Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
As I said - the Sri Lanka series isn't a good comparison, because that was even worse than the standard England ODI debacle. Try doing some comparisons to the teams either side of that SL series.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
**Official** New Zealand in England
- Thread starter James
- Start date
Scaly piscine
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Panesar had a poor series overall. Fielding was rubbish as always. Scored 1 run in 3 innings. Bowled his usual toothless stuff and when he finally strung a dozen decent overs together NZ gave him a 6-fer. Rubbish. How on earth can you give that nonentity 1.5 more than Broad and be joint 2nd overall?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.
Anderson and Sidebottom were flattered by their stats too of course, but both did way more than Panesar - batting, bowling or fielding.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Because Broad was far worse with the ball than MSP even when MSP wasn't offering a threat, and never looked in the slightest likely to offer the amount of threat MSP did at Old Trafford.
And though some people might've forgotten, Broad is in the side principally to bowl, his batting is a bonus and not something that should be being given particularly significant light. He'd have to be averaging 40-50 to make-up for the toothlessness his bowling has almost always shown so far in his Test career.
Last edited:
The Panesar hate's been done to death, SP. Need a new victim.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
To exemplify on this - if I currently had Angus Fraser or Darren Gough circa 1994 or 1998 available I'd have not a second's hesitation in picking both ahead of the current Broad.
S.P. Fleming
U19 Cricketer
I really dont think the kiwi batting line-up is looking all too bad for the near future. If you look at the players in the top 7 that didnt score runs there is only Marshall and Redmond. I think the Marshall problem will be fixed with Ryder down the order and bring Taylor and co up. Which only leaves the opener which I believe we will find eventually, just look at how Jamie How started histest career; horribly, yet he has turned out to be a solid opeing batsmen. Give Redmond another shot and then gie the next guy in line a go.
Ryder has a future down the order in both forms of the game. Having McCullum and How opening means a decent chance of a good opening stand when with Ryder a Mc them both pulling their thing off in the same innings will be a rareity.
So, the only area I am concerned about for the future is having a Bond-esque bowler with that x-factor and a bit of pace something I belive none of our current quicks have. Southee has the potential to develope into that and I pray for New Zealands future that he can. What sort of bowler Timmy turns into will largely develope on his treatment by NZC through his development. Before Southee developes I think our gun-bowler hopes lie with James Franklin as he looke to be the freshesed of the current bunch and the one with the most potentail.
As Johnny Braces said, out period of dominance will come, just be patient.
Ryder has a future down the order in both forms of the game. Having McCullum and How opening means a decent chance of a good opening stand when with Ryder a Mc them both pulling their thing off in the same innings will be a rareity.
So, the only area I am concerned about for the future is having a Bond-esque bowler with that x-factor and a bit of pace something I belive none of our current quicks have. Southee has the potential to develope into that and I pray for New Zealands future that he can. What sort of bowler Timmy turns into will largely develope on his treatment by NZC through his development. Before Southee developes I think our gun-bowler hopes lie with James Franklin as he looke to be the freshesed of the current bunch and the one with the most potentail.
As Johnny Braces said, out period of dominance will come, just be patient.
I don't think Southee is the answer, because if he is, he would have developed pace without breaking a sweat. (Sharma, Steyn, Anderson)...
Southee is more the McGrath / Clarke type. I can't imagine him developing Bond-like pace, I prefer him developing absolute control over his line and length. He needs to develop his unplayable stock delivery that he can send down at will like McGrath in his heyday.
A potential out and out quick could be Richard Sherlock and Trent Boult + a Canterbury bowler (name escapes me) that's pretty fast too.
I think we can afford to drop Southee for he is a young carbon copy of Mills, and develop one of the above, or until Braces / Vettori / McCullum have the guts to drop one of their senior bowlers in the name of blooding an out and out quick.
We do have a lot of youngsters coming through the system (bowlers, all rounders and batsmen) just that this tour happened to snap in between that phase where retirements are plenty, and youngsters are one season away from selection.
Redmond got given a central contract so expect him to stick around for the next summer at least.
Smudge
Hall of Fame Member
Yeah, I'm a massive fan of those unnamed players. Really good blokes...
Sherlock is more injury-prone than Bond and has done absolutely nothing to impress thus far. Why must we have this utter addiction with out and out speed? The only time speed is useful is when it's combined with accuracy - otherwise it's just an opportunity for the ball to disappear to the fence quicker (see Tait, Shaun for a prime example). Southee is comfortably better than anyone else in the 18-22 age bracket in NZ from what I've seen.
Well don't get me wrong, Southee is the brightest prospect of what's around in NZ domestics atm, but it is a problem as demonstrated in this tour when you chuck Mills + Southee + Martin in the same lineup. There is nothing there to suggest penetration, and when they are not taking wickets, who else do you turn to? Vettori? Or Oram?
Most of the bowlers we have are good toilers (Martin, Mills, O Brien), and at their best, economical bowlers. When they do take wickets, aside from that freak spell from Mills in Hamilton, it's generally because batsmen are out of form (England middle order), or the ball is swinging. But the issue is, even when the conditions are perfectly ideal for swing, you don't see them doing the business for us. We needed to call in O Brien to get anything happening from the seam department. Martin -> 4 wickets the entire series? He needed to be the one who takes the most wickets almost every game considering he's there primarily to bowl sides out, otherwise, what good is he as a cricketer?
Most of the bowlers we have are good toilers (Martin, Mills, O Brien), and at their best, economical bowlers. When they do take wickets, aside from that freak spell from Mills in Hamilton, it's generally because batsmen are out of form (England middle order), or the ball is swinging. But the issue is, even when the conditions are perfectly ideal for swing, you don't see them doing the business for us. We needed to call in O Brien to get anything happening from the seam department. Martin -> 4 wickets the entire series? He needed to be the one who takes the most wickets almost every game considering he's there primarily to bowl sides out, otherwise, what good is he as a cricketer?
Craig
World Traveller
Is that viable? If so why not bring it forward? Smashing post by the way. Good read
wpdavid
Hall of Fame Member
You're sounding more & more like a fan of Anderson nowadays.
tbh I don't get the latest Flintoff injury. At the time, we were told it was a "strain", but it's kept him out for weeks. I'm increasingly of the view that we're more likely to see Jones than Flintoff at some stage of the SA series.
As for Bell & Collingwood, that's what I was getting at the other day when I made the comparison with both H & H making way for Anderson & Broad. Batting wise, you'd be hard pressed to pick which of them should stay and the tussle between Shah & Bopara as a replacement is a hard call too. Bottom line, if the first test against SA started next week, I'd go into it with new numbers 5 & 6.
wpdavid
Hall of Fame Member
Eh ????
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Nah, but he bowled a damn sight better than Broad the last Test, and a couple of extra for him would have made roughly zero difference, his figures were superb whether it was 9-for or 11-for. Broad's were changed, significantly, by those 2 tailenders.You're sounding more & more like a fan of Anderson nowadays.
Well it's not difficult at all to pick who has the best case out of Shah and Bopara for anyone who knows the tiniest thing about the game.
But we know it's highly possible the selectors will struggle to realise this.
GIMH
Norwood's on Fire
Sorry, forgot to quote - that was a side from the Eng-Pak series in 06 Broad batting at 11
Is that a combined 2006&2008 ODI side?
Scaly piscine
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Bopara and Shah don't look like being an improvement - there's no point of changing things for the sake of it and ending up with worse, see NZ.You're sounding more & more like a fan of Anderson nowadays.
tbh I don't get the latest Flintoff injury. At the time, we were told it was a "strain", but it's kept him out for weeks. I'm increasingly of the view that we're more likely to see Jones than Flintoff at some stage of the SA series.
As for Bell & Collingwood, that's what I was getting at the other day when I made the comparison with both H & H making way for Anderson & Broad. Batting wise, you'd be hard pressed to pick which of them should stay and the tussle between Shah & Bopara as a replacement is a hard call too. Bottom line, if the first test against SA started next week, I'd go into it with new numbers 5 & 6.
Bahnz
Hall of Fame Member
A good effort by England throughout this series, but I'm not really sure if they're going forward. Had New Zealand still had access to Bond and Fleming they probably would have drawn the series. A New Zealand side featuring Bond and Fleming was absolutely raped by South Africa last year, so I'm not too confident of their chances later in the summer. Still, I think all the calls for Collingwood and Bell to be axed in the English media are ridiculous. They both averaged over 50 in the New Zealand leg of this 6 match series and shouldn't have their positions questioned so rapidly on the basis of only 3 poor innings.