Feb 25 (Reuters) – England paceman James Anderson grabbed two quick wickets after captain Ben Stokes declared the tourists’ first innings closed at 435 for eight on day two of the second test against New Zealand in Wellington on Saturday.
New Zealand were 12 for two at lunch at the Basin Reserve, with Tom Latham seven not out and number four Will Young on one.
Anderson, who took the world’s top ranking for test bowlers at the age of 40 after a seven-wicket haul in the first test, had Conway caught behind by wicketkeeper Ben Foakes on the fifth ball of the innings, a faint edge confirmed on review.
He then reduced New Zealand to seven for two, when Kane Williamson played a loose shot away from the body to nick behind to Foakes.
It was the ninth time Williamson had been dismissed by the England great in tests.
Latham and Young survived a few overs to the break, with New Zealand still trailing by 423 runs.
England earlier resumed on 315 for three in an extended morning session, with Harry Brook and Joe Root looking to build on their 294-run partnership after completely dominating a rain-hit day one.
But Matt Henry ended their epic stand at 302 runs, denying the red-hot Brook (186) a maiden double-century with a caught-and-bowled.
Stokes smashed a quickfire 27 off 28 balls before he slogged a Neil Wagner delivery to substitute fielder Scott Kuggeleijn at mid-off.
That triggered a mini-collapse as England lost 3-27, with spin bowling all-rounder Michael Bracewell trapping Foakes (0) and Stuart Broad (14) lbw.
Root was superb as his batting partners dwindled, thrashing the New Zealand bowlers for 10 fours and three sixes in his 224-ball knock.
He finished unbeaten on 153, flicking a Henry delivery over backward square for four on the last ball before Stokes’ declaration.
(Reporting by Ian Ransom in Melbourne; Editing by Ken Ferris)
((firstname.lastname@example.org; Follow me on Twitter https://twitter.com/MyRansomNotes; +61 3 9286 1447;))
The views and opinions expressed herein are the views and opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Nasdaq, Inc.