**Official** England in New Zealand

[Athlai]

A 100 against Bangladesh carries no more weight than a 100 against Auckland or Cantebury. Papps is still playing reasonably well and was dropped after a bad tour of South Africa, which is what most of the players had (including Taylor who scored against England). Papps is certainly in the running still for that other spot which How is closing up, also there are a couple up and coming performers who aren't all that far away from the Test squad. Bell in my opinion unless remarkably improves is just babysitting this spot till we find someone better.

Papps went to the domestic scene and decided he should get into the runs again, which he always tends to do.

 

[sportychic33]

A 100 against Bangladesh carries no more weight than a 100 against Auckland or Cantebury. Papps is still playing reasonably well and was dropped after a bad tour of South Africa, which is what most of the players had (including Taylor who scored against England). Papps is certainly in the running still for that other spot which How is closing up, also there are a couple up and coming performers who aren't all that far away from the Test squad. Bell in my opinion unless remarkably improves is just babysitting this spot till we find someone better.

Papps went to the domestic scene and decided he should get into the runs again, which he always tends to do.

An International 100 even though against Bangladesh should carry some recognition. It is not like everyone managed to score 100 runs is it? Bell is basically a journeyman, he has been around, scored a large amount of runs as openers should do and he should be given until the end of the English tour to show his wares before any axes start swinging.

 

[Mixmasterreece]

also there are a couple up and coming performers who aren't all that far away from the Test squad.

For example?

 

[Bahnz]

A 100 against Bangladesh carries no more weight than a 100 against Auckland or Cantebury. Papps is still playing reasonably well and was dropped after a bad tour of South Africa, which is what most of the players had (including Taylor who scored against England). Papps is certainly in the running still for that other spot which How is closing up, also there are a couple up and coming performers who aren't all that far away from the Test squad. Bell in my opinion unless remarkably improves is just babysitting this spot till we find someone better.

Papps went to the domestic scene and decided he should get into the runs again, which he always tends to do.

Papps has had a distincly average season this year. Besides one hundred scored on the most immaculate of roads, he's failed to get anything more than starts this season, to go alongside a solid but hardly breathtaking effort in the state shield. He also seems to struggle too much against genuine fast bowling, whether it be short pitched or swinging, and hence I'd hesitate before giving him another go. Bell has a good command of the back foot shots and plenty of experience at the domestic, A and international levels. I'd give him a go at least until the end of the current series, and would prefer it if he were left to find form until at least the early stages of the England tour.

 

[Athlai]

For example?

Guptill, Watling, perhaps not just yet but certainly more appealing in the years to come.

 

[Athlai]

Papps has had a distincly average season this year. Besides one hundred scored on the most immaculate of roads, he's failed to get anything more than starts this season, to go alongside a solid but hardly breathtaking effort in the state shield. He also seems to struggle too much against genuine fast bowling, whether it be short pitched or swinging, and hence I'd hesitate before giving him another go. Bell has a good command of the back foot shots and plenty of experience at the domestic, A and international levels. I'd give him a go at least until the end of the current series, and would prefer it if he were left to find form until at least the early stages of the England tour.

I certainly have more faith in Bell than Papps, but I was just saying 4 scores below 25 in a row for Bell would be too much for me and would only risk carrying a man in a spot that troubles us who isn't doing well for even longer.

 

[Bahnz]

Guptill, Watling, perhaps not just yet but certainly more appealing in the years to come.

Both of whom average in the low 20's. As do Wilson, Astle, Woodcock etc. I'd be more than surprised if we saw any if this lot in the national side before the decade is out. Although that's hardly surprising. Opening is a skill that requires a lot of discipline and mental fortitude to succeed at. These qualitites aren't normally acquired until a player has had plenty of practice to draw the very best out of their game.

 

[Athlai]

If teams were selected by averages then we may as well get Permster to select the team.

 

[Days of Grace]

Here is what I would do if I were a NZ selector.

Tell Bell and Sinclair they have 3 tests at home and 3 tests away vs. England. No matter what they do during that series, they won't be dropped.

Only after those 6 tests, will the selectors then reassess.

But, I bet you that if Bell and Sinclair knew they were good for 6 tests no matter what, then they would relax a hell of a lot more, and you would see better scores.

Sinclair a.t.m. looks like he is batting for his life and thus he looks incredibly nervous. If only the selectors would employ the policy I stated above...

 

[slugger]

Sinclair was caught twice in both situations they were outstanding catches.. especially the second... plus in the second inn. he played aggressively which seemed to have been the team policy that day... if some one was playing for their spot he would have applied himself totally different .. he was playing for the team so i suspect he has been advised he will not be dropped in this series.. with that in mind he put the team first.

 

[Somerset]

Here is what I would do if I were a NZ selector.

Tell Bell and Sinclair they have 3 tests at home and 3 tests away vs. England. No matter what they do during that series, they won't be dropped.

Only after those 6 tests, will the selectors then reassess.

But, I bet you that if Bell and Sinclair knew they were good for 6 tests no matter what, then they would relax a hell of a lot more, and you would see better scores.

Sinclair a.t.m. looks like he is batting for his life and thus he looks incredibly nervous. If only the selectors would employ the policy I stated above...

TBH I think Bell is relatively secure in his position with Craig Cumming really the only other likely player fighting for his place. Even if he does produce a series of average scores for the rest of the series, I doubt he'll be dropped for the start of the English tour, simply due to the lack of quality players for his position.

Sinclair is a different story though personally I'd give him the rest of the series - thats potentially four innings to post a reasonable sort of record over the three test matches. IMO he probably will get all three tests this series with Fulton experiencing a very poor run of form and Elliot not having played a test yet.

 

[Somerset]

That century was against Bangladesh, so I'm not sure how much you can read into that. His last decent knock against quality opposition was that 100 he scored against South Africa back in 2006, although that may partly be due to the fact that since then, New Zealand has only played 5 tests against decent opposition. But yes, whether it be form or a technical issue, he does need to sort it out soon. His bowling isn't good enough to keep him in the side during sustained periods of poor form with the bat. And with Ryder and Elliot, both useful medium pacers with better control of conventional swing, increasingly showing their talents in other forms of cricket, he may need to score some runs soon if he's to avoid having his place in the team being called into question.

As I said in an earlier post, he did look a little troubled during the test but I don't necessarily believe hes in poor form. In fact, TBH I wouldn't be surprised if he makes a very sizeable contribution in the second test match.

To say his last decent knock was back in 2006 is very harsh...personally I feel that the 90 he scored at Eden Park during the ODI series in a difficult situation constitutes a "decent knock". He also was the only player to make a 50 for the side in the 1st 20-20 vs England and the one off 20-20 against Australia. I'm not sure if you're just talking about test cricket but given New Zealand's lack of it over the last couple of years its a bit unfair IMO to make judgements such as yours. His recent performances in limited overs cricket show hes not in poor form at all.

 

[Flem274*]

Alot of people seem to be saying "we shouldn't lose to NZ who are are decent bunch of honest toilers" etc etc. Personally I'm going to reserve judgement on our team until the end of the year. This team is completely different to the team of the last 4 years or so that were the hard workers, just like many of our side in the 1990s (our side from 1999 to 2003-04 was pretty damn good though). They have alot of talent in there and they've shown what they can do but we'll get a better idea of the quality of opposition that England lost to after we see the current NZ side play for a whole year or so. We've got this series, England tour, Champions trophy and the Australian summer. After that we'll have a decent guage of the teams performance and ability.

Agree with Richards post earlier, I bet people just looked down the respective team sheets, saw a bunch of newbies/unknowns on our side and made assumptions.

 

[Bahnz]

As I said in an earlier post, he did look a little troubled during the test but I don't necessarily believe hes in poor form. In fact, TBH I wouldn't be surprised if he makes a very sizeable contribution in the second test match.

To say his last decent knock was back in 2006 is very harsh...personally I feel that the 90 he scored at Eden Park during the ODI series in a difficult situation constitutes a "decent knock". He also was the only player to make a 50 for the side in the 1st 20-20 vs England and the one off 20-20 against Australia. I'm not sure if you're just talking about test cricket but given New Zealand's lack of it over the last couple of years its a bit unfair IMO to make judgements such as yours. His recent performances in limited overs cricket show hes not in poor form at all.

One could point out that he never should have made 90 against England given that he should have been out absolutely stone dead lbw before he got off the mark (thank you Asid Rauf), and that most of the runs that he scored in his 20-20 were against the inviting bowling of Andrew Symonds, when Australia were trying to finish the game within the alloted time period to avoid a fine. But as you rightly deduced I was referring to his test match form, not his ODI efforts. And I recognise that he hasn't had much test cricket to play over the last couple of years (six matches), and that he's certainly not in line to be dropped any time soon. But over that time, he's averaged just 13.5 when you exclude the matches against Bangladesh, and even that is inflated by a couple of fortuitous not outs. You expect more than that out of your number 6, and unless he starts producing it soon, he may struggle to justify his position in the side.

 

[Somerset]

One could point out that he never should have made 90 against England given that he should have been out absolutely stone dead lbw before he got off the mark (thank you Asid Rauf), and that most of the runs that he scored in his 20-20 were against the inviting bowling of Andrew Symonds, when Australia were trying to finish the game within the alloted time period to avoid a fine. But as you rightly deduced I was referring to his test match form, not his ODI efforts. And I recognise that he hasn't had much test cricket to play over the last couple of years (six matches), and that he's certainly not in line to be dropped any time soon. But over that time, he's averaged just 13.5 when you exclude the matches against Bangladesh, and even that is inflated by a couple of fortuitous not outs. You expect more than that out of your number 6, and unless he starts producing it soon, he may struggle to justify his position in the side.

Yes you could argue that but at least he compiled an excellent innings after receiving that repreive. Some of the shots he played against the other Australian bowlers were very commendable as well.

I was unaware of that statistic, not sure that its totally fair to exclude the century against Bangladesh from it but even so, that average over such a long period of time with our test matches so spread out is hardly a representation of overall form IMO, which from shorter forms of the game indicates is more than adequate (which was the original point).

 

[Richard]

An International 100 even though against Bangladesh should carry some recognition.

Well, it depends. I agree with John that it takes no more skill than scoring one against Auckland or Canterbury. The only thing that makes it a bit more worthy is that it's scored for New Zealand - it's not worthy of being a Test innings. More akin to something scored for New Zealand in a tourist game, or New Zealand A.

 

[Richard]

I always thought that when a batsman doesn't play a shot and is hit on the pad, he surrenders the benefit of the doubt. Then, to paraphrase using legal terminology, the burden of proof on the umpire switches to whether on "the balance of probabilities" the ball would've gone on to hit the stumps, rather than whether there is "reasonable doubt". Or is this just the result of sitting through too many law lectures whilst listening to the cricket with a well hidden earphone?

For a start, MAMOH (that's man after my own heart ) for the earphone-during-lessons\lectures thingy. For seconds, there's nothing in the Laws that so much as mention BOD, IIRR the stipulation is along the lines of "the Umpire must be certain the ball is hitting the stumps". Nothing to do with whether the batsman's played a shot or not - the only time that comes into consideration is when the ball has hit the batsman outside the line of off-stump.

It becomes harder to sympathise with a batsman who has let one go which has thundered into his pads, but the judgement on whether the ball is hitting the stumps should not be altered. Had Pietersen played a shot, there'd have been outrage (aside from the fact that it'd have hit him outside the line of off) because there was only a minimal chance the ball was hitting the stumps, and I don't think that should change because a shot was played.

 

[Redbacks]

Umpires do seem to keen to fire batsmen if they get hit on the pads without playing a shot regardless of where the actual delivery is going

 

[slugger]

wellington is close to a sell out thats good for test cricket here in NZ... england should come more often .. if only we had stupid ashes/history thing..

 

[Richard]

Sell-out? For a Test-match in New Zealand?

When was the last time anyone with a memory can remember that?

(Or is it common in Wellington?)

Certainly the first I've seen of such a thing - will be terrific if there's actually a proper atmosphere at the ground.

Wonder whether the cameras will pick-out a certain former Kiwi seamer, and more to the point, whether any of the coms will recognise him?