Cricket: England vs New Zealand Test Series

[Pie-chucker]

1.5 pts SELL 1st session runs at 90.

Need KP out and Bell and Collingwood fo faff around, worried about their place if England lose.

[Sharpe1ne]

It's blowing a feckin gale up here in Lancs so you might have your wish.

[Pie-chucker]

1 run an over so far, 3 down

Broad just in.

2pts BUY Broad runs at 18

[Pie-chucker]

1.5pts BUY 1st sessions runs at 55.

Taking profit. Oram off the field.

O'Brien and Vettori can't go all session. And Broad is in.

[Pie-chucker]

+ 52.5 on session runs
+ 24 Broad runs

This morning. Simply backing the diffidence and incompetence of England.

Kev, you watch County cricket. Please fill in the gaps for next test

Strauss
Cook
Vaughan
A. Decent Batsman
KP (at 5, back to home Ashes slot and sod it if he moans)
A. Decent Batsman
Broad
Rashid (is he ready?)
Best keeper in the land
Sideshow
Someone Quick

(presuming no Flintoff)

What use is Collingwood (just for instance) when he bowls one over, has crook shoulder, can't bat this season, confidence shot?)

with England; with punts

[WoodyTHFC]

England once again fail to perform against opponents held as much inferior. The interesting thing to me is what the selectors will do now especially with regard to the batsmen. The batsmen almost seem to have some sort set in stone place that they cannot be dropped or even when they are dropped, they get straight back into the team by not doing anything (Strauss.) They always seem to just do enough and stay in the team, never anything more than that and that has been the story really since the Ashes 2005. The selectors showed a very strong stance to get rid of Hoggard in what was one of his only bad matches in years against New Zealand. However in terms of the batsman, dare one would say they almost have life membership. It does not matter how many bad games they have, they maintain there place and then as soon as some pressure builds, they score some runs only to go back into a slump once again. Also the top three of Strauss, Cook and Vaughan is too negative atm and almost batting just for their position. Take Strauss, he now looks like a batsman playing purely for himself, taking half if not all the attacking shots out of his game to try and ensure he just plays an anchor role and simply not get out. The problem is that Cook and even Vaughan, at least until he gets to at least 50, do something similar. One batsman playing the anchor role is fine if they go on and get 100s but in atm it looks like three are trying to do that and they are not even going on and making their starts count. That is where Tresco is badly missed at the top of the order.

[Charlie Wong]

Strauss is batting well to be fair in this test, on a spinner friendly pitch.

76-1 at the close, 218 runs to win, England were 4.1 at the start of the chase and are now 1.99 to win the test. If they bat sensibly, particulary in the morning session, keeping wickets in hand, then its on. Oram is struggling, one bowler down, playing Vettori well will be the key.Bet NZ wish 12th man, Jeetan Patel was allowed to bowl.

[kevshat]

Originally Posted by Sir Fernando

Strauss is batting well to be fair in this test, on a spinner friendly pitch.

Yeah I thought it was weird going on a rant about Strauss when he's played well in this match and could easily end it with 2 half centuries and only 2 tests ago made his highest ever test score. There's absolutely nothing wrong with our top 3 that's for certain, especially when they line up like they have in this series with Strauss opening and Vaughan at 3. The problems lie between number 4 and 7. Ian Bell is aesthetically pleasing but he's not scoring runs at the minute and he tends not to score them when England are in trouble. Collingwood has never been completely convincing as a test cricketer and I'm with Pie, if he's not going to bowl 10-12 overs an innings he's of little worth to us at present. We also shouldn't think KP is infallible either. Since the India series last year he has only gone past 50 once in 14 innings.

To fill in the gaps as asked in Pie's team, well the best county number 4 is obviously Ramprakash. It's a different debate entirely on whether he should/shouldn't play which for the record I'm in the should camp but it's obvious he won't play for England again. So who are the alternatives? Well form and consistency wise Robert Key is churning out runs and is worth another go, Owais Shah can play that role or there's Michael Yardy. All would be fair replacements. If we want a youngster then James Hildreth is a talent down at Somerset.

If we assume Flintoff isn't fit then another option for the number 6 role is Ravi Bopara. Sure he had a bad time of it in Sri Lanka but has he had any worse a time than Collingwood and Bell are having? Not for me I have to say and he's churning out runs by the absolute bucket load for Essex at the minute. However if we are going for a batsman only and don't care if he bowls then along with those above, there's still a chance Matt Prior can play just as a batsman. He's in form for Sussex. I'd go with Bopara though as he gives you the Collingwood back up options.

Keeper: For me there's absolutely no debate. Chris Read should be England's wicket keeper bar nobody. We can try every keeper in the country if we have to but the fact is he is the best wicket keeper we've got and if our batsmen performed and with Broad in the side too then Read can average 25 without a problem and that would be enough.

And as for the pace bowling option well Harmison looks to have been discarded so the out and out pace options in county cricket at the minute are Tremlett and Mahmood. Tremlett's bowling well for us currently and didn't do too badly against India last summer and Mahmood takes wickets. Fair do's he's expensive but he takes wickets and it's not like Anderson is watertight at the minute either.

Rashid. I've got to admit I've not seen too much of him this season although I did see him at The Oval earlier in the week. For me, he's not quite ready yet and he's in danger of being decent at both batting and bowling but not exceptional at either. I'd want him to be bowling overs rather than batting 6 for Yorkshire because I think that's a place too high for him. It also has to be said Headingley isn't the best place for a spinner either but if we are taking 2 spinners to India this winter then sure he'd be fine as the 2nd option. I'm happy with Monty as a spinner though. For me he's the best day to day spin bowler we've got as a wicket taking option. Swann would be next best though at the minute I think.

A few youngsters to keep tabs on are Joe Denly with the bat. An exceptional talent for Kent who is improving every time I see him, Luke Wright who continues to improve with bat and ball and could easily play as a number 7 for us in time, Steven Davies will go on to be the best keeper in the country, in a year or two, I'm sure of that and Steven Finn is a Glenn McGrath type bowler who in a couple of years could well be an England regular. He's only 19 so time is on his side.

I'd be quite happy for England to lineup for the time being as follows:
Strauss
Cook
Vaughan
Ramprakash (Yardy, Key, Hildreth, Shah etc etc)
KP
Bopara
Read
Broad
Sidebottom
Tremlett/Mahmood
Monty

[TheRat]

I mean I think maybe give Hildreth a go at some point. Clearly a telent and I just thng getting the like of Ramprakash back in is a backwards step, depite his amazing form

[meatman]

Originally Posted by kevshat

Ian Bell is aesthetically pleasing but he's not scoring runs at the minute and he tends not to score them when England are in trouble. Collingwood has never been completely convincing as a test cricketer and I'm with Pie, if he's not going to bowl 10-12 overs an innings he's of little worth to us at present.

Yeh these 2 are seriously worrying IMO.

Ramprakash - well he's old but he should probably play. At the end of the day it would be a step backwards, but if this was ashes summer then I'd be very tempted to play him. At the end of the day the pinncale for us is to beat the aussies and generally all our 'long term plans' revolve around building towards an ashes summer.

When we play against them we need our very best current XI, and Ramps would be inclused in that IMO at the moment

But Ramps probably wont play again so I'd say bring back Robert Key.

Keeper - yeh Ambrose looks fairly shyte to me now and I think he'll be found out at this level. I always used to say we need someone who can score some runs but the likes of Jones and Ambrose havent scored enough. Prior could score runs but was useless at keeping, the other 2 not much better either.

Read should probably come back now.


Big day for those under pressure coming up, it wouldn't surprise me if they delivered at the very last moment again and managed to save themselves.............

[kevshat]

I understand the backwards step to an extent but it's all about winning test matches isn't it . We've got players coming through the system like Hildreth and Denly and even Michael Carberry who for some reason is highly regarded among the selectors but the truth is they need a year or two more ploughing runs for their counties while the national team needs someone stable who can score runs in the middle order. At the end of the day, Ramps will still be playing in 3-4 years time so we've got 2 years of him if we choose to use him and following the county circuit like I do, I've not seen anyone anywhere near as good as him this season or indeed last.

Tomorrow is a tricky one for an England fan I think. Do we want England to win and paper over the cracks or will it be better long term for us to get rolled over and changes be enforced. Problem is, as is the way with any sport in this country, we'll probably get rid of the coach before the culprits.

[WoodyTHFC]

I admit Strauss has played better in the second innings as he has at least attempted to play in a slightly more positive manner (I know his strike rate is slightly lower but that was more playing for the close and the detoriating pitch is another factor) whilst not being reckless on a pitch that is detoriating however I completely stand by my earlier comments about Strauss being far too negative in the first innings along with Vaughan and I believe that has cost England big time imo. The pitch was far easier to bat on yesterday and yet England adopted a terribly dour approach against what is not exactly world beating bowling. They did little to put the Kiwi bowlers of their line and length and just let them bowl and eventually they got out. Look at the facts, Vaughan scored 30 of 133 balls faced. He didnt bat like that in Aus 2002/2003 or when we won the 2005 ashes against a far better attack. It is not the first time in the recent era that England have suddenly changed to a negative approach in their batting and it has cost them, New Zealand first test over there, in Sri Lanka and even Adelaide are some of the most high profile examples. Look at Oram's bowling analysis in new zealand, he bowled 74 overs going at just 1.6 runs an over and he is not going for much more than that over here and I cant say that he is a world beating and unplayable bowler, England have simply let him bowl line and length.

Im not sure if I agree with the statement that there is nothing wrong with the top 3 either and I eluded to that in the earlier post. If Strauss was in the form of his early test match career, Cook similarly and Vaughan in his 2002/2003 form then maybe that would be true. However Im not sure that they are and they seem remarkably more defensive then they were when they first started their test careers and to keep up with the modern test game this is not required. Im not saying go out and play recklessly but just go out and and bat and runs will come at some sort of decent rate. The top 3 in this game and in some of the examples I have already mentioned simply have not done so. I would like to think it is a one off but im not sure at all. This is where Tresco is badly missed. Vaughan can be an aggressive batsman especially when he gets past 50 but in his first innings mood he certainly was not, maybe for him it was a one off but even so it is a worry. I would even contimplate putting KP at 3 to try and get a more aggressive batsman up the order to influence the game more. If KP moved back to 5 that is just KP hiding imo and he needs to have the strongest influence possible on the game, at no.5 Im not sure he would, especially with the current top 3 in the defenisive mood they have been so far in this test. I will say it now that with Strauss, Cook and Vaughan as the top 3 we will not come close to winning the ashes next year, I would love to be proved wrong though but atm in this defensive mood I cant see it.

Of course the problems are just not with the top 3, far from it and I probably should have indicated this in my initial post, the lack of runs from KP, Bell and Colly is simply not good enough. To play 6 genuine batsmen you would have thought we would have scored more, far from it. KP is still a class act for me and despite his recent 'bad form' I would not drop him and indeed I would consider KP at 3. Bell is becoming ever frustrating. I know he has been messed around a bit with his position and that could hardly help but considering the faith England have shown with him as one of their bright young things ie. playing him in 2005 ashes team despite terrible form that could have cost england, one would have wanted him to be a consistent and reliable player by now and he is not that atm, maybe move him to his most successful position, no.6 and that is only on the provision that 6 batsman are played, if not, then I would drop him. Collingwood is simply in awful form atm and despite his success in the one day game, he is not proven as a test match batsman and if he is not going to bowl at all then there is no need for him, Ramps/Key/Shah would do a better job with the bat imo.

Regarding some of the names Kev picked I cant say Im convinced by all of them. Bopara had his chance and was awful in Sri Lanka, he would be a bits and pieces for me and too similar to Colly, not going to be a genuine bowler nor a good enough bat (Ramps/Key/Shah) all better. Mahmood I would not have anywhere near an England team until he proves himself as a bowler who is not going to go for the amount of runs as he does. He is far too expenisve and should never have got into the eng. team ahead of Sidebottom/Broad etc. He would be a backward step from Anderson who I actually think has bowled respectfully in this match although he does need to be a bit less expenisve. Read is the best keeper in the country and enough of an adequte batsman to play for eng however Im not sure if he is eligible due to ICL commitments (not sure on that though.) So for the meantime I would go for Ambrose to continue, if got in a real rot then I would go for Foster.

My Team
Strauss
Cook
KP
Vaughan
Ramps/Shah/Key (could also be an opener replacement and the other two are possibles for the no.3 role I mentioned)
Bell
Ambrose/Read/Foster
Broad
Sidebottom
Anderson or when properly fit, Jones
Monty

Flintoff would come back into the team when fit. Where that will be is a different matter, his batting is not really no.6 form on recent evidence but equally using Flintoff as part of just a 4 man bowling attack could create further problems especially if Jones was with him, would they be able to produce enough overs in a day? Just a few thoughts.

[meatman]

Originally Posted by kevshat

Tomorrow is a tricky one for an England fan I think. Do we want England to win and paper over the cracks or will it be better long term for us to get rolled over and changes be enforced. Problem is, as is the way with any sport in this country, we'll probably get rid of the coach before the culprits.

yeh tough question lol

Personally I hope Vaughan and Strauss can get big scores, along with maybe KP.

But if we went 0-1 down against NZ at home then it'd really make everyone sit up and realise we got some problems.

The Fltintoff issue is an interesting one as well.

On his current form he cant bat at 6 though can he?

If he was fit right now i'd drop Anderson for him

[kevshat]

Originally Posted by meatman

yeh tough question lol

Personally I hope Vaughan and Strauss can get big scores, along with maybe KP.

But if we went 0-1 down against NZ at home then it'd really make everyone sit up and realise we got some problems.

The Fltintoff issue is an interesting one as well.

On his current form he cant bat at 6 though can he?

If he was fit right now i'd drop Anderson for him

As would I.

No he can't bat at 6 on current form, in fact, I think we need to drop the all rounder tag from Flintoff. He's not really performed with the bat since 2005 but he's quite simply the best bowler in the country. Will we ever see him again though is the question. Having said that, Collingwood's averaging 4 for this series so far .

Just a few things I've picked up on from Woody's post -

Read: No problem re ICL commitments. He's not centrally contracted so he can do as he pleases. He just needed permission from Notts which he got.

Strauss/Top 3: He's averaging 50 for 2008 so I can't see where the problem is with him. I see where you are coming from with the top 3 but the times you was comparing with was superb summers with the sun shining, these last two test matches, Hamilton and Wellington were windy, cloudy conditions. The fact is in the two tests so far in the 7 completed innings our top 3 have played they've delivered 3 half centuries and a ton. Ironically in both innings in this series so far Stuart Broad has only scored 10 less runs in his two innings than our numbers 4-7 have in their 8. That's where our problem is.

Bopara: I'm not really that bothered about how he did in Sri Lanka in truth. He won't be batting in Sri Lanka now, he'll be on pitches he knows and he's gone back to Essex and scored a shit load of runs. When Collingwood went back to Durham he scored 12 runs in 4 innings with a top score of 6 in first class cricket.

KP at 3. Kind of covered that above but I can't see the logic in batting him at 3 in his current form. I'd bat him at 3 in the one day game all day long but not in tests. I'd play him at 5, after all he apparently kicked up a storm when we moved him to 4.

Simon Jones: I saw Jones at the Rose Bowl on Tuesday night. Unfortunately, as horrible as it is we can forget him ever playing for England again. His knee is nowhere near strong enough. He couldn't even run on Tuesday and he bowled 2 overs then went off for 20 overs for treatment. The fact Worcestershire are playing him on a play one rest one routine says as much.

One name I forgot to mention in the ones to watch in the next year or two if he chooses England is Chris Jordan at Surrey. This kid is a serious talent. Excellent bowler who'll be pretty quick when he's finished growing and decent number 8 batsman who could get better there too. Alan Butcher said he's the best 18 year old he's ever seen and that'll do for me.

[kevshat]

Forgot to add that Flintoff can only replace Anderson in the side if the number 6 bowls 10-12 overs a day. If Collingwood can't/won't/isn't then Flintoff can't replace Anderson unless Colly goes.

Another thing I keep forgetting to mention is why have Vaughan and Bell stopped bowling? They don't have to bowl 20 overs a day but when they 1st hit the international scene they both bowled but now neither do. It's 2 more options instead of wearing all our bowlers out.

[meatman]

Originally Posted by kevshat

Having said that, Collingwood's averaging 4 for this series so far .

When Collingwood went back to Durham he scored 12 runs in 4 innings with a top score of 6 in first class cricket.

shocking are those stats

[WoodyTHFC]

Regarding Read that is good news if available, I just wondered whether it was the ICC or the ECB who had banned all ICL players from playing international cricket, may have got that wrong though. I think some countries have banned certain players who played ICL and that is why Bond cant play for New Zealand.

Im still of the same opinion about the top 3. This does not mean I dont think 4-7 is not a problem either and indeed it arguably is the bigger problem, certainly in terms of runs they are scoring. However the top 3 should not be forgotten and it was the approach they took especially in the first innings here which I maintain was dour cricket and cost England. They went into a completely defensive mindsight and it was not as if in a Boycott style they played this way but still went on and made proper runs that win matches like 100s, they got themselves in, took ages to do it only to get themselves out, when the pitch was relatively easy to bat on. They missed a trick in my book and should have been more attacking against an average looking bowling attack who admittedly bowled well.

Another worrying statistic for England is the lack of 100s from all parts of the team. Since the West Indies last summer these are the respective amount of hundreds from the batsman: Colly and Bopara none, Cook, Strauss and Bell all one, Vaughan two and KP three. Given the modern day scoring of international cricket those statistics are not good enough and show a general lack of consistent form. when one thinks that Hoggard a great servant for us, had one of his only bad games for us and got dropped in New Zealand and then you look at the batsmen who all have pretty 40+ averages but have seldom delivered in a consistent manner of late it does raise some questions in my book.

As I have already mentioned I would look at Colly going out and a proper batsman coming in (Ramps/Key/Shah.) Bopora does not fit the bill as a proper batsman imo. Ok he has started the season in good form for Essex but the three I mentioned have been consistently churning out runs for the last few years in county cricket and deserve their chance now to appear for their country again. Bopora just looked totally out of his depth in Sri Lanka, it was not just down to the surfaces out there, he was just poor. Let him score proper runs in county cricket and make himself a proper batsman, then consider a test place maybe in a year or two, one day game I have no probably with him playing as that is a different matter.

The KP issue is just an opinion. Personally, I think no.3 would let the team have an attacking batsman in the top 3 that they require imo and that most international teams have all around the world. Either that or one of the top 3 has to play slightly more attacking, I cant have them batting like they did in the first innings here. However if KP is moaning about where he wants to bat then I would not pick him at all.

As for Jones well I hope he can get truly fit again. Whether he will be ever again is a different matter. I only saw tues. match on the box but he was at least bowling with real pace, 90mph+, worrying batsmen and taking wickets, even if it was just shortish spells. Maybe let him play in county cricket all year and then nurse him back on one of the winter tours if he is fit. The problem could be that Flintoff and Jones in a 4 man bowling attack would have serious fitness concerns, 5 bowlers would be a must in that case.

Agree that Jordan looks promising. The only thing is Im not certain he is going to play for us, is it still possible he could play for the WIndies?

Anyway as an england fan I still hope that we turn it around tomorrow and that these batsmen turn it around as they do actually have a habit of doing just when they look ready for the chop. At least Monty has at least given them the chance to.

[TheRat]

BRING BACK HICK

[WoodyTHFC]

Originally Posted by kevshat

Forgot to add that Flintoff can only replace Anderson in the side if the number 6 bowls 10-12 overs a day. If Collingwood can't/won't/isn't then Flintoff can't replace Anderson unless Colly goes.

Another thing I keep forgetting to mention is why have Vaughan and Bell stopped bowling? They don't have to bowl 20 overs a day but when they 1st hit the international scene they both bowled but now neither do. It's 2 more options instead of wearing all our bowlers out.

Also why doesnt KP bowl more? In South Africa he was a no.8 who bowled. Remember he got Athers, Hussain out in a tour match over there. Now he rarely seems to turn his arm over or at least nowhere near the amount he should do. When I have seen him he is not a completely help yourself bowler and I question whether it is down to his attitude? He seems to see himself as a batsman and that is that. I recall him even saying that at one point and that is a selfish attitude imo. Looking at a county match the other day, Hampshire bowled 150 overs as Somerset got 650 and yet KP bowled only 4 overs, hardly stepping up for his team. Lamb bowled 34 overs in that innings and from what I have seen of him, he does not strike me as that much of a better bowler than KP so why such the big difference. It could well be down to attitude again.

[kevshat]

Originally Posted by WoodyTHFC

Also why doesnt KP bowl more? In South Africa he was a no.8 who bowled. Remember he got Athers, Hussain out in a tour match over there. Now he rarely seems to turn his arm over or at least nowhere near the amount he should do. When I have seen him he is not a completely help yourself bowler and I question whether it is down to his attitude? He seems to see himself as a batsman and that is that. I recall him even saying that at one point and that is a selfish attitude imo. Looking at a county match the other day, Hampshire bowled 150 overs as Somerset got 650 and yet KP bowled only 4 overs, hardly stepping up for his team. Lamb bowled 34 overs in that innings and from what I have seen of him, he does not strike me as that much of a better bowler than KP so why such the big difference. It could well be down to attitude again.

I actually asked the Judge that when I was down at the Rose Bowl because I noticed it. The reason KP only bowled 4 overs is because we won't see him again this season unless we're in a final somewhere so they wanted Lamb to get overs under his belt. Greg Lamb's a decent enough bowler. I'd imagine the other reason was the short boundaries and Lamb fires it in while KP throws it up. Completely agree with you about him in tests. The only reason I didn't include him was because he did bowl a few overs at Lords. Like you say, when Hussain spotted him and in his early days at Notts he was an all rounder.

Couple of things you want clarifying, it's the individual countries which decide the ICL situation. Basically, it's outlawed by the ICC so countries need to give their players permission to play - an NOC it's called (No Objection Certificate). If they don't get one of them and choose to play they can't play for their country. As I said earlier, Read isn't centrally contracted so it was up to Notts to decide on Read. Read's contract out there has run out now too.

Chris Jordan has to decide who he'll play for at the end of this season as he's only 18. Amazingly enough, when he went back to Barbados to play cricket 2 years ago he was only 12th man in the u16s so I'm assuming he'll choose England but he has until the end of the year to decide unless he's called up before then (highly unlikely).

Jones wasn't quite 90mph but he was high 80's but that was down wind. When he came on at the end he was off a shorter run up and was down to low 80's. I looked forward to seeing him but watching him in the field you could see he's not right which was a shame. I saw Mark Wagh at Northampton a couple of years ago and he was the same. That was also a pity as he could've been England class.

I'm not disagreeing with you that Key/Ramps/Shah are better batsmen than Bopara but that number 6 spot has to have a bowling element to it especially if we're on about bringing Flintoff back into the side as a bowler. Ian Bell's spot can't be very secure either and as I said right at the beginning I'd be happy with any of them 3 being put in there, with preference for Ramprakash.