**Official** England in New Zealand

[completeNZer]

To all those "Taylor-should-be-nowhere-near-the-test-team-he's-got-no-offside-game-to-speak-of-and-way-too-aggressive-and-only-ever-plays-that-ugly-hoick-over-midwicket" people: in your faces!

Rosco has done over the last two days what I always knew he was capable of since I first saw him play.

ditto

 

[JBH001]

I miss Fiery at times like these.

 

[pasag]

Basicially every other nation has to see how bad Harmison is for themselves. It's like, 'he's not that bad....oh'.

 

[Somerset]

Very good day's cricket for New Zealand. Ross Taylor from what I saw in the highlights played brilliantly, while Vettori was his typical self. Two wickets in the last 20 minutes might be crucial in giving New Zealand a chance of winning this test match.

Harmison looks really woeful and I'd be surprised if he was retained for the second test (providing he doesn't take 3/80 off 20 wayward overs in the second innings, doing enough to keep his place which may still happen). Sidebottom and surprisingly Collingwood were England's best with Hoggard down on pace (not sure whats up with that) and Panesar not quite at his best.

 

[Richard]

Basicially every other nation has to see how bad Harmison is for themselves. It's like, 'he's not that bad....oh'.

Well, to boot there's still plenty of Englishmen who've seen every game defending him and saying he did well for way longer than he did.

As Dav says, you hope but doubt he'll be dropped for the rest of the series. BTW, a small amount of justice done with Sidebottom getting Patel and Martin.

 

[Richard]

86/2 Hoggard gooooorne.

FFS, this is when I hate nightwatchmen. Strauss will now bat at four, and it didn't stop him coming in this evening anyway.

 

[Richard]

And Chris Martin's forward defensive misses by 6 inches to rap up the innings. Bit dissapointing that we couldn't reach 500, but if someone would've offered the kiwi's 470 at the start of the day, they would've taken it no questions asked.

Wrap-up, methinks.

 

[Richard]

Get a grip. The England seamers - particularly Harmison - have been unable to consistantly find the right line or the right length, let alone both together. Marshall-esque? I can only presume you mean the bowling might of James Marshall.

But O'Brien's even worse, bar Harmison. Even the rubbish Hoggard's served-up this Test has been marginally better than anything O'Brien has ever bowled in his Test career against Test-class teams.

Sidebottom does look like Malcolm Marshall compared to O'Brien.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

But O'Brien's even worse, bar Harmison. Even the rubbish Hoggard's served-up this Test has been marginally better than anything O'Brien has ever bowled in his Test career against Test-class teams.

Sidebottom does look like Malcolm Marshall compared to O'Brien.

You've got only one eye open, and its covered with a barely transparent pink eyepatch if you believe any of that. Sidebottom bowled acceptably and whilst Hoggard is obviously a better bowler than O'Brien, his performance in this test has been worse by a considerable distance than how O'Brien bowled in his last test outing at the Basin Reserve. I suggest you review O'Brien's bowling from that test and reappraise your assessment.

And regardless of whether you count his bowling in that test as "against test class" as you caveated your statement, he bowled well enough to get good wickets from any of the other top ten teams in that test. He bowled damn well, and there seems to be too much **** from people like yourself that assume that he's incapable of bowling well at any time based on him bowling **** in 9 out of 10 games. O'Brien at his best >>> Hoggard in this test >>>>>>>>>>> Harmison in this test

 

[Richard]

I could look at O'Brien's bowling in that Bangladesh game, or probably any number of his games for Wellington.

But I am not talking about cricket of this second-tier standard.

I am talking about cricket of international standard. And in games of this nature, O'Brien has been abysmal. Yes, worse indeed than Hoggard this Test. Hoggard on the opening morning looked more threatening than I've ever seen O'Brien look in a Test against a Test-class team, even if he quickly went off-the-boil and rarely threatened from then on, whilst spraying it with O'Brien-esque radars.

And until O'Brien reverses this trend (yes, reverses it, not looks like reversing it by bowling well against lower-standard teams) I shall not change my mind. I am not saying he is incapable of reversing this trend. You do not get First-Class averages of 23 (or whatever it is) by being totally useless. But I very much doubt he will ever be able to match Sidebottom's no-more-than-pretty-good bowling of this Test. And I have also yet to see it happen. In games against international-standard teams, O'Brien has never even bowled as well as Hoggard in this Test. Never.

 

[Flem274*]

Iain O'Brien is a poor mans Michael Mason. Both bowlers (from what I have seen) are also like Oram in that they bowl line and length with good bounce and in Mason and sometimes O'Briens case, some swing/seam movment. All three are workhorses for long spells and we can only afford to have one or two of them in the team, so the bowlers picked would be (IMO) Oram and Mason. O'Brien has such outstanding FC figures because he bowls nice line and length with some typical NZ domestic pitch movement and pisses off the batsman so much he plays a silly shot, think a very toned down McGrath. He's a good bowler and a great servant of Wellington, but he's going to need someting more for test cricket, whether he develops this we'll wait and see.

Really hope I'm not totally wrong here , I haven't seen a huge amount of O'Brien but he reminds me of Mason and Oram.

 

[Flem274*]

Good knock from Taylor, I admit it, I was wrong about him.

And what the hell is Hoggard doing? I thought he'd put us in real trouble. Harmison is hardly a surprise though.

 

[GIMH]

Yeah, haven't seen much of this Test, a bit of both morning sessions basically, Steve Harmison, oh dear. And Hoggard tbh.

 

[sledger]

yes agreed on the harmison sentiments, the guy is bowling a very poor standard currently, what is even worse that the speed of his bowling seems to have dropped considerably, he is no longer reaching the high 80s and the 90s he was reaching a few years ago, looking distinctly average at the moment, and I know it can take him a while to get going, but thats not really good enough, in a series like this by the time he gets in to form the series could be as good as lost, and against decent opposition it most likely will be in most cases, very dissapointing.

They showed a graph on sky sports last night showing how his form has pretty much dipped every year since 2004, Michael Atherton suggesting that 2004 may have been a purple patch in which he overperformed is looking more and more like a valid critique of his ability with every passing match...a shame one feels.

 

[Richard]

Good knock from Taylor, I admit it, I was wrong about him.

And what the hell is Hoggard doing? I thought he'd put us in real trouble. Harmison is hardly a surprise though.

Yeah, haven't seen much of this Test, a bit of both morning sessions basically, Steve Harmison, oh dear. And Hoggard tbh.

Hoggard's never been the type to bowl well every game, and certainly hasn't often bowled too well on surfaces like the one this game.

I'm fairly confident he at least will get better as the series progresses - provided he stays fit.

 

[Woodster]

Hoggard has generally been considered one of our most consistent bowlers for a while now. He is never deterred by a pitch that lacks any movement or is as dead as this one. His bowling average of 28.22 in the sub-continent suggests he does not need the pitch to be particularly favourable to the bowlers as some others do.

Thinks its too early to suggest he is now over the hill, as Martin Crowe was alluding to in commentary.

I expect him to improve also, as the series progresses.

 

[Woodster]

Should be an intriguing third day coming up. If England bat anything like, they could be under 100 runs behind NZ by the close, this is presuming we bat all day. A lot of overs in store for Patel and Vettori. I sincerely hope we are a little more positive against them, difficult I know, as they are two very good bowlers, but not world-beaters.
Where as Cook, Vaughan and Strauss are likely to play them from the crease, I expect Bell, KP and Colly to advance down their track and attempt to upset their rhythm.

Very disappointed yesterday with the excellent partnership of Taylor and Vettori. Taylor was very good throughout, will be kicking himself with his dismissal. Quite a comical cackle from KP as he was catching it though.

Vettori, I think, is not at all enjoyable to watch but exceptionally effective at number 8. His average of over 40 in the last 23 Tests or so, is testament to his style of playing within his strong areas. Cutting the ball, the odd drive and working it off his legs.

Sidebottom a small reward at the end finishing with a 4 for. Harmison again poor. If England wanted a bowler to run in and bowl low 80's, they would pick someone that does more with the ball and is a hell of a lot more accurate. He perhaps has one innings to save his tour.

Big day for Englands batters, they must be up for the challenge.

 

[Richard]

Hoggard has generally been considered one of our most consistent bowlers for a while now. He is never deterred by a pitch that lacks any movement or is as dead as this one. His bowling average of 28.22 in the sub-continent suggests he does not need the pitch to be particularly favourable to the bowlers as some others do.

Thinks its too early to suggest he is now over the hill, as Martin Crowe was alluding to in commentary.

I expect him to improve also, as the series progresses.

Hoggard's such a funny case. There's absolutely no doubt he can bowl well on surfaces which do not offer seam, and with cricket-balls not in condition to offer the conventional swing he uses best. At the same time, of course, as knowing that he's deadly with a good cricket ball in good condition, under overcast skies, on a green pitch - much more deadly than he'll ever be without.

His performances of Nagpur 2005\06 and Adelaide 2006\07 are the ultimate testimony to this. But both these wickets were desperately slow, and both grounds had outfields that got the ball quickly into reverse-swing-friendly condition. On pitches that are easy-paced, rather than slow, and with poor balls (like the ones we've had so far this Test) that don't really swing a great deal either conventionally or reverse (think the only real reverse-swing we've seen so far has been from Paul Collingwood of all people) he doesn't really have much to offer. He's certainly been below-par, as he very rarely concedes as much as 4.6-an-over these days, but I'm never terribly confident when I see him with a wicket like this.

 

[Woodster]

Yes there has been very little reverse swing around. Think Hoggard offered a little bit, but nothing that should really trouble batsmen that are set. He is definitely below par this Test so far, his pace suggests something is not quite right, be it match fitness or something more technical.

I still think he may make an impact in the second innings. It may have to be early because as you say, the swing lasts a matter of minutes.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

I could look at O'Brien's bowling in that Bangladesh game, or probably any number of his games for Wellington.

But I am not talking about cricket of this second-tier standard.

I am talking about cricket of international standard. .....

Yawn yawn yawn; caveat, caveat, caveat. The fact of the matter is that you saying that Sidebottom looks like Malcolm Marshall alongside Iain O'Brien is totally calumniatory (or total bollocks depending on your point of view).

I can only assume with the rudeness and inadequacy of your opinion that you are being a Wind Up Merchant. I shall have to seek out the ignore function and put you on it, because I'm fed up of your bloated, biased opinions and your intransigence.