Prince EWS
Global Moderator
Ahh I see. Well done then.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
**Official** England in New Zealand
- Thread starter James
- Start date
silentstriker
The Wheel is Forever
Well....this'll be a good win.
chalky
International Debutant
I was thinking when was the last time England's test stocks seemed so low especially the bowling which seems to be the biggest concern.
Even in 1999 when we were ranked at the bottom of the ratings we had the likes of::
Caddick, Gough, White, Tufnell, Mullally, Cork, Croft, White who were reasonably experienced & talented test crcicketers added to that there were whole host of decent county pros who could come in and do a job.
Off the top of my head I can't remember being so pessimistic about our test bowling
SpaceMonkey
International Debutant
Panesars innings is now the 3rd longest on balls faced. The other batsmen should be ashamed of that statistic! 
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Neither of Gough or White played in 1999 (White indeed had been out of the team for 3 years). And Cork, ridiculously really, wasn't picked, Giddins, Mullally, Tufnell and Such being favoured. Nor was Croft in the frame, having had 3 wicketless Tests the previous summer.I was thinking when was the last time England's test stocks seemed so low especially the bowling which seems to be the biggest concern.
Even in 1999 when we were ranked at the bottom of the ratings we had the likes of::
Caddick, Gough, White, Tufnell, Mullally, Cork, Croft, White who were reasonably experienced & talented test crcicketers added to that there were whole host of decent county pros who could come in and do a job.
Off the top of my head I can't remember being so pessimistic about our test bowling
This mirrors 1999 fairly well: Sidebottom is the Caddick - outstanding amongst rubbish. Mullally was mostly better than Harmison I guess, but he didn't have the flash-in-the-pan games Harmison had.
However, in 1999 we had Gough, Cork, White and Croft all to come back. And they did. And they came back brilliantly. No such comfort here. About all we have to cling to is "Hoggard can get better, and MSP is good on a turner should we get one, and Flintoff might get fit again".
Last edited:
chalky
International Debutant
Have our batsmen been believing their own publicity?Panesars innings is now the 3rd longest on balls faced. The other batsmen should be ashamed of that statistic!
SpaceMonkey
International Debutant
We have better bowlers. Just England wont pick them. If Harmison is picked for the 2nd Test i might just go and kill myself.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Well, let's look...Panesars innings is now the 3rd longest on balls faced. The other batsmen should be ashamed of that statistic!
Strauss and Ambrose both got excellent balls. Pietersen got a questionable decision. Cook was trying to attack the new-ball, which is what everyone had been demanding. Vaughan played around a straight one as an opener, where he shouldn't be batting. Sidebottom, Hoggard and Harmison we hardly expect much from.
Really, only Collingwood has been out-and-out poor, and he at least managed 50 balls, more than anyone else bar Bell. It'd be churlish to say "New Zealand didn't get us out".
Can we take it to the final session?