**Official** England in New Zealand

[KiWiNiNjA]

If I was picking the sides:

Cook
Vaughan
Bell
Pietersen
Collingwood
Shah
Ambrose
Broad
Sidebottom
Hoggard
Panesar

How
[Opener?]
Taylor
Fulton
Ryder
Oram
McCullum
Vettori
Mills
Southee
Martin

Would swap Taylor and Fulton around.
If Ryder has recovered, then YES. But I don't think he will play until the ODI's.

If there were no injuries, then that would be the side, with Franklin replacing Martin. Not Martin's fault but I like an attack of Mills, Franklin, Southee better.

 

[Prince EWS]

Ryder and Franklin won't be fit to play.

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

Ryder and Franklin won't be fit to play.

So if a full strength NZ squad was,
How, [Opener X], Fulton, Taylor, Ryder, Oram, McCullum, Vettori, Franklin, Mills, Southee

then who do you replace Ryder and Franklin with?

Franklin=Martin
Ryder=???

One of Hay/Broom/Nichol?
or even Sinclair

Hopefully Elliott will never be picked again.

How about the other openers spot?
One of the "incompetent at Test level" Papps/Bell/Cumming?
Or someone new? i.e McIntosh

 

[paddy11]

My team for the Home series would be

Strauss

I think he is a natural opener, he is much more comfortable at the top of the order and although he scored runs in the last test match I don't think three is the long term position for him.

Cook

Didn't have the best of series but he is class and a home tour against a mediocre New Zealand bowling attack should get him back into good touch. Needs to sort out his off stump wafts however as he will be easy meat for Ntini if he doesn't correct it in this series against Martin. Who is a similar bowler.

Pietersen

Our best batsman by a country mile and if you look around the other sides, most all have their best batsmen at 3. Can dominate a bowling attack when on form and its a perfect chance to give him a go at three in this series. Needs to go out and play his natural game and play all the shots he has and really stamp his authority

Vaughan

Has been out to absolute pearlers in recent tests just because he is good enough to nick them. he has a rock solid technique and he should be able to score runs freely with a decent base to build on as he is one of the best in the world once he gets in. His captaincy is brilliant as always but he needs to be more positive in his declarations.

Collingwood

Has been rock solid at 5 for most of career and it is baffling why he was moved to 6. He can dig in and produce an innings of substance when the top order fails yet he can bring out all the shots when the team is in a strong position and needs to get quick runs. His catching has been dodgy recently but he is a top class fielder who keeps up Englands energy in the field.

Bell

Recently he has looked very pretty but has been unable to produce an century when it really matters and doesn't seem able to back himself to play in a flamboyant fashion when the team is in a sticky situation. He has scored most of his runs at 6 and batting with the tail may coax him into playing his full range of shots, and when that happens he scores hundreds of real class.

Ambrose

He definitely deserves another go after his efforts this series. His fabulous hundred at Wellington was the turning point of the whole series and he has kept immaculately with the exception of a dropped catch and a missed stumping at Wellington but he has been superb overall and deserves lots of chances.

Flintoff

If he is fit he is a must pick, his bowling is always steady and with the dukes ball which tends to reverse swing it will be vital on a flat track. His fitness must come first and he must only be considered for selection if he gets a lot of overs under his belt for Lancashire. His batting has been on the wane recently so I wouldn't risk dropping a batsman to play him at 6 yet but if he makes runs at 8 then he can be moved up the order at the expense of Peter Moore's latest scapegoat. Picking him will mean leaving out Anderson but he is way too inconsistent and long bowls for Lancashire in the county championship will hopefully have the same effect as they did against India where he came back into the side after bowling lots of overs and worked up a really nice rythm.

Broad

Has played himself into the squad and really deserves a long spell in the squad, This will be his first home series if chosen and it will add to his experience. He needs to play in every game , injuries permitting, if England want him to fulfill his potential in time for the 2009 Ashes. If he does bat at 9 it gives England's batting line up a lot of depth and his ability to bowl long spells will be handy if New Zealand are offering some resistance.

Sidebottom

Came from county obscurity to become our most consistent performer. His huge hooping left arm swing will get a lot of wickets against a flimsy New Zealand batting order and his consistency means that Vaughan can always turn to him to get a breakthrough.

Panesar

The default spin bowler. I don't expect him to take a lot of wickets on these seaming surfaces but its good to have a different option if it all goes wrong. If the conditions suit i would drop him for an extra seamer.

 

[Richard]

I see there's already a lot of discussion about the New Zealand in England series in this thread.

As the tours are pretty close together, do you all just want this thread title renamed and use this thread for that series too or would everyone prefer a new thread?

I actually made that suggestion a few days ago TBH, is a great idea IMO.

New thread for me.

Richard's post count has been nothing short of ridiculous in this thread.

Since when did postcounts decide anything?

 

[Richard]

So, my prediction for the England tour is both sides bowlers to dominate. They did here on two flat pitches with rubbish Kookaburra balls, imagine what they'll do on English greentops with Duke balls?

OK maybe not greentops (though there may be a few) but England should be alot of fun for the bowlers.

Wasn't the case in the recent WI or India series, iirc, though the latter had a bit of swing apparent for the bowlers. But flat pitches all the way through, unless I'm much mistaken and I wouldn't be surprised to see the same here.

The way I see it nowadays, it is our weather that generally dictates the difficulty of batting more than the pitches but certain pitches still offer a bit to everyone especially places like Old Trafford and Headingley. Usually. Watch them score 2000 runs in boths Tests and you to quote this both times.

TBH, last summer, 2007, was the most seam-friendly summer since 2001, and maybe since 2000. The balls swung for once, and while there were flat surfaces as there always are, there were a few that offered more to the seamers than almost anything between 2002 and 2006 did.

What Pete says about the weather has always been true, really - the more overcast, the more swing, at any ground anywhere in The World. Yet between 2001 and 2006, the balls were mostly of poor quality and swing was often extremely difficult to get even in seemingly very friendly conditions.

2007 was the first time we saw balls that swung properly since 2000, and it also probably saw more in the way of seam-friendliness than any wicket since 2001. Of course, both things may be a complete one-off, and we'll only find-out when we find-out. But I'm more hopeful of the seamers dominating - as IMO they should be in these parts - than I have been for a long while this year. This, of course, probably means it'll be complete let-down, the balls won't swing, the skies will be clear and dry, and the pitches will have no green on them at all. But I can hope.

 

[Richard]

Disappointed that Taylor and McCullum couldn't make the most of perfect conditions, especially after Southee showed exactly how the Panesar Pie Factory should be treated. Great stuff from him at the end, though I think people saying that he's the next Cairns are going OTT. Actually, his stroke play did remind me of a Cairns...but it was much more Lance than Christopher in style.

Ahem...

Tim Southee: the next Bernard Lance Cairns?

 

[Richard]

Southee=Mullally?

I trust you remember Mullally's somewhat-legendary 16 where he smashed McGrath all over The MCG in 1998\99?

Seriously - truly incredible that someone who looked so awful in the first-innings could play such an astonishing knock in the second-.

 

[Flem274*]

I trust you remember Mullally's somewhat-legendary 16 where he smashed McGrath all over The MCG in 1998\99?

Seriously - truly incredible that someone who looked so awful in the first-innings could play such an astonishing knock in the second-.

He batted at 6 or 7 in the U-19 WC IIRC. Once he sorts his technical issues he will become a handy batsman in the Lance Cairns mould. Not a genuine number 6 though.

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

He batted at 6 or 7 in the U-19 WC IIRC. Once he sorts his technical issues he will become a handy batsman in the Lance Cairns mould. Not a genuine number 6 though.

More of a Vettori-type!

 

[Richard]

He batted at 6 or 7 in the U-19 WC IIRC. Once he sorts his technical issues he will become a handy batsman in the Lance Cairns mould. Not a genuine number 6 though.

Right, I did think to check that tourney before making said post, and kinda wish I had now.

He'll need to start batting like a batsman rather than a slogger if he wants to become a Test number-seven though TBH. Fairly confident he'd have it in him mind.

 

[Leslie1]

Let's be fair, we can't judge his defensive techniques based on the 1st innings.

Sidebottom was on fire, and he had been bowling his guts out the first innings. He came out, probably never faced a ball that speed in his lifetime, and got spooked.

Vettori mentioned that he didn't have to tell him how to bowl, that he's a 'polished' product. At 19 that's freakin' amazing how much work he'd put in prior to his "emergence". I've followed him at the U19s since his debut for 20 20, and his batting looks competent.

Shows what a fast learner he is. He comes out 2nd innings, oh hello, front foot defence on Panesar who had been bowling like Sidey did in the 1st inning, and Vettori didn't want a bar of sticking around with him playing that shocker shot just to get a single. Where's his head at? Imagine if Southee started flaying 6s with Vettori at the other end. He didn't look like getting out prior to Southee coming out to bat.

 

[paddy11]

I trust you remember Mullally's somewhat-legendary 16 where he smashed McGrath all over The MCG in 1998\99?

Seriously - truly incredible that someone who looked so awful in the first-innings could play such an astonishing knock in the second-.

But I have a nice story about Mullally. He had a deal with the other England players that if he scored more than 30 against the might of Curtly Ambrose. Incredibly he raced to 22 of something like 18 balls. A true achievement for someone as hopelessly inept at batting as Mullally. It was at this point he sent a gesture to the pavillion of him downing a pint. The next ball he faced yorked him and he was bowled stumps all over. Cue much hilarity in the England dressing room. Here's a video of the delivery. The clip in question is at about 2:00
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lej3xFau330

 

[Dick Rockett]

Considering his display in the first innings he isn't an all rounder. So my guess is that he went out with no pressure on his shoulders and decided to have a slog. He got lucky, thats all.

Scaly?

 

[paddy11]

Scaly?

whats scaly got to do with anything ?

 

[Richard]

Scaly?

That's a bit harsh! No-one should be compared to him without even reaching 20 posts.

 

[Dick Rockett]

whats scaly got to do with anything ?

Haha, sorry about that mate, it was an in-joke. There's a poster on these forums called Scaly Piscine who has a reputation for being extremely biased against New Zealand in particular, and to be honest I thought your post sounded a lot like something he would write.

The truth of the matter is, no-one who hits nine sixes in a test innings "got lucky". I think Tim Southee deserves a bit more credit than that.

 

[Jamee999]

Southee at 9 could make the strongest 6-9 ever.

 

[Richard]

The truth of the matter is, no-one who hits nine sixes in a test innings "got lucky". I think Tim Southee deserves a bit more credit than that.

I certainly don't feel he "got lucky" by any means - I'm fairly sure near enough every boundary, both four and six, came either off or very damn close to the middle of the bat, and might well have gone for the boundaries even on a better-shaped ground. Yet there's no disputing that someone who played that way - a good proportion, though not all, of the shots were simply swinging from the hip - won't score 77*, or even 20, all that often. If Southee wants to be a genuine lower-order batsman, he won't be able to by playing like that.

 

[Smudge]

Haha, sorry about that mate, it was an in-joke. There's a poster on these forums called Scaly Piscine who has a reputation for being extremely biased against New Zealand in particular, and to be honest I thought your post sounded a lot like something he would write.

The truth of the matter is, no-one who hits nine sixes in a test innings "got lucky". I think Tim Southee deserves a bit more credit than that.

While I thought it was a bit of a hopeful slog (and fair play to him considering the situation), there was one amazing shot in there where he had slightly backed away to Broad and casually flicked him through midwicket and it just kept going. And going. It barely looked as though he had hit it.