medium pace.

I'm being a little unfair on Collingwood, he is a part time bowler but he is a fairly experienced and competent one and his figures show that - 10 overs for 67. The 10 overs from the others produced 1-66 which actually isn't that bad and shows how poorly both Broad and Anderson bowled for their figures of 1-86 and 2-75. Anderson going at 8.6 runs per over simply isn't good enough.

It seems to me that both Wright and Mascarenhas are doing a similar job and neither in my mind offer anything extra with their bowling - one of them needs to give way to Swann in my opinion at the possible expense of weakening the batting, but that's a price they have to pay.

I don't agree about Shah, he's earnt his place in that side and he's earnt his opportunity, he plays for the circumstances and the team and that's why his returns are not particularly spectacular as his batting position doesn't really offer him the opportunity of either playing himself in or taking his time. Shah's time will come.