Like that dumpling from the Caribbean place last week, this match may well take a day or two to digest

Posted by
< 1 minute read

Imagine going back in time and trying to tell cynical, world-weary you from a week ago about this match.

“England were 30-4 inside the first hour of day one,” you’d say.

“Yeah, that seems about right,” Earlier You would reply.

“And they then conceded 523 in New Zealand’s first innings,” you’d continue.

“Nothing changes,” says Earlier You.

“And England won.”

At this point, Earlier You would presumably reach the conclusion that Current You was not really Future You (from their perspective). They’d assume you were actually an evil doppelganger, spreading insane lies for who knows what reason.

Only you know what you’d do in that situation.

But this is what actually happened. We may have jumped the gun in lauding the ebb and flow of day one because what do we say now? At no point did we ever really have much an idea how this match was going to end and even now it’s over, we’re still not entirely sure we’ve got it right.

It kind of feels like someone’s got the sums wrong; like one of New Zealand’s innings has accidentally been omitted and they actually won by 250.


Mike Gatting wasn't receiving the King Cricket email when he dropped that ludicrously easy chance against India in 1993.


Why risk it when it's so easy to sign up?


  1. Excellent stuff. But given this England team’s habit of taking positives when things are palpably rubbish, I think it is only fair to take some negatives from this tiptoppery.

    1. Way too much bling on display, which isn’t appropriate in times of post-recession. That red stripe is too ostentatious. England whites should be white, and if they need a bit of something added, it should be a white stripe.

    2. Being able to hear the voice of the third umpire, which takes away all the anticipation that there might be a nonsensical decision coming. Much better when you could see half a yard of daylight between the bat and ball, yet the lbw decision was still overturned for no understandable reason. Also, when he made his decision, constantly saying “You’re on the screen now” to the on-field umpire like some sort of invisible Davina McCall. Whoever she is.

    3. I think that’s it.

    1. The commentators talking over the top of the third umpire audio

      Taking drinks with one wicket needed to finish the game and the light fading

      Hooray Henrys in chinos and blazers popping champagne corks on to the outfield

      Someone having the sheer nerve to dismiss the Sledgehammer of Eternal Justice

      Shane Warne

    2. The four hours of talk about the presence of third-man, even while England were winning a Test match.

      Also, Warne again. Yes Shane, we know that Clarke or McCullum would be doing something more innovative than Cook in the field. Yes Shane, we know you like teams to be aggressive. No Shane, you do not need to repeat that line about giving Joanna Lumley a donation. We heard it the first time and it was unsettling then.

    3. I think I’m going to wait until the next article on this Test to come up with my list of “erk” moments. There are quite a few of them.

      Still, England winning a Test against New Zealand, eh? Blimey.

    4. I love hearing Warne on with Atherton, with Ather’s needling him and questioning quietly his general foolery.

    5. KC… the third man they were refering to was the superfluous commentator in the Sky box.

  2. The most discombobulating thing about the match was actually Ali Cook’s post match interview.

    He started out sounding much posher than usual; even using players first names such as “Ian and Joe” rather than “Belly and Rooty”.

    But he quickly reverted to mockney, peppered with those infantile nicknames..

    So has Ali Cook had elocution lessons and PR training or not? We need answers.

    1. He even referred to the New Zealanders by their first name, I had to pause a bit to figure out who “Matt and Trent” actually were. Most offputting.

  3. played england, but mccullum throwing his wicket away for 43 in the first innings was an absolute joke. they should have got 600 at least. eng might have won anyway, but maybe not so easily.

    can I say with certainty he would have scored more than 43 playing less crazily? no, but he probably would/should have. would a slower 43 have helped? maybe.

    southee is an imbecile.

  4. While we are waiting for you to finish digesting the match, which I understand might take you some hours or perhaps even another day to complete, perhaps we can learn a little more from you about the Caribbean dumpling.

    The Caribbean dumpling was consumed, by your own account, last week, so you must have digested it sufficiently now to describe it in detail. Your followers deserve nothing less.

    1. The dumpling (singular) was consumed with curry goat, ‘ground food’ and some jerk chicken.

    2. I see.

      And you blame the dumpling (singular) for your indigestion.

      You are, of course, entitled to your opinion.

  5. Why are the papers making such a big deal out of the success of putting Stokes in at 6, as if if were some amazing idea out of left field? (apologies for mixing sports)

    Haven’t the same papers been banging on for months about how that’s where he should bat?

    1. On the topic of mixing sports, does anyone else want to flush their internet connecty thing down the loo whenever Cricinfo invites us to watch “Match Point”? At least Sky has the decency to call their superfluous extra commentator the 3rd man.

    2. He came in at six in the first innings because Moeen was in the nets and not ready to bat as they hadn’t expected four wickets to fall so quickly (which England side have they been watching in recent times?!).

      Stroke of genius that.

    3. We heard that during the match. Think it’s a myth borne of Moeen Ali batting at six in the last Test and then someone seeing him darting from the nets after the fall of early wickets. He was rushing back because he still thought he might be needed, even though he was batting at eight.

    4. Interesting – maybe cleverly orchestrated to sow further seeds in the opposition’s mind of our general incompetence/piss-up-in–brewery arranging inabilities..? Are the Aussies watching?

      I’m surprised no-one has yet lauded our Trent’s not insignificant role in England’s victory. Had he not rapidly bowled us out on Monday morning, I’m convinced Capt’n Ali-C wouldn’t’ve been bold enough to declare and leave sufficient time in which to bowl NZ out.

Comments are closed.