New Zealand cricketers must be scratching their heads in frustration. How did it happen? How did they lose the Lord’s Test on Monday after scoring 523 runs in the first innings and then leading England by 134 runs?
I can imagine New Zealand’s no. 3 batsman Kane Williamson banging his head against the wall when his country lost by 124 runs. He scored 132 in the first innings and 27 in the second after the Kiwis lost two wickets for no runs and three wickets for 12.
It may console him that his countryman Nathan Astle had scored 222 runs in the second innings of the Christchurch Test against England in March 2002 and still New Zealand had lost by 98 runs. It was then the highest individual score for a losing side.
Astle’s 222 included 11 sixes (only Pakistan’s Wasim Akram had hit more sixes, 12, in a Test innings) and was the fastest double century in Test history, hit off only 153 balls, an astounding strike rate of 145.09.
Wisden 2003 summed up this Christchurch Test as perhaps the most glorious failure in Test history. When an injured Chris Cairns walked in at no. 11, New Zealand needing 550 to win were 9 for 333. Now they required 217 more runs for an impossible victory.
Astle was 134 at the fall of the ninth wicket. To quote Wisden, “he proceeded to treat England’s attack as if they had been drafted from the local kindergarten.”
Astle and Cairns (23 not out) added an incredible 118 for the last wicket, Astle contributing a flamboyant 78.
Back to this Monday’s Lord’s Test. It may console Williamson’s team mates to learn that it had happened 12 times in the past in the 138 years history of Test cricket that a team scoring 500 plus in the first innings ended up losing.
But it happened for the first time to New Zealand.
I recall two Tests in Adelaide in the new millennium when a team scoring 550 plus in the first innings ended up losing.
The first instance was against India in December 2003. Winning the toss Australia amassed 556 runs, Ricky Ponting scoring a majestic 242.
With Rahul Dravid stroking 233 and VVS Laxman 148, India totalled 523. Ajit Agarkar surprised an over confident Australia by capturing 6 for 41 and the home team was rolled out for 196.
Dravid nicknamed “the wall” made an unbeaten 72 and India won by four wickets. Ponting went past Astle’s record by recording the highest score (242) for a losing side.
The other instance I recall of a team recording 550 plus in the first innings and losing was in the Ashes Test of December 2006.
England declared at 6 for 551 (Paul Collingwood 206, Kevin Pietersen 158). Australia replied with 513 (Ponting 142, Michael Clarke 124).
Then Shane Warne struck with a 4 for 49 spell and England was bowled out for 129 and Australia won by six wickets.
Like these two hair-raisers in Adelaide, the just concluded Lord’s Test showed that Test cricket is alive and well.
It was one of the most exciting Tests I have watched as it fluctuated every day. In all 1610 runs were scored in this Test which is a record aggregate in a Test since 1930 when all 40 wickets fell.
Can’t wait for the second Test to start and then for the Ashes. Can you?
Ronan O'Connell
Expert
"Considering NZ crossed 400 in the first innings only 3 wickets down, their first innings total was actually pretty disappointing." All the focus has been on the loose batting of NZ's lower order on day 5 but they were just as bad in the first dig. NZ were 7-493 with Watling 45no batting extremely well. NZ's lower order just needed to stick around for a while with him and they'd have pushed towards 600. Instead the last 3 Kiwi batsmen got out to slogs as rank and amateurish as any you will see - 9th grade cricketers would have been embarrassed to play those shots.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
I don't see how it's more inexcusable batting last. Day 5 is often the hardest time to bat as the pitch starts to break up and play more tricks, which is why big totals are a lot rarer in the fourth innings than the third innings. There are two options when faced with a difficult fourth innings chase: Either decide to just try to hold on for a draw, or go out with the belief that if you bat well you can pull it off and get the win. Sure there are times when you have been batted right out of the match and just have to go into survival mode, but do you really prefer the defensive minded teams who try to avoid losing first and then think about a win, rather than those who will always attack and push for the win?
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
Considering NZ crossed 400 in the first innings only 3 wickets down, their first innings total was actually pretty disappointing. Batting second and in such a strong position you just want to get in and build as big a total as you can in that innings, reduce any chance of having a total to chase on the fifth day.
Broken-hearted Toy
Guest
The media treats eveybody who plays early summer as an appetiser to to the later series especially if it's the Ashes. It's hardly right, but there it is.
Kiwi
Guest
Good guess....Half back....and an opener....which aren't too different when you think about it Would take a 3-test series over 2-tests and 5 one-dayers any day.
Sylvester
Guest
Craig is an average spinner who somehow has burgled a few test wickets. Few alternatives though.
Sylvester
Guest
How can that be qualified? Boult and Williamson were the best NZ players and Henry was quite good. McCullum batted with freedom in the first innings because the top order fired and he got a cracking ball in the second. Southee was the only IPL player to totally underwhelm. Anderson returning from injury didn't play too badly.
Sylvester
Guest
I wouldn't say complacent or lazy but the demons of collapses past likely got into their heads.
Sylvester
Guest
And Southee of course but he actually has no technical batting abilility so there's no real point to him blocking.
Sylvester
Guest
The only player I saw playing aggressively on day 5 was Anderson and he didn't lose his wicket going for a slog. The chase was over before it began when they were 0-2. It was good bowling for the most part and a couple of poor shots from the Kiwi batsmen.
WALLABY THRASHER
Guest
Get a room you blokes.
CW
Guest
Kersi. I pinpointed a number of reasons how the Black Caps slost the first test. I think the main reason was their attack was far too pedestrian once the shine and the hardness went out of the Duke ball. While the ball was relatively new both Southee and Boult were far superior to Broad and Anderson. England found something with the older ball that the Kiwis could not. Also England's slow bowlers were more penetrative than Mark Craig. They sure missed the crafty Dan Vettori.imo. I though the difference between the two teams and the reason England won. Was the brilliant batting of Cook and Root and the ruthless putting away of the loose ball by Ben Stokes.. This eventually broke the back of the Kiwi's effort and heart.
CW
Guest
Kersi. I pinpointed a number of reasons how the Black Caps slost the first test. I think the main reason was their attack was far too pedestrian once the shine and the hardness went ouyt of the Duke ball. While the ball was relatively new both Southee and Boult were far superior to Broad and Anderson. England found something with the older ball that the Kiwis could not. Also England's slow bowlers were more penetrative than Mark Craig. They sure missed the crafty Dan Vettori.imo. I though the difference between the two teams and the reason England won. Was the brilliant batting of Cook and Root. Poor bowling got Stokes most of his runs . This eventually broke the Kiwi's back and heart.
hog
Guest
kiwis lost the big points 4/30 in the first inning and 74/3 in the 2nd, but they couldn't finish England off. And batting last the game was over when Latham & Guptill went. And Cook digging in in the 2nd. NZ was pretty much on top all game but lost.?? Can't help think that not including Wagner was wrong he played in the warm up and was the sort of bowler that could tie up an end & take wickets when the ball is older.
sheek
Roar Guru
Good mate - speak soon.
Geoff Parkes
Expert
We're all in agreement Brian. My point is that its the captain which sets the direction and instructs the team on how to play. If we were the skipper we'd be giving Southee and others a boot up the backside not a pat on the back for the way they batted. But McCullum obviously sees it differently.
Pope Paul VII
Guest
That's the great thing about test cricket, anything can happen. Admittedly it usually doesn't but if teams manage to hang in it increases the possiblity. On your list KMH the Flintoff declaration stands out as the no.1 shocker. 50 more runs and they were still in the series win or draw, don't think Freddy or his advisors thought that one through. And Nathan Absalom re Australia losing after tallying 586, I think ( could be wrong ) Australia were caught on a sticky on the final morning. Although England would not have been able to take advantage had they not batted themselves into contention.
Riccardo
Guest
"...tickling our balls..." Classic. As a Kiwi you must be a rugby player; I'm betting hooker. It's a good point though; even the media there treats us like the appetiser before the Ashes. As #3 in the Test rankings, flawed as they are, you would hope these discounted tours will become a thing of the past...
Kiwi
Guest
these 2 test 'series' are ridiculous. Better making it a one-off instead of tickling our balls with 2 matches could well end in a drawn series.
Steele
Guest
More evidence to suggest bowling first is rarely a good decision.