New Zealand v England: "We weren't good enough" is not an acceptable explanation

England Cricket / Ed Hawkins / 10 March 2008 / 1 Comments

Excuses, excuses, excuses as the outlook for the rest of the series looks more than bleak for England, says Ed Hawkins

In the wake of England's chastening, embarrassing - and most certainly shocking from a punting perspective - defeat to New Zealand in Hamilton there have been the usual sound bites about moving on and improving in time for the start of Wednesday's second Test in Wellington.

It gets awfully tiresome for bettors hoping to hear something useful from the mouths of players and coaches. Michael Vaughan saying that England weren't good enough would not have fooled even the blind, deaf or dumb. Had he admitted that his team were underprepared or had taken New Zealand lightly, there would be something for us to work with.

Instead we are left with these words from coach Peter Moores. "We have to look at putting out the best XI to win the game". Well, thanks for that Peter. Now I know you're going to do that I'll lump on that [2.9] your boys to triumph at the Basin Reserve. As for New Zealand at [3.3] and the draw at [2.8], well you can shove it.

No, instead of hoping for guidance from England's powers that be, the punter should comfort himself with the trends and statistics which work so effectively as ear plugs to the nonsense spouted by those supposed to be 'in the know'.

And Peter, you might want to stick your fingers in your lugholes at this point, because what you are about to hear will almost certainly mean you will have to come up with a better plan than "picking the best team".

New Zealand have never lost a series at home after winning the first Test and England have only come back to triumph after a game one reverse on foreign soil twice in the last 28 years. That makes New Zealand's series price of [1.66] seem rather good.

The first fact is the most damning for England's chances. For all the huff and puff about how their batsmen have higher averages than their Kiwi counterparts and their bowlers more penetrative, New Zealand have never been a team to get complacent.

If anything, hardnosed coach John Bracewell will demand that his team play even more aggressive and positive cricket to make England feel powerless to halt their horrible slide.

Certainly they can not take comfort from their record in series when they have lost the opener. Okay, famously they hit back in the Ashes in 2005 but there is no way Vaughan or Moores would dare point to such an example to boost morale considering that astonishing comeback is one of the main reasons for their current malaise. After those heady days, nothing seems quite as much fun anymore.

Overall their record in the last ten series when they have lost the first match reads won three and lost seven, which pulls the rug sharpish from under the feet of those seeking comfort in the drawn series price of [3.9].

One of those wins came abroad. Against Sri Lanka in 2001 England were well-beaten in game one but hit back in spectacular fashion. In that series England were led by Nasser Hussain who marshalled a mentally-tough set of troops which included Mike Atherton.

That pair are two of the strongest individuals to have ever played Test cricket for England and it is no coincidence that they are leading the criticism claiming that the tourists have gone soft and are mentally shot. They may well be right, although don't expect Messrs Vaughan and Moores to admit as much.

Comments (1)

1. Paul | 19 March 2008

   I feel the same as you Ed. Really fed up with excuses. England under Vaughan are soft. What has Moores brought to the table? I wish both were relieved of their duties...