*Official** New Zealand in England

[Tim]

I hear Crowe & Smith say time & time again that Tuffey is a confidence player & in my view thats no good at international level. There are too many ups & downs so therefore hes never really going to be able to consistently get on with the job.

Im not writing his career off..but he's got to toughen up or in a couple of years he will most likely be overtaken by other bowlers.

 

[Isolator]

Just as a sidenote - I was amazed Snedden said the BC's management confirmed to him that Tuffey is 100% fit and was simply dropped on form.

Why are you amazed? Tuffey looked utterly defeated.

 

[Isolator]

That's a big assumption.

Correct. There were worse drops, too. Like Boucher dropping Fleming - that one certainly cost them the match.

 

[Arjun]

That's a big assumption.

He made a 50,. with Kaif, who also made a 50. That took the match away from them.

Hopkins, I think is one of the best keepers..if not the best in New Zealand. His batting stats aren't particulary flash..but if NZ's top order works consistently, he'll make up for that because he'll take 99% of the chances that go to him.
I said earlier that I was happy to see him score 70 odd against Leic's last week..he was able to step up & take runs, so I wouldn't rule him out in the future either.

IF there are 5 specialist batsmen, 1 batsman who can bowl and 2 bowlers who can bat, if Hopkins just contributes to a partnership, and he keeps well, he can be quite useful.

 

[Tim]

New Zealand never scored enough runs in that match against India anyway. Bond was on fire, and perhaps the dropped chance off his bowling did affect how he bowled after that.

The WC was a prime example of how one bowler carried NZ through to the Super Six, apart from against South Africa where all the bowlers took tap.
New Zealand seem to be ok with a medium pace attack at home, but outside of the country it seems to be no good.

 

[Isolator]

He made a 50,. with Kaif, who also made a 50. That took the match away from them.

The big assumption is that had McCullum caught Dravid, India would have lost. That is a big assumption. On the other hand, one could say with almost complete certainty that Boucher's drop cost them the match.

 

[Tim]

I agree...apart from that minor hitch, Fleming never ever looked like getting out that evening.

 

[Isolator]

The WC was a prime example of how one bowler carried NZ through to the Super Six

Actually, I think NZ's last two series illustrate this best. Against SA, Martin was bowling well and everything seemed good. "Best New Zealand team ever". In England, they didn't have someone they could ride on, and the hollow nature of the "best team ever" was exposed. New Zealand would have lost to South Africa without Martin.

 

[Tim]

For a second I was going to defend NZ there but no..I agree with you.
There have been far too many times with NZ bowlers where 1 has stood up & the rest have failed due to lack of confidence or form.

Confidence comes down to lack of mental toughness in my opinion & lack of form happens to everyone but for some reason with NZ bowlers it goes on & on & on. I.e. you never saw McGrath lose confidence if he took some tap in 1 match..he'd be back in the next match making up for it.

Butler is an extremely tough & confident young man, he's a bit wayward with the bowling but Harmison (in recent times) has proved you can improve from that. We need a couple of bowlers who are keen for a contest.

 

[tooextracool]

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh Fukk You Fukk You Fukk You F-1 Racing

yea i was saying the same thing when i missed the last 2 hrs of days play.....it got even worse when schumacher won.

 

[tooextracool]

Trent Bridge - Batting, second innings. Firmly believe it was the only thing that really let us down this time - the dropped catches were difficult catches and one of them I'd say wasn't even a catch at all (Marshall - he's too short to call that a drop). You could say the lack of bowlers in the team due to injuries, too, of course - but if we'd batted as we should have in the second innings, we'd have won this match with ease.

the reason NZ lost was because there was no vettori....im pretty certain that if vettori played NZ would have won by 50 runs at least....im also surprised that fleming only gave richardson 1 over....especially when there were a couple of big partnerships that really needed to be broken.

Glad we annihalated your so-called world champs at the rugby or else I'd have nothing to finish this post off with.

and how many players in the side were part of that wc winning squad?

 

[tooextracool]

It didn't turn too much today.

have you been watching the game?

 

[luckyeddie]

have you been watching the game?

Careful.....

 

[Loony BoB]

and how many players in the side were part of that wc winning squad?

That means as much to me as the fact that NZ were plagued by injury would mean to the England cricket team. England only rested a few of their key players because they knew they'd get their nails broken by the All Blacks.

 

[Loony BoB]

Actually, I think NZ's last two series illustrate this best. Against SA, Martin was bowling well and everything seemed good. "Best New Zealand team ever". In England, they didn't have someone they could ride on, and the hollow nature of the "best team ever" was exposed. New Zealand would have lost to South Africa without Martin.

*cough*Harmison*cough*

 

[SpaceMonkey]

*cough*Harmison*cough*

To be fair all the bowlers took wickets in the WI's everyone got a 5-for bar Hoggard who got a 4 for and a hattrick in the 3rd test (i think) anyway.

 

[Loony BoB]

Ah, fair enough then. I still think Harmison was the biggest difference between the two sides in England, though. If we had a player doing as well as he was, well, yeah. If if if if if if.

 

[anzac]

How long do you think before Bracewell starts pushing for guys like Taylor, Ryder, Sherlock, Fulton etc...?

Butler has got more raw ability than Tuffey & Martin..and if he became good, he'd be a damn good sight to watch considering he likes to run all the way down the wicket to the batsman in his follow through.

I was impressed with Butler's efforts in IND - to be able to keep up that level of pace & aggro all day....................

IMO having just turned 22 last Nov?, he could well be better than Harmison by then time he reaches the same age - 28?

I also think that his style of bowling (banging it in back of a length), is NOT suited to the majority of NZL pitches as they tend to stay low........... hence he becomes easy pickings for the hook / pull...........it would be interesting to see how he shapes up at Jade & The Basin, as they seemed the most 'responsive' pitches in the recent home series so far as pace & bounce went.........

 

[anzac]

Small? He may work wonders for a little time but won't last very long.

Anyway, I read Rahul Dravid's comments about a tall fast bowler from Karnataka, India, who was quite impressive. At 6'6", Dravid advised him not to go for pace as taller fast bowlers get injured more. But don't these fast bowlers last longer and bowl faster, and also hit the deck harder?

Malcolm Marshall wasn't tall - about 5'11 or thereabouts wasn't he???

 

[superkingdave]

I
IMO having just turned 22 last Nov?, he could well be better than Harmison by then time he reaches the same age - 28?

Harmison is 25