**Official** England in New Zealand

[Halfpast_Yellow]

AWTA and with Ed.

Yes McCullum is agressive, he always is. However his style of agression is alot different to Gilchrist. McCullum bats out of his crease and comes forward and/or sideways. The "get well forward" tactic is used to negate his LBW weakness and to turn a good length into a half volley. His sideways movement is to turn a good line into a **** one. Agressive like Gilchrist but his style of agression is different.

TBH we can't say if he's going to be as good as Gilchrist yet. In ODIs if he carries on as he has he probably will be (if he carries on he might actualy be better, its a big if though) but he'll have to carry it on. In tests he's still learning his trade I feel.

With McCullum we have to wait and see.

Although I've singled you out you're not the only one who seems to have taken the Gilchrist comments too literally. I never meant to imply he was physically trying to imitate Gilchrist or even mentally. Instead he is taking a leaf out of the same book of counter-attacking batting at seven at times when his team is in deep trouble and it's failing miserably.

He didn't chop it onto his stumps yesterday, he hardly had time to properly get his eye in before he was down the pitch to England's best bowler, missing it by a mile with his swing and he got clean bowled.

I don't see him averaging 45-50 odd either, just trying to avoid a Griegy.

Of course, he could shut us all up and manage it but I think he'll fall into the "very good" catagorey in tests as supposed to "great." In ODIs he has a higher chance though tha acid test will be for him to carry it on and how effective the tactic of fire it at the leg stump is. I'm not going to predict anything in ODIs because McCullum is one of those players you just keep your mouth shut about until its safe.

I wouldn't be prepared to risk any capital that he will come close to that "very good" catergory in tests. At the moment he is dangerously on the brink of being in my mind's eye a limited-overs specialist - which he may do very well - but not close enough to transforming into a reasonable test-class batsman.

Whilst I dont think he is trying to be a Gilchrist, I do think he has gotten carried away with his recent master-blaster ODI innings and his paycheck for the IPL. I remember watching him at Lords 4 years ago, as well as when he scored that 99 against SL at home, and whilst he always was an aggressive batsman, I certainly dont remember him batting with the same sort of carefree attitude that he currently embarks onto the field with. Nor do i think he is going to have too much success with it.

AWTA. There is aggressive batting with intent and then there is the carefree devil-may-care stuff. I remember watching him earlier on in his career and it's notable the attitude change. I can't help but wonder whether limited overs success or IPL $$$ has played a part in that alteration of mindset.

 

[Richard]

Dear oh dear, Matthew Bell in the wars here.

 

[GIMH]

Strauss looking good to at least save a 40 average here. Going off what I think I read from Brumby yesterday, he needs about 10 more

 

[Richard]

Ind33d. One hopes he has ambitions to play more rather than end now with a 40+ average.

BTW, hope Fleming's well to bat - not not to come to the crease, to actually bat. Currently laid low.

 

[GIMH]

Ind33d. One hopes he has ambitions to play more rather than end now with a 40+ average.

BTW, hope Fleming's well to bat - not not to come to the crease, to actually bat. Currently laid low.

Oh of course but I am sure if he was to be disposed of he would like it to be with that magical 40 average

 

[_Ed_]

BTW, hope Fleming's well to bat - not not to come to the crease, to actually bat. Currently laid low.

Oh right, haven't heard the commentators here mention that but was wondering where he was when I noticed Taylor at first slip.

 

[Richard]

Oh of course but I am sure if he was to be disposed of he would like it to be with that magical 40 average

TBH, I'm now fairly sure he'll be in that First Test of the summer against New Zealand really. I just hope he'll be opening rather than this ridiculous batting-three crap we've had this series.

 

[GIMH]

Yeah, doesn't make any sense doing it this way

 

[Zinzan]

Interesting that without Fleming in the batting lineup, I'm starting to wonder whether NZ now have the weakest test batting lineup in the world. Certainly up with Bangladesh and Zim, and weaker than the West Indies.

 

[Richard]

What are we reckoning are the likely sides for the (start of the) return series then, on those notes?

I'm hoping something like:
Strauss, Cook, Vaughan, Pietersen, Bell, Collingwood, Ambrose, Broad, Sidebottom, Hoggard, MSP
Cumming\Papps, How, Sinclair, Fulton, Taylor, Oram, McCullum, Vettori, Mills, Southee, Martin

Mostly fairly obvious I suppose. Only the NZ three-four that's really up for questions.

BTW, is there any thought to continue this thread for the NZ in Eng series? I can't see why not myself TBH, there's virtually no break between the series, and unless there's an unwritten CW *Official* thread rule that it's 1 country only per thread, should be done IMO.

 

[Jamee999]

Cook - Vaughan* - Pietersen - Collingwood - Bell - Shah - Ambrose+ - Broad - Sidebottom - Hoggard - Panesar.

 

[Zinzan]

What I am expecting is a far more convincing 3 nil scoreline to England than in 2004 when a couple of the matches were actually closer than they looked on paper.

I can't see NZ even being semi competitive in England on those decks. Our batsmen just aren't good enough, its that simple

I was going to take some annual leave to watch at least one of the tests, but not sure if I will due to the fact I don't see it being contest. Our bowlers may experience short spells of success, but the batsmen will be miles off.

The fact Vettori who bats at 8 is probably our best test batsmen currently says it all

 

[GIMH]

Inclined to agree with your England XI, though Bell may be threatened if he doesn't get a score today?

 

[GIMH]

What I am expecting is a far more convincing 3 nil scoreline to England than in 2004 when a couple of the matches were actually closer than they looked on paper.

I can't see NZ even being semi competitive in England on those desks. Our batsmen just aren't good enough, its that simple

Didn't realise we were playing indoor office cricket tbh

 

[Zinzan]

Didn't realise we were playing indoor office cricket tbh

edited

 

[Flem274*]

What I am expecting is a far more convincing 3 nil scoreline to England than in 2004 when a couple of the matches were actually closer than they looked on paper.

I can't see NZ even being semi competitive in England on those desks. Our batsmen just aren't good enough, its that simple

Talk about throwing the toys our of the cot. I think we will compete. I also think the batting will improve once we get rid of our free wickets. Fleming will be a loss but I have confidence in the newbies. Peter Fulton reminds me of Fleming alot, Taylor and How have improved vastly and Hay looks the goods so far at FC level, deserves a shot.

We have plenty of middle order strength, the big problem is who opens?

TBH Mark O'Neill should run an openers clinic before the tour. Get How, Bell, Papps, Cumming, Guptill, McIntosh and Ingram in there and teach them technique. Use How as an example of decent technique. Its no coincidence that since he tightened up his defensive game his batting has improved.

Our big threat is the bowlers. Mills, Martin, Vettori, Southee, Franklin, Patel. Oram can bowl well in favourable conditions as well.

 

[Zinzan]

Talk about throwing the toys our of the cot.

I'm not sure how giving an honest assessment equates to throwing toys out of the cot? If you take your NZ eye-patch off for a moment and look at things objectively, you will also see that there is very little evidence to suggest our test batting lineup will compete in England especially with no Fleming.

 

[Spitfires_Fan]

Agree with Jamee's XI, except I'd like to see Shah at 3, followed by Pietersen, Collingwood, Bell.

 

[Richard]

Inclined to agree with your England XI, though Bell may be threatened if he doesn't get a score today?

Indeed, and I'm hoping he does, of course.

Damn well should do, BTW.

 

[Richard]

Agree with Jamee's XI, except I'd like to see Shah at 3, followed by Pietersen, Collingwood, Bell.

Yeah me too. I don't like the idea of Vaughan opening one little bit and if Strauss doesn't play (which is looking increasingly unlikely) I want Key to.

But if Vaughan had to open, I'd want Shah three, Pietersen four.

Ah, Fleming back on the field, good. Let's hope he's OK.