**Official** England in New Zealand

[Somerset]

Link's not working for me...

Incidentally, after all the discussion in the thread I hope O'Brien does get picked at some point during our tour as I'm now quite keen to see him in action. I've probably actually seen him play before, but, rather like the proliferation of quite-good-but-not-great Spanish & Argentinian tennis players who all seem to play in exactly the same way & whose own mothers would struggle to pick out in identity parades, I'd never noted anything about him to set him apart from other journeymen NZ seamers. Gillespie/Mason/O'Brien seemed largely interchangable to this casual observer.

Can't believe he's anything like as awful as Hitchcock tho; that poor bloke really appears really out of his depth at this level. Looks very ordinary.

The Hitchcock selection was baffling. As I said in an earlier post he deserved to go after two very average performances but why he was selected in the first place is odd - hes effectively turned himself into an opening batsman in ODIs and 20-20 cricket who offers a bowling option, yet Bracewell stuck him at number 10 and played him as a specialist bowler.

O'Brien is simply not up to international level. Mason may be if hes actually given an extended run in the side (when was the last time he played 2-3 games on the trot?). Gillespie after a promising start seemed to get worked out as he'd pitch the ball up and teams would plunder his bowling - and then go around the wicket with mixed success.

 

[Richard]

Ha! I knew it!

I know you knew it. So I couldn't possibly disappoint you, could I?

Incidentally, after all the discussion in the thread I hope O'Brien does get picked at some point during our tour as I'm now quite keen to see him in action. I've probably actually seen him play before, but, rather like the proliferation of quite-good-but-not-great Spanish & Argentinian tennis players who all seem to play in exactly the same way & whose own mothers would struggle to pick out in identity parades, I'd never noted anything about him to set him apart from other journeymen NZ seamers. Gillespie/Mason/O'Brien seemed largely interchangable to this casual observer.

Can't believe he's anything like as awful as Hitchcock tho; that poor bloke really appears really out of his depth at this level. Looks very ordinary.

Trust me, O'Brien really isn't one you'd want to see, nor are either he or Hitchcock (or Gillespie) anywhere close to Michael Mason as ODI bowlers. Mason's not the ritz, but he's a Lewis or Anderson to Hitchcock\Gillespie\O'Brien's Plunkett\Bresnan\Mahmood.

 

[Richard]

Meh, can't be arsed to get it to work. The general gist is Stuart Broad is quite good.

Interesting article, but I think they're underplaying Stuarts ability with the bat. I'm not one for hyperbole but I really feel this kid is the real deal in every way.

What you mean is this. Posting when drunk |= good idea.

Anyway, typical overexcitement displayed, usually worse than ever in this country, about young (especially fresh-faced) player. Broad's gone well this winter, for the first time in his career, but it's a whole 8 ODIs so far. People get tagged "the next so-and-so" every 5 minutes. Settle the blazes down, country.

 

[Richard]

I agree - I see Taylor playing a more productive role up the order. Astle, other opener, Fleming, Twose, McMillan was always my ideal order and sticking Roger at five never made a lot of sense.

Astle followed by McMillan was always a potentially potent combination. And Twose's batting at five didn't exactly hamper him. Sure, he and Taylor are currently rather different players, but as I've said several times - ever since Matt Currie's post, I've thought Taylor was a bit special unlike anyone since Twose.

 

[Flem274*]

Astle followed by McMillan was always a potentially potent combination. And Twose's batting at five didn't exactly hamper him. Sure, he and Taylor are currently rather different players, but as I've said several times - ever since Matt Currie's post, I've thought Taylor was a bit special unlike anyone since Twose.

Boy there's some poor stuff by you in that thread.

Mills, Oram, Fulton=average?

As for Nash>Mills is ODIs, pull the other one. The Dion Nash that averages 40 in ODIs greater than Mills?

Good to see that (for the most part) you're posting some sense now Rich.

Taylor prefers the top order though and its where he has the most impact, keep him at 3 or 4.

 

[Flem274*]

You know, I wouldn't actualy mind James Marshall at seven. Before you laugh me out of the forum (or chase after me with an axe Heath) let me explain why. First up, at seven he can't do much harm anyway and he is capable of getting to 20 to 30 odd, which is about average for a (admittedly crap) number seven. He's fast between the wickets and also we don't ruin young Flynn (I think he has the attributes of a number six but he probably isn't ready for international cricket yet) and also in the future either a) replace him with Vincent when hes well or b) someone good who has experience at six in the domestic 20/20 (read Greg Hay) is ready for the step up to the top level (though I'd prefer Hay at four myself, hopefully he's Flemings replacement (assuming the selectors turf out Sinclair for Ryder which seems like the likely move for the upcoming test series))

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Its another Phlegm knee-jerk. Although somewhat paradoxically, he seems to have put a lot of thought into it.

James Marshall is NOT the way forward. I don't really think I need to say any more. I'd rather see... well... pretty much anyone really. Even Hamish.

 

[Richard]

Boy there's some poor stuff by you in that thread.

Mills, Oram, Fulton=average?

As for Nash>Mills is ODIs, pull the other one. The Dion Nash that averages 40 in ODIs greater than Mills?

Good to see that (for the most part) you're posting some sense now Rich.

Well Fulton and Mills were pretty average at that point. And Nash was, for me, a fine ODI bowler, at least in WC99. Never been totally sure about the rest of his career. I wasn't really expecting them (Fulton and Mills) to improve to the levels we've seen from them recently, though. Though actually with Fulton it'd already happened by the time I posted that.

Can't actually find where I called Oram average in that thread. I thought I'd changed my mind about him by then.

Myself and 16toS in that thread is funny.

 

[Flem274*]

Its another Phlegm knee-jerk. Although somewhat paradoxically, he seems to have put a lot of thought into it.

James Marshall is NOT the way forward. I don't really think I need to say any more. I'd rather see... well... pretty much anyone really. Even Hamish.

Nooo not a knee-jerk reaction, just using the wooly tree stump as a stop-gap until someone better and suited to number 6/7 comes along, maybe Franklin when he comes beack. Always thought he could do a bit of slogging at 7 or 8 in ODIs as oppossed to batting at 9.

 

[Flem274*]

Well Fulton and Mills were pretty average at that point. And Nash was, for me, a fine ODI bowler, at least in WC99. Never been totally sure about the rest of his career. I wasn't really expecting them (Fulton and Mills) to improve to the levels we've seen from them recently, though. Though actually with Fulton it'd already happened by the time I posted that.

Can't actually find where I called Oram average in that thread. I thought I'd changed my mind about him by then.

Myself and 16toS in that thread is funny.

I think Fulton and Mills had always had it in them, they just took their time about it.

You're a wee bit unfair on Mark Gillespie too. Before that strange shoulder injury at the WC he was a decent ODI bowler, ableit inconsistent. Lately though the evidence of his average List A record is showing though in tests I think he has what it takes.

Also Heath, do you think Gillespie could lose a little weight and gain some speed? He looks a bit like a rolling barrel when he runs in.

 

[James]

In regard to speed, I've always wondered why Oram is only mid 120s. He's a big, strong and powerful guy and should be getting up around the 140k range I would have thought.

 

[Richard]

I do seem to recall him being able to bowl in at least the 130s earlier in his career, though I may be mistaken.

I do recall this being said more than once tho. This from back in 2004:

Jacob Oram - more speed please?

Man, his bowling really got outshone by Flintoff's in the Test series, and his lack of any real speed over 80mph really showed. He has a big future ahead of him in Tests and ODIs, and his batting has enormous potential to be a international-class 7.

His bowling is around 128-130, and the lack of any speed really negates any bounce he gets. If he could just gain another yard of pace, he would be a good addition to the NZ's bowling attack as a major strike weapon.

 

[James]

I do seem to recall him being able to bowl in at least the 130s earlier in his career, though I may be mistaken.

I do recall this being said more than once tho. This from back in 2004:

You do have one fantastic memory

 

[SJS]

In regard to speed, I've always wondered why Oram is only mid 120s. He's a big, strong and powerful guy and should be getting up around the 140k range I would have thought.

I have often wondered the same about Stuart Clarke.

 

[Prince EWS]

I have often wondered the same about Stuart Clarke.

Stuart Clark can and has bowled faster - he's found that he gets better results doing what he does, though.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Also Heath, do you think Gillespie could lose a little weight and gain some speed? He looks a bit like a rolling barrel when he runs in.

Have to say 'not sure' to that question. Losing a bit of excess baggage is bound to help, but I don't think he's that overweight; just built like a rugby player rather than a cricketer. Not sure if he'd gain much at all (other than the 'health benefits')

 

[Richard]

Well he's already capable of, what, 147-8kph? Dread to think what he might do if he maximised his speed potential.

 

[Dick Rockett]

Myself and 16toS in that thread is funny.

Oh jeez, wtf was I on? Apologies for being a knob, although I probably still agree with my POV in that thread, I was a dick about expressing it.

SP, on the other hand, made me look positively rational.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

Myself and 16toS in that thread is funny.

Mustard post from Cameron, too. Slightly less famed.

 

[Richard]

Oh jeez, wtf was I on? Apologies for being a knob, although I probably still agree with my POV in that thread, I was a dick about expressing it.

SP, on the other hand, made me look positively rational.

Haha. I was hardly a shining beacon of "how to be pleasant" myself. Sadly, that wasn't terribly unusual at that point either. You know how it is - those not familiar with me often find mutual feelings are less than cordial. Has always been the way, and probably always will be.