**Official** England in New Zealand

[cover drive man]

Fancy us here actually

Nah if we can't beat Sri Lanka then we dont have much hope against the kiwis.

 

[Jamee999]

Yeah, me too.

 

[TT Boy]

Nah if we can't beat bangladesh then we dont have much hope against the kiwis.

What are you talking about? England haven’t played Bangladesh recently and England have never lost to Bangladesh in any case.

Anyhow aside from that bizarre point, England should waltz home in the tests and probably lose the preceding one day games. If they don’t achieve the former then serious questions need to be asked, especially if the New Zealanders are Bond free.

 

[cover drive man]

What are you talking about? England haven’t played Bangladesh recently and England have never lost to Bangladesh in any case.

Anyhow aside from that bizarre point, England should waltz home in the tests and probably lose the preceding one day games. If they don’t achieve the former then serious questions need to be asked, especially if the New Zealanders are Bond free.

I meant Sri Lanka.

 

[TT Boy]

I meant Sri Lanka.

But we were in Sri Lanka, a country in which most internationals sides find extremely difficult to win in. I’m not sure how such a defeat makes us worse than a New Zealand test team, who if not for the weather would have lost a test match in practically two days just recently.

 

[gettingbetter]

The big question will be whether Bond turns out for NZ. Could have a dramatic result on the series whether he does or not.

He's signed with ICL, so I don't think he is eligible to play.

 

[sideshowtim]

Will be a pretty gripping contest IMO. Two pretty closely matched sides ATM.

 

[luckyeddie]

Will be a pretty gripping contest IMO. Two pretty closely matched sides ATM.

Everyone other than Australia and Bangladesh are pretty closely matched at the moment.

 

[Richard]

Dunno about not swung it much, any number of left handers would probably disagree although I don't know enough to say whether it was that different to previous bowlers.

I do - it was nowhere near as much as the likes of Gough and Cork. And I really don't think his action and seam-position are any lesser than those two. Hoggard has swung it on plenty of occasions, most notably inswing to left-handers, but he's also not swung it plenty often enough, which really should just never happen in England with a ball of any newness at all.

As I say - I honestly reckon that had the balls been of the calibre of those used in the 1990s, Hoggard might well average 20 or 21 in home Tests.

Well, he possibly wouldn't have been but then he is remarkably similar to Hoggard who has had a successful test career over the same time period

Certainly, but as I say - I don't think he'd have bowled as well as he did in 2007.

IMO, Jon Lewis was never Test Standard. On a green-top pitch in May, he might have taken wickets, but I just don't see him taking wickets unless it was absolutely made for a swing bowler because unlike other similar bowlers, he doesn't have any pace to fall back on. If the balls not swinging, he's only a jot quicker than Paul Collingwood (not suggesting Collingwood is as good a bowler as Lewis), and at test level, it just won't take wickets.

The ball shouldn't "not swing", though, that's the thing. Undoubtedly he's not Test standard if it doesn't, but occasions when it doesn't should be in a small minority. Otherwise, poor quality of cricket is encouraged IMO.

 

[Richard]

Well, you go back to when I was younger to about '94 where all the comp was (there were some that were far better than me and one or 2 (naming no names) that were not a patch. The fight is before getting FC debut. Once you are there then you progress quite dramatically as a player and have effectively made it.

The competition is at 16, 17, 18, 19 etc rather than 21 &22

Oh, yeah, of course it is, and you're pretty much in the same age-group as the Silverwoods, Hamiltons, Hoggards, Hutchisons, Sidebottoms, etc. aren't you? If a bit younger than Gough, who IIRR is who you got your nickname from?

So while you'd have been 21-22 at the same age as them, you'd by chain have been 16-17 at the same time too.

 

[ozone]

The ball shouldn't "not swing", though, that's the thing. Undoubtedly he's not Test standard if it doesn't, but occasions when it doesn't should be in a small minority. Otherwise, poor quality of cricket is encouraged IMO.

Not really sure what you mean here. The ball doesn't swing sometimes purely because it isn't right to. Thats the thing with a cricet ball and why it is not known why it doesn't. That has always been the case, not just in the 90's.

Jon Lewis may well have taken wickets in home tests even if the ball was swinging but I still don't think he would have made it as a decent test cricketer because you only play half you're tests at home and under Fletcher (post 2002), the continuity of selection was a huge aspect and so he wouldn't have been picked purely on a 'horses for courses' basis (rightly or wrongly) as many similar bowlers were during the 90's.

 

[Goughy]

Talking about cricket balls but going a little off-topic.

Many years ago I watched a piece on TV about how, IIRC, the Reader had a change in how the core was manufactured in around 82 to 83. This ball with a new core didnt swing as much.

Ive searched numerous times and cant find any reference to this change in the core and impact on swing and Im almost at the point of thinking I imagined it

Anyone else herad or know anything about this?

 

[Richard]

Don't we already have an *Official* tour thread for this-'un? Was going to suggest the squad-selection discussion was merged.

 

[Richard]

Well the exact same thing happened with the Duke between 2000 and 2001, I remember it very well. Fortunately, it seems they reversed the change between 2006 and 2007, because the exact opposite happened in 2007 that did in 2001.

 

[Richard]

Not really sure what you mean here. The ball doesn't swing sometimes purely because it isn't right to. Thats the thing with a cricet ball and why it is not known why it doesn't. That has always been the case, not just in the 90's.

Nah, most of the contributory factors for swing are known, even if the exact science is not. The better shined a ball, the more swing you'll get; the newer a ball, the more swing you'll get; the better the bowler's seam-position, the more swing you'll get; the more side-on the bowler's action the more swing you'll get; the more overcast and damp the atmosphere the more swing you'll get; the later in the day the more swing you'll get; etc. etc. However, by-and-large a good bowler with a good action and seam-position will swing a ball in the right condition.

What tends to change is how easy it is to keep a ball in the right condition, depending on the outfield and the pitch.

Jon Lewis may well have taken wickets in home tests even if the ball was swinging but I still don't think he would have made it as a decent test cricketer because you only play half you're tests at home and under Fletcher (post 2002), the continuity of selection was a huge aspect and so he wouldn't have been picked purely on a 'horses for courses' basis (rightly or wrongly) as many similar bowlers were during the 90's.

Even the hourses-for-courses bowlers didn't tend to be successful, by that's by-the-by; I doubt Lewis would have been successful either because he was too inconsistent, even at home. I do think he'd have been better had his career been, say, starting in 1990. Compare his record to his team-mate Mike Smith's, albeit Smith was a more consistent bowler.

 

[ozone]

Nah, most of the contributory factors for swing are known, even if the exact science is not. The better shined a ball, the more swing you'll get; the newer a ball, the more swing you'll get; the better the bowler's seam-position, the more swing you'll get; the more side-on the bowler's action the more swing you'll get; the more overcast and damp the atmosphere the more swing you'll get; the later in the day the more swing you'll get; etc. etc. However, by-and-large a good bowler with a good action and seam-position will swing a ball in the right condition.

Yea, I was more thinking about the fact that if a bowler selects a ball from a box of standard ones, there is no good reason why it behaves differently to the others.

As for Jon Lewis, I suppose his career might have been more successful in 1990, but I would put this more down to pitches than balls.

 

[Days of Grace]

He's signed with ICL, so I don't think he is eligible to play.

I think there will be further developments...

 

[Flem274*]

Personally think we can win this. England aren't brilliant and our middle order from the Bangladesh test is the best I've seen for NZ for a while. When Franklin returns the bowling stocks will be boosted significantly, he is criminally under-rated IMO. Mark Gillespie has made a promising start but no doubt he'll be judged harshly by the selectors because of his **** one day bowling which is mediocre even at domestic level. He'll be a good test bowler though, so should Mason who is another who seems to be under-rated by selectors.

IMO we should take note of what the Aussies do: We should put the umpires under immense pressure and claim catches etc that are marginal. Its not being gentlemanly but it works. McCullum behind the stumps will be a big influence IMO, Ian Smith described him as a "thief in the night" and this is a good description IMO. TBH he's the best keeper in the world, only Boucher would challenge him. Gilchrist is the better keeper-batsman but on keeping alone McCullum is world class. He's very, very alert, knows the rules and is always looking for a stumping oppertunity. He and Vettori make an excellent combination.

Also think we should get in their faces and see how tough England are mentally. If we can make them crumble mentally then the game is ours.

Yes I do realize that England are better than us but we can play a hell of alot better than we are currently and they have dropped away a bit so I think on our home turf we can get this lot.

 

[Days of Grace]

McCullum behind the stumps will be a big influence IMO, Ian Smith described him as a "thief in the night" and this is a good description IMO. TBH he's the best keeper in the world, only Boucher would challenge him. Gilchrist is the better keeper-batsman but on keeping alone McCullum is world class. He's very, very alert, knows the rules and is always looking for a stumping oppertunity. .

I agree, but McCullum really needs to lift his game in the test batting department. He has an average of only 30 now, and while that may be the same as Boucher, I believe he has the ability to at least average in the high 30s. He has to take his time getting in.

One really BIG factor in this series is NZ's nemesis in the past few series, Thorpe, has retired, and t.b.h. I think this will make a big difference because he was always the big wicket for us in the past. I feared him more then I fear Pietersen, who, though perhaps more talented than Thorpe, can get out to a rash stroke at any time.

b.t.w., will Franklin be fit in time?

 

[Goughy]

Yes I do realize that England are better than us but we can play a hell of alot better than we are currently and they have dropped away a bit so I think on our home turf we can get this lot.

Ill take an avatar challenge on that Tests only of course