**Official** New Zealand in England

[Natman20]

TBH i think England, New Zealand and (in a short while Australia) are in dire straits in regard to test teams and i can see SA or IND becoming the top 2 test teams in the near future (if SA can get over their Australian problem).

NZ is developing at the moment. I'd say it will become strngthened in a couple seasons, especially now as they seem to be focusing more on tests. Aus are also finding the reliance on a few oldies isn't working as well as they'd like, they have enough depth to match any side again anyway. England are a classy team imo. They just don't perform as a whole consistently enough. Its always one player or the other not they all performed well. SA I must say do look the goods at the moment with Steyn performing. Enough about that and the real topic....

Is it going to constantly rain in England during this series? From the look of county cricket and the practise matches the answer is yes. There is still a long time to go before the first match so I hope it improves. Theres nothing worse than half finished matches with long delays.

 

[Richard]

Spot on about these bowlers.
Davies at Durham is better than all of them.

Agree with that actually - I've honestly never been able to fathom why it is that Davies has done so well, because the occasions I've watched him (all right, they only number about 2 since 2001) he's looked utterly innocuous. Obviously, had he not had so many injuries in recent years he'd be being looked at more seriously.

But whatever the reasons, he's been extraordinarily successful and if he were to manage to get himself fit he should certainly be up for international consideration long before his team-mate Onions.

Or Harmison.

 

[Richard]

NZ is developing at the moment.

All teams are developing all the time. I really hate this myth that there are two phases a cricket team can be in: "settled" and "transitional". Even the best sides in history who dominated for a decade or a little less rarely went more than 2 or 3 Tests without some form of team change. Obviously injuries play their part in this but you never have more than 3 or 4 cricketers whose careers run along exact or near-exact parrallels. You always have to keep rotating current and bringing in new players. Just ideally don't try doing the latter too early in said player's career.

Is it going to constantly rain in England during this series? From the look of county cricket and the practise matches the answer is yes. There is still a long time to go before the first match so I hope it improves. Theres nothing worse than half finished matches with long delays.

There's been a stupid amount of rain where I am the last 3 or 4 days, but by-and-large it hasn't been too bad so far this season - there've been many worse Aprils in years past, even in my lifetime. I don't know what the long-term forecast is tho.

 

[Natman20]

All teams are developing all the time. I really hate this myth that there are two phases a cricket team can be in: "settled" and "transitional". Even the best sides in history who dominated for a decade or a little less rarely went more than 2 or 3 Tests without some form of team change. Obviously injuries play their part in this but you never have more than 3 or 4 cricketers whose careers run along exact or near-exact parrallels. You always have to keep rotating current and bringing in new players. Just ideally don't try doing the latter too early in said player's career.

I am just used to seeing a NZ team with the likes of Astle, Flem, McMillan and the likes all the time. They are deffinately going through a major change with the likes of beginners such as How, Taylor, Southee, Ryder, Patel (sort of) and then all these ones that havn't played much Flynn, Elliott. With the exclusion of Fleming, Bond, McMillan, Astle, Styris (tests), Franklin (injury) and all the failed comebacks of the players such as Bell, Sinclair, Cumming, Gillespie. And then the exodus to the ICL of Vincent, Adams, Bond. If a squad is featuring about 7 players that have not had much experience then it is not a myth that the team is transitional. England on the other hand at least have some stability with players that always feature eg. KP, Vaughn, Bell etc. They all have their spots. The thing is that NZ is doing major in and outs and England are doing chops and changes here and there.

 

[Days of Grace]

England's top 6 is very stable, though, you must admit. The chops and changes are tending to occur these days around the seam attack. Only Sidebottom is assured of his place a.t.m.

 

[FBU]

Agree with that actually - I've honestly never been able to fathom why it is that Davies has done so well, because the occasions I've watched him (all right, they only number about 2 since 2001) he's looked utterly innocuous. Obviously, had he not had so many injuries in recent years he'd be being looked at more seriously.

But whatever the reasons, he's been extraordinarily successful and if he were to manage to get himself fit he should certainly be up for international consideration long before his team-mate Onions.

Or Harmison.

I don't know either, he's not fast, or tall but there aren't many bowlers in county cricket that have figures like his 22.63 econ 2.86 s/r 47.4. and he comes on 2nd or 3rd change or doesn't even get into the team sometimes when Plunkett, Harmison and Onions are around.

Then we have Onions who opens the bowling 34.43 econ 3.76 s/r 54.8 and people are saying he should be in the England team.

 

[_Ed_]

NZ Emerging Players Squad to tour Queensland

Corey Anderson (Canterbury)
Brent Arnel (ND)
Hamish Bennet (Canterbury)
Trent Boult (ND)
Neil Broom (Otago)
Leighton Burtt (Canterbury)
Brendan Diamanti (CD)
Bevan Griggs (CD)
Martin Guptill (Auckland)
Greg Hay (CD)
Brandon Hiini (Canterbury)
Peter Ingram (CD)
Robbie Schaw (CD)
Bradley Watling (ND)

Good squad, though there is a lack of batsmen which isn't surprising as they're all either in India or in England. I'd have Nicol instead of Diamanti though.

Griggs? Seems to me like he's been around for ages, so could hardly be considered an emerging player. Is he really the only wicketkeeping prospect we've got?

Good thing McCullum hasn't had any lengthy injury layoffs since he took over the gloves then.

 

[Somerset]

Yeah interesting to see him get the spot. I remember him scoring a century in 2002/03 in a first class warm up against India and wanting him in the side (McCullum at that point hadn't done anything special and Robbie Hart had the gloves in test matches).

Just thought I'd point out the lack of Wellington (0) and Otago (1) players in the squad.

 

[Flem274*]

Yeah interesting to see him get the spot. I remember him scoring a century in 2002/03 in a first class warm up against India and wanting him in the side (McCullum at that point hadn't done anything special and Robbie Hart had the gloves in test matches).

Just thought I'd point out the lack of Wellington (0) and Otago (1) players in the squad.

Yeah looks as though they're letting Scott go for a bit, same with McMillan (J) after his horrible form.

All of Wellingtons decent players are in the senior team, injured or retired. The rest aren't much to speak of bar Neal Parlane. *Ducks Heaths violent rubber ducky attack*

 

[Flem274*]

Griggs? Seems to me like he's been around for ages, so could hardly be considered an emerging player. Is he really the only wicketkeeping prospect we've got?

Good thing McCullum hasn't had any lengthy injury layoffs since he took over the gloves then.

Kruger Van Wyk when he qualifies.

 

[Richard]

England's top 6 is very stable, though, you must admit. The chops and changes are tending to occur these days around the seam attack. Only Sidebottom is assured of his place a.t.m.

Very stable? You 'avin a laff? There's Strauss who was dropped for a series just 1 series back and whose career might well be over now had he not scored 170-odd in his last knock. There's Vaughan who's been opening for 6 Tests when practically everyone on this forum, me especially, could tell you he should've been batting three. There's Pietersen who went an entire winter without so much as a half-century before rectifying things at the last minute. There's Collingwood who's always playing for his place. There's Bell who was under more than a little pump until his own most recent innings.

About the only time I can ever think of in my lifetime where a top-six that scored runs consistently for a year and all ended-up (or had been for a while) quality Test batsmen was Australia in 1992/93, 1993 and 1993/94 with Taylor, Slater, Boon, Waugh, Border, Waugh and Healy. Even despite the fact that they won nearly everything between 1989 and the current day, the batting-line-up changed often, as did the bowlers.

 

[Raghav]

Very stable? You 'avin a laff? There's Strauss who was dropped for a series just 1 series back and whose career might well be over now had he not scored 170-odd in his last knock. There's Vaughan who's been opening for 6 Tests when practically everyone on this forum, me especially, could tell you he should've been batting three. There's Pietersen who went an entire winter without so much as a half-century before rectifying things at the last minute. There's Collingwood who's always playing for his place. There's Bell who was under more than a little pump until his own most recent innings.

About the only time I can ever think of in my lifetime where a top-six that scored runs consistently for a year and all ended-up (or had been for a while) quality Test batsmen was Australia in 1992/93, 1993 and 1993/94 with Taylor, Slater, Boon, Waugh, Border, Waugh and Healy. Even despite the fact that they won nearly everything between 1989 and the current day, the batting-line-up changed often, as did the bowlers.

Stable 6. Completely agree. I remember them scoring heavily on consistent basis and next to them I remember Indians did have good batting lineup in 96-99's that come close to them

 

[Richard]

I am just used to seeing a NZ team with the likes of Astle, Flem, McMillan and the likes all the time. They are deffinately going through a major change with the likes of beginners such as How, Taylor, Southee, Ryder, Patel (sort of) and then all these ones that havn't played much Flynn, Elliott. With the exclusion of Fleming, Bond, McMillan, Astle, Styris (tests), Franklin (injury) and all the failed comebacks of the players such as Bell, Sinclair, Cumming, Gillespie. And then the exodus to the ICL of Vincent, Adams, Bond. If a squad is featuring about 7 players that have not had much experience then it is not a myth that the team is transitional. England on the other hand at least have some stability with players that always feature eg. KP, Vaughn, Bell etc. They all have their spots. The thing is that NZ is doing major in and outs and England are doing chops and changes here and there.

I know what you mean - there are spells, sometimes lengthy ones, where 4 or 5 familiar faces remain in a team the majority of the time. But even that really isn't very much of a team - less than half of it in fact.

"Transitional" is usually just an apocryph for "not very good". The number of times I've heard West Indies between '67 and '73 referred to as "transitional" - no, they just didn't have many good players at that time. Before, and after, this time they did.

If a team is lacking in caps, that's what it is - lacking in caps. Either those caps will build-up, as good players play more, or they won't, as poor players are dropped after short, unsuccessful spells.

If a team is once in transition, it is always in transition, even if there's no-one particularly old in there.

 

[Richard]

Stable 6. Completely agree. I remember them scoring heavily on consistent basis and next to them I remember Indians did have good batting lineup in 96-99's that come close to them

Indeed, consisting of Sidhu, someone, Dravid, Tendulkar, Azharuddin, Ganguly and Mongia. That came a little while after Australia's unit of '93, though, of course - around the time of India's bloc, Australia were struggling though the likes of Hayden, Elliott, Ponting (who at that time had his ups and downs and was dropped twice), Bevan, Blewett, Lehmann, etc., who either weren't at the time or would never be particularly successful Test batsmen.

Since 1994, there's always been someone (usually just 1 at a time, though - which meant the line-up as a whole was still damn powerful) in the Australia batting-line-up who wasn't Test-class, who wasn't Test-class yet, who wasn't Test-class any more (think Mark Waugh in 2001/02 for instance), or who only played a few Tests.

 

[whitedazzler]

k as we get closer 2 the 1st test ill make my pick for the 1st test xi

1 j how
2 a redmond
3 j marshall
4 r taylor
5 d flynn
6 j oram
7 b mccullum
8 d vettori
9 t southee
10 k mills
11 c martin

thoughts any1?

 

[Richard]

BTW, the England A (refuse to use the ridiculous "Lions" term) squad has been announced:
Robert Key (Kent) to captain, Ravinder Bopara (Essex), Michael Carberry (Hampshire), Matthew Hoggard (Yorkshire), Steven Kirby (Gloucestershire), Matt Prior (Sussex, wk), Graham Onions (Durham), Adil Rashid (Yorkshire), Owais Shah (Middlesex), Graeme Swann (Nottinghamshire), Chris Tremlett (Hampshire), Luke Wright (Sussex)

at Wright, Kirby and Onions, obviously, none are ever going to be Test-standard players, and I don't really see the point in picking both Rashid and Swann either. Prior is a curious one too, given it's exceptionally unlikely he's going to have gone from woeful to good in his wicketkeeping in the space of 5 months. Still think James Foster is far more deserving of the second-in-line spot than him. Some minor relief to see Mustard being ditched now we're back home, though, much as I was expecting and hoping against hope it would happen.

Carberry, Key, Shah, Tremlett and Bopara are "obviously"s, obviously. Extremely disappointed there's no Ed Joyce though - far more deserving currently than Rashid and obviously an infinitely better batsman than Luke Wright will ever be. I guess his poor first 3 games have cost him dearly. That and the fact he's almost 30 now. Equally, Jonathan Lewis is clearly still a better bowler than Onions and Kirby, but I suppose he's getting on a bit now so his exclusion is fair noof.

Somewhat surprised there's only been one (well, two if you count DB) other English poster comment on this squad so far TBH.

 

[GIMH]

why wouldn't we count Brumby?

I don't read too much into Lions squads at home tbh, for example Hoggard was picked in one back when he was practically the first name on the teamsheet.

Reckon Prior has a chance of getting his place back though, if Ambrose fails. There was also talk of Prior giving up the gloves and trying to get into the side as a pure batsman. ITSTL.

 

[Richard]

why wouldn't we count Brumby?

I won't count those who ignore me, obviously.

I don't read too much into Lions squads at home tbh, for example Hoggard was picked in one back when he was practically the first name on the teamsheet.

Think he was coming back from some injury or other, or had bowled about 15 overs all season, or something. There was a reason for it.

And as I say - think Wright ahead of Joyce is symbolic and hugely disappointing.

Reckon Prior has a chance of getting his place back though, if Ambrose fails. There was also talk of Prior giving up the gloves and trying to get into the side as a pure batsman. ITSTL.

I certainly hope we never see him as a Test wicketkeeper again. And he's still got a lot to do if he wants to convince me he'll make someone who can average 30, never mind 40-45, at Test level, against good seam-bowling.

 

[GIMH]

Don't remember Hoggard being injured before playing for the A team, as it was back then, certainly it was during his run of not missing a Test for a few years. He had not long previously played the ODI series in India as well, maybe it was because of FC gametime, seemed random to me at the time though. He injured his hand in that game IIRC, think Tim Bresnan stood on it, and the game itself was a farce, Chris Read sent down a few overs

 

[Magrat Garlick]

Don't remember Hoggard being injured before playing for the A team, as it was back then, certainly it was during his run of not missing a Test for a few years. He had not long previously played the ODI series in India as well, maybe it was because of FC gametime, seemed random to me at the time though. He injured his hand in that game IIRC, think Tim Bresnan stood on it, and the game itself was a farce, Chris Read sent down a few overs

'ere.

I'd imagine our 'oggy hadn't been playing much long-form cricket as there was the Twenty20 lark just after the series with Sri Lanka ended.