England vs New Zealand, 2nd test at Headingly

First topic message reminder :

Thread for the build up & match


New from the NZ camp is that BJ Watling's knee has ruled him out, meaning he'll join Bruce Martin on the sidelones. Brendon McCullum will keep wicket, while Martin Guptill will return to the side and bat #6.

Daniel Vettori trained well yesterday, so is expected to play in place of Martin

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/cricket/8706188/Watling-ruled-out-Vettori-likely-for-second-test
Likely NZ XI:
Fulton, Rutherford, Williamson, Taylor, Brownlee, Guptill, McCullum, Vettori or Bracewell, Southee, Wagner, Boult

Well, we got there in the end...well played lads!

Special congrats to Swann on his 6 wicket haul...doesn't that give him 10 for the match?

Still think Cook made it harder / more anxious than it need have been.

Yep, well done England and Cook leading us to victory. A lot of discussion about the tactics although in the end they probably didn't influence the result either way. I reckon that's for the best - England were clearly the better side and won by a clear margin, nuf said on that.

Agree about Swann being MOM.

A quick synopsis for the series with an eye on the Ashes:

Cook - always got a start, and went on well in his last innings. Will need to be a bit more ruthless as a captain against the Aussies, but generally in a good place.

Compton - Coming under pressure for his place, with the option of Root moving up to open (to make way for KP in the middle order)

Trott - A bit like Cook. Got in each time with one innings of substance. Concern that he is not scoring fluently, but that is not too significant if those around him are keeping the rate up. KP's return would help.

Bell - A series to forget. Struggling for fluency and form at the moment, although his past record is enough to keep him in the side...for now.

Root - A new star in the making. Looks to have taken to Test cricket like a duck to water.

Bairstow - May not have really established himself in the side, but it would be harsh to drop him (for KP) at the moment when he is more reliable than either Compton or Bell.

Prior - Bad first match, but that's something that we haven't said for quite a while. Better this game, and still one of the fundamental building blocks of the team.

Broad - Taken over the Harmison mantle of unplayable one day, unbowlable the next, but his burst in the 2nd innings of the first Test was world class. A rediscovery of his batting form would be a serious bonus to the balance of the team.

Swann - Come back from injury as though he has never been away. Even produced a good cameo with the bat this game.

Anderson - Consistently class act with the ball. Even when he's not taking the wickets he is keeping things tight and posing problems.

Finn - Better this match than the first, and his extra pace and bounce are a good foil for Anderson's swing and Broad's seam bowling.

Overall - bowling is in pretty good shape, especially with Bresnan and Onions to keep the pressure on the seamers and the option of Monty coming in if we need a second spinner.
Batting will be better for the return of KP. My biggest concern is how many times batsmen have got in and then got out for between about 20 and 40. A habit we need to get out of if we want to make big scores against Aus.

Nice analysis, Dummy

I would bring back Pietersen for Bairstow, if he's fit that is. He hasn't done much wrong but Bell is class and dropping Compton would give us two possible problems.

In the end England had enough time to force a result. Terrific from Swann, he seems to have put all the injury troubles behind him. Hopefully Pietersen will also be back soon, and a full strength England will be able to take the Australians on. Cricinfo reported yesterday that Pietersen has hit the nets already.

Nice win in the end. I do feel Southeee , as the last proper batsman, should have looked to hang around and survive the few periods of play. Pretty silly to try to smash it about and get out so quickly.

England over did the right thing and gave players time in the middle.

So England wrap up a 2-0 win in just over 3 days with the spinner taking 6 wickets on a wearing pitch.

I'm a bit mystified that Cook has come in for quite so much criticism TBH....

I think Australia have enough quality bowling to challenge England for periods, but England should have too much quality through the side. Australia's batting looks fragile to the extreme, and their bowlers aren't experienced in England conditions (but have had success bowling an "English" - i.e. full - length, so that may not be such an issue).

I don't think Southee has a good enough defensive technique to survive for long. But he has the shots, and if his shot selection could improve a bit more, he could become a decent bowling all-rounder. I won't blame him for his attacking approach, he couldn't have blocked his way to safety, when he attacks, the bowlers, who wouldn't like to leak too many runs would have the field spread, and then the key for Southee is to control his game to exploit that. Not really relevant in the context of this game as NZ had lost the game the moment McCullum got out, but in general, Southee, if he gets his act together, can develop his batting, and can do a job similar to what Vettori managed for years.

Southee isn't a batsman, but is a bowler who has a good eye and ball-striking ability. A bit like Swann (or previously Harmison) for England - not someone you'd look to hang around for a couple of hours just blocking an end, but who can smack a quick 20 or 30, and will probably stay in for as long playing like that was he would attempting to just block.

No criticsm from me for his approach to this innings - the failures came from those above him in the order.

Well done England, a comprehensive series win.

We warmed up for the 2005 Ashes win by hammering Bangladesh, we warmed up for the 2009 Ashes win by hammering the West Indies, and now we've hammered New Zealand. Good preparation again. Not that it's the Ashes straight away, 3 ODIs and the Champions Trophy before that.

Stella wrote:

NickisBHAFC wrote:

Cook 100% made the right decision, whoever said we declared to early is pretty stupid IMO

Ill make one change for the Ashes, King KP back in for Compton. But will KP be fit? Even if he isn't fit i would still remove Compton he has really let me down.

I would say Finn has done enough to be chosen ahead of Bresnan.

Dreary me.

Sarcasm goes right over some people.

dummy_half wrote:Southee isn't a batsman, but is a bowler who has a good eye and ball-striking ability. A bit like Swann (or previously Harmison) for England - not someone you'd look to hang around for a couple of hours just blocking an end, but who can smack a quick 20 or 30, and will probably stay in for as long playing like that was he would attempting to just block.

No criticsm from me for his approach to this innings - the failures came from those above him in the order.

I think both Swann and Southee are much better than Harmison. Southee averages close to 20 in test and first class cricket after playing 26 and 55 matches respectively. His highest first class score is 155. So there is some potential, and if he works on it a bit, he can improve from a bowler who can bat a bit to a bowling all-rounder.

msp83 wrote:I don't think Southee has a good enough defensive technique to survive for long. But he has the shots, and if his shot selection could improve a bit more, he could become a decent bowling all-rounder. I won't blame him for his attacking approach, he couldn't have blocked his way to safety, when he attacks, the bowlers, who wouldn't like to leak too many runs would have the field spread, and then the key for Southee is to control his game to exploit that. Not really relevant in the context of this game as NZ had lost the game the moment McCullum got out, but in general, Southee, if he gets his act together, can develop his batting, and can do a job similar to what Vettori managed for years.

Yah fair point, if he's going well it helps the rests confidence.

They were commenting on sky though that he cannot help himself and only know one way. I guess it works though in the short forms especially.

msp83 wrote:

dummy_half wrote:Southee isn't a batsman, but is a bowler who has a good eye and ball-striking ability. A bit like Swann (or previously Harmison) for England - not someone you'd look to hang around for a couple of hours just blocking an end, but who can smack a quick 20 or 30, and will probably stay in for as long playing like that was he would attempting to just block.

No criticsm from me for his approach to this innings - the failures came from those above him in the order.

I think both Swann and Southee are much better than Harmison. Southee averages close to 20 in test and first class cricket after playing 26 and 55 matches respectively. His highest first class score is 155. So there is some potential, and if he works on it a bit, he can improve from a bowler who can bat a bit to a bowling all-rounder.

It's worth noting that that 156 (he did it last December) came off 130 balls against a Wellington side missing Mark Gillespie, Chris Woakes and Andy McKay
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/sport/8091613/Southee-stuns-Wellington-with-bat-and-ball . Scott Kuggelijn & James Franklin aren't quite the same level. If he can stay in long enough he'll get those kinds of scores, but test quality attacks should be able to work him out sooner rather than later.

not enforicing the follow-on is hard to fathom......

--if it was to practise for the upcoming ashes...it's a blatant disrespect to professional cricket....there is game on hand that has to be treated with full seriousness and inent.

--more likely it was the fear of batting 4th in case NZ got on by 200 odd....a highly negative and defensive mindset.
well unbecoming of a top side...and aspring to win a hard seris against another top side.
reminds me of India's defensive effort at Bardbados and that was th e begining of the decline

Totally Correct KP.

The most annoying aspect of all of this is that I though Cook had balls...

I am going to try and forget about it though. Super Captain Cook is still on my Birthday card list

KP_fan wrote:not enforicing the follow-on is hard to fathom......

--if it was to practise for the upcoming ashes...it's a blatant disrespect to professional cricket....there is game on hand that has to be treated with full seriousness and inent.

--more likely it was the fear of batting 4th in case NZ got on by 200 odd....a highly negative and defensive mindset.
well unbecoming of a top side...and aspring to win a hard seris against another top side.
reminds me of India's defensive effort at Bardbados and that was the begining of the decline

I see where you are coming from, but if they felt the only way to win game was enforcing the follow on and they didn't then perhaps that argument would have more weight but they won anyway. And if we were 1-0 up in the final Test of the Ashes I would definitely be advocating batting them into the ground and securing the draw.

JDizzle wrote:

KP_fan wrote:not enforicing the follow-on is hard to fathom......

--if it was to practise for the upcoming ashes...it's a blatant disrespect to professional cricket....there is game on hand that has to be treated with full seriousness and inent.

--more likely it was the fear of batting 4th in case NZ got on by 200 odd....a highly negative and defensive mindset.
well unbecoming of a top side...and aspring to win a hard seris against another top side.
reminds me of India's defensive effort at Bardbados and that was the begining of the decline

I see where you are coming from, but if they felt the only way to win game was enforcing the follow on and they didn't then perhaps that argument would have more weight but they won anyway. And if we were 1-0 up in the final Test of the Ashes I would definitely be advocating batting them into the ground and securing the draw.

This, how many people would argue if doing the same in the final Ashes test supposing England were 2-1 up or 2-2 whichever way so it meant England won/retained the Ashes. Not too many I would guess in comparison to the amount who have said it for it being done against NZ.

^
little chinks , micro cracks......... that survive the smaller stresses disintegrate and crumble completely when exposed to severe and high duty stresses...is perhaps sounding like physics...but applies to cricket also.

The micro cracks were visible in English side today ( and yesterday actually)...dunno if Aussies will be able to subject these to magnified stresses.

anyway I must applaud Swann again....who i wrote yeterday is the most underated of the best spinners in a generation.
and Joe Root is positvity and dexterity pesonified......how are they gonna keep him away from opening for too long?

Not all that bad in the end but my feeling is that there are still a fair few players not quite at their best: Compton looking uncomfortable, Trott scoring runs but not hundreds (and getting out to a lot of innocuous knicks outside off-stump), Bell both looking timid and not compiling the big scores. This Test has probably put to bed the question marks over Finn and Swann, and Broad put his to bed at Lord's.

It will be interesting to see what England do selection-wise. I'm pretty confident that barring any further injuries/ fallings out KP will play - in my view the extended rest period was highly precautionary based upon lessons learned his achilles problem from 2009. As I suggested a couple of days ago there are real issues with Compton but I would urge England to give him at least 1 more chance. For me his issues will not be solved by county runs (which he has been scoring for years) and are more to do with not quite feeling at home in an England shirt. But he has 2 100s recenctly and there have been plenty of players who have recovered from perceived issues early on to have tremendous careers (note that there were quite a few journalists suggesting Trott wouldn't last more than a couple more Tests after he had a poor series in SA and even after his double-hundred against Bangladesh). Clearly Trott and Bell will play and rightly so - unlike Compton they might benefit from middle-time which they will get in the ODIs and Champions Trophy.

* That said I do wonder if England have confidence in Nick Compton. Andy Flower didn't exactly back him in his post-game interview.

What cracks are these KPF? I saw plenty of disagreement between English fans but not much between the players!

I agree about Compton, he's scored loads of CC runs and that doesn't help him at the top level and I think that is part of the reason the follow on wasn't enforced was to give him another go at test level. And after Flower's interview I'm not so sure he will start the Ashes. AF is many things but he was fairly transparent in that interview.

No problem for me about the follow-on. To enforce the follow-on is rare these days, and batting again just allows your bowlers to top up their energy levels again for the final assault to win the test. I still remember Trent Bridge 2005...the nightmare that nearly was!

I doubt if Compton will get another chance. He looked terrified and I highly doubt that he'd be any better in an ashes test match.

Of course KP has to come in. A bit of a conundrum who takes over from Compton if he isn't selected. Moving Root up might be the least worst idea but it would be a shame to take that strength away from the middle order.

I wonder how many more chances Bell is going to given. His best days seem to behind him.

Cook got out of jail 3 times. A few more clouds and we could have so easily drawn a game we should have one in a canter.

Thinking otherwise is blatant homerism.

Clearly that is just my opinion.

JDizzle wrote:What cracks are these KPF? I saw plenty of disagreement between English fans but not much between the players!

I agree about Compton, he's scored loads of CC runs and that doesn't help him at the top level and I think that is part of the reason the follow on wasn't enforced was to give him another go at test level. And after Flower's interview I'm not so sure he will start the Ashes. AF is many things but he was fairly transparent in that interview.

I don't think the cracks refer to disagreements between players. But in the English side as such there are potential openings that the opposing team can look to make use. The problems at the top where Compton is struggling, and interestingly, he doesn't seem to enjoy a great deal of managerial support at the moment. Ian Bell and Stuart Broad remain mercurial, Jonny Bairstow has to develop greater consistency, but if he is the one to make way for Pietersen that won't be an issue. But If Compton is the one to go, and if they move Root up the order, Root will have to adapt to opening in test matches, the middle order solidity that he has brought in could be lost, and playing Bairstow and Bell at 5 and 6 might make that middle order a bit vulnerable.
But overall, England are in healthy shape. Having KP down at 4 might liberate Trott a bit more, Ian Bell might be able to find form through time out in the middle, and the bowling lineup looks quite alright with Swanny back to his best. Australia have a vulnerable batting lineup, England have a quality bowling unit. Australia have a good bowling unit, and England have a decent batting unit that is prone to a massive collapse or 2 from time to time. A very interesting battle on the cards, but I feel and hope a full strength England will be too much for the Australians to handle.

Very interesting interview from Flower. A few things stand out:
- Compton is in trouble; there was talk in Kent on saturday about this already, and these people tend to know. I think if the next series wasn't an ashes one, then he'd almost certainly get the first test. As things stand, it looks like he needs runs to force his way back in. Not sure this is right, as I like Root in the middle-order, but...
- High praise for Bairstow which probably suggests England are seriously considering Pietersen for Compton at the moment. Which will mean reshuffling the order. Nothing in the interview to suggest which option would be preferred, but everyone knows Trott likes to bat 3 rather than open.
- The decisions of whether to enforce the follow-on and when to declare were joint decisions, and probably mainly Flower's.
- Flower is right: for a side who has just won by over 200 runs with little more than 3 days play, England have copped a ridiculous amount of criticism. Perhaps this also reflects the fact it is in ashes year, so everybody is under greater scrutiny. The motivation behind batting again was not to give people some practice, but because that's the way the management thought gave them the clearer path to a win. In hindsight they weren't wrong. All this "England got away with it" talk is doing my head in - they've just completely dominated a test!

So it was Flowers decision!!

Ermmm. Did it come from even higher than Folwer

We allready lost 1 days cricket.

Was this just purely to garantee a turnover at the ground????

Not sure if I like the coach captaining the side tbh!

I really dont want Cook to become a YES man..

I'd have no problems with KP replacing Compton in the batting line up, so long as Root wasn't moved upto open, but Trott was.

As much talent as Root has, I don't think we should be playing around with where he bats, whilst he's doing so well in the lower order. Move him up later in his career, when he has more experience I say

Trott to open doesn't really make sense. Hes a #3 by trade, then you have to move someone else to the also high priority position of 3.

mystiroakey wrote:So it was Flowers decision!!

Ermmm. Did it come from even higher than Folwer

We allready lost 1 days cricket.

Was this just purely to garantee a turnover at the ground????

Not sure if I like the coach captaining the side tbh!

I really dont want Cook to become a YES man..

Joint decision, probably driven by Flower given how he expressed himself. The other possibility is that by saying "we" he is trying to take some of the heat off Cook (who has copped an astonishing amount of flak).

I would be astonished if the decision came from higher up - everything about Flower suggests he would not take to interference kindly at all.

I'm confused by notions of coaches captaining sides. Coach and captain set out tactics together, that has always been the case ever since the coach has become a genuine technical/tactical role rather than a manager.

msp83 wrote: I don't think the cracks refer to disagreements between players. But in the English side as such there are potential openings that the opposing team can look to make use. .

you got it msp

Cook and Flower say "Tactics Vindicated" screams CI headlines.....

If I was allowed to write a headline....mine would be:

Cook and Flower get out of jail this time
The end always does not justifies the means
Intent not vindicated

GSC wrote:Trott to open doesn't really make sense. Hes a #3 by trade, then you have to move someone else to the also high priority position of 3.

I agree. Trott has been excellent at a position where England have struggled to fill for a number of years. Moving him to open, suddenly means we have two unsettled players in the top 3.

mystiroakey wrote:So it was Flowers decision!!

Ermmm. Did it come from even higher than Folwer

We allready lost 1 days cricket.

Was this just purely to garantee a turnover at the ground????

Not sure if I like the coach captaining the side tbh!

I really dont want Cook to become a YES man..

After what happened with KP last year, I would never categorize Cook as a YesMan. He has clear ideas about how he want's to put together his side, and he won't let the coach dictate terms to him. Flower most of the times is a sensible man, even with the saga last year, he eventually went with the captain's wishes. I think Mike's interpretation of things is fair, Flower probably was providing some cover to the skipper regarding the follow-on decision as he was getting a great deal of criticism regarding the call.
I don't agree with the view that since the results eventually went England's way, all the calls the team management took were proved right. I don't think winning a series against the 8th ranked side 1-0 is the same as winning the ashes series. Protecting the bowlers, and batting NZ out of it are reasonable calls, but in the end England in my view batted too long, and that almost cost them a win. A conservative approach from England, it has worked for them in the end, but in different game situations, I think they are better off adopting a more flexible strategy. Have a look at this.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/638268.html

Another thing to consider is that the coach is in a better position to make the strategic decisions than the captain.

For the follow-on, Flower will have been getting the best weather information available, so would have a better handle on the fact that we'd get a full day on Sunday and a good chance of two or three hour-long sessions on Monday (it is fairly unusual to lose a whole day to the weather). Also, he and the bowling coach will have been analysing how the bowlers were going, and whether there were signs of fatigue or little technical things they could work on before the second NZ innings. And then there's the 'spreadsheet' interpretation on how the game will pan out if we enforce the follow-on with NZ about 180 behind batting third compared with 450 behind batting last.

Still think the declaration was held off for a bit too long, and that Trott could have looked to score a bit more quickly, but it was still a convincing win.

It's true though that just because the result went the right way in the end does not vindicate all the decisions made along the way. After all, the British Army ultimately won the Battle of the Somme, but that doesn't excuse the carnage and ineffectiveness of the first few days of the battle.

Ok ta..I fully believe we should have followed on..But I will come to the late declaration.

If the plan was to get a 450 plus lead and put them in. We failed big time..
That is surely the Captains job to work time frame out for this. We knew Tuesday was going to be a potential wash out, as it almost was anyway.
If we bat. then we must bat with intent and use our resources.. You don't bat and score slow
You hit out , increase the rate and declare at 450, the amount of wickets is immaterial.. We clearly batted 30 over's to long- due to not scoring fast enough

So if the decision was correct to not follow on , but the players couldn't adapt to scoring fast. Then who is a fault?
The captain.
For either not telling the players the game plan or for 2 not understanding the way the batters will bat! So it's either follow on, therefore you have 10 wickets at the end of the game(full resources against a no SPIN THREAT), or you bat - but bat fast!
You don't bat and bat slow!
I hope that makes sense(I doubt it does- but hey ho!!)

Myst

The captain can only do so much about how others are batting. Cook himself scored at a fair clip for him - 130 in 190 balls is pretty good going for someone usually considered steady. Root and Bairstow scored at better than a run a ball, Prior and Bell weren't in long enough to make a difference, so the complaints can only be levelled at Compton (struggling for form and under pressure for his place, so understandable) and Trott - 76 in 164 balls is poor in the context of the match, and could have been a problem had yesterday's weather been less conducive to play.

When Trott came in, there was still a necessity to build the lead to ensure victory. Agree though that he does need to improve his ability to accelerate innings. Doesn't matter so much when you have KP to follow him, but with an off form Bell at 4 it is more of an issue.

You see its not about trott or compton. Its about the team.

If you bat. You have to play to a target! and there is no problem using the resource available.. If the team knew compton and trott would struggle to score yet pride here wickets - Dont even bother playing them in position.

Surely this could have been the perfect time to try root out at opener??

The above thoughts seem so alien to English Cricket though!!

Argg its so rigid!!

Play the way you need to play. Use the resource wisely

mystiroakey wrote:You see its not about trott or compton. Its about the team.

If you bat. You have to play to a target! and there is no problem using the resource available.. If the team knew compton and trott would struggle to score yet pride here wickets - Dont even bother playing them in position.

Surely this could have been the perfect time to try root out at opener??

The above thoughts seem so alien to English Cricket though!!

Argg its so rigid!!

Play the way you need to play. Use the resource wisely

Not if you are a decent man manager. Compton is feeling bad enough about himself as it is, telling him you didn't want him to open in the second innings would have been the final nail in the coffin.

Cricinfo's got their series stats up, an interesting little read
http://www.espncricinfo.com/england-v-new-zealand-2013/content/story/638233.html

...

Brendon McCullum took five catches in the first innings of this match; he now has collected five-or-more dismissals in an innings on four occasions, equalling Adam Parore's record by a New Zealand wicketkeeper. McCullum also became only the second New Zealand wicketkeeper-captain to take five catches in an innings after Ian Smith.

...
Graeme Swann's 10 for 132 in this match is the first ten-wicket haul by a spinner at Headingley in over 40 years. The last ten-wicket haul by a spinner in a Test at this ground was Derek Underwood's 10 for 82 against Australia in 1972.
Graeme Swann's five-wicket haul in New Zealand's second innings was his first against them. He has now taken 15 five-wicket hauls in Tests - only Derek Underwood has more five-wicket hauls by a spinner for England.

...

Trent Boult and Neil Wagner survived 48 balls in New Zealand's second innings without scoring a run before James Anderson broke their partnership by dismissing Boult. This is the longest, in terms of balls faced, a pair has batted without scoring a run in Tests.

...

In England's second innings, Nick Compton laboured to seven runs from 44 balls before getting out to part-time spinner Kane Williamson. His strike rate in Tests, 34.68, is the lowest among England openers who have played at least 10 Test innings since 1990.

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:Cricinfo's got their series stats up, an interesting little read
http://www.espncricinfo.com/england-v-new-zealand-2013/content/story/638233.html

...

Brendon McCullum took five catches in the first innings of this match; he now has collected five-or-more dismissals in an innings on four occasions, equalling Adam Parore's record by a New Zealand wicketkeeper. McCullum also became only the second New Zealand wicketkeeper-captain to take five catches in an innings after Ian Smith.

...
Graeme Swann's 10 for 132 in this match is the first ten-wicket haul by a spinner at Headingley in over 40 years. The last ten-wicket haul by a spinner in a Test at this ground was Derek Underwood's 10 for 82 against Australia in 1972.
Graeme Swann's five-wicket haul in New Zealand's second innings was his first against them. He has now taken 15 five-wicket hauls in Tests - only Derek Underwood has more five-wicket hauls by a spinner for England.

...

Trent Boult and Neil Wagner survived 48 balls in New Zealand's second innings without scoring a run before James Anderson broke their partnership by dismissing Boult. This is the longest, in terms of balls faced, a pair has batted without scoring a run in Tests.

...

In England's second innings, Nick Compton laboured to seven runs from 44 balls before getting out to part-time spinner Kane Williamson. His strike rate in Tests, 34.68, is the lowest among England openers who have played at least 10 Test innings since 1990.

Compton........the new Tavare....

mystiroakey wrote:You see its not about trott or compton. Its about the team.

If you bat. You have to play to a target! and there is no problem using the resource available.. If the team knew compton and trott would struggle to score yet pride here wickets - Dont even bother playing them in position.

Surely this could have been the perfect time to try root out at opener??

The above thoughts seem so alien to English Cricket though!!

Argg its so rigid!!

Play the way you need to play. Use the resource wisely

As perfectly put as possible. Well played sir.

Winning or losing, liking him or not, being criticised for not doing your job as well as you should have is hardly a crime. If the rain had come 10 minutes sooner, and the match drawn, would all of you who said Cook and/or Coach got it right, stand by that decision? To me it was amateurish Captaincy across many fronts, but I hope he learns from it. I really like Cookie, but this was very poor.