A loss for New Zealand and other matters

New Zealand v India, ODI, Cake Tin, 3 February 2019

Scorecard (links to video)

As I took my seat before the start of this game—the fifth and final of the series—I reflected that a little under four years ago from much the same spot I observed a hapless young West Indian captain fielding on the boundary in front of me, near the exit leading to the dressing rooms, his symbolic desire to get off the field as quickly as possible obvious and painful. It was the World Cup quarter-final and they had given him pop guns to deploy against the artillery of Martin Guptill, on his way to 237 not out.

So it was cheering to have started the day listening to radio commentary from Antigua of that same young captain—Jason Holder—leading the West Indies to a series victory over England, and performing so well with bat and ball. As I have written so often before, I owe much of my love of cricket to early exposure to Caribbean cricketers, who made it look such a joyful and thrilling way to pass the time. That they are on their way back is the best news.

As we all know, Holder missed the final test, suspended for not hurrying up the bowling sufficiently for the match to finish earlier than the last session of the third day. I recall Backwatersman writing that he is never aware of how fast or slowly the overs are being bowled, and isn’t much concerned about it. I’m the same. Without looking at the scoreboard, I have no idea, at lunch say, how many overs have been bowled in the session just concluded. You might as well fine a river for reaching the sea tardily. Imagine if blame-the-captain justice had been in operation in the seventies. The Yorkshire team would have moved like statues so as to get rid of Boycott for a couple of games.

I have enjoyed the Talk Sport commentary from the West Indies (in New Zealand we have no TV coverage of the series, so the radio is not geoblocked). It gets the job done, has some interesting features and is not as self-regarding as Test Match Special. Mark Nicholas is one of the best broadcasters around, as long as he is not in Australia. For a posh Pom without an international cricket pedigree he did well to front Channel Nine’s coverage for a decade or so, but the Devil (played by Kerry Packer, born to the role) demanded as his price that Nicholas had to worship Australia and all things Australians with an enthusiasm that in comparison made Dame Edna Everage look no more a patriot than Germaine Greer.

The defeat in the West Indies has shaken England’s recent confidence in itself as a test team, despite the consolation win in the final test. This one-day series against India has had much the same effect on New Zealand’s self-perception in this form of the game. It began with New Zealand ranked third in ODIs, after a comfortable three-nil win against Sri Lanka (and we know how misleading three-nil wins against Sri Lanka can be). India would be tougher test of course, but New Zealand would be competitive; a close three-two defeat, like that against England last year, was thought the worst that could happen. So the three drubbings that were the first three games sent the cricketing nation into deep introspection.

I noted during that England series that New Zealand’s strategy appeared to rely on one player, probably Williamson or Taylor, to play a world-class innings, and that this had been surprisingly successful. The solid contributions across the top half of the order that are the more conventional basis for success did not happen last year or this, but this time were not compensated for by a cricketing Popeye with his tin of spinach. The second-highest individual New Zealand scores in the first two games were 24 and 34, the third-highest in the third 28.

Like England’s test team, the problems start at the top of the order. Martin Guptill is out of form, but the hope is that class will out. Colin Munro has been his partner for a while. A dominating batsman in T20s, his technique has become exposed over 50 overs. In T20 he is bold, in ODIs he is bowled.

Henry Nicholls was moved up to open in the fourth game. Here, My Life in Cricket Scorecards boasts its first exclusive in nine years, or as close to one as it likely to get. I fell into conversation with the guy two seats along, who, it turned out, was Nicholls’ father. I can reveal that Henry is very happy to open, relishing the challenge, and would be equally happy to be reserve keeper in the World Cup squad, having kept proficiently throughout his early career. This seems the sensible way to go, better than the selectors managing to persuade themselves that Tim Seifert is good enough to take a batting slot.

New Zealand Cricket backed Nicholls’ talent early and have been vindicated. His test average is 43 and climbing. Though his ODI record is more patchy, he is more likely to offer long-term consistency than any other available candidate. It was good to hear that he has a positive team’s-needs view of his ability (cf Joe Root, Jonny Bairstow and the No 3 position).

For the first three games, Munro was the sixth bowler, but he is more a seventh bowler, a Graham Gooch-style dobber (those of us who were there have never got over the disaster that was making a fifth bowler from a combination of Gooch, Boycott and Larkins in the World Cup final of ’79). In these bat-dominated times, captains need six bowlers capable of bowling a full allocation if they are to respond properly to events.

Nicholls’ promotion to the top of the order allowed this to happen, but India’s collapse for 93 in the fourth game was, from the selectoral point of view, the worst thing that could have happened, as the recalled Todd Astle and Jimmy Neesham bowled fewer than three overs between them, no test at all.

It was five for 21 from Trent Boult that undid India in game four, which told us nothing new. Boult apart, the selection of the bowlers has been subject to rotation throughout this series. Boult takes the quaint view that the best way of maintaining form and fitness to bowl at international level is to bowl at international level, and has the mana (a useful Maori word meaning respect and status) to stand aside from the rota.

This fifth game was New Zealand’s last chance before the World Cup to test players against top opposition. Three-match series at home to Bangladesh and away to Ireland follow, but against lower-grade opposition a moderate player can do well and be difficult to drop. New Zealand should by now know what their World Cup squad will be, but have at least four bowling/all-rounder places that are undecided. Here, Henry, Neesham, Astle and Munro (back in for the injured Guptill) might be regarded as in the selectoral repecharges, with Bracewell, Ferguson and Southee also contending. The inclusion of Southee in this list will probably surprise overseas readers, but his one-day stats have been going downhill since the last World Cup. He is said to be in the rotation, but appears to be following the orbit round the sun of Pluto, so rarely is he seen.  

India are without Virat Kholi, who took a break after the third game and is on holiday elsewhere in New Zealand, and Jasprit Bumrah. Giving these two key players a rest is wise, but a disappointment for those of us who were looking forward to watching two of the current World XI. However, MS Dhoni had recovered from the injury that kept him out of the fourth game, so giving us almost certainly a last chance to see him in an ODI in New Zealand.

India won the toss and elected to bat on a pitch of uneven colour, though nothing like the lunar surface that produced such a good game against England last year. Then, 234 was, just, a winning score. In the tenth over, at 18 for four, this seemed beyond India’s dreams.

Matt Henry conceded just two runs from his first two overs, then knocked back Sharma’s off stump with killer late outswing reminiscent of Southee from the same end against England in the World Cup.

In the next over, Henry was at third man to take the catch when Darwan lashed out at a short one from Boult, a reward for both opening bowlers for keeping it so tight early on.

This brought together the tyro Shubman Gill and the old master Dhoni. Looking back at the scorecard in 20 years’ time it might be a curiosity to find them both together in the same XI. Gill played one sumptuous off drive that had “promise” written through it like “Blackpool” in a stick of rock, but was then caught at short cover, pushing leaden-footed at a Henry delivery that didn’t come on as he expected.

Those of us hoping for something magnificent from Dhoni on his farewell were to be disappointed, though it would be a fair description of the Boult inswinger that uprooted his off stump.

Rayudu and Shankar set about rebuilding. They must have made a astute estimate of what a winning score would be and realised that they did not need to go for 300 at all costs. Wicket preservation was the priority, so that sufficient reserves were in place for the final charge. They put on 98 for the fifth wicket in 22 overs before Shankar went to a Brexit of a run out: no plan, utter confusion and no majority for any course of action.

Surprisingly, Williamson opted to put Munro on ahead of Astle, who would have wanted the opportunity to make his case for the second spinner’s spot (assuming that Santner has the first because of the balance he offers). Superficially, it was the right decision. Munro bowled straight through, conceding 47 from ten (and that included two sixes in his last over). But he didn’t take a wicket, and didn’t look likely to. Rayudu in particular used him like a life raft to navigate to a secure position. The run out apart, no wicket fell between the tenth and 44^th overs, when Rayudu fell ten short of a deserved hundred.

The key to success in contemporary ODI cricket is to take enough wickets through the innings so as to limit the potential of the batting side  to explode with runs in the last ten overs. Their failure to build upon an excellent start to do this cost New Zealand the game.

Hardik Pandya led the charge in the final overs with five sixes in his 45, three of them off consecutive deliveries from Astle. India finished with 252.

Matt Henry performed the best of the bowling auditionees, finishing with four for 35 from ten, almost enough to get him on the plane. Todd Astle was only given five overs finishing with nought for 35, so it was a day when Ish Sodhi did better by not playing.

Television companies might consider adapting one of those endless property restoration programmes to New Zealand cricket. “This is Kane. My, the innings is in a sorry state. Can he apply a bit of paint and bang in a few nails in the right places to rescue it?”. Today, it was 38 for three in the eleventh over, Nicholls, an unconvincing Munro and Taylor gone.

Williamson looked out-of-sorts at first, making only five from his first 24 deliveries, but the first two balls of the 18^th over, bowled by Shankar, went for silky, feather-light fours, the first a cut, the second a straight drive. The partnership with Latham advanced, mostly in singles, until it reached 66, parity almost restored.

Williamson then miscalculated in a way that he rarely does, attempting to pull Jadhav over the mid-wicket boundary, only to provide an easy catch. With the required rate only just above six, there was no need to interrupt the steady flow of singles at that stage.

Latham was also out swinging across the line, lbw to Chahal. De Grandhomme followed a couple of overs later, a couple of handsome fours impressing les than the ability to work the ball around for a while would have done.

At 135 for six, much now depended upon Jimmy Neesham. Like De Grandhomme’s, his ability to crash and bash is unquestioned, but has he the repertoire for all occasions? This innings provided a good deal of evidence that he does. There were big shots, including two sixes, both over mid-wicket from deliveries that were ripe for the purpose. On 44 from 32 balls, 77 needed at under six an over, he had put New Zealand back into a position of near-equality.

“What happened next?” is a question that Neesham will wake up in the middle of the night for decades to come trying to answer, without being able to. Swinging across the line to Jadhav, he was hit on the front pad. There was a loud appeal, but the impact was clearly outside the line of off. The ball hit Dhoni’s leg and trickled a few feet behind the stumps. A couple of steps and it was in the keeper’s gloves. But Neesham had set off for a single, and had no chance of getting back before the stumps were broken. Had Santner set off from the non-striker’s end, the old cliché “they wouldn’t have crossed” would, for once, have been absolutely accurate.

A few big blows from Matt Henry notwithstanding, that was it, a 35-run defeat, New Zealand left with an uncomfortable number of uncertainties about form, selection and prospects with no more games against top-level teams before the World Cup.

There was a good turnout form the local Indian community, who brought to the occasion a generous exuberance that reminded me of the Caribbean crowds at Lord’s and (in particular) the Oval in the 1970s.

 

New Zealand v India, second Test, Basin Reserve, 14 – 18 February 2014, third day: McCullum’s great innings

http://www.espncricinfo.com/new-zealand-v-india-2014/engine/match/667653.html

Day three

Four o’clock. That was when I told my Khandallah correspondent to expect my return to My Life in Cricket Scorecards Towers, having watched New Zealand lose the test match. Many would have thought that a conservative estimate; after all, taxonomists mostly classify New Zealand’s batting under “invertebrate”.

That is what is so wonderful about test cricket. Nobody had a clue that we would see the start of New Zealand’s finest test match innings, or that it would lead a rearguard action that would draw the match and win the series. Four million looking a billion in the face and not blinking. What is more, our appreciation of what we had seen had not advanced much by the time we left the ground at 6.30. Test match cricket possesses a paradox that few if any other sports do: that you may not understand what you have seen until several days later.

There was little in the first half of the day to suggest that anything other than the tiresomely predictable was on. At afternoon drinks New Zealand were 121 for five, 125 short of making India bat again and a four pm homecoming still on the cards.

With Ross Taylor absent for the birth of his second child, a disproportionate amount of New Zealand’s hopes went out of the window in the second over of the day when Kane Williamson was caught behind off Zaheer Khan. This brought together two young left-handers—Rutherford and Latham—who, if every gram of their promise is turned into performance, will spend many hours together at the crease in the decade to come.

Not today, however. Rutherford had reached 35 when he mimicked Williamson’s mode of dismissal. This was a better ball though, swinging away late down the line of off stump.

Let it be recorded that Brendon McCullum came in at this point, with his side 52 for three. A pensive period of play followed, until half an hour or so before lunch something happened that did not seem to matter much at the time. McCullum completely mistimed a drive to a full-length ball from Mohammed Shami. Virat Kohli, at a very straight silly mid-on, spilled a reasonably simple chance. See my remarks about not understanding what you have seen, above. In that moment the match and the series slipped away from India.

Tom Latham became Dhoni’s third victim of the session from the first ball of the last over before lunch. It was a nothing shot, pushing outside off at a ball that could easily have been left alone. Corey Anderson lasted only six balls before giving Jadeja a return catch off the leading edge. BJ Watling now joined McCullum.

Play until tea was a throwback to an earlier time, exactly two an over from 26 overs. Again, it did not seem as gripping as it actually was, as the idea that New Zealand could hang on for long enough to save the game seemed the sort of proposition that might eminate only from an email of Nigerian origin. And McCullum was dropped again, a harder chance than the previous one. Ishant Sharma could not quite hold on to a return catch as he followed through, one of those chances that comes down entirely to instinct.

Up to this point McCullum had batted against type, focusing purely on defence. It was Ken Dodd playing Hamlet. Perhaps he decided to add a shot of caffeine to his play to make him more alert, or maybe the Indian attack became stale. Whatever the reason, it was the authentic McCullum who resumed after tea, no chance to score spurned. He went from 50 to 100 at a run a ball, reaching three figures by putting Sharma into the crowd at long on. Like the rest of us, India had no appreciation of what was going on and were mentally heading for the airport doing nothing more than waiting for the batsmen to make mistakes.

Praise for BJ Watling should be fulsome too. At the end of the day he had 52 from 202 balls. More and more it seems that Watling has the temperament of a test player. New Zealand took the lead shortly before the end of the day, and we left the ground heartened by a performance that had heart and character. But we also knew that New Zealand would have to bat for another day to put the game beyond India, whose strokeplayers could rattle up 250-plus on a pitch that had not given up a wicket in almost two sessions. We had seen the Holy Grail but mistaken it for a shiny egg cup.

Days four and five

I was not at the Basin for the final two days but, in common with much of the population of New Zealand it seems, followed the game at a distance and watched the recordings later. Brendon McCullum batted throughout the fourth day and reached his triple century early on the fifth morning, watched by a crowd which contained the largest proportion of spectators dressed in suits and ties seen in New Zealand since the thirties. All over Wellington men of a certain age were seen hurrying to an urgent 11 am meeting at an undisclosed location.

McCullum was supported royally by Watling, who reached 124 from 367 balls, and Jimmy Neesham, who took a debut century off a tired attack from 123 balls. When I first saw Neesham I wrote how comfortable he looked at provincial level, and have the same opinion a grade higher. This is not say that he is the finished article, not by a long chalk, but there is enough emerging talent in New Zealand cricket for us to approach the future with our usual apprehension diluted somewhat.

So how good was McCullum’s innings? I have given it more than three months, in attempt to achieve perspective, only to find that there isn’t any. It was the finest innings ever played by a New Zealander in a test match, and not just because it was the biggest and the longest. Had McCullum been out at any point before he passed 250—about an hour before the end of the fourth day—New Zealand would almost certainly have lost.

Search the records and it is difficult to find an innings quite like it, one of such sustained defiance in the face of defeat. Hanif Mohammad’s 337 against the West Indies in 1958 is the only comparable triple century (and the only higher score in a team’s second innings). The danger of defeat was present almost throughout then too, but it was dour defence all the way, unleavened by McCullum’s willingness to take them on. Pakistan progressed at only a fraction over two an over. Had McCullum been as stately, New Zealand would have lost.

Martin Crowe’s 299 against Sri Lanka at the Basin in 1991 (still unwise to say “hey Marty, one short eh?” by the way) was also in pursuit of a large deficit, but he came in at 148 for two and the danger of defeat passed sooner.

VVS Laxman’s 281 in the greatest of all Tests, at Kolkota in 2001 also saw the prospect of losing the game recede at an earlier point. There are many other examples of fine, courageous long innings that saved teams from defeat, but none with the odds against success stacked so highly for so long. One of test cricket’s greatest innings, beyond question.

It was the highest innings of which I have seen part, eclipsing the fruitlessly tedious 275 to which Darryl Cullinan subjected us at Eden Park in 1999 despite Amnesty International’s intervention. It was a privilege to be there. If only we Sunday spectators could have appreciated quite what it was we were watching.

A note for my fellow pedants

Ever since I started writing Scorecards I have agonised about the use of the upper case for “test” as in match. When I worked for CricInfo its style guide (a thin publication) insisted that the word should always begin with a “T”. It has never made any sense to me to have an upper-case adjective followed by a lower-case noun. So with a shout of “Eureka!” I have decided that from now on in these columns it will be “test’ as an adjective and “Test” as a noun.

Now, should “Eureka!” begin with the upper case?...

New Zealand v India, 2nd Test, Basin Reserve, 14 – 18 February 2014: second day

A period of reflection is sometimes appropriate; such is my explanation for the three-month gestation of this report on what became one of the great New Zealand Tests. It still beats Wisden by eleven months. I was there from tea on the first day to the close on the third.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/new-zealand-v-india-2014/engine/match/667653.html

The marketing people get brainier by the day. New Zealand Cricket’s latest wheeze to get people through the gates is to stage an extract from Tom Stoppard’s Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead at the start of each international match. Guildenstern—a sensitive performance by Brendon McCullum—tosses a coin. Rosencrantz—MS Dhoni’s interpretation was as moving as any by an Indian captain in a leading role since the Nawab of Pataudi junior’s groundbreaking Hedda Gabler at Headingley in ‘67—calls heads and wins.

That is the most reasonable explanation for law-of-probability-defying run of seven tosses in a row won by the Indian skipper. And a lot of good it has done him. Four defeats and a tie in the ODIs were followed by a 40-run loss in the first Test at Eden Park.

Our inbred pessimism led home supporters to expect payback and it was no surprise to arrive at the Basin at tea on the first afternoon to find New Zealand all out for 192, Ishant Sharma six for 51.

Murali Vijay was out to the last ball of the second over of the reply, unable to get the gloves out of the way of a Southee delivery that came in with extra bounce. The odd play and miss aside, the batsmen looked comfortable and it was a bit of a surprise when Pujara fell leg before to a Boult inswinger just before the end. As often happens when the side bowling second is defending a small total, the New Zealand bowlers were bit anxious and too keen to make things happen rather than concentrating on the basics.

Nightwatchman Ishant Sharma provided the early entertainment on Saturday with shots of pure cock-eyed optimism. The fifty partnership came from 73 deliveries. Southee continues to chip batsmen with the vocabulary of a bowler ten kph faster than he actually is; Sharma will have made a note of Southee’s view of his bouncer-avoiding technique, which finished with the batsman flat on his back in the crease. Sharma was caught behind off Boult trying to repeat a cover drive for four.

At the other end, opener Shikhar Dhawan was showing why the Australian writer Chloe Saltau had recently picked him in her World XI. He cuts like a Savile Row tailor. However, it was still perplexing a couple of months later to open Wisden to find that Dhawan was one of the Almanack’s five Cricketers of the Year. The choice of the five is made on their performance in the previous English season, so how did Dhawan win in a year in which Australia and New Zealand toured? I had forgotten all about the Champions Trophy, which is easy to do. He had wowed Wisden editor Lawrence Booth with a couple of dashing centuries in the group stage, but it is still cricket’s least-merited accolade since Paul Collingwood’s seven-run MBE in 2005. The other four Cricketers of the Year were Ryan Harris, Chris Rogers, Joe Root, and Charlotte Edwards. It is a measure of how the three-nil result in the 2013 Ashes failed to reflect the narrow gap in talent between the two sides that two Australians and only one Englishman are named (though the fact that no one can be a Cricketer of the Year more than once may have influenced this too). It used to be the case that one of the five would be a county stalwart. I commend Darren Stevens to you, young Booth.

Here, Dhawan was out two short of a century, edging a Southee outswinger to Watling. Rohit Sharma soon followed for a duck to become Jimmy Neesham’s first Test wicket off as poor a ball as the debutant will ever take one with, a wide half volley that Sharma dragged on. At 165 for five a degree of parity had been restored, but India’s new hero, Virat Kohli, was in.

Kohli was fluent until succoured by a McCullum ruse. Neil Wagner maintained a line a couple of feet wide of off stump with two short extra covers. For some time Kohli resisted, but the apple was too big and juicy and the first time he tried to take a bite Rutherford, the straighter of the two fielders in the trap, took the catch.

MS Dhoni joined Ajinkya Rahane at the crease with both preferring to accrue through boundaries. At mid-afternoon drinks 28 of Rahane’s 38 had come that way, and Dhoni had hit the first four balls of the preceding over for four. A sensible bowler would have stayed quiet and tried to blend in with the surroundings, but Wagner continued to chip the Indian captain, and made himself look mightily stupid by doing so.

The advent of the new ball after tea merely accelerated the scoring rate. New Zealand’s only idea seemed to be to feed Dhoni’s ramp shot in the hope that he might feather one. So it was a surprise when Dhoni fell to a short ball from Boult that he could easily have left alone. This brought in Ravindra Jadeja, a Test No 9 with three first-class triple centuries to his name.

Jadeja showed no inclination to dig in or run singles and greeted Wagner’s return to the attack by sending the first two deliveries to the boundary, the second impishly between slip and gully. He was caught at second slip off the following ball, all but two of his 26 coming from boundaries.

Rahane was now ten short of his maiden Test century and will not have been reassured by the entrance at No 10 of Zaheer Khan, a batsman unable to pass a swash without attempting to buckle it. Predictably enough he attempted to send the second ball he received down the Mt Victoria Tunnel. Rahane met the situation calmly, upping the tempo without risk and two overs later pulled Anderson to the mid-wicket boundary to join the centurions. With a hooked six he brought up Wagner’s century a little later, from a mere 22 overs.

Earlier that over Wagner thought that he had bowled Zaheer, only for a replay to show that he had no-balled by cutting the return crease with his left foot (he was bowling round the wicket). My seat high in the Vance Stand looked right down the line of the violated crease and I am sure that he was bowling one or two no balls an over in this manner, so had no sympathy for him. Did Wagner shut up? He did not.

It took a piece of fielding as classy as the innings itself to dismiss Rahane. Boult sprinted in from the cover boundary and dived full length, scooping the ball one-handed an inch from the turf. It contends with Boult’s own flying leap to dismiss Denesh Ramdin at the Basin late last year as catch of the season.

Another flurry of eyes-shut slogging from Zaheer took India to a final score of 438, a lead of 236 with more than three days still to go. As Fulton and Rutherford came to the crease it was the nature of the defeat that was being debated; would India have to bat again?; would play go beyond the third day? The fact of defeat was no more worthy of debate than the setting of the sun.

Peter Fulton lasted only into the second over when he padded up to a Zaheer Khan inswinger. The raised finger of umpire Steve Davis cued a lot of rot from the radio commentary box, where it was agreed that the decision was a travesty. Firstly, had the decision review system been in operation it would have supported the decision by showing the ball clipping the off stump. Secondly, any opening batsman padding up to a swing bowler of Zaheer’s pedigree is asking for all the trouble that comes to him. It was further evidence that, for all the heroism of Eden Park last year, Peter Fulton does not have what it takes as a Test opener.

Rutherford and Williamson shepherded New Zealand to the close, but the football fans present consoled themselves with the thought that on the morrow they would be able to watch the rest of the Test and be in their seats at the Cake Tin as the Pheonix kicked off at 5 pm. If you had told us that the game was almost 72 hours away from a finish we would have called an ambulance for you, and probably the police as well.

To be continued.