**Official** England in New Zealand

[Athlai]

Jeetans I tell ya!

 

[NZTailender]

His 2 Tests so far have gone really similar. Bowled crap early, bowled better later, but got a few tailenders. Feel for Oram, though - really deserved more than that.

Interesting that you'd class Kallis, Prince, de Villiers and Boucher as tailenders.

 

[Natman20]

Oh dear. Gillespie gets tail end wickets which will probably means being selected again. He is expensive and all over the place. Just great! I look forward to the next time he displays how not to bowl unless you are bowling to tail enders.

 

[Athlai]

You know from a statistically speaking point of view, Mills averages about 26 now, and Gillespie 24, alongside Martin 32, Oram 30 and Vettori thats a healthy looking attack. Probably one of the best in the world. Too bad Gillespies will eventually go up a fair amount.

(Though Martins, Vettoris and perhaps even Orams should go down)

 

[Burgey]

When he (Gillespie) came out to Australia a few years ago he looked like he was gonna be the goods.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Bit harsh on the pie man there, for mine. He went past Bell's & Cook's edges numerous times yesterday. Got a bit of reverse going too.

 

[Blakey]

I have a sneaky feeling Broad and Anderson are going to kick ass out there. Sidebottom speaks for himself.

England to end up with a nice first innings lead.

 

[Dick Rockett]

His 2 Tests so far have gone really similar. Bowled crap early, bowled better later, but got a few tailenders. Feel for Oram, though - really deserved more than that.

Agree with this bit.

Interesting that you'd class Kallis, Prince, de Villiers and Boucher as tailenders.

Pietersen and Collingwood also, it would seem.

 

[Athlai]

Still reckon two spinners would be more effective, but Gillespie certainly didn't waste his chance. Got some good wickets along with those of the tail, he's wild but Martin, Mills and Oram aren't so it does provide "variety".

 

[Pratters]

Any one who is not Bradman is a tail ender.

 

[Richard]

Interesting that you'd class Kallis, Prince, de Villiers and Boucher as tailenders.

'T'll teach me to work from memory without checking 'cards I guess.

Not saying Gillespie didn't bowl well for his wickets in either Test BTW, the Collingwood and Pietersen ones were both good balls, but there's no arguing that half his wickets here were tailenders.

 

[Richard]

When he (Gillespie) came out to Australia a few years ago he looked like he was gonna be the goods.

Last year?

 

[NZTailender]

Still reckon two spinners would be more effective, but Gillespie certainly didn't waste his chance. Got some good wickets along with those of the tail, he's wild but Martin, Mills and Oram aren't so it does provide "variety".

Disagree that two spinners would be more effective. Perhaps would've kept the runs down (since Martin and Gillespie were expensive) but would they have created as many problems as a swinging/seaming ball like we've seen? No. Patel would've been bowled and wasted on this surface.

 

[Richard]

Sidebottom swinging appreciably here. Has to get a couple of top-order wickets tho.

Frankly, it's now or never for Anderson. If he can't get wickets now I just don't see him ever doing.

 

[NZTailender]

'T'll teach me to work from memory without checking 'cards I guess.

Not saying Gillespie didn't bowl well for his wickets in either Test BTW, the Collingwood and Pietersen ones were both good balls, but there's no arguing that half his wickets here were tailenders.

Somebody had to get those tailenders out. Gillespie did. The fact he got 4 wickets when Oram got 3 and bowled better is a tad 'unfair' but then Mills and Martin also could've picked up those tail end wickets, but failed to do so.

 

[Dick Rockett]

Any one who is not Bradman is a tail ender.

'T'll teach me to work from memory without checking 'cards I guess.

Not saying Gillespie didn't bowl well for his wickets in either Test BTW, the Collingwood and Pietersen ones were both good balls, but there's no arguing that half his wickets here were tailenders.

That's true, but neither here nor there really. Actually I remember once hearing that a very highly rated bowler had an unusually high number of tailenders in his wicket tally, but I can't remember who. McGrath maybe?

 

[Athlai]

Disagree that two spinners would be more effective. Perhaps would've kept the runs down (since Martin and Gillespie were expensive) but would they have created as many problems as a swinging/seaming ball like we've seen? No. Patel would've been bowled and wasted on this surface.

At this stage you'd be perfectly right, unless the pressure of the spinners had built up to a boiling point and caused an English Meltdown, I would think they would be batting still till the first session. I do think though come the second innings, we will be missing Patel.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Disagree that two spinners would be more effective. Perhaps would've kept the runs down (since Martin and Gillespie were expensive) but would they have created as many problems as a swinging/seaming ball like we've seen? No. Patel would've been bowled and wasted on this surface.

Yeah, agreed. Vettori hardly bowled himself (8 overs?), so can't see that a second spinner was the way to go.

 

[NZTailender]

The last sentence of my above post went nowhere, really.

 

[Dick Rockett]

The last sentence of my above post went nowhere, really.

Thought it made perfect sense, tbh.