**Official** England in New Zealand

[Halfpast_Yellow]

It's probably more a case of our batsmen being worse on a seaming pitch than England's, than a direct comparison of the bowling attacks.

 

[Athlai]

McCullum - firstly he is a WICKETKEEPER and is not looking the sharpest behind the stumps at the moment so I would rank him just a bit further down at 7/10 for that. Also he gets starts in particularly in the first innings and plays rash shots - not capitalising on potential or on start.

Oram carried that attack and was unlucky as Richard says not to get more reward for the effort he put in. Batting wise sawn off on both occassions and out of form/low on confidence for some reason. Am expecting a bit of a turn around at Napier due to that second innings where it seemed he was starting to get a little bit of that fluency back and remember to move his feet.
Would rate him slightly higher than a 6/10 possibly 6.5 or 7.

McCullum while certainly not the best effort behind the stumps is still incredibly solid and I think as long as his keeping doesn't drop to a shocking standard (think Priors vs. India) we shouldn't mark him down for missing harder chances. Though we should certainly mark him up for getting half's.

Oram on the other hand is a batting all-rounder. With the bat alone he got 3-4, his excellence with the ball put him up the extra points though I do see the reasoning behind giving him a higher score. Though personally Oram at 6 really needs to score to play fantastically regardless of how well he does with the ball.

 

[Athlai]

Only reason he didn't was misfortune IMO, couldn't have asked for more from him with the ball. Head-and-shoulders above NZ's other seamers. 9- or 10-for wouldn't have flattered him.

Totally agreed, the fact he was fined for dissent after showing his obvious relief at getting a much deserved wicket was pretty poor IMO. An example of the 4th referee making a piss poor effort in a Test match.

 

[SpaceMonkey]

Totally agreed, the fact he was fined for dissent after showing his obvious relief at getting a much deserved wicket was pretty poor IMO. An example of the 4th referee making a piss poor effort in a Test match.

I thought he was fined for hitting his bat with his hand when he was given out in the first innings?

 

[Prince EWS]

I thought he was fined for hitting his bat with his hand when he was given out in the first innings?

Even if so, that's equally ridiculous. There's often a fine line between what appears to be disappointment and what appears to be dissent, but that was as clear a case of disappointment as it comes AFAIC.

 

[Flem274*]

Disappointing but not unexpected. Dunno why we didn't make a turner for that match, Napier will be flat naturally but we should try and make some turn in it. I don't want to see a 19 year old with huge potential debuted on a road. Great way to destroy his confidence.

I feel this is the last chance for Sinclair and Bell, the selectors love to chop and change.

Now all we have to do is try and make some conversation in this thread for a week until the test starts.

 

[Somerset]

I think Southee has simply been added to the squad as another learning process and as a precaution in case Mills does have an issue after this knee soreness and another bowler goes down on the morning of the test. Still highly unlikely we will see him make his debut in New Zealand IMO.

As far as finding something to discuss, Flem, I'm sure there will be plenty of sentiments and articles about Stephen Fleming to disect.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

It was pathetic and absolutely stupid for the groundsman to prepare a pitch that suited England's strong point: their seam attack. That groundsman should be shot for ignoring orders imo.

In this case, this argument is not very convincing at all. It takes more than one week to prepare a test wicket, and unless NZC had ordered a good couple of months in advance, you're unlikely to get the desired result. Two have said two months ago that NZ would like a spinning wicket would have been a great piece of crystal ball gazing. Even if the groundsman had been given sufficient time, Wellington isn't best suited to the development of spinning wickets and you may have ended up with a distinctly average wicket that wouldn't have lasted more than a couple of days of intense test cricket.

The wicket prepared in Wellington was hardly unsuited to New Zealand's bowlers seeing as in experience terms and knowledge of the Basin Reserve square, the NZ seamers are streets ahead of their English counterparts in the test just gone.

In fact, I think the criticism of the groundsman is totally debase, uncalled for and actually deflecting from the crux of the reason for NZ losing this test - which was the awful bowling in the 3rd session of the first day.

 

[wpdavid]

Maybe, but I don't remember too many other posters advocating the curly-haired one's recall even as recently as then tho, so I'm giving myself a pat on the back.

Modesty should prevent me from pointing out that I suggested the possibility of SB being recalled around the start of the WI series. But stuff it, I don't get many right.

It's there somewhere in the England/WI thread when our quicks were dropping like flies.

 

[Barney Rubble]

Delighted to wake up to news that we've levelled the series. Good effort, lads.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Bit surprised no alternate opener has been brought in for Bell. He's looked what might be politely called "a bit short at this level" to my eyes. I'm no expert on the NZ domestic scene, but would imagine it can only be the lack of other options that's kept him in.

Fleming's done it before, hasn't he? Might be a bit stiff asking a bloke to open in his last test, but surely Elliot at 5 or 6 would be a better bet than an opener who looks out of his depth?

 

[Richard]

Bit surprised no alternate opener has been brought in for Bell. He's looked what might be politely called "a bit short at this level" to my eyes. I'm no expert on the NZ domestic scene, but would imagine it can only be the lack of other options that's kept him in.

Papps has looked little better TBH, and Cumming has been woeful in most of his Tests too.

And picking specialist middle-order batsmen to open is usually a recipe for disaster, and getting someone to do it who only had 1 Test left in his career would be simply nonsensical IMO.

 

[Richard]

In this case, this argument is not very convincing at all. It takes more than one week to prepare a test wicket, and unless NZC had ordered a good couple of months in advance, you're unlikely to get the desired result. Two have said two months ago that NZ would like a spinning wicket would have been a great piece of crystal ball gazing. Even if the groundsman had been given sufficient time, Wellington isn't best suited to the development of spinning wickets and you may have ended up with a distinctly average wicket that wouldn't have lasted more than a couple of days of intense test cricket.

The wicket prepared in Wellington was hardly unsuited to New Zealand's bowlers seeing as in experience terms and knowledge of the Basin Reserve square, the NZ seamers are streets ahead of their English counterparts in the test just gone.

In fact, I think the criticism of the groundsman is totally debase, uncalled for and actually deflecting from the crux of the reason for NZ losing this test - which was the awful bowling in the 3rd session of the first day.

That's an interesting take on it, and you're quite right obviously that pitches take more than a week to prepare, and that some soils just aren't terribly well-suited to certain types of surfaces. (At least - in New Zealand - in Pakistan you can usually get exactly what you want at a few days' notice on nearly any ground).

I'm never in favour of groundsmen defying orders, which this one does at least seem from conversations which various commentators have talked about to have done, but obviously you can't really expect someone to change tack with 4 days' notice.

This might not be a case of, but plenty of times in various countries we've seen groundsmen deciding that they have complete carte-blanche over the surface and that no-one will give them any orders. Well, if that's the attitude they should be sacked. Groundsmen are employed to produce the surface their employers want, not the surface they fancy. Obviously there are constraints, and obviously they can't just prepare anything on 5 minutes' notice, but if given reasonable time and reasonable working conditions there's no excuse whatsoever for a groundsman to fail to prepare the surface his board asks for.

 

[Richard]

Totally agreed, the fact he was fined for dissent after showing his obvious relief at getting a much deserved wicket was pretty poor IMO. An example of the 4th referee making a piss poor effort in a Test match.

I thought he was fined for hitting his bat with his hand when he was given out in the first innings?

Even if so, that's equally ridiculous. There's often a fine line between what appears to be disappointment and what appears to be dissent, but that was as clear a case of disappointment as it comes AFAIC.

He was indeed fined for said striking of bat with glove, and I said earlier in the thread (CBA finding said post) that I thought it was just a tadge on the harsh side. In any case, Oram is hardly the sort you routinely associate with dissent, so unless he actually admitted the charge would make sense to give him the BOD, IMO.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Papps has looked little better TBH, and Cumming has been woeful in most of his Tests too.

And picking specialist middle-order batsmen to open is usually a recipe for disaster, and getting someone to do it who only had 1 Test left in his career would be simply nonsensical IMO.

"Nonsensical" overstates it. Without checking cricinfo I would imagine Fleming averages more as an opener than Bell does & wherever Fleming plays in the 3rd test is only ever going to be a short-term option anyway.

I'd doubt Fleming would want to do it, in all honesty, but that shouldn't matter; the NZ selectors only consideration should be will Bell opening with Fleming @ 3 contribute more runs than Fleming opening & Elliot in the middle order.

 

[Richard]

Just goes to show how one poor innings with the bat can cost you the game

And has done, in both games of the series so far.

 

[Richard]

"Nonsensical" overstates it. Without checking cricinfo I would imagine Fleming averages more as an opener than Bell does & wherever Fleming plays in the 3rd test is only ever going to be a short-term option anyway.

I'd doubt Fleming would want to do it, in all honesty, but that shouldn't matter; the NZ selectors only consideration should be will Bell opening with Fleming @ 3 contribute more runs than Fleming opening & Elliot in the middle order.

Don't think so TBH, Fleming's output as an opener has been awful bar 1 innings against England at Trent Bridge, he's patently not an opener and making him do that in his last game would indeed IMO be nonsensical - there's no long-term plan in there (whereas if you keep him at three it at least leaves 1 less thing to worry about when he retires), it'd just be a makeshift arrangement, something I'm never in favour of in the opening role. What's more, what a bastard would you have to be to do that to one of your country's better servants in his last game, when it doesn't appreciably increase your chances (especially if the pitch is of concrete-runway likeness)?

BTW, I think you're also overstating a little Matthew Bell's awfulness - have you forgotten his impressive showings at Lord's and Old Trafford in 1999?

 

[BoyBrumby]

Don't think so TBH, Fleming's output as an opener has been awful bar 1 innings against England at Trent Bridge, he's patently not an opener and making him do that in his last game would indeed IMO be nonsensical - there's no long-term plan in there (whereas if you keep him at three it at least leaves 1 less thing to worry about when he retires), it'd just be a makeshift arrangement, something I'm never in favour of in the opening role. What's more, what a bastard would you have to be to do that to one of your country's better servants in his last game, when it doesn't appreciably increase your chances (especially if the pitch is of concrete-runway likeness)?

BTW, I think you're also overstating a little Matthew Bell's awfulness - have you forgotten his impressive showings at Lord's and Old Trafford in 1999?

Yuh-huh, averages 33 as an opener; Bell's down at 23.

& I fail to see what someone did 9 years ago has any bearing on current selection either.

 

[Prince EWS]

Yuh-huh, averages 33 as an opener; Bell's down at 23.

& I fail to see what someone did 9 years ago has any bearing on current selection either.

Well, he averages around 40 in the middle order, so you lose 7 right there. To make it even statistically worth it, Elliott would have to average 30, and he only averages in the high 20s in First Class cricket.

 

[Richard]

Grant Nisbett going on today like the fat know-it-all piece of **** that he is about the wellington groundsman ignoring NZC's and Vettori's wishes for a pitch that could take turn.

Well, this arrogant/ignorant groundsman cost NZ the match and quite possibly the test series.

As I said earlier, I agree that refusing to prepare a surface your side wants is very poor, though Heath's words on the matter perhaps make it a little more excuseable in this case. But...

It is allright to make a pitch that favours batsmen and bowlers but if little old NZ wants to fight with the big boys they have to play hardball and once they go 1-0 in a series that absolutely have to prepare road pitches or pitches that take turn (considering that is where they have the advantage).

This is the tactic India has always employed and is it little wonder that they are so hard to defeat at home?

Tended to be more Pakistan than India who used said tactic, and really for mine it's a fairly pointless one - if you're going to prepare concrete runways you might as well just play a one-off Test. I hate it when you get surfaces that offer next to zero chance of a result at the best of times. India have always been at their best when they're just played to their strengths and kept doing so - turning surfaces where the condition of the square allowed (eg, Mumbai, Delhi, Chennai, Motera) and flatties when it didn't.