**Official** New Zealand in England

[wpdavid]

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.

I just don't see Bell ever becoming more than a guy who cashes in then the going is easy. I know there's been a handful of fighting 50's, but overall his respectable average is down to filling his boots against Bang, Pakistan 'A' and WI. Clearly we don't know for certain whether Shah or Bopara would be better, but lately they couldn't do much worse. Maybe Bell would come back a better player in the future like so many of the Australians did in the 1990's & early 2000's. Dropping him doesn't have to be terminal. The last bit's also true for Collingwood, imo, despite being that much older.

 

[Richard]

Shah is patently a better batsman than Collingwood, and while he might end-up being the next Bell, we won't know unless we try him. He's earned his go, and Bell has, unfortunately, now pretty much earned his dropping.

 

[Richard]

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.

With Collingwood it's not just that, it's his "form" over the last 12-ish months. He scored heavily against the butter-fingered fielders and useless bowlers of West Indies, and has done little apart from the odd 50 or 60 here and there since then. Of course, before that in Australia he had one brilliant Test on the flattest pitch you'll see and did sod-all for the rest of the series. With Bell, well, he had a poor time in NZ, no two ways about. It was only that century against an attack which had Grant Elliott as a leading light that saved the day there. It's not like he's received loads of good balls either, he's just kept getting himself out with strokes we all know he's more than capable of playing well.

I do wish people would also stop talking about the SA series and saying there's little chance. If England play as they did this series they'll very probably get hammered, that's obvious. If you look back carefully, though, you'll see that when England play SA in this country events have a habit of conspiring in England's favour and despite SA outplaying us every series since readmission they've still not won one yet. Of course, the fact that it's happened 3 times doesn't really mean it's particularly likely to happen a fourth, but there is now some element of pattern there.

 

[Prince EWS]

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.

Agreed on Bopara. Bell and Collingwood are obviously in poor form but they've also shown themselves to be Test standard over a moderate period of time. Bopara's had a good start to the season and played well last season too but he's hardly been banging down the door for years and he looked horrible when he was picked last time.

Shah's a different story and I think he deserves a go if Bell and/or Collingwood still look in poor form at the end of the ODI series, but I certainly wouldn't be bringing Bopara in at this stage..

 

[Scaly piscine]

Agreed on Bopara. Bell and Collingwood are obviously in poor form but they've also shown themselves to be Test standard over a moderate period of time. Bopara's had a good start to the season and played well last season too but he's hardly been banging down the door for years and he looked horrible when he was picked last time.

Shah's a different story and I think he deserves a go if Bell and/or Collingwood still look in poor form at the end of the ODI series, but I certainly wouldn't be bringing Bopara in at this stage..

I don't rate Shah, he just seems like another who'll do well in Country Cricket (Middlesex seem to produce a lot of players with good batting averages) and not really cut it at the top level. I can remember a couple of times at least where he lost the plot mentally for England, when you throw that in with his mediocre fielding and somewhat unremarkable batting it doesn't add up to much.

I don't really get why people rate Shah so much personally.

 

[Woodster]

I don't necessarily agree with changing either Bell or Collingwood for the start of the SA series, providing they can find some form before then.

As regards Bopara, I think he is a potentially excellent player that will transfer his skills onto the Test level, but may have to settle for a place in the one-day side for now. Has shown potential for a number of years and now he really is converting that into actual big runs. Only 23 years old and it won't do him any harm to enjoy a big run getting season in county cricket.

 

[TT Boy]

That was more like it.

Has the (England) 20/20 squad been announced or is the ODI squad the same as?

 

[GIMH]

think it's the same one

 

[James]

Anyone read Atherton's comments:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/4/story.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=10515339

"Other than Bangladesh and Zimbabwe, there has not been a flimsier batting team to visit these shores in the past 20 years.

Fair call?

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

West Indies in 2000 wasn't an incredible sight.

 

[Chubb]

The Windies at Headingley last year, without Sarwan and Chanderpaul, were a bit flimsier. In fact their batting lineup in the next two tests (with Gayle in poor form) was only really saved by Shiv's extraordinary efforts.

And I would argue that Zimbabwe in 2000 had two top-class batsmen, in Murray Goodwin and Andy Flower, alongside two useful players in Whittall and Johnson, and would stand comparison with this New Zealand unit at the present time (though I think NZ will get better). In the first match Zim got rolled, but the pitch was shocking and they'd barely got off the plane from Harare. They did much better in the next match, Goodwin scoring 148, and could even have won it were it not for rain. Please understand I am not criticising New Zealand, rather praising Zim.

 

[silentstriker]

Anyone read Atherton's comments:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/4/story.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=10515339



Fair call?

A bit harsh I would say. But NZ do need a lot of help in that department, no question about it.

 

[gettingbetter]

Fair call I say. From both home and away series, I think New Zealand have got off lightly from the critics and England, who has won both series have been the ones who have been criticized more for some reason.

 

[Leslie1]

Fair call I say. From both home and away series, I think New Zealand have got off lightly from the critics and England, who has won both series have been the ones who have been criticized more for some reason.

Read this and tell me it is less criticism for the Black Caps.

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

Fair call I say. From both home and away series, I think New Zealand have got off lightly from the critics and England, who has won both series have been the ones who have been criticized more for some reason.

Both teams played crap. All this bull**** about "England should beat a side like NZ".
They nearly didn't. Even if the end result looks pretty convincing, it was far from it.

Since England was the team hyping themselves up for both series, I think the criticism of England is very much deserved.

NZ deserve critism as well, but when it was pretty much expected for them to lose, with the lose of players etc, and the normal criticism that comes from losing no matter what, thats no biggie.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Read this and tell me it is less criticism for the Black Caps.

Read the name of the author and tell me if anyone gives a **** about the only former cricketer who's more cracked up, washed up and pointless than John Bracewell.

 

[Days of Grace]

I see that Bracewell was today claiming that he wanted Fleming to remain as test captain but was outvoted by the other selectors.

 

[Matt52]

Read the name of the author and tell me if anyone gives a **** about the only former cricketer who's more cracked up, washed up and pointless than John Bracewell.

Didnt know he played for NZ. Ive only read a few of his articles but I can see where you are coming from.

JP Millmow
One-Day International Career Batting and Fielding (1989/90-1990)
M I NO Runs HS Ave 100 50 SRate Ct
New Zealand 5 1 1 0 0* 0 0 0.00 1
One-Day International Career Bowling (1989/90-1990)
Balls Mdns Runs Wkts BB Ave 4wI 5wI SRate Econ
New Zealand 270 4 2-22 58.00 0 0 67.50 5.15

 

[Flem274*]

Just read that Millmow article. He'll change his tune once we start winning then proclaim he knew we were always going to be so great blah blah blah. I find it ironic he's bitching about the pay NZ senior players get yet they still lose but he's paid to write good articles, and a good Millmow article is rarer than an NZ test victory pre-1960.

 

[GGG]

Jonathan Millmow needs to take a deep breath and wipe the froth from his mouth, what a clown.