**Official** England in New Zealand

[Prince EWS]

You'd know better than me, but when he has scored a hundred against whoever he has played, it has usually been in the first series that he has faced the nation?

Richard could well class the return trip all as part of the same series. I know he did when South Africa and Australia had a similar arrangement, although at least that was technically still in the same season..

 

[Richard]

No, I don't quite, for the reason of the cross-season (though there is less than 2 months between the end of one and the start of the other, more UIMM than any of the 3 Aus-SA series which I do tend to amalgamate). But it comes a damn sight closer than most things do (I'm not in favour, really, of such closely-scheduled home\away series between teams other than Australia and South Africa) and I'd still think if Cook were to score in his home series that he'd done it in his maiden "encounter" with NZ, TBH.

 

[Woodster]

England have somehow found themselves ina fantastic position, thanks to KP's century, Sidebottom's outstanding contribution along with Broad, and some very obliging NZ batsmen with suspect shot selection (not that we were without much of the same).

Vaughan obviously wanted to stamp all over NZ when they were down and assert his and Englands authority on NZ at the start of the second innnings. He crashed a cut shot for four but very unwisely attempted a pull off a ball of good length that looked horrendous. The thinking behind it I can understand, but the ball he decided to attack did not warrant such an expansive stroke. Cook and Strauss both looked in decent nick, and now KP will attempt to assert himself tomorrow. If he is still in, when and indeed if, England reach a score that will leave NZ chasing over 300, we may see some fireworks and outright entertainment.

With regards a few of them comments on McCullum (and more surprisingly Ambrose!) trying to immitate Gilchrist's style, I think that's absolute nonsense. McCullum is, and always will be, an attacking player that at times will frustrate his side by selecting the wrong ball to attack. Very little brain power went into the shot he played against Sidebottom in the first innings. Not every attacking player is trying to be a Gilchrist, I am sure he is aware of his own capabilities.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Ignoring the series for a moment it's really annoying the way England's top 5 all started off well and have tailed off badly over their England career. What the hell is going on?

Only KP and Colly are worth their places at the moment. Vaughan and Strauss have been next to useless last couple or so years, Bell is a flat track bully (not a very good one either) and Cook seems to have been found out somewhat but at least is showing improvement in other areas.

Unlike NZ who don't have the depth England really shouldn't be tolerating this mediocrity. The batting is an absolute liability, couldn't even make 200 half the time against Australia.

 

[Richard]

Vaughan has been next to useless last couple or so years

Rubbish, Vaughan's summer 2007 was the best season he's ever had. Truth is, Vaughan is next to useless when opening the batting only - down the order his average is currently 37.66, and since 2004 39.56.

 

[Prince EWS]

Ignoring the series for a moment it's really annoying the way England's top 5 all started off well and have tailed off badly over their England career. What the hell is going on?

Only KP and Colly are worth their places at the moment. Vaughan and Strauss have been next to useless last couple or so years, Bell is a flat track bully (not a very good one either) and Cook seems to have been found out somewhat but at least is showing improvement in other areas.

Unlike NZ who don't have the depth England really shouldn't be tolerating this mediocrity. The batting is an absolute liability, couldn't even make 200 half the time against Australia.

Michael Vaughan averages over 40 in the last 2 years. Better still - he averages almost 55 in that time when he's batted in the middle order. To add to that, he's got out to pretty decent balls as well - the amount of times I've thought "All England's batsmen except Vaughan got themselves out" since his return from injury has been countless.

Your assessment of Strauss and Cook is spot on IMO, and you have a point with regards to Bell, but he was your best batsman on the tour of Sri Lanka. The fact that failed to convert anything into a big score when in good form should definitely count against him, but I wouldn't call him a FTB as such. I'd consider dropping him though, yes.

I won't bother with Collingwood for obvious reasons.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Ignoring the series for a moment it's really annoying the way England's top 5 all started off well and have tailed off badly over their England career. What the hell is going on?

Only KP and Colly are worth their places at the moment. Vaughan and Strauss have been next to useless last couple or so years, Bell is a flat track bully (not a very good one either) and Cook seems to have been found out somewhat but at least is showing improvement in other areas.

Unlike NZ who don't have the depth England really shouldn't be tolerating this mediocrity. The batting is an absolute liability, couldn't even make 200 half the time against Australia.

Inclined to agree with your assessment of our current top six, Strauss & Bell are both probably due some time on the sidelines, but I'm not so convinced of our depth. If you look at the 2007 averages, leaving aside Shah (who Moores must have something personal against) all the leading English players (Ramps, Tres, Key & Ed Smith) are of the tried-and-failed/retired variety.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Michael Vaughan averages over 40 in the last 2 years. Better still - he averages almost 55 in that time when he's batted in the middle order. To add to that, he's got out to pretty decent balls as well - the amount of times I've thought "All England's batsmen except Vaughan got themselves out" since his return from injury has been countless.

Your assessment of Strauss and Cook is spot on IMO, and you have a point with regards to Bell, but he was your best batsman on the tour of Sri Lanka. The fact that failed to convert anything into a big score when in good form should definitely count against him, but I wouldn't call him a FTB as such. I'd consider dropping him though, yes.

I won't bother with Collingwood for obvious reasons.

Vaughan only averages slightly over 40 over the past couple years (note I actually said couple or so years try going back to 2004), and he's had some fairly nice pitches to bat on and cashed in against WI - the other attacks he's faced over the last couple of years aren't anything to write home about either. Then you factor in his fielding into things and it's not exactly great is it?

As for Bell his averages make it pretty clear he's a flat track bully, obviously there will the odd innings that is the exception rather than follows the rules.

.

 

[Richard]

As for Bell his averages make it pretty clear he's a flat track bully, obviously there will the odd innings that is the exception rather than follows the rules.

He was the next Ramprakash a couple of years ago too. There's no technical reasons Bell should be a flat-track bully, so we can fairly well expect the pattern so far to change eventually. Collingwood is obviously a flat-track bully too, of course.

 

[SpaceMonkey]

Bell is a good player. He has a bit of a problem with shot selection atm. But that will (hopefully) improve as he maturers. To call him a FTB is pretty shocking, a FTB is someone who relies on the lack of movement and true bounce to just hit through the line and not worry about footwork etc. Bell is nothing like that.

 

[TT Boy]

Bell is a good player. He has a bit of a problem with shot selection atm. But that will (hopefully) improve as he maturers. To call him a FTB is pretty shocking, a FTB is someone who relies on the lack of movement and true bounce to just hit through the line and not worry about footwork etc. Bell is nothing like that.

No his far worse. Bell is the guy who never scores runs when his team needs it. Bell is the guy who goes missing when his sides in the ****. Bell is the guy who plays positive cricket once any chance his side has of saving the game is gone. Bell is the guy who gets a free ride for his ‘technically’ sound yet, mentality weak.

 

[Richard]

No his far worse. Bell is the guy who never scores runs when his team needs it.

There is no such thing as scoring runs when your team doesn't need it.

Bell is the guy who goes missing when his sides in the ****.

He's unique there?

Bell is the guy who plays positive cricket once any chance his side has of saving the game is gone.

So? What does it matter what he does once the game is gone?

Bell is the guy who gets a free ride for his ‘technically’ sound yet, mentality weak.

Unless you are highly empowered in psychoanalysis, I find statements like this somewhat offensive.

 

[TT Boy]

There is no such thing as scoring runs when your team doesn't need it.

He's unique there?

So? What does it matter what he does once the game is gone?

Unless you are highly empowered in psychoanalysis, I find statements like this somewhat offensive.

Well it pales into insignificance to your comment regarding Pakistan having no birth register system.

I can't multi-quote so I can't be asked replying to all and sundry but Ian Bell's second innings knock in the first test against New Zealand aptly sums the guy up. No pressure, no risk of failure = runs.

 

[Richard]

Well it pales into insignificance to your comment regarding Pakistan having no birth register system.

Not really. I wasn't casting false aspersions on someone.

I can't multi-quote so I can't be asked replying to all and sundry

Can't or won't?

but Ian Bell's second innings knock in the first test against New Zealand aptly sums the guy up. No pressure, no risk of failure = runs.

And he's never scored runs under different circumstances?

 

[Goughy]

No his far worse. Bell is the guy who never scores runs when his team needs it. Bell is the guy who goes missing when his sides in the ****. Bell is the guy who plays positive cricket once any chance his side has of saving the game is gone. Bell is the guy who gets a free ride for his ‘technically’ sound yet, mentality weak.

Id agree with all that. He is not a trenches guy but a fair weather player.

A pretty and on the face of it fundamental technique yet has little depth or strength to it. I think Ive called it a schoolboy batting technique in the past and I stand by that.

He has not shown a great deal of mental strength as of yet.

Appears to lack that killer instinct to impose his will on good bowlers.

He is a guy I would have around the team and use as a fill in player (as he isnt spectacular but you can kind of know what you will get) but Id be worried (as I am now) about him being a permenant member of the top order.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Id agree with all that. He is not a trenches guy but a fair weather player.

A pretty and on the face of it fundamental technique yet has little depth or strength to it. I think Ive called it a schoolboy batting technique in the past and I stand by that.

He has not shown a great deal of mental strength as of yet.

Appears to lack that killer instinct to impose his will on good bowlers.

He is a guy I would have around the team and use as a fill in player (as he isnt spectacular but you can kind of know what you will get) but Id be worried (as I am now) about him being a permenant member of the top order.

I think I phrased it, in a rather calamitous fit of mixed metaphors, as a "choirboy in the headlights". I stand by that.

 

[Flem274*]

He won't be. There's about as big a chance of that happening as there is of Pakistan putting a man on Mars by 2010.

I don't see him averaging 45-50 odd either, just trying to avoid a Griegy.

Of course, he could shut us all up and manage it but I think he'll fall into the "very good" catagorey in tests as supposed to "great." In ODIs he has a higher chance though tha acid test will be for him to carry it on and how effective the tactic of fire it at the leg stump is. I'm not going to predict anything in ODIs because McCullum is one of those players you just keep your mouth shut about until its safe.

 

[grecian]

I agree with much of what has been said about Bell. He just doesn't seem to impose his personality on the bowler. I'm just not sure who you bring in, in his stead. Not sure about Shah, and if he does come in, would rather Strauss be the one to make way.

From the little I've seen, not really happy with Joyce, Carberry,or Denly as replacements, either. Also from what I have seen not delighted with Key or Ramps. So if I was in charge I'd probably keep him in, which is no doubt what the selectors will do.

I'm also slightly troubled by Cook's form, but I just hope it's a blip.

 

[wpdavid]

Didn't see that coming at all. Looking back at today's posts, I can only admire BB & Grecian's restraint at not ranting at England's performance before lunch. Beyond me, I'm afraid, but as the alternative involves swearing rather a lot at Mrs wp or the mini wp's, I'm afraid I have to take it out on CW.
Sidebottom may just be turning into something beyond what any of us expected. I remember Goughy posting around the lunch break something to the effect that SB, although admirable and obviously England's best bowler, isn't what you want as your main strike bowler. If I haven't done Kev justice, I hope he'll forgive me, but I'm only quoting him because I pretty much agreed with every word. Then, after 7 for 47 you remember that he's doing this less than 12 months into his test career (I'm ignoring his one-off test in 2001, obv), you see him developing his craft even at this stage of his career, and you have to think that maybe some of us have under-rated him. I suppose we'll know better after the SA series.

I wonder what Moores makes of it all. The obvious conclusion, I suspect, is that there may well be one or two other guys with solid records in the CC who have more to offer than the feckless tarts who've held down places in the top order without remotely justifying it over the last couple of years.

 

[Goughy]

Didn't see that coming at all. Looking back at today's posts, I can only admire BB & Grecian's restraint at not ranting at England's performance before lunch. Beyond me, I'm afraid, but as the alternative involves swearing rather a lot at Mrs wp or the mini wp's, I'm afraid I have to take it out on CW.
Sidebottom may just be turning into something beyond what any of us expected. I remember Goughy posting around the lunch break something to the effect that SB, although admirable and obviously England's best bowler, isn't what you want as your main strike bowler. If I haven't done Kev justice, I hope he'll forgive me, but I'm only quoting him because I pretty much agreed with every word. Then, after 7 for 47 you remember that he's doing this less than 12 months into his test career (I'm ignoring his one-off test in 2001, obv), you see him developing his craft even at this stage of his career, and you have to think that maybe some of us have under-rated him. I suppose we'll know better after the SA series.
I wonder what Moores makes of it all. The obvious conclusion, I suspect, is that there may well be one or two other guys with solid records in the CC who have more to offer than the feckless tarts who've held down places in the top order without remotely justifying it over the last couple of years.

He is doing what we want him to do and keeping his place by being a good Test bowler for the mainpart. Its still early and he has played on a lot of favourable wickets but he is doing his best to make his doubters (such as myself) eat their words. I have to admire him for that. It was a pretty inopportune moment for me to talk him down a little

It still doesnt change the fact that, IMO, having him as the key bowler isnt ideal for England. He is looking good because a) He is bowling well b) he is in conditions that suit c) NZ are hardly a quality lineup and d) he is surropunded by a shower of **** that its impossible not to shine when compared to.

Im being a little harsh in d) but the point still stands.

You know, having said all that, I remember watching a 'Top Gear' once that was talking about a 1000 hp car. It looked good on paper but wasnt able to use that HP effectively as it was poorly designed. Maybe Sidebottom is the mid-engine bowler that maxes out his potential and performs better than the more impressive models.