New Zealand tour of England

That fact was quoted on TMS, as well as many other records broken in an extraordinary match. I am attending days 1 &4 of the Headingley match and will be delighted with ½ the excitement of this one.

Another great example in the first day of the 2nd Test of what the first-class game has gained from T20. At any Headingley Test in the past a side that were 2-02, with a great swing bowl operating under sun, shower and overcast conditions would have battened down the hatches and played for survival, hoping to get to 150-180 in a shortened day, and hoping too that they'd manage that with no more than 6 or 7 wickets down. Often enough they would be all out in the same range.

Yesterday Latham first, then McCullum and finally Ronchi all brought the newly acquired techniques of turning round a tough situation through outrageous attack. This is different from the old amateur spirit of never giving in, because the old amateurs would never have tried to play some of the shots that these players did. No text-book will ever have plates lauding the glorious flat-footed bludgeoning of McCullum to swat a ball outside off stumpto somewhere behind long leg, and yet he does that to great advantage. Fields are hard to set, carefully researched plans based on data accumulation are rendered nonsense, and finally the opposition's nerve goes and if the bowlers don't serve up tripe then the fielders will clutch too soon or fail to react and catches will be shelled.

The bowling survived, more or less, but the fielding was diabolical, both in its setting and in the way that players understand their roles. England's slip fielding in these two games has been a series of square pegs forced into round holes and retaining the awkward results rigidly, suggesting that there is no fielding practice to drill in protocols for fifty-fifty chances between first and second slip, or to help some rather bulky individuals get down to those awkward ankle-high opportunities.

Today should be bright and dry, although worse weather is in store. A quick finish to the New Zealand innings, and then a chance for England to show how much has been learned from the last game, and how much of the New Zealand example can be appropriated. If Southee can get his line and length right then his short-format bowling skills could be lethal.

Can't really blame Lyth for getting run out.Dodgy call by Ballance, I thought.

For the first in a while I'd love England to win this Test, just so that the estimable Paul Farbrace can go down in history as the only England head coach with a 100 per cent record!

Well batted Stuart Broad, honours even. What a test match this is turning into, hopefully the weather won't play a part.

It is the "too big to fail" syndrome: because x has played a large number of Tests and taken very many wickets therefore x must know better about high performance at Test level than any coach/commentator/observer....but not necessarily his competitors, who are respectful of his reputation but unimpressed by his current grasp of circumstance. The formidable combination of past experience and success builds on itself until a point is reached where no criticism  can be allowed  improve the performance of the player. At this stage the Titanic sinks, Singapore is lost to the little yellow men on bicycles riding up inland, and a new order reveals itself.

Bayliss and Farbrace will have to deal with the problem institutionalised by the 100+ caps of a number of players: how will they keep on learning?  Anderson, Broad, Bell and Cook are still admirable players in many respects and could do wonderful things for England, but England will not be successful as a team whilst it still anticipates the Broad  who bowled with Prior, Strauss and Swann in close, and whose reputation was such that batsmen were frustrated into chasing the offside ball. Each of the others carries around with him his own daemon, once the talisman of his, and England's success, and now a piece of folklore, to be listened to indulgently, whilst pursuing more vital communication: Anderson's tantalising mix of swingers can be withstood if there is nothing potent at the other end; Bell's lapses are now more characteristic than his flourishes; Cook has regained the class of his batting peak but not the authority it once conferred.

The result of this match is immaterial, what is more important is that the lessons from both of these Tests are understood and accepted: reputations and past performance count for nothing in the face of a vigorous new attitude and a team that has fully endorsed those ethics; young players can and will make mistakes but the worst thing older players can do is to assume that the mistakes are more likely to be prevalent than the successes; when faced with the unexpected then do not respond automatically with the preternatural order.

About time.   

We deserve to lose and I hope we do.  If that "17" stat is true it is almost mind-boggling.  I agree with HH's post, I think, although I may have got lost in the rhetoric as it's quite early and it's quite a tortured piece, but if he's saying 'get rid of the old and in with the new' then that's what I agree with.  For me the biggest problem is Broad and Moeen, and possibly Bell.  Stokes is alright as he's a fifth bowler but Broad and Moeen need to be more potent.  Broad has been living by the skin of his teeth now for about five years and has his feet well and truly under the table.  One issue is, who would we replace him with?  Who's banging on the door?  If the impressive Kiwis can do this to our attack what will the Convicts do - ouch!

You must not question Head Boy - he's one of us.