How Black Caps duo Matt Henry, Tom Blundell helped foil Bazball and England’s attacking intent in second test at The Oval

Tuesday, 23 June 2026

What: Black Caps v England, third test. Where: Trent Bridge, Nottingham. When: Day one, 10pm Thursday (NZT), Sky Sport 1.

ANALYSIS: “No reverse scoops, eh!” Tom Blundell said to Jordan Cox. The New Zealand wicketkeeper was actually standing up to Matt Henry for a hat-trick ball after Matthew Fisher and Josh Tongue had been dismissed with him standing back on the final morning at the Oval, and the field was spread because New Zealand wanted to give Cox the single. But the comment picked up on the stump microphone revealed the dangers of doing what Blundell did so brilliantly in that second Test.

Indeed, Blundell had already taken a nasty blow to the nether regions when Fisher had attempted a scoop in his first-innings 50, but any physical injuries suffered were well worth it for the effect the wicketkeeper's work had upon the England batsmen during New Zealand's thumping victory in the second Test.

Henry took the man-of-the-match award for his 11 wickets, but Blundell aided him considerably, particularly in the dismissals of Harry Brook and Joe Root in both innings, always the key wickets, because his standing up to the stumps made both play very differently.

They are, of course, very different players, but for Brook it was a case of halting any charges down the pitch to hit the bowler over extra cover, which is his regular get-out shot when under pressure from accurate seamers. That is unusual because it is obviously a pre-meditated stroke, but it is indicative of T20’s influence and how “playing the ball on its merit” is considered old-school in so many quarters.

There was an example in Brook’s second innings where he pre-meditated a hit for six and then only a couple of balls later should have hit a wide short one for six but did not, because, presumably, he was thinking of something else.

But here's the thing: does the wicketkeeper standing up have to preclude Brook from advancing down the pitch? Batsmen run down to spinners, so why not seamers? The better the bowler, the easier that is, surely, because you know roughly where the ball is going to be pitched, and, if you move late enough, the bowler should not be able to adjust.

Some will say that is way too risky and, if a stumping results, the opprobrium will be rabid, but all strokes come with some element of risk attached to them and thinking of the negative possibilities never helped anyone.

Yes, it would be nice if Brook could simply trust his defence, but even Root found that difficult against Henry and his constant lateral movement and occasional variable bounce at the Oval. He uses the crease cleverly to create different angles and he can swing the ball (a perfect outswinger did for Tongue in the second innings at the Oval) as well as hit the seam. What's more, he appears to be one of those bowlers for whom the ball seems to gather pace once it does nip off the seam. That makes no physical sense but, believe me, it feels like that for some bowlers.

During their coverage, Sky Sports showed a pitch map highlighting Henry's immaculate line, just outside off stump, either nipping back for leg-befores or nipping away hoping for edges. It was relentlessly accurate.

Henry is what the pros like to call a “line bowler”, but it is his command of a good length that makes him such an awkward proposition when the ball is moving.

It is why Root would always prefer to stand outside his crease to a bowler such as him, because then he can challenge that good length, from which there is time for the ball to seam both ways, by getting close enough to the ball before it can deviate. Root would also then hope to get his front foot outside the line of off stump to avoid a leg-before. This was the reason why so many players once began taking off-stump guards in county cricket, with the ball nipping everywhere from the likes of Darren Stevens.

Forced back into his crease by Blundell, Root, who for one of the greatest batsmen ever is always fighting a head that wants to topple to the off side, was twice trapped leg-before. Here's a thing with him too: could he not think about playing Henry as if he were a spinner? Henry is obviously a lot quicker than that, but what about in terms of Root's always exemplary judgment of length and shot selection against them?

Many players do treat dobbers as if they are spinners in that way, even if just shimmying to the pitch of the ball sometimes. I do, of course, understand that Henry is not like Stevens and others. He is above 130kph and poses a significant challenge, but England need to come up with something for the Test at Trent Bridge on Thursday; to put some pressure back on him by disrupting his natural length, which he was allowed to bowl all too readily at the Oval.

And they should remember that it does not matter where the wicketkeeper is standing - you must still move into a position to play the ball. It does not have to be a big movement, but a significant enough transfer of weight. Brook can sometimes get stuck and Blundell's move appeared to exacerbate that possibility.

All the chat about trigger movements is rendered useless unless you move again after that initial movement. That is all you are doing: readying yourself in a dynamic position to move again, whether forward or back.

The obvious question after the Oval Test, and indeed the Ashes last winter, will be why this - the wicketkeeper standing up to seamers - does not happen more often. Well, it has happened a lot in history, but it requires a certain type of pitch - both Lord's and the Oval have been ideal, if in slightly different ways - and a wicketkeeper of the highest order to execute it.

And it does have its downsides for bowlers, and not just the pricking of their egos. For one it makes the bouncer almost impossible to bowl. Yes, you can give a signal to the wicketkeeper that it is coming, but you cannot get it as high as if he were standing back.

Secondly, thick edges can easily be missed. Blundell got a little lucky with Brook's second-innings dismissal because the ball cannoned off his gloves straight to Daryl Mitchell at first slip, and Blundell did take a remarkable first-innings catch to dismiss Jofra Archer from a big deflection, but generally those can be easily missed.

Standing at first slip with the wicketkeeper standing up can be tricky too, as the ball is so easily lost, just as it is sometimes difficult for the wicketkeeper to see the flight of the ball if a batsman has a particularly wavy backlift that can hide the ball.

To return to the start of the piece, once a batsman starts delving into his T20 tool bag of scoops and ramps it then becomes an extremely hazardous place for a wicketkeeper to be standing. Mind you, Cox tried that with a sweep from across his stumps and was bowled to end the game at the Oval.

But perhaps overall England need to be braver, which will not be easy when your former style of play - which involved doing just that - is being pilloried.

– The Times, London