1 test eng v new zealand

Can't wait.

Will be a tough beginning for Emilio Gay, good luck to him and England

Backed New Zealand @ 2.96.

Hope the rain stays away.

England to bat first.

Tricky session coming up for them.

Good ball and decent catch to dismiss Gay.

Welcome to Test Cricket.

The wicket was turning tricks right from the first ball. Duckett did very well to last as long as he has done so far. Disgraceful track for a major test match. Lords should be removed from the roster until they sort it out.

England will struggle to get 100 but how will they bowl? I would love some of your 2.96 though. I have not had a bet on the cricket as so many things can happen in a 5 day game.

All three left handers gone.

These conditions were made for England's much-maligned approach to Test cricket since Stokes took over.

Ah well.

4 gone now. England need 150 at least or it will be over in three days.

NZ evens now which is still value imo.

Moreover, what the heck is going on with the Betfair ladders?!

Is the entire market operated by bots, now?

Sad times.

Jun 4, 2026 -- 2:01PM, sageform wrote:

England will struggle to get 100 but how will they bowl? I would love some of your 2.96 though. I have not had a bet on the cricket as so many things can happen in a 5 day game.

won't be 5 days with these sh1tapes

Smith gone.

Bad leave on this pitch.

Smith gone.

Bad leave on this pitch.

Now Stokes out to a great catch.

Aggressive batters have a higher drop-rate.

Presumably because of a combination of higher speed off the bat and, by virtue of their strike rate, a psychological element that would mean the fielding side "wants" to take any chance they get - perversely meaning they catch slightly fewer of said chances.

Harry Brook would fit this profile more than most, by virtue of his incredible start to Test cricket (World No. 2).

Don't believe in luck, but if you must...believe you create your own.

They also hit more balls into the air, another factor of the modern game.

1.54 New Zealand at tea.

I'm not sure that in the split second before attempting a catch that a fielder thinks "ooh it's Harry Brook batting, must catch this" I jest.

Brook by any measure is a lucky so and so. Certainly compared to other current test batsmen. Now i would accept that any player scoring a ton will likely be given a life on the way, it's rare to score a chanceless century , but i have seen him dropped four of five times in some innings, it's remarkable.

I would love to have seen how long he would have lasted up against the pace attacks of the past, Lillee/Thomson Marshall/Garner/Roberts/Holding etc - let's just say i doubt he'd be World No 2 if they'd still been around   Mind you hardly any of today's test cricketers would have done any different to be fair.

The innings that Brook has just played sums him up perfectly, some fine shots admittedly but also plenty of fortune, streaky shots and two drops (one an absolute dolly) and then he holes out to fine leg .

NZ well on top at tea, let's not forget that their top bowler Matt Henry has only bowled 4 overs so their other bowlers have done superbly.

I think that England have picked a decent attack as well for this pitch, so it's still game on although i expect the NZ batsmen to show better discipline than ours have..

All out in under 40 overs on Day One, pathetic

The last wicket put on the second highest partnership of the innings, with 10 and 11 at the crease

Watching a different game

2 for 3.

Will be over by Saturday lunch.

4 down...could be all over tomorrow

May need to start playing test cricket with a white ball (modern ones tend to do less - wasn't always true)  and coloured clothing, it's a challenging batting day despite the straw coloured pitch but not a 156 for 14 day..and every series now records are broken for worst starts to an inns, wickets in a day etc..

can't really expect batsmen that barely play red ball stuff outside of test matches to make the massive adjustments required...and techniques honed for completely different requirements..

Only been one worse performance from top 4's in the history of the game according to the wonderful Andy Zaltzman on tms..

*tests obvs

29-6

might be played with a red ball but that's the only thing about this that resembles test creekit

Well i did say England had picked the right bowlers

NZ top order is even worse than ours, no excuse for such a basic lack of technique, Brentford is correct about this not being as bad a pitch as the score suggests.

This all comes down of course to a lack of red ball cricket being played by todays test match batsmen.
Much of cricket is played in the head and too many of the current crop do not have the mentality for the five day game.

Anybody with a ticket for the weekend will need to revise their plans methinks

Part mentality but more technique for me...it's poor foot movement, hard hands, knowing where your off stump is...none of this is remotely relevant to 90% of the cricket they play and when they do it's largely against second rate attacks...so funnily enough when such attribures are required, it's sadly lacking...if it flattens out you'll see strokes you wouldn't believe..

yep square pegs for round holes

Batsmen not defending their wickets properly, two bowled today leaving the ball outside their off stump.

Emphasis too much on strike rate and not keeping your wicket intact and all of this down to the one day mush being served up all year.

A lot of local leagues now giving a wide for any ball for any leg side delivery and  as a result you hardly ever see a proper sweep or leg glance being played. A shame

really,

7-2 just offside fields and bowlers aiming outside off stump all of the time.

we have been here before haven't we ? when the day job is crash , bang , wallop... sometimes dressed up as a bag of crisps !

I think we have WK...and I'm not not someone who would actually knock shorter form stuff..but the structure of the calendar in all countries and the money involved is pretty much destroying any future for test cricket and I'm slightly sad at that..

teams involved here will benefit from the run (so to speak) and we may get some good games or pitches to cater for them and get the receipts but I wonder increasingly who will follow it in the long term ..because it does nothing for me when being bowled out in 30-40 overs is almost common place rather than a freak..

The white and pink balls are sprayed with lacquer, which peels off after a few overs, it stays hard and travels faster and keeps straight. On the other hand the red ball although made the same is coated with wax when finished, allowing the ball to be polished enabling it to swing and deviate more. It is used for 80 overs as opposed 10 at each end, so gets softer and slows down. So it is it any wonder that after playing 9 months with the white/pink ball that batters get found out. Add to that a wicket prepared to last 5 days not 20 overs and batters are bound to struggle if not prepared properly.

Test Cricket is the pinnacle of our sport, it is not meant to be easy. Class, determination, skill and the ability to adapt to conditions are necessary. Both teams have been found lacking in that respect.

DixieDean60 makes a good point when he says the standard of quick bowling now is nowhere near what it was in the 60's and 70's. Uncovered wicket and no helmets as well don't forget.

The game as lost a lot, stoke play, spin bowling etc. All down to the introduction of overs cricket which of course is easier to play.

Kiwis 90/8 now. England will be batting again before lunch on the second day.

Good start by England (46/0) in easing conditions. Firmly in the driving seat now.

England 1.28

New Zealand 4.9

Draw 44

barstool - One day cricket certainly has adversely affected the way Tests are played in the last couple of decades. Almost entirely due to 20/20 i would say.

One Day cricket had been around for nearly 40 years before 20/20 but it was only when that began then that things started changing. There was plenty of short form games prior to 20/20 - the 40/45 over Sunday League, 55 0ver B & H Cup and the blue riband 60 over Gillette/Nat West Trophy. None of these had a major effect on the long form game. The season was also perfectly structured, not like it is now.
r
I remember going to Maidstone in 2004 to see Kent play their first game of the 20 over stuff against Middlesex and watching Andrew Symonds hammer a remarkable 34 ball century. But this was all brute force and timing, none of the reverse sweeps, scoop shots etc that are now prevalent in the One Day game and that have now found their way in to the Test arena.

As a decent seam bowler in my youth i would be glued to the BBC coverage, seeing those great quick bowlers in the 70s was an education as well  as being great to watch. I was also spoiled being a Kent supporter, watching the superb side we had at that time - APE Knott (the greatest ever keeper imo), Deadly Derek Underwood, Woolmer, Luckhurst, Denness etc , what a team No wonder i never got a look in at county level

But these days the game often leaves me cold, it's almost like a different sport to the one i played back then. Money is obviously one of the great factors in that change and i suppose it depends on which generation you are as to whether it's change for the better or not.

Very early days but have we found a decent opener in Gay? Joe Root looks all at sea.

Agree saeform, he his playing it well and about time we had one. Need a new partner for him too.

The forum curse strikes again

4 gone for 0 runs.

England need a 200 lead.

I think they would be favourites with that.

I think they have enough already based on what we've already seen.

Another shoddy display by the England middle order. Gay looked ok but should of course been out earlier if NZ had reviewed that lbw.
Not much Bethell could do about the shooter he got
Stokes is a worry, he looks a shadow of the batsman he has been.