*Official** New Zealand in England

[anzac]

ok so can anyone tell me which NZL players are currently in ENG (outside the touring party), and when Harris & Marshall are joining the squad?????

is Mason there or was he placed on standby from NZL re Bond?????
has Butler already gone to take up his position with Kent????
what about any other batsmen?????

so far we know that we have Sinclair, Hopkins, Franklin, Fulton & Adams all there..........

what about other contenders such as How, B Martin, Wiseman, Bell, M Walker, Thompson, Gillespie etc..........the other guys from the 'A' series.....

 

[Kent]

Franklin and Sinclair have joined the NZ squad for the 3rd test. Butler is currently flying to England, arriving on Thursday morning UKT. As you'd expect, Bracewell says Butler's highly unlikely to play at Trent Bridge, while Franklin may well play.

Neither Bruce Martin nor Wiseman are in the UK. Vettori's injury will need to be fully assessed before any replacement for the ODI squad is requested I imagine.

 

[SpaceMonkey]

Franklin and Sinclair have joined the NZ squad for the 3rd test. Butler is currently flying to England, arriving on Thursday morning UKT. As you'd expect, Bracewell says Butler's highly unlikely to play at Trent Bridge, while Franklin may well play.

Neither Bruce Martin nor Wiseman are in the UK. Vettori's injury will need to be fully assessed before any replacement for the ODI squad is requested I imagine.

With the ODIs starting to soon after the 3rd test though i would be very surprised if Vettori is fit for them.

 

[Kent]

Yep, that's probably going to be the case. It looks like there could be the following changes to the original tri-series squad:

* Bond out, maybe Franklin in.
* Vettori out, maybe Mason or B Martin in.
* Fleming out, perhaps Sinclair or Taylor in.

Just in some other domestic news, Tim McIntosh and Richard Sherlock have been signed up to move to Canterbury. You'd think they're the last province that needs imports, but still nice to see the main pipeline to the Black Caps taking an interest in Sherlock.

 

[Dougie Rydal]

I had to laugh (cry?) when i heard John Bracewell saying this morning on the radio that they will consider players such as Franklin to add some much needed variation to the attack.

Uh - hello Braces?

Wasn't that was blindingly obvious going into the 2nd test?

I mean it was laughable to suggest that hopelessly out of form Martin, Vetorri and Tuffey with back up from Cairns and Styris were likely to rip through the Pommy line up. They certainly should've played another seamer.

Some real questions need to be asked of this selection panel, some were at the time only 14 were selected but they were waived away by Bracewell, but i mean really, only 14 players and then to say that one of them (Bond) was unlikely to play any tests. I was all for Bond going but they should've taken cover for him. I also can't believe NZ Cricket couldn't afford to take 1 or 2 more players, apparantly the ECB pays for 20 (14 players and 6 officials), but surely NZC could stump up for 1 or 2 more...

What a crazy world we live in, previously heralded front offices in NZC and the Warriors now under scrunity, with the previously inadequate NZRFU now looking quite sound (SANZAR TV agreements aside)...at least there is still NZ Soccer we can all laugh at (as per usual).

 

[James]

Sure, no problem!

Thanks Neil - they're up http://www.cricketweb.net/cricketphotos/england/2004/englandnzfirsttest-1.shtml

 

[Craig]

Right, so we'll scrub Lara's 400 out pof the record books then because the series was over, so it "doesn't look as good as if it were in a live game" shall we?

Hey I gave my reasoning to what I said re Butcher, if you can't be bothered reading it, not my problem.

-------------------------------------------

At the rate Shane Bond is going down, he is becoming the New Zealand verson of Bruce Reid.

-------------------------------------------

Really disapionting performances by New Zealand, batsmen are making starts and not going on with and batsmen getting out in the 90's and not get to 100 (in all fairness Richardson got a bad one at Lords).

I don't care what Looney Bob might think, I do not find it acceptable batting for 145 balls and not making 50, or batting 343 balls and not getting a century by Richardson, and nor am I satisfied that Fleming is getting out for 97, and saying 'other batsmen should get the hundreds'.

IMO, unless you get a bad decision, get a very good ball, get left not out, once you get past 80-85, you should be getting 100's.

--------------------------------------------

Not a bad ton by Geriant Jones for somebody who was fourth choice wicket keeper in Queensland (behind Ian Healy, Wade Seccombe, and Gavin Fitness), he has come a long way.

 

[Linda]

and nor am I satisfied that Fleming is getting out for 97, and saying 'other batsmen should get the hundreds'.

No joke? I didnt know he said that. Sounds a bit shady...

 

[marc71178]

Hey I gave my reasoning to what I said re Butcher, if you can't be bothered reading it, not my problem.

I read it, hence I commented on it.

A big score in a Teat is a big score in a Test, and a match-winning innings is a match winning innings.

Heck, if Styris or someone hits a double century in the 3rd Test, will that be downgraded as "the series was over" even though the series is 3 matches?

I don't care what Looney Bob might think, I do not find it acceptable batting for 145 balls and not making 50, or batting 343 balls and not getting a century by Richardson

Yes, it's far better to not make 50 from 80 balls, look at all that time saved and how much newer the ball is for the middle order to face!

 

[twctopcat]

Yes, it's far better to not make 50 from 80 balls, look at all that time saved and how much newer the ball is for the middle order to face!

That's not 100% true. To get that 50 in such a short amount of time would require a lot of punishment on the ball which would mean the person coming in after would be dealing with a fairly battered and not particularly smooth cricket ball.

 

[Craig]

Heck, if Styris or someone hits a double century in the 3rd Test, will that be downgraded as "the series was over" even though the series is 3 matches?

Yep.

What I mean is the series is over, is when NZ can not win it, only making the final result more respectable.

 

[Pedro Delgado]

I can't believe the amount of bloody whinging going on here.

 

[luckyeddie]

I can't believe the amount of bloody whinging going on here.

Hope there's as much next year.

 

[Pedro Delgado]

Hope there's as much next year.

Yeah, I can accept it from the Aussies but the Kiwi's are "landed gentry" for crying out loud! Come on chaps, gallant loosers and all that....

 

[luckyeddie]

Yeah, I can accept it from the Aussies but the Kiwi's are "landed gentry" for crying out loud! Come on chaps, gallant loosers and all that....

The Aussies are keeping their heads down anyway - they're just relieved that the Solomon Islands don't play cricket.

 

[Loony BoB]

Yeah, I can accept it from the Aussies but the Kiwi's are "landed gentry" for crying out loud! Come on chaps, gallant loosers and all that....

I'm not bothered with losing. I'm bothered by the lack of genius cricket in the last test. The first test I loved more than any test I'd seen in years (to be fair, it was the first test I'd seen in years ) and we lost there, too! That sums up my opinion rather well, for the most part. Not a whinge - just a matter of fact. NZ bowlers weren't good. They were crap. So was the pitch. Simple. ;D

As for the "gallant" "gentry" of NZ, yes, we were that way when we lost the first test because we felt truely beaten on all accounts. We don't say "come on chaps" when half our team have been turned into paperweights, though - I'm sure you English sods would gripe a bit too if you'd sent 14 men to NZ and found them all buggered up (good Lord, that would be even worse, as NZ doesn't exactly have county cricket pulling the pomsover...)

eddie: Ever seen a game of Kilikiti? Great fun!

 

[luckyeddie]

eddie: Ever seen a game of Kilikiti? Great fun!

Killing kitties?
Disgraceful, I say.
The way you Kiwis abuse sheep though makes me realise that nothing is sacred.

Seriously, I'd never heard of it - but just spent the last 15 minutes on the net acquainting myself with the sport. It seems to involve lots of alcohol, according to some of the sites, so it's all good in my book.

 

[Loony BoB]

Killing kitties?
Disgraceful, I say.
The way you Kiwis abuse sheep though makes me realise that nothing is sacred.

Seriously, I'd never heard of it - but just spent the last 15 minutes on the net acquainting myself with the sport. It seems to involve lots of alcohol, according to some of the sites, so it's all good in my book.

Basically the Pacific Island (Samoa in particular if I remember rightly) way of playing cricket. Almost a mix between cricket and baseball - the ball goes a bloody long way when they hit it. If Samoans played cricket, they could come up with some awesome players. Big, fast, powerful guys. Hence they don't play cricket - hello rugby.

 

[marc71178]

That's not 100% true. To get that 50 in such a short amount of time would require a lot of punishment on the ball which would mean the person coming in after would be dealing with a fairly battered and not particularly smooth cricket ball.

Yes, but I'm talking about NOT getting 50!

 

[marc71178]

The Aussies are keeping their heads down anyway - they're just relieved that the Solomon Islands don't play cricket.

LOL

I wonder if they drew it on purpose, knowing that they then play the Solomon Islands in the final rather than New Zealand?

Either way, wouldn't it be funny if the Solomons qualified for the play off?!