**Official** New Zealand in England

[Matt52]

Lol.

How and McCullum > McCullum and Ryder

How and McCullum was such a gun opening partnership and extremely successful, and unlike the Ryder McCullum partnership doesn't make you feel like the worlds going to collapse upon itself.

Disagree wholeheartedly. I thought Ryders naturally quick scoring meant McCullum could relax a bit more and play with controlled aggression... choose the right ball to hit instead of trying to hit everything. And we would get a faster start with two aggressive players in the opening partnership.

Whereas with How, McCullum has to compensate for How's slower scoring rate, and so he takes more risks and gets out trying to hit good deliveries for boundaries.

So having two attacking players playing naturally with controlled aggression is better than one steady guy and another attacking player taking big risks to get the scoring rate up.IMO. Probably a better chance of retaining wickets too because the neither batsman has to force anything, they can just play naturally, rather than this mindset of thinking an attacking player must be tempered with a conservative player.(in ODIs)

 

[Athlai]

McCullum plays the same game batting with How as he does batting with Ryder. The support act is one that should stick around and rotate the strike, something which Ryder isn't as skilled at. Give the guy a position down the order IMO.

 

[Matt52]

I was hoping they would choose Greg Hay on the tour to england and I hope he turns out somewhere near as good as his domestic statistics suggest. But I really dont know if a tour to Australia is the best place to blood a young guy. Maybe stick with Redmond and then try Hay in the following series.

Impressed with Jamie How. I think most NZ fans would accept any opener that could average even in the 30's. That might sound strange for other teams but we'll take it.

Long term, I hope Hay could be the solution to our opening problem, along with How.

How
Redmond/ replaced by Hay
Fulton
Taylor
Ryder/Flynn
McCullum
Oram
Vettori
Franklin
Southee
Martin/ replaced by Sherlock ( I think we need some extra pace or something different)

 

[leepayne]

It was great to see England wrap up the series today. Trent Bridge gets better every year. The new stand, which I was in, is very nice and the permanent replay screen is of a very high quality. I enjoyed myself, despite there being only 65 minutes of play - I stayed and watched the groundstaff working for about an hour afterwards, then walked back to my hotel via the riverside. Very nice.

The England team is in an improving state. Hopefully, Collingwood will lead us to some One Day success before the huge series against South Africa starts.

 

[Matt52]

. The support act is one that should stick around and rotate the strike,.

Why?

I think this is a view held by a lot of people especially in NZ but I dont think it works best all of the time. I guess it depends on the player. I think How is the one that should go down the order, at 3 or 4 I think he can play his nudge and nurdle game when the field is spread , and pick up singles with shots that would have gone straight to fielders in the first 15 or 20 overs. .......
................Whereas Ryder can hit strongly over the top which imo makes him more suited to an Astle type role at the top. I dont think he should be moved down the order if, as you said hes not really good at turning over the strike, then why move him to a batting position thats all about turning over the strike and hitting singles and twos in those middle overs?. Unless you want him in a "smash at the end for 5 overs" type position which is a waste of one of the few talented players we have IMO.

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

I'd rather have Ryder-McCullum followed by How as well.

Has been a success so far.

 

[wpdavid]

I tried to pick a composite side based on the two series, something like

Strauss
How
Vaughan
Pietersen
Taylor
Oram
McCullum / Ambrose (too close to call)
Vettori (simply because his batting places him > Panesar)
Sidebottom
Mills / Martin
Anderson


5 and a half players each, which reflects how close it was for most of the time.
2-0 flattered us, imo

 

[BoyBrumby]

I tried to pick a composite side based on the two series, something like

Strauss
How
Vaughan
Pietersen
Taylor
Oram
McCullum / Ambrose (too close to call)
Vettori (simply because his batting places him > Panesar)
Sidebottom
Mills / Martin
Anderson


5 and a half players each, which reflects how close it was for most of the time.
2-0 flattered us, imo

Largely agree, except I'd have O'Brien for Mills/Martin & would certainly take McCullum ahead of Ambrose, who only really made the one score, albeit a vital one.

Which means 5 from England & 6 from NZ. Shows how reliant we are on a few key players.

 

[Richard]

2-0 flattered us, imo

Well this win was pretty comprehensive, though I can't help wondering how much closer it might've been had Broad been held by McCullum. OTOH, we'd almost certainly not have had the chance to enforce the follow-on had he been held, so it'd probably have gone longer and maybe been a bigger runs margin. Obviously we did remarkably to win at Old Trafford, but of course we're not entirely without credit - I've always maintained that we wrested it back more than NZ threw it away. Had time been make-up-able at Lord's, as I said earlier in the thread, who knows what might've happened, it was probably even-money.

The most interesting thing now surrounds Bell and Collingwood. I said before this game that I'd have been happy to see Collingwood dropped and couldn't really moan too much if Bell was should what has happened happen. Now I'm less sure. I think I'll reserve judgement until the ODIs are over. Not that I place the slightest emphasis on ODI happenings in regard to Tests, but we all know others do and if both were to score heavily I think we all know they'd both be retained with few questions asked.

Really rather annoyed that Broad got those tailenders in the first-innings, because he's presumably now a shoo-in (maybe even if Flintoff is fit) for at least the start of the SA series. If only Anderson had managed to polish them off.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Could Gareth Hopkins open in Tests?

 

[GIMH]

One day cricket for a start, something your lot are useless against you troll.

Now now Craigos, we are a little better than we were

Anyway, my marks out of 10 for our boys

Strauss - 7/10 - not convinced that he deserved his MOTS but well played, great to have a consistent Strauss back at the top of the order
Cook - 5/10 - disappointing
Vaughan - 7/10 - reasonable with the bat, and scores a couple for his bowling changes, which seemed to bring wickets about often enough.
Pietersen - 7/10 - not at his best, but scored runs when we really needed him to - I said when he came to crease on Thursday that there was no better man for the job and he didn't let me down
Collingwood - 3/10 - looked all at sea, scored the winning runs at OT but he needs to improve his form, and fast.
Bell - 3/10 - like Colly out there at the end at OT, but not out there much otherwise
Ambrose - 6/10 - Medicore with the bat except for his role in probably the partnership of the series. No clangers with the gloves.
Broad - 5.5/10 - Batted well but if you're batting at 8 then we want wickets, and he didn't take enough. If Flintoff is fit for South Africa there is simply no argument for picking Broad ahead of him, as Flintoff has five Test tons and as good a fast bowler as you will find anywhere; that being said I think Broad could have a good future ahead of him and I expect him to become one of our better ODI players
Sidebottom - 7/10 - Not the Sidebottom we saw in the antipodes but he had his moments, and 19 wickets at 20 is a fantastic return. He now has 5 5 wicket hauls, Steve Harmison took 50 matches more for just 8.
Anderson - 8/10 - not exceptional, as there were times when he was eratic as ever, but the inconsistency was less than it had been, and he had his best series in an England shirt. Without Anderson's brilliance, this series would not be over yet, 19 at 19 is a very good return.
Panesar - 7/10 - a quiet series for Panesar overall, but on the day that conditions favoured him, he turned the match, and with it the series. But for his day three performance at OT, this series would probably have been tied, if not won by the Kiwis. Will face a bigger workload as the summer progresses.

 

[Richard]

Could Gareth Hopkins open in Tests?

Yes. So could Stephen Fleming. So could Mathew Sinclair. So could a great many others. They were all hopeless at it, so would Hopkins be in all likelihood.

Also not entirely sure why any single person is in the slightest keen on the idea of Hopkins playing regular Test cricket. McCullum simply must keep the gauntlets (when fit to do so obviously) for a multitude of reasons.

 

[Richard]

Now now Craigos, we are a little better than we were

We're always being that. Before very long, we always realise that actually, we're not.

 

[GIMH]

DWTA, think that even though we're still one of the weaker of the 8, we are much better than we were this time 2 years ago when being trashed by Sri Lanka. Fancy us to compete in a series nowadays, whereas back then it was hard to see where even a single win would come through

 

[Leslie1]

Anyone listening to Radiosport in New Zealand will know that rugby took a backseat to this "capitulation" by Black Caps (mainly because of phone lines technical faults lol).

Some criticism (by Richard Boock mainly):

1. Martin's batting is beyond joke, he should NOT be picked for the Australian test series if he can't improve his batting.
2. Oram going great guns at the other end and it is CRIMINAL that he is left stranded (hence the Martin criticism).
3. Every single one of the batsmen from Flynn down "got themselves out".
4. Vettori's form has deserted him since that fateful 'run yourself out' debacle.

This from a respected cricket writer venting his fury at Black Caps' performance.

 

[JBH001]

Boock's usually a good and perceptive writer, but every so often he tends to have a fanny wobble and puts out some absolute rubbish. This is one of those times.

 

[Richard]

DWTA, think that even though we're still one of the weaker of the 8, we are much better than we were this time 2 years ago when being trashed by Sri Lanka. Fancy us to compete in a series nowadays, whereas back then it was hard to see where even a single win would come through

But we were also better than said Sri Lanka series 3 months after it, when we played Pakistan. Even England aren't usually as bad as we were in midsomer 2006. Even by our standards that was an aberration.

England are always making small strides forward, or at least seeming to, but in the end we always realise that the latest flavour of the month is not actually that good, and he's gone before long. There's still any number of players in the shake-up that I think have roughly zero chance of ever being ODI-class, plus another one or two who might one day be but undoubtedly aren't now.

The only ones in the current set-up who I currently like the look of and also think can make a really good contribution in 2011 are Swann, Mascarenhas, Sidebottom and Pietersen. The former two aren't even guranteed first-choices. Yes, Flintoff will make another improvement if and when he returns, but he's not played regularly for over a year now. And yes, I do have some amount of hope for Cook and Bopara, and maybe even Bell too, but none are up to it currently. And possibly Ambrose too, though obviously he hasn't played yet so we don't know a thing at the merment.

 

[Richard]

Martin's batting is beyond joke, he should NOT be picked for the Australian test series if he can't improve his batting.

Honestly, Martin is little different to most standard "poor" (rather than "execrable") tailenders. There's no way he should be treated differently to O'Brien or Bond (for instance).

Bowlers are not in the side to bat. You cannot drop a bowler because he averages 2 rather than 7 with the bat. That's absolutely ridiculous. It's bad enough when people start picking obviously inferior bowlers because they can average 18 rather than 8. If we're talking someone who could average 25, say, and make regular good contributions, then that's worth a thought. But much as I hate to see a last-three\four which should be knocked-over for nothing 9 times out of 10, you simply must pick your best bowlers if they're obviously your best.

 

[GIMH]

Wright-Cook-Bell-Pietersen-Collingwood-Flintoff/Bopara-Ambrose-Swann-Broad-Sidebottom-Anderson

Trescothick-Strauss-Bell-Pietersen-Collingwood-Dalrymple-Jones-Loudon-Plunkett-Harmison-Mahmood

Come on. We're moving in the right direction. I'm not saying we're world beaters yet, but hopeless we aren't, and I reckon we'll be in an ODI series from the start nowadays, I didn't 2 years ago.

 

[steds]

If Flintoff is fit for South Africa there is simply no argument for picking Broad ahead of him

There's a strong argument against picking a man with Flintoff's injury history as part of just a four-man bowling attack, though.