***Official*** New Zealand in England series 2013

[Cabinet96]

0 Kungfu_Kallis
1 KN
2 Bahnz
3 rvd
4 DoG
5 BG
6 nsniks
7 Cabinet
8 hendrix
9
10+

 

[Kippax]

Kippax's Weather Wall

 

[Jezroy]

Radio interview with Martin Crowe about talking to Ross Taylor this morning.

Said something along the lines of "I used to talk to Brendon McCullum, but he doesn't listen to me anymore".

Burn.

 

[Cabinet96]

I'm thinking of running a tipping comp for England's international season. Would include every international game this summer, just tipping the results and nothing else. Could do something like 5 for Tests, 3 for an ODI's and 1 for T20I's.

Would anyone be interested?

 

[wellAlbidarned]

I don't know, but I assume it's softer than playing while injured...

If he was actually injured then he wouldn't have played. He's making excuses.

 

[Cabinet96]

Yeah, it was probably having his feet up after he'd been dropped which triggered a recurrence of an injury he'd suffered earlier in the tour, causing him to miss the one day series...

 

[Cabinet96]

I mean, why do people have to be so stubborn and not for the moment believe that the medical staff might have actually, shock horror, misread an injury. Did you even read the article FFS?

 

[hendrix]

It does sound like he was carrying an injury. Perhaps he should have made that assessment himself. That might be a bit hard to expect of a player though given the medical staff gave the green light.

Still though, he will have a point to prove. He was only good in one spell in Wellington.

 

[straw man]

Can barely believe there's a test series involving NZ again starting tonight. I hope NZ are more prepared for cricket than I am for watching it. Still half expecting a rain-ruined 0-0 though.

Pleased to see Rutherford will be playing for Essex this season. I can see him improving a lot from that.

 

[Dan]

Damn, going to miss Day 1 of the English Test summer then. Not cool.

 

[straw man]

For no reason at all, was just idly thinking about ranking the New Zealand sides that have toured England in the last 30 years...

1986 (1-0) , 1999 (2-1), 1990 (0-1), 1983 (1-3), 2004 (0-3), 1994 (0-1), 2008 (0-2)

Would rate this current side close to (but not quite as good as) the 1983 lot.

Can't comment much on series 94 and earlier but that 2004 team is an interesting comparison to the current one. Some good names on paper but I remember how toothless and samey our injury-depleted right-arm-medium bowling attack was.

Batting is fairy strong though - stronger than our current lineup which despite home performances suggesting they're tough, still has a marshmallow centre. Though that 2004 series was also where we established our habit of losing matches through dreadful second-innings collapses, despite Mark Richardson.

I guess you're saying our current team is slightly better than the 2004 team? We're definitely more likely to win matches imo. Probably more likely to lose and lose badly also.

 

[Jezroy]

It would be nice to think we are in a similar position to 83 as a team, ie have managed to put together a few promising results and on the verge of our greatest test period.

I know this is a different measure but pre tour expectation was significantly higher in 04.

Think it was mainly around the fact we had been good against SA at home (drawn 1-1). Our bowling had (care of Chris Martin) performed well, and our batting had been fairly solid.

And when they added Shane Bond to that squad, we did look like a monster squad (for us).

Plus, the fact that the most recent tour to England (1999) had been quite a turning point for the NZ team. That series was massive to what was supposedly the worst team in the world at the time.

Then we got tickled up by injury, an England team on the rise, and our lack of an ability to play 5 good days of cricket. Or even 3...

 

[Bahnz]

Can't comment much on series 94 and earlier but that 2004 team is an interesting comparison to the current one. Some good names on paper but I remember how toothless and samey our injury-depleted right-arm-medium bowling attack was.

Batting is fairy strong though - stronger than our current lineup which despite home performances suggesting they're tough, still has a marshmallow centre. Though that 2004 series was also where we established our habit of losing matches through dreadful second-innings collapses, despite Mark Richardson.

I guess you're saying our current team is slightly better than the 2004 team? We're definitely more likely to win matches imo. Probably more likely to lose and lose badly also.

Yeah, the problem with the 2004 team for me, was that they were basically incapable of winning games. No question that the batting in that series was very good, but I don't think it's vastly superior to the current side. Williamson, Taylor, McCullum and Brownlie form a similarly solid middle-order - though I conceed that the 04 side was stronger at the top and the bottom. And as you noted, the 2004 team was similarly prone to 2nd innings collapse.

But the bowling was pretty awful. Vettori was in dreadful touch in the 2004 series, even by his standards. Tuffey was really bowling injured. Oram was being asked to fill the 3rd seamers role, when he has only ever been a decent medium pacer with a bit of extra bounce. I remember on the final day of the first test at Lords, the bowler who looked most likely to get Hussain out was Scott Styris. That just about says it all.

Martin and Cairns were the only bowlers in the side even approaching genuine test class. And until the last test of the series (when injuries to other players forced him to assume the role of leader of the attack) Cairns was bowling well within himself.

So yes, I'd give the current side a slight edge, and I'd back them to win a series against the 04 mob, especially if it was played out on relatively placid surfaces. However, I agree that the 2004 bunch were a better bet to draw a test (even though - Bangladesh aside - they lost 6 tests on the trot that year). I reckon they'd win a series on the sportier pitches that were on offer in 2002/03 and 2006/07 - if only because of Richardson's ability to glue the batting lineup together.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

I mean, why do people have to be so stubborn and not for the moment believe that the medical staff might have actually, shock horror, misread an injury. Did you even read the article FFS?

You're giving broad the benefit of the doubt. With his history of being a moany little twit, I'm not.

 

[Howe_zat]

Lord's pitch is looking a bit on the tarmac side, apparently

 

[Cabinet96]

It does sound like he was carrying an injury. Perhaps he should have made that assessment himself. That might be a bit hard to expect of a player though given the medical staff gave the green light.

Thing is, if he'd made the assessment himself, then he'd be giving fuel to the KungFu_Kallis sort. Especially after England were thrashed so badly in Ahmedabad. Think of the stick Gambhir gets for missing Durban and Trent Bridge because he was injured.

 

[Hurricane]

Kippax's Weather Wall

Good Stuff. Someone message HowardJ and pay him a stipend to do the weather updates for this series.
He should do them in every tour thread.

Weather set fair, by the way

 

[wellAlbidarned]

Holy **** I thought this started tomorrow night. Stoked and gutted simultaneously.

 

[Hurricane]

Normally I enjoy watching us bat more than bowl as I am a batsman. But first morning of a test match in England in May I sincerely hope to see Southee steaming in.

Also even though it is the wrong call I would prefer to see the 4 seamers in action. The sensible call is to play Bartin - will probably get more wickets that Doug.

 

[Kippax]

.

Consensus from the ground seems to be that Bresnan plays, Finn dropped.