Looked to me as if it might have been going over

Good captaincy to bring Wood back on then. England bowling well.

Def missing

Yes same as when Bairstow went

MACCA wrote:Get them 150/4 and it's back with us.

It was a massive noise, I heard it from here.

You got your wish MACCA, 9 runs early as well.

Another bad decision but good for us for a change

Not out had they had their review

Still think one review is wrong.

Swings and roundabouts but proof again that you can never get 100% decisions correct in live sport.

diamondpocket wrote:only available to UK viewers, I'm not in the UK

it is on http://www.cricfree.sc" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Tbh you can’t feel too sorry for them when Williamson doesn’t walk when he knows he’s hit it

Buxtonclaret wrote:Still think one review is wrong.

I quite like just the 1 review. Stops frivolous reviewing! You need to think about them!

Buxtonclaret wrote:Still think one review is wrong.

Start having 2 or 3 and you may as well have an umpire.

I think ones enough and its upto the captain to use it wisely. NZ have been a bit sloppy with their batting one against us in both games now.

There should be some penalty for frivolous reviews. However, you want to get decisions correct.

claretburns wrote:You got your wish MACCA, 9 runs early as well.

I can be greedy and ask for 190/6?

I can't see them getting 250 TBH.

Another for Plunkett

173/5

Plunkett with another, he really is good at claiming wickets, a very much unsung hero in the squad.

Still a long way to go but that's what the doctor ordered

Great stuff

Another quick one here and we could limit them to 230.

Bairstow is a beast on the boundary. Great fielder

Every time I think NZ might be edging in front we take a wicket

Well bowled plunks.

ClaretTony wrote:Every time I think NZ might be edging in front we take a wicket

Best you keep thinking it then.......!

Superb 10 overs, Liam.

Just reaching the point again where we need another wicket

Six down, de Grandhomne gone

ClaretTony wrote:Just reaching the point again where we need another wicket

There you go

That's was needed we didn't need that partnership to carry through
We can do this now
230 240 if they lucky

Longside4evr wrote:That's was needed we didn't need that partnership to carry through
We can do this now
230 240 if they lucky

We don’t want them getting many more than 240. That would potentially be a tough target.

270 is the par score at Lords.

claret wizard wrote:270 is the par score at Lords.

Not in these conditions though. 270 for me would be a frightening total to go for.

Woakes just went from the Ridiculous to the Sublime ....

4 wides followed by a wicket 232-7

Someone who knows about cricket, why does it matter that a ball pitches outside the stumps for LBW if it would still hit the wickets anyway?

Interesting over with 5 wides, a wicket , free hit no ball and then nothing off the free hit.

238 with one over to go

Imploding Turtle wrote:Someone who knows about cricket, why does it matter that a ball pitches outside the stumps for LBW if it would still hit the wickets anyway?

Can’t be out if it pitches outside leg stump.

A sloppy last 3 overs there's 20 on this total that shouldn't be.

240/8 with 3 balls to go. First wicket for Archer.

Brendan McCullum happy with 240.

ClaretTony wrote:Can’t be out if it pitches outside leg stump.

Ok. yes. I understand that bit, but why? I'm trying to understand the rationale behind the rule.

Finished on 241/8

I think the theory is that if the ball pitches outside leg stump, the trajectory of the ball is likely (possibly) to be in line to hit the leg anyway before the batsman has time to move his bat towards the ball.

Imploding Turtle wrote:Ok. yes. I understand that bit, but why? I'm trying to understand the rationale behind the rule.

If it was allowed it would be far to easy for a bowler to get an lbw if bowling over the wicket to a left hander or round the wicket to a right hander.

Imploding Turtle wrote:Ok. yes. I understand that bit, but why? I'm trying to understand the rationale behind the rule.

Would just make it too easy for the bowler if out pitching outside leg stump.
Makes sense really, if you think about it.

Beat me to it.

A competitive total I think; if NZ bowl well it wont be a doddle chasing that down.
England bowled OK without it being at their best; 17 wides is too many.
England are strong favourites with the bookies (1/4 cf 3/1 for Kiwis) but a few early wickets would change that. All to play for still.

Vino blanco wrote:I think the theory is that if the ball pitches outside leg stump, the trajectory of the ball is likely (possibly) to be in line to hit the leg anyway before the batsman has time to move his bat towards the ball.

Oh. Right. So is that because of what side the bowler is bowling from? I mean, if the bowler is bowling from the left and the ball pitches to the left of the wickets the batsman can't be out, but if he's bowling from the left and pitches to the right of the wickets and comes "back" then LBW is possible?

Or must it pitch in-line with the wickets no matter what side of the the bowler's bowling from?

Imploding Turtle wrote:Oh. Right. So is that because of what side the bowler is bowling from? I mean, if the bowler is bowling from the left and the ball pitches to the left of the wickets the batsman can't be out, but if he's bowling from the left and pitches to the right of the wickets and comes "back" then LBW is possible?

Or must it pitch in-line with the wickets no matter what side of the the bowler's bowling from?

Doesn’t have to pitch in line, can pitch outside off stump. Then it’s where the contact takes place dependent on whether the batsman is playing a shot.

IT, here is all you need to know -


You have two sides, one out in the field and one in. Each man that's in the side that's in goes out, and when he's out he comes in and the next man goes in until he's out. When they are all out, the side that's out comes in and the side that's been in goes out and tries to get those coming in, out. Sometimes you get men still in and not out.
When a man goes out to go in, the men who are out try to get him out, and when he is out he goes in and the next man in goes out and goes in. There are two men called umpires who stay out all the time and they decide when the men who are in are out. When both sides have been in and all the men have been out, and both sides have been out twice after all the men have been in, including those who are not out, that is the end of the game

Here we go come on England