Meanwhile in cricket…

Posted by
< 1 minute read


It’s a week in which teams have been relying on their big name, 30-something batsmen. This isn’t a coincidence. That’s just the way Test cricket works.

Kumar Sangakkara has indulged in some average bolsteration by hitting 424 runs in the second Test against Bangladesh. For their part, Bangladesh managed two runs more than that in their first innings, which isn’t a bad effort.

In New Zealand, Brendon McCullum made 224 against India, who are now 130-4 in reply. India of course tour England in the summer and after seeing real fight from their batsmen in South Africa, we think they’ll provide stern opposition. Then again, you wonder who wouldn’t fancy their chances of steamrollering England at the minute. No-one even knows who plays for them any more. Cook, Bell, Broad, Anderson…

India’s pace bowling is still pretty wonky, but New Zealand’s is looking stronger these days. At the time of writing, Trent Boult had 74 Test wickets at 26.09 and rarely seems to let them down, home or away, while Tim Southee’s passed 100 wickets by the age of 25. Neil Wagner also bowls for New Zealand.


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. “It’s a week in which teams have been relying on their big name, 30-something batsmen. This isn’t a coincidence. That’s just the way Test cricket works.”


    1. It is true statement, but let’s not forget that Neil Wagner is an ideal 3rd seamer. He maintains his intensity throughout the full 80 over cycle, and is at his best when the ball is old. Compliments Boult and Southee very well.

    2. … and if you bowl enough for New Zealand you may break a bail in taking one of the 8 wickets you take in the match, most of them out of nowhere.

      And in that case you would probably be grateful you are not under the Barbados Cricket Association because you would have to pay for the bail you broke. The Kirk Edwards matter, that’s another bizarreity.

    1. I was bitterly disappointed. It’s time you realized there’s a whole bunch of us who keep visiting this site purely for the hover.

    2. Yes, but there’s an even greater number who come here for errors and general carelessness. We have to cater for them too.

  2. Ind need 320 to win after NZ collapsed for 100 runs in 2nd inn. Tough ask, but still, some things never change–Nz’s ability to snatch disadvantage from advantage is second to none.

    1. pakistan..?

      in theory, a new zealand-pakistan test could be one of those “what happens when the unstoppable force meets the immovable object” philosophical paradoxes. common sense suggests both sides could somehow contrive to lose.

  3. Well, nobody can dare to compare themselves to Pakistan in this skill, not even NZ–although Pak can both lose from anywhere and win from nowhere.

  4. Talking about throwing away advantages, Pakistan v New Zealand in New Zealand shared record dropped catches in 2009 (or maybe 2008 series.) Between them they were dropping 16 or 17 catchesw per match. SOMEONE wanted to lose, only you couldn’t tell who.

    1. haha. 10 of them must’ve been Kamran Akmal–what a grand sultan of dropped catches he was, sadly not in action in tests. Sigh. Speaking of which, wonder if our King Cricket has honored him yet with a knighthood or princeship or sthg? If Bell can be Lord Megachief of Gold, then surely Akmal belongs somewhere on the totem pole of test cricket…

  5. Awbraae made an excellent point, and Wagner is a large part of how NZ managed to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat after they nearly snatched defeat from the jaws of almost certain victory.

Comments are closed.