**Official** New Zealand in England

[Steulen]

Bar KP the top 6 are all much of a muchness. Collingwood bowls a bit and fields very well so that for me elevates him above the other 4 particularly as England are short on bowling. Vaughan and Colly are also both captains so that basically leaves you with Strauss, Cook and Bell as viable candidates to be dropped as far as I'm concerned.

I don't rate Shah however, just don't see him being anything above those he'll be replacing plus he's rubbish in the field.

And of course Ravi Bopara would be top of the queue ATM, so probably all batsmen are safe for now.

 

[wpdavid]

I don't rate Shah however, just don't see him being anything above those he'll be replacing plus he's rubbish in the field.

Shah's biggest problem right now is that he's barely managed a score this summer. Whilst I wouldn't want to pick a player just because of a brief burst of form, I'm not keen on bringing guys finto the test side when they're out of sorts. That does rather narrow down our options.

 

[Stapel]

Well, the first 50 partnership and the ball after the first individual 50 of the day. I've got the impression both batsmen have increased their strike rates a little. If Pietersen & Ambrose can hold out a little longer, this match can easily turn right back to England again; 70-run partnership now.

 

[steds]

Shot.

 

[BoyBrumby]

How's Ambrose batting? Stuck at work quietly tearing my hair out.

Bell's & Collingwood's failures are all the more depressing because they were so predictable. I don't profess to be any expert on batting, but it's obvious when someone's in such woeful form as Collingwood; his bat looks all edges & he goes looking for the ball rather than waiting for it to come to him. I have a lot of time for the little ginger fella, but given he also needs an op on his shoulder, surely common sense dictates it's time to give someone else (hopefully Owais) a go?

Bell's failures are, if anything, even more perplexing. He still looks in good nick but isn't scoring the runs.

 

[Richard]

According to who? You or the England selectors? For all we know he could be kept in the team indefinitely for goodness knows why.

The "for good" bit is a guess. I'd be very, very surprised if he was picked for the First Test against SA if he scores nothing much in the second-innings.

 

[Richard]

DWTA. I think it would be very uncomfortable for the selectors to have to dump the ODI captain. So he's safe for a while, I'd say.

I hope ODIs don't interfere with the Test prospects, but it's far from impossible, indeed.

 

[Richard]

Bar KP the top 6 are all much of a muchness. Collingwood bowls a bit and fields very well so that for me elevates him above the other 4 particularly as England are short on bowling. Vaughan and Colly are also both captains so that basically leaves you with Strauss, Cook and Bell as viable candidates to be dropped as far as I'm concerned.

I don't rate Shah however, just don't see him being anything above those he'll be replacing plus he's rubbish in the field.

Strauss is not and should not currently be anywhere near being dropped. Cook won't be either any time soon, and if he is then Robert Key is the only man who he should be dropped for.

The day a batsman's ability to bowl a little bit dictates his selection is a sad day indeed of course.

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

How ****ing surprising. NZ not taking the advantage.

I predicted Bell, Collingwood and Ambrose to fail and KP and Broad to build a big partnership. If only I said KP and Ambrose. Hopefully, NZ can have a similar after tea period as they did after lunch.

I'm not gonna both watching it. Taking a page out of Ed's book. If NZ rip through the tail, then I will be happy whether I watch it or not. If England pile on the runs, I wont be around to get pissed.

 

[Richard]

And of course Ravi Bopara would be top of the queue ATM, so probably all batsmen are safe for now.

Bopara should not be close to being ahead of Shah - that mistake has been made once. It's hardly like Shah is in poor nick this year either, he's had 11 innings and has passed 50 5 times averaging 43. Bopara's form has been better, but Shah also has far, far, far more in the longer-term to recommend him.

 

[Barney Rubble]

I had a few things I was gonna say about England's performance today, but I'm on a streak of jinxing people by praising them, so I'm gonna lay off commenting for a little while.

 

[Richard]

Don't worry, what one guy says on a cricket forum for which the server is 10,000 miles away can't possibly impact on what happens on the field.

Only problem is it can make you look silly.

 

[GIMH]

180/5, not as bad as I feared, was expecting us to be 150ao

If my memory serves me correctly, these two did a similar salvage mission in the 3rd down under

 

[wpdavid]

Bopara should not be close to being ahead of Shah - that mistake has been made once. It's hardly like Shah is in poor nick this year either, he's had 11 innings and has passed 50 5 times averaging 43. Bopara's form has been better, but Shah also has far, far, far more in the longer-term to recommend him.

Judging by the last time Moores had to choose between which of two to drop & which of two to pick, there's a fair chance that he'll go for both again.

I must admit that Shah's record this year is better than I'd thought, albeit relatively ordinary against Div 2 attacks.

 

[Richard]

180/5, not as bad as I feared, was expecting us to be 150ao

If my memory serves me correctly, these two did a similar salvage mission in the 3rd down under

Well, one (Ambrose) did in the Second Test, then the other (Pietersen) did in the Third.

Be nice if they could add something massive here. 200-ish partnerships are always one hell of an ask though. Once you fall to 86 for 5 you're always up against it.

A hell of a lot depends on how this pitch plays for the rest of the game. I'd be happy if we got 250 from 86 for 5, and 300 is still quite some ask even now. And really, the pitch has done nothing remarkable, so if How and Redmond were to get in, we could be facing a substantial deficit.

 

[wpdavid]

180/5, not as bad as I feared, was expecting us to be 150ao

If my memory serves me correctly, these two did a similar salvage mission in the 3rd down under

Not quite - Ambrose's 100 was in the 2nd test.

 

[Richard]

Judging by the last time Moores had to choose between which of two to drop & which of two to pick, there's a fair chance that he'll go for both again.

Can only hope and pray not. If this was a "normal" walk of life Shah'd have three times over a case for unfair discrimination.

 

[Prince EWS]

Bopara should not be close to being ahead of Shah - that mistake has been made once. It's hardly like Shah is in poor nick this year either, he's had 11 innings and has passed 50 5 times averaging 43. Bopara's form has been better, but Shah also has far, far, far more in the longer-term to recommend him.

I couldn't agree more.

However, I doubt the selectors share our sentiments on this one. They picked Bopara over Shah once before when the gap was much wider than it is now. Even though he looked horrible, it's obvious the selectors rate him much more highly than most of us do, so his recent form would get him the nod. That's why I'm glad Collingwood has retained his place thus far really; I still think he's a better batsman than Bopara. Shah and Ramprakash are different stories, but Bopara would be preferred.

 

[Stapel]

Strauss is not and should not currently be anywhere near being dropped. Cook won't be either any time soon, and if he is then Robert Key is the only man who he should be dropped for.

The day a batsman's ability to bowl a little bit dictates his selection is a sad day indeed of course.

Not sure about that. If you have a 4-man attack, requiring one of the batsmen to be a decent stock bowler, is not such a bad idea, I reckon. And if this batsman/stockbowler is the best fielder in the world, he suddenly becomes quite useful.

 

[Richard]

Collingwood is no stock-bowler. He's barely (if ever) bowled a long Test spell in his career, despite plenty of opportunity.