**Official** New Zealand in England

[Leslie1]

He could definitely bat. The batting comments didn't worry me on their own but in combination with the "poor county attack" comment a few days ago he got up my nose.

Still, we have Simon "who cares about England, I love Ryder" Doull so I should probably leave it there.

What's wrong with Doully? He's good I thought, it's Richardson I'm worried about. He's a bit of a Ian Healy, and it's rubbing off on Ian Smith.

Our bowling attack isn't poor county, it's piss poor internationally speaking. We have nobody that has penetration, and as bad as Anderson is, at least he is good every now and then.

Name me one bowler in that Martin, Mills, O Brien, Southee (too early though) and Mason who can put in a spell like Anderson just did to us, or even Sidebottom in New Zealand conditions.

 

[Leslie1]

Oh shut up.

Note: The above post was made by someone who at the start of the tour wanted all the young players and said no to Papps, Cumming, Sinclair etc. He also wanted Marshall and Flynn.

Geez, please stick to your guns longer than five seconds Leslie.

Sarcastic comment met by another one.

 

[Richard]

What's wrong with Doully? He's good I thought, it's Richardson I'm worried about. He's a bit of a Ian Healy, and it's rubbing off on Ian Smith.

Richardson and Doull are both woeful IMO.

 

[GIMH]

So with the series set to end tomorrow, who are the MOTS?

For us I guess Anderson would get the nod, as I suggested yesterday, and that would be the second home series in a row. Could possibly go to Strauss, who is averaging 60, he may yet get the chance to bump that up with a not out. Hoping Anderson gets a couple more wickets tbh, to make it 10 for the match and an average around 18...

Tempted to pick How for NZ. He's been very consistent, and although Taylor has scored more runs, most of them were in one innings (I guess you could levy a similar accusation at Anderson, though) - admittedly the innings of the series.

 

[James]

A day spent in the alcohol-free stand. Pictures to follow.

Maybe not, 3MB a picture and time is short.

Put them all in one big email mate and send to james.nixon@cricketweb.net and I can sort it out for you

 

[Richard]

So with the series set to end tomorrow, who are the MOTS?

For us I guess Anderson would get the nod, as I suggested yesterday, and that would be the second home series in a row. Could possibly go to Strauss, who is averaging 60, he may yet get the chance to bump that up with a not out. Hoping Anderson gets a couple more wickets tbh, to make it 10 for the match and an average around 18...

Tempted to pick How for NZ. He's been very consistent, and although Taylor has scored more runs, most of them were in one innings (I guess you could levy a similar accusation at Anderson, though) - admittedly the innings of the series.

Some of the more difficult picks for MOTS you'll have, actually, I think.

Say England have to chase something vaguely substantial (say, 150) much as that's extremely unlikely, Strauss could do his chances The World of good. If not, I guess it probably has to be Anderson. And for NZ, really, no-one has particularly stood-out. Taylor played 1 magnificent innings, and otherwise, yeah, it really does have to be How, who for the second series in a row has been relatively solid without scoring remotely heavily.

 

[Leslie1]

Stuart Broad for the "Jamie How" award too. Solid but unspectacular.

 

[S.P. Fleming]

Just saw Sidebottom’s send-off to How. Presumably, Sidebottom will face the match referee for that, was totally unnecessary and it made him look like a bit of ****.

How wouldnt of done anything, Sidebottom is just an idiot. I am getting increasingly annoyed at members of this pommy team and I am seriously considering backing the aussies in the ashes

 

[GIMH]

I really don't see what all the fuss was, he was pumped up is all

Maybe I'm not seeing something everyone else is

 

[GIMH]

Useless stat of the day: Alastair Cook has scored more runs per 100 balls this series than Kevin Pietersen.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Redmond, eh. Well, I said at the time of the Napier test that we should have stuck with Matthew Bell - one of these days, we'll have to stick with a failing opening batsman who we know to have the ability to succeed at first class level. Granted, Redmond has been unlucky in that he's been bowled some top deliveries, but my problem with him is that he's had 6 test failures despite being in top First Class form (centuries against counties). Bell, on the other hand, was woefully out of form in the series against England and still managed more runs. If he'd been able to get back into form then he would have had more success than Redmond.

As I say, Redmond has been pretty unlucky, but its hard to stick with an opener who's score so few runs in his first 3 games.

 

[GIMH]

Am I wrong in thinking that Bell found a little bit of form in the Napier Test?

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Am I wrong in thinking that Bell found a little bit of form in the Napier Test?

He scored a fifty, but looked as in touch as Paul Collingwood does at the moment.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Aside from that 50 in Napier, Bell was terrible. He was as bad or worse than Redmond. 3 ducks in 5 innings? Bell's saving grace was that last innings.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Aside from that 50 in Napier, Bell was terrible. He was as bad or worse than Redmond. 3 ducks in 5 innings? Bell's saving grace was that last innings.

I realise this, but Bell was completely out of form whilst Redmond is in form. No one is suggesting that Collingwood is **** when he's obviously woefully out of form. Bell in form is better than Redmond in form. I can't see Redmond getting much better than he is at the moment, whilst if Bell had been persevered with he would have improved.

 

[Flem274*]

What's wrong with Doully? He's good I thought, it's Richardson I'm worried about. He's a bit of a Ian Healy, and it's rubbing off on Ian Smith.

Our bowling attack isn't poor county, it's piss poor internationally speaking. We have nobody that has penetration, and as bad as Anderson is, at least he is good every now and then.

Name me one bowler in that Martin, Mills, O Brien, Southee (too early though) and Mason who can put in a spell like Anderson just did to us, or even Sidebottom in New Zealand conditions.

Chris Martin used to be able to, he was a bit of an Anderson really a few years ago. Brilliant or woeful with no middle ground.

Mills has done it in Hamilton to an extent and I think he's capable in swinging conditions. Southee has done it on a flat pitch, something Anderson may possibly never do. Hamilton wasn't exactly a lively pitch either so Mills did well.

On his day James Anderson cannot be matched, however that day is about one in every five or six innings and the rest of the time he is awful. Thats just how Anderson is.

We have penetration, but we lack consistency big time. Before you start prattling on about pace again I raise you Ian Butler who was quick but he was very much an Anderson only worse.

This team, discounting Vettori, has played **** all tests. Oram seems to have been around forever but he's only played 30 tests. Mills, O'Brien, Southee etc are at the very early stages of their test careers. This is something we need to keep in mind.

Am I right in saying its the Aussie test series up next? Bloody hell, talk about baptism by fire.

 

[Flem274*]

I realise this, but Bell was completely out of form whilst Redmond is in form. No one is suggesting that Collingwood is **** when he's obviously woefully out of form. Bell in form is better than Redmond in form. I can't see Redmond getting much better than he is at the moment, whilst if Bell had been persevered with he would have improved.

It took Jamie How six tests and a technical change to adjust to test level. Redmond has three tests behind him on foreign soil. Perhaps a bit more of a chance?

Though I do know of another opener we could use, bet you can't guess who.

 

[Prince EWS]

Topical post I just read from 2003..

Well here it is in black & white...Sinclair just cannot go to India, we just can't afford to hope that Sinclair comes right after playing a season of club cricket in Darwin.

He complains all the time about how he's in & out of the side, but when he is in the side he never converts his opportunities so the selectors have made a mess of this.

They've ended up gambling on Horne & Sinclair who haven't paid off, Richard Jones is yet to play a test so he has no idea of what to possibly expect in India

Replace the word "Horne" with "Bell" and "India" with "England"... and New Zealand have very recently had the exact same situation repeated. Even Sinclair himself was common. You could even sub "Aaron Redmond" in for "Richard Jones". History repeats.

 

[Prince EWS]

It took Jamie How six tests and a technical change to adjust to test level. Redmond has three tests behind him on foreign soil. Perhaps a bit more of a chance?

The technical change was achieved away from Test cricket though. He didn't play those six Tests consecutively; he was dropped for a while and worked on his game.

Redmond actually doesn't look technically awful anyway; he just appears to lack class in general. I agree he probably deserves more than three Tests to prove his worth given the constant merry-go-round of Test openers, but therefore should not Bell have? Should not Papps have? They went in to Test cricket with more runs behind them and were still discarded relatively early.

 

[Flem274*]

Mark Richardson wrote in an article in Off-Spin that the culture of opening in NZ needs to change. Basically, no one wants to open because its a tough job, they want the glory boy middle order spots. he says we need to start having the best batsmen open and teach them the technique to make the change successfully.