**Official** New Zealand in England

[_Ed_]

To be fair all the current NZ team seem to be absolute sweethearts when interviewed. Makes Ryder's personality all the harder to explain.

Yeah, good bunch of blokes.

Doesn't make them good cricketers though unfortunately. But it's hard not to like them.

 

[Bahnz]

Nice stuff from Flynn and McCullum. I actually wouldn't mind those two at 3 and 4, possibly switching around at some point in the future. Hopkins doesn't look too out of his depth so I wouldn't be hugely surprised if McCullum stayed up the top for now. Flynn looks like he might have the goods to be a number 3 some day. Good shot selection, knows when to leave and determined not to get out. At the very least, I think he should be put in between Taylor and McCullum. Otherwise the potential for quick wickets is just too great.

 

[Flem274*]

Nice stuff from Flynn and McCullum. I actually wouldn't mind those two at 3 and 4, possibly switching around at some point in the future. Hopkins doesn't look too out of his depth so I wouldn't be hugely surprised if McCullum stayed up the top for now. Flynn looks like he might have the goods to be a number 3 some day. Good shot selection, knows when to leave and determined not to get out. At the very least, I think he should be put in between Taylor and McCullum. Otherwise the potential for quick wickets is just too great.

I'd love to see Ryder and McCullum in a muck around test (Not that its likely) in the top order just to see the huge swings and misses against the new ball.

I think McCullum, if he batted properly, could make a top order batsman. He won't achieve it playing test match 20/20 though.

I'd like to see Fulton given a fair crack if he can force his way into the side.

Hopkins will most likely be trumped by Kruger van Wyk imo. Quite impressed with his batting (which Canterbury seem to need alot) his keeping and his captaincy at a young age.

 

[Bahnz]

I'd love to see Ryder and McCullum in a muck around test (Not that its likely) in the top order just to see the huge swings and misses against the new ball.

I think McCullum, if he batted properly, could make a top order batsman. He won't achieve it playing test match 20/20 though.

I'm having greater and greater difficulty figuring out where Ryder will go in the test side. He's too good to leave out, especially given the current performances of the batting lineup, but where do you play him if you bring him in? He's not an opener, and hopefully the selectors have learned that particular lesson. And he's not (and never has been) a number 3 either, and I would hesitate before batting him there due to his lack of foot movement. Taylor, Flynn and McCullum/Hopkins have spots 4-6 occupied at the moment, and none of them deserve to be dropped. It's just difficult to find a place for him at the moment.

 

[Raghav]

I'd love to see Ryder and McCullum in a muck around test (Not that its likely) in the top order just to see the huge swings and misses against the new ball.

I think McCullum, if he batted properly, could make a top order batsman. He won't achieve it playing test match 20/20 though.

I'd like to see Fulton given a fair crack if he can force his way into the side.

Hopkins will most likely be trumped by Kruger van Wyk imo. Quite impressed with his batting (which Canterbury seem to need alot) his keeping and his captaincy at a young age.

Absolutely. Fulton needs to be given chance. He is better batsman than the other batsman playing at present.

 

[Raghav]

I'm having greater and greater difficulty figuring out where Ryder will go in the test side. He's too good to leave out, especially given the current performances of the batting lineup, but where do you play him if you bring him in? He's not an opener, and hopefully the selectors have learned that particular lesson. And he's not (and never has been) a number 3 either, and I would hesitate before batting him there due to his lack of foot movement. Taylor, Flynn and McCullum/Hopkins have spots 4-6 occupied at the moment, and none of them deserve to be dropped. It's just difficult to find a place for him at the moment.

I would play Ryder at No.6 and push Oram down a place

 

[Bahnz]

I would play Ryder at No.6 and push Oram down a place

But the difficulty is then where do you bat everyone else? Unless McCullum decided he was alright to both bat at the top and keep you'd have to fit How, Other opener, McCullum, Taylor, Flynn, Hopkins and Ryder into the top six

 

[Prince EWS]

But the difficulty is then where do you bat everyone else? Unless McCullum decided he was alright to both bat at the top and keep you'd have to fit How, Other opener, McCullum, Taylor, Flynn, Hopkins and Ryder into the top six

I'm guessing Raghav wants Flynn to bat 3.

How, Opener, Flynn, Taylor, McCullum, Ryder, Oram is what I think he wants. Yet he also stated he wants to see Fulton in the team. Perhaps he wants Fulton to open again.. oh dear.

 

[Raghav]

But the difficulty is then where do you bat everyone else? Unless McCullum decided he was alright to both bat at the top and keep you'd have to fit How, Other opener, McCullum, Taylor, Flynn, Hopkins and Ryder into the top six

This should be order for the top 8 IMO,

J How
A Redmond
R Taylor
D Flynn
B McCullum
J Ryder
J Oram
D Vettori
..
...
...

 

[Raghav]

I'm guessing Raghav wants Flynn to bat 3.

How, Opener, Flynn, Taylor, McCullum, Ryder, Oram is what I think he wants. Yet he also stated he wants to see Fulton in the team. Perhaps he wants Fulton to open again.. oh dear.

If Fulton is selected, he should be replaced with Flynn. He is not a specialist opener. He cant bat as a opener. We need to have a specialist opener selected.

I would like to see Flynn at No.4

 

[Leslie1]

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.

Penetration is a word I use when you have the ability to make good, in-form batsmen look awful facing you. Our bowlers tend to bowl consistently and hope like hell the batsmen nick themselves out, or poor techniques. If this doesn't happen, they don't have anything in their arsenal to buy a wicket.

Against a batting lineup woefully out of form England, with the odd spark of form from Strauss and Pieterson, and that proved the difference between us bowling 'well' and bowling 'poorly'.

Don't get me wrong, I think that Martin has achieved a lot with his workload, and always seem very 'unlucky'. But he's not a penetrative bowler. He's just a good journeyman bowler. If our bowling lineup is that highly rated, a 19 yr old Southee won't have got a look-in this early on in his career. He would have been expected to get a bit more pace and learn to master his craft in domestic before stepping up. Queue in Sidebottom.

It's hard to accept this, but Vaughan is right. New Zealand cricket is currently a good 'workmanlike' side, nothing more. West Indies would overtake us soon, seeing how they came close to matching Australia.

 

[Bahnz]

This should be order for the top 8 IMO,

J How
A Redmond
R Taylor
D Flynn
B McCullum
J Ryder
J Oram
D Vettori
..
...
...

Taylor is NOT a number 3. He's barely a number 4, and where it not for the absence of anyone better I'd play him at number 5. And Flynn's far too inexperienced to take up the number 3 spot. It took Fleming about 7 years to mature as a player to the extent where he could comfortably bare the burden of playing there. I could see him at number 4, simply as a means to break up the dashers, but I'm not even too keen about that.

 

[Bahnz]

It's hard to accept this, but Vaughan is right. New Zealand cricket is currently a good 'workmanlike' side, nothing more. West Indies would overtake us soon, seeing how they came close to matching Australia.

Oh do go away misery.

 

[Raghav]

Taylor is NOT a number 3. He's barely a number 4, and where it not for the absence of anyone better I'd play him at number 5. And Flynn's far too inexperienced to take up the number 3 spot. It took Fleming about 7 years to mature as a player to the extent where he could comfortably bare the burden of playing there. I could see him at number 4, simply as a means to break up the dashers, but I'm not even too keen about that.

He has the ability to do that. Dont worry. For NZ cricket, 1,2,3,4, positions always change. Everyone is capable to handle that position. Those positions hardly gives runs for NZ cricket.

I said Flynn should take No.4 spot ahead of McCullum.

 

[Bahnz]

He has the ability to do that. Dont worry. For NZ cricket, 1,2,3,4, positions always change. Everyone is capable to handle that position. Those positions hardly gives runs for NZ cricket.

I said Flynn should take No.4 spot ahead of McCullum.

Really, you think people would have learned there lesson after the "season of a thousand openers" back in 05/06. Taylor is a rare talent. Why on earth would you put him in a position that he's never played in (at any level), when his technique doesn't suit it and he's shown strong results further down the order?

 

[Leslie1]

This should be order for the top 8 IMO,

J How
A Redmond
R Taylor
D Flynn
B McCullum
J Ryder
J Oram
D Vettori
..
...
...

I like that lineup actually. D Flynn and Taylor can be rotated depending on whether

1. Wickets fell way too early and Flynn comes in who's a good leaver of the ball.
2. 100 partnership with How and Redmond (gulp!) and Taylor can come in and play a M.Crowesque innings.

Or you simply bite the bullet and give Fulton the number 3 spot whether or not he fails. To be fair, I do not think that Bell and Sinclair would have done worse, but they would not have done any better either.

Prior to this series starting we would be glad if any of the batsmen found a niche batting for us. McCullum definitely, Taylor definitely, How definitely. Losing is painful, but at least we found three batsmen (relatively young) that's good enough to be our senior statesmen for future tours. It's been a humbling experience watching this tour, and while we are disappointed we are about to get spanked this test, lets not forget we started this tour thinking our lower order is where the proper batting begins.

 

[Raghav]

Really, you think people would have learned there lesson after the "season of a thousand openers" back in 05/06. Taylor is a rare talent. Why on earth would you put him in a position that he's never played in (at any level), when his technique doesn't suit it and he's shown strong results further down the order?

Bahnz, I feel that since many years for NZ, we have sedate openers. I mean slow start openers in test cricket. In cricket, I feel if you start to take initiative with 3.5 runs/over in the first two hours of a test match without losing wicket... thats great. But unfortunately, NZ doesnt have a opener who scores runs at a good pace.

So, I selected Taylor for Top3 to take on opposition (like Sehwag for Ind) .

I know many may argue. But, there is no wrong in giving a chance to him. He may fail for the first time but as the time progresses, he gets more matured and he will learn on his own...

What do you say Bahnz?

 

[Bahnz]

Bahnz, I feel that since many years for NZ, we have sedate openers. I mean slow start openers in test cricket. In cricket, I feel if you start to take initiative with 3.5 runs/over in the first two hours of a test match without losing wicket... thats great. But unfortunately, NZ doesnt have a opener who scores runs at a good pace.

So, I selected Taylor for Top3 to take on opposition (like Sehwag for Ind) .

I know many may argue. But, there is no wrong in giving a chance to him. He may fail for the first time but as the time progresses, he gets more matured and he will learn on his own...

What do you say Bahnz?

While it may be nice to start scoring at 3.5 runs an over, the scoring rate isn't our problem. In fact, throughout this series New Zealand has comfortably outpaced England in terms of batting. But when was the last time our top order had any solidity? Back when Mark Richardson, perhaps our slowest, grittiest batsman since John Wright retired, was at the top. That's what New Zealand really needs. Because while every once in a while, Taylor might succeed in the number 3 position and blast a hundred in the first session, in the majority of cases he'll get out before he's out of double figures due to the extra swing and his own seeming inability to reign himself in. And personally, I'd rather take 60/1 off 30 overs, than 100/5 any day.

In either case, this shouldn't be in issue. McCullum has shown, both today and in the past (think back to 2004), an ability to succeed at the top of the order, and (when the occasion is right) score fast. It's a position he's used to (he bats at number 3 in first class cricket), that he enjoys. He's also had plenty more time to work on his game at the international level, and has a better idea of his strengths and weaknesses. While its hardly ideal, if you want a dashing number 3 manufactured out of one of our middle order batsmen, McCullum is the man you should be going to, not Taylor. There may come a time when Taylor's matured enough to give batting higher up a shot. But he shouldn't be shoehorned into the role before he's ready, and he is clearly not ready. He certainly shouldn't be asked to mature in a position in which he is uncomfortable. There's too much danger of ruining one of the brightest batting talents we have.

 

[Raghav]

While it may be nice to start scoring at 3.5 runs an over, the scoring rate isn't our problem. In fact, throughout this series New Zealand has comfortably outpaced England in terms of batting. But when was the last time our top order had any solidity? Back when Mark Richardson, perhaps our slowest, grittiest batsman since John Wright retired, was at the top. That's what New Zealand really needs. Because while every once in a while, Taylor might succeed in the number 3 position and blast a hundred in the first session, in the majority of cases he'll get out before he's out of double figures due to the extra swing and his own seeming inability to reign himself in. And personally, I'd rather take 60/1 off 30 overs, than 100/5 any day.

In either case, this shouldn't be in issue. McCullum has shown, both today and in the past (think back to 2004), an ability to succeed at the top of the order, and (when the occasion is right) score fast. It's a position he's used to (he bats at number 3 in first class cricket), that he enjoys. He's also had plenty more time to work on his game at the international level, and has a better idea of his strengths and weaknesses. While its hardly ideal, if you want a dashing number 3 manufactured out of one of our middle order batsmen, McCullum is the man you should be going to, not Taylor. There may come a time when Taylor's matured enough to give batting higher up a shot. But he shouldn't be shoehorned into the role before he's ready, and he is clearly not ready. He certainly shouldn't be asked to mature in a position in which he is uncomfortable. There's too much danger of ruining one of the brightest batting talents we have.

agreed Bahnz. I accept it.

 

[Zinzan]

Just watching the hightlights - When exactly did Sidebottom become the new Andre Nel of cricket?

I'm referring to the way he was acting towards Jamie How who you could hardly describe as a confrontational character. Poor form on Sidebottom's part, as this series has been played in good spirit and didn't need his over the top behaviour.