**Official** New Zealand in England

[Leslie1]

my assessment of our emerging players:

I fear for the confidence of these blokes when they get wholloped by Australia, but I dont think we are looking all that bad.

I'm prepared as a Black Caps' follower to not give up on them and also be prepared to suffer through thick and thin for these guys to come through.

Braces isn't leaving till April 2009, and I predict we'll lose most games (except Bangladesh) badly and then hope Wright takes over, and we start to bring our behinds back to our prime. DID WE RANK NUMBER 2 IN TESTS prior to Sneddon and Braces era? Bring that back.

I also think it's high time they shift Flynn to 3, and move Marshall out, put Fulton in at 6. Flynn is perfect for number 3 batting. At least he'll show intent. Even if he fails, leave him there, leave Fulton in the lineup. We are losing anyways, so just keep these guys ALA Collingwood and hope they come off EVENTUALLY. Both have the techniques and class (respectively) and when in form, both are solid batsmen.

 

[Richard]

Tend to think people are getting carried away with England's performance personally.

What do you expect, really? It's exactly the same every time we have a convincing victory in the opening ODI of a series (and the exact opposite whenever there's a convincing defeat, which is more common).

I still don't rate Owais Shah as a ODI batsman, he's hit the ball like that once before in a career spanning 7 years. And on both occasions it was against some of the most woeful death-bowling you'll ever see.

Apart from Shah, all there really is to take from this match is Kevin Pietersen's return to ODI form, his best innings for a long, long time that for mine. Probably since the opening game of the CB Series, the one where he cracked a rib during the course of.

Swann was OK, but hardly outstanding. Anderson was poor yet again.

 

[Prince EWS]

Apart from Shah, all there really is to take from this match is Kevin Pietersen's return to ODI form, his best innings for a long, long time that for mine. Probably since the opening game of the CB Series, the one where he cracked a rib during the course of.

Broad's bowling was pretty impressive. Poor batting lineup it may have been, but he bowled very well. You mentioned Swann further down but I'd add him too.

I think there's more to take from Bell's innings than Shah's, too. The bowling wasn't the best at times, but it was hardly horrible early on and he looked a real class act. He started aggressively and then played to the situation after Wright got out, consolidating with Pietersen. It was a shame he couldn't get his fifty but I think a lot can be taken from that.

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

DID WE RANK NUMBER 2 IN TESTS prior to Sneddon and Braces era?

We were 3rd behind Australia and South Africa at one stage. I don't think we have ever been 2nd in either format.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Nothing, but due his faulty glovework he hardly got a chance to prove himself fully @ the top of the order after last summers ODI's due to his faulty gloveworkin SRI.(which i maintain again has been harshly ridiculed).

Except he's never been a particularly good OD batsman, so he doesn't merit a spot on that basis.

England have been holding their own since the World Cup in ODIs, tbh. When I saw the side put out for the CB series a year and a half ago I thought it was one of the worst ODI sides, on paper, I'd ever seen. They won that, and have been doing really well since the World Cup, setback in NZ aside. Not a pretty side but they do seem to be getting the results and shouldn't be underestimated as an easy beat.

Also lost to Chris Gayle's West Indies IIRC.

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

Broad's bowling was pretty impressive. Poor batting lineup it may have been, but he bowled very well. You mentioned Swann further down but I'd add him too.

Its funny how one player can make a lineup so poor. If it was How, McCullum, Fulton, Taylor, Styris then it would be quite good.

 

[Prince EWS]

Its funny how one player can make a lineup so poor. If it was How, McCullum, Fulton, Taylor, Styris then it would be quite good.

Not really. Fulton's woefully out of form, How is unproven as an ODI opener and Styris looks is bad nick. That's still only five batsmen, too - Flynn has done nothing in ODIs and Hopkins is just as bad as Marshall. Marshall may be dire but I don't think adding Fulton would have made it much better.

 

[Athlai]

Not really. Fulton's woefully out of form, How is unproven as an ODI opener and Styris looks is bad nick. That's still only five batsmen, too - Flynn has done nothing in ODIs and Hopkins is just as bad as Marshall. Marshall may be dire but I don't think adding Fulton would have made it much better.

Have you watched him open in the past year? The only thing that made him move to three was Ryder and McCullum blasting away in a rather reliable fashion. How has been the rock of the top order since the WC.

Other than that fair call really. Fulton out of form is bad, Hopkins and Marshall are better options than that, though not by much.

If our injuries/ form problems/ management issues/ I$C$C$ woes weren't ruining our team we'd be pretty bloody good.

A squad of

Ryder (How depending on team dynamic), McCullum, How, Fulton, Taylor, Styris (McMillan?), Oram, Vettori, Franklin, Mills, Bond, - Patel, Southee, Flynn, Hopkins

God that'd be gun. I just want Franklin back, and Ryder's talent.

 

[Prince EWS]

Have you watched him open in the past year? The only thing that made him move to three was Ryder and McCullum blasting away in a rather reliable fashion. How has been the rock of the top order since the WC.

He's opened ten times in ODIs. Three of those games against Bangladesh. Excluding those, he's only opened twice since the World Cup with scores of 2 and 20. That score of 20 was against England last night.

Personally I think he'll succeed whether he bats 3 or opens but he's certainly not proven there. I think "unproven" sums him up pretty well as an ODI opener - certainly not poor as such, but little conclusive evidence either way.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Have you watched him open in the past year? The only thing that made him move to three was Ryder and McCullum blasting away in a rather reliable fashion. How has been the rock of the top order since the WC.

Four fifties and five failures in 10 innings opening the batting. That sounds pretty unproven to me.

 

[Richard]

Broad's bowling was pretty impressive. Poor batting lineup it may have been, but he bowled very well. You mentioned Swann further down but I'd add him too.

With Broad it's no revelation though - he's been bowling like that in ODIs since the start of last winter. Sometimes bowls really well, sometimes shockingly. It's merely a continuation of what's become the norm of late.

I think there's more to take from Bell's innings than Shah's, too. The bowling wasn't the best at times, but it was hardly horrible early on and he looked a real class act. He started aggressively and then played to the situation after Wright got out, consolidating with Pietersen. It was a shame he couldn't get his fifty but I think a lot can be taken from that.

We'll see. I want to see it more than once before I start believing any corner to have been turned.

 

[Athlai]

Four fifties and five failures in 10 innings opening the batting. That sounds pretty unproven to me.

Not if your a kiwi opener.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Not if your a kiwi opener.

Even if you're a Kiwi opener, IMO.

 

[Prince EWS]

Not if your a kiwi opener.

Only adds to my point that it was a poor batting lineup really, Marshall or no Marshall.

 

[Athlai]

On the South African tour, How played at three, after Vincent and McCullum, during this tour he came in at the 3.4 over mark, the 1.4 over mark and the 2.0 over mark. Respectively scoring, 90, 76 and 15. All of these IMO display the same skills utilized by an opening batsman, and at that time he only didn't actually open due to Vincent's final hurrah in the team. He is a natural opener and I think if you play at 3 for NZ in recent times your as good as a third opener. Balls just as new in the second over.

 

[Prince EWS]

On the South African tour, How played at three, after Vincent and McCullum, during this tour he came in at the 3.4 over mark, the 1.4 over mark and the 2.0 over mark. Respectively scoring, 90, 76 and 15. All of these IMO display the same skills utilized by an opening batsman, and at that time he only didn't actually open due to Vincent's final hurrah in the team. He is a natural opener and I think if you play at 3 for NZ in recent times your as good as a third opener. Balls just as new in the second over.

Yeah, I agree, but he's still not proven as such. The above shows signs to suggest he'd make a good ODI opener, but it doesn't prove him as a one. Hell, even if he actually did make those scores opening, I wouldn't consider him proven. It's only one series.

Don't get me wrong - I rate How pretty highly - but he's not proven.

 

[Richard]

John, you are turning into some part of a Junior Fiery Mark II with your defence of Kiwi players.

BTW, to Natman20. I'd say it in OT, but I don't think he reads it. Shame NZ gave him such an awful present yesterday.

 

[Athlai]

In the past 3 years NZ have tried out 9 different openers, Fleming, Astle and Vincent were all remotely successful opening (averaging above 30), yet these players are no longer options.

The other six players are McCullum (our opener for the foreseeable future), How, Fulton, Ryder, Marshall and Cumming. Besides McCullum, How has the most games opening at 10, with Fulton at 7, Ryder 5 and the others just the one.

Now a lot of How's success has come in the upper order, and in this period, five players have also been tried at number three, Taylor, Marshall, McMillan, Sinclair and Papps, of these only Taylor has really done anything of note.

Somehow in these past few years, Jamie How has become the 2nd most capped current top order batsman (after McCullum). His performances at the top of the order have been solid if not exceptional and I see no other choice but to pick him to open with the absence of Ryder. His ideal position would be at 3 though, in the third opening position, to pick up the pieces when the attack fails.

The weakness of our batting lineup (Marshall at 3) can be easily fixed even with How opening, Taylor is more than equipped to bat at this position and has scored two of his hundreds at 3. So why on earth is Marshall there?!?

 

[Athlai]

John, you are turning into some part of a Junior Fiery Mark II with your defence of Kiwi players.

BTW, to Natman20. I'd say it in OT, but I don't think he reads it. Shame NZ gave him such an awful present yesterday.

Just the ones I reckon are good TBH. How, Taylor, Vettori, Oram (sometimes), McCullum. Bag the rest, aside from Patel's heart of course.

 

[aussie]

Except he's never been a particularly good OD batsman, so he doesn't merit a spot on that basis.

One can't say that since the man never got the chance to fully prove himself as an ODI opener. When judging Prior as a batsman one has to discount anything before last season since before he clearly didn't warrant a place.