*Official** New Zealand in England

[meatspx]

It's pretty obvious from Bracewell's comments that Bond will not be playing in the test series. His comeback would be suited to the ODIs, but one has to ask the question of why include him in the test squad, as for the short-term strategic nature of the side his selection is worthless.

Sinclair could have provided an extra top order (not middle order) batting option, and definately deserved selection. With Astle struggling to regain fitness and having absoulety no match fitness, this would have been ideal. In hindsight I hope the NZ selectors won't be cursing the fact that they didn't take a squad of 15.

 

[Tim]

If thats the case, then why are they even taking Bond...they are pretty much wasting a spot if he's not going to play. If they reckon he's fit and they're taking him then I think he'll definately play in the tests.

 

[Tim]

I heard on the radio that Murray Deaker reckons because of Bracewells close ties with Glouc's, he'll be able to get 2 or 3 NZ players into the 2nd XI.
Which is a fairly good idea because at least then they're playing cricket rather than being left out of the NZ side for the warm-up matches & playing no cricket at all.

I presume those 3 players would be Sinclair, Butler & possibly Franklin or Bruce Martin.

 

[marc71178]

All these discussions about the 2 injured players makes we wonder - why on Earth did they only select 14?

It would've been bad enough taking 16 with a couple of injury doubts (witness England in Australia 2002/03) but 14 is sheer lunacy!

 

[Craig]

Bracewell said the nature of the tour meant that New Zealand could probably have taken only 13 players to maintain the balance of the side

Honestly if a player or two got injured they would have been rushing around like headless chooks to get players who a) are playing league cricket and pick them because of logistical reasoning (ie travel distane), but maybe not be good enough b) get players in from New Zealand and it can be quite rushing if a player's passport has expire/doesnt have one, get visas etc.

Shows to me that they are being tight.

 

[Craig]

All these discussions about the 2 injured players makes we wonder - why on Earth did they only select 14?

It would've been bad enough taking 16 with a couple of injury doubts (witness England in Australia 2002/03) but 14 is sheer lunacy!

You hit the nail on the head there.

England had something like 11 players who had gone home injured or were on tour injured. And Michael Vaughan played that whole series with various knee, shoulder injuries. That is why I guess why he never bowled.

Even Trescothick injured a shoulder and Crawley with his hip.

 

[Loony BoB]

Of course, it wouldn't be the first time NZ have taken on people who are mere days back from injury. I suppose for them it's not so much a case of how soon they're back from injury but more a case of how well they can play. After all, should they be playing for New Zealand A or New Zealand - hell, should they be playing for Canterbury - they're still playing cricket. So long as you're fit to play one, you're fit to play the other.

 

[anzac]

Of course, it wouldn't be the first time NZ have taken on people who are mere days back from injury. I suppose for them it's not so much a case of how soon they're back from injury but more a case of how well they can play. After all, should they be playing for New Zealand A or New Zealand - hell, should they be playing for Canterbury - they're still playing cricket. So long as you're fit to play one, you're fit to play the other.

and often in the past few seasons this has backfired on them - Vettori, Cairns, Nash, O'Conner & others have all broken down again with either a recurrance of the original injury, or a new one after coming back to international cricket without much of a recuperation into playing anything..........

more recently Astle broke down after they tried to get him back for the series v RSA, when they were trying to get him fit to play in the Shield final & SOO limited overs matches - there is nothing to suggest that this could not happen on tour in England as neither player has really made their full comeback as yet...........

previously the 'excuse / reasoning' has been the lack of talent available to the selectors & the importance of the series / matches, but IMO this does not hold true for this tour. The major difference being that this season has seen a host of playes put their hands up for selection with solid performances throughout the domestic season and 'A' team matches.

I have grave concerns as to just how much the likes of Bond & Astle can contribute to the team after not playing any cricket for an extended period, in comparison to players who are fit & in form - even if some may be unknowns at this level.

If the selectors are going to use the tour to bring Bond & Astle back to match fitness for the ODIs, I hope for the team's sake that all goes well, but IMO it is lunacy to go on tour with an effective squad of only 12 players. There has already been some debate on this site concerning the resting of players in key positions, & one wonders how this can now be effectively achieved?

If they pull this series off then they will be looked upon as having made the right choice, but if this goes sour they need their arses kicked all the way back home! I was hoping that with Bracewell taking the reigns we would have seen the last of the selections such as the WC & TVS Cup, but this apears to be much of the same IMO.

:****ed:

 

[Craig]

I have grave concerns as to just how much the likes of Bond & Astle can contribute to the team after not playing any cricket for an extended period, in comparison to players who are fit & in form - even if some may be unknowns at this level.

I personally wouldnt of taken them and given them the winter to be 120% fit not 70-90% fit. Also the other reasoning being is that they havent played any cricket over the summer so I dont see why a player, no matter how good they are, shouldnt push their way in if they have picked up a bat or ball.

What is the point in taking somebody if they arent going to be fit? I would of had Sinclair/Fulton instead of Astle and Franklin in place of Bond.

Mason wouldnt be there as he didnt take his chance on debut.

 

[Dougie Rydal]

The statement that Bond may not be fit enough to play in the tests baffles me if we are only taking 14 players. If we had taken one more then i think it actually makes good sense as Bond could play some of the County games and we'd have some backup, but to only have 14 players, and one of them unlikely to play tests, and another 2 with injury doubts.

Unless Braces has started playing mind games already! I saw Bondy pounding the streets of Belfast yesterday and he looked pretty lean and fit, so maybe he is fit and rearing to go...

Bottom line is - i still have my doubts about the fitness of Bond, Tuffey and Astle...

 

[Lions81]

.

I have grave concerns as to just how much the likes of Bond & Astle can contribute to the team after not playing any cricket for an extended period, in comparison to players who are fit & in form - even if some may be unknowns at this level.


:****ed:

I gotta go with talent over form anyday. You know Bond and Astle can do it and have done it in the past, so you gotta trust that they can do it again, unless they aren't fit or are done in terms of being too old, etc. If they're fit and in their prime, you gotta trust them more than some other players.

 

[Grubb]

Having an untested Bond and Astle in the team doesn't seem to be such a disaster to me. Obviously, if they both break down then there will be trouble, but I don't think selection is the issue. The problem is only taking 14 players.

With the resources there in terms of allrounders, Bond can have a managed return and will not need to be bowling 25 overs a day from the outset, and they will have the opportunity to see how the remodelled action will affect his game.

I think it's a long-term decision. They've decided that, with the situation they are in, they want experience rather than youth at this stage, and I support that. Both players still have a lot to offer if they can get through the injuries, and a tour to England seems as good a place as any to give them their chance.

 

[Kent]

All these discussions about the 2 injured players makes we wonder - why on Earth did they only select 14?

It would've been bad enough taking 16 with a couple of injury doubts (witness England in Australia 2002/03) but 14 is sheer lunacy!

I posted this earlier in the thread I think, but the decision was deemed a financial one. I thought it might've been cost-cutting influenced by the players' pay dispute last year, but according to CEO Martin Snedden they've always paid for 20 tour members for the UK. In the past this might've meant 17 players and 3 staff, but with all the video analysis etc. these days Bracewell and the team opted for a 14-6 split.

 

[Kent]

Personally I'm not too worried about Astle and Bond's selections.

Astle often scores heavily in his first innings back from injury, and IMO to leave him out when he's willing to play would've been an insult to his talent and experience. It's his family's future that he's endangering if he comes back too early, and there's nothing to suggest his main knee problem isn't manageable.

As for Bond, what I can gather from the experts is there's really no point in delaying any longer. His back isn't going to heal or fortify itself any more than it already has, so it's just a matter of grooving in the new action and seeing how it goes.

 

[Lions81]

As for Bond, what I can gather from the experts is there's really no point in delaying any longer. His back isn't going to heal or fortify itself any more than it already has, so it's just a matter of grooving in the new action and seeing how it goes.

Is it true that Bond is no longer a fast bowler but is going to be bowling medium-pace from here on? That would be a sad thing, there aren't too many bowlers who could bowl at the pace and with the control that Bond did.

 

[Craig]

I have heard pace isnt going to be an issue. According to Mingster. I will see what Tim says.

 

[marc71178]

according to CEO Martin Snedden they've always paid for 20 tour members for the UK. In the past this might've meant 17 players and 3 staff, but with all the video analysis etc. these days Bracewell and the team opted for a 14-6 split.

And of course those extra analysts will be so useful when a team only has 10 fit players because of injuries.

Are they packing their kit?

 

[luckyeddie]

And of course those extra analysts will be so useful when a team only has 10 fit players because of injuries.

Are they packing their kit?

Well, if Hawkeye can replace umpires, I'm sure that the videotape man can keep wicket.

 

[Arjun]

In Tests, the England batting is settled, but whom would you pick in ODI's? They don't have Butcher, Hussain had retired and Thorpe is not in the plans (for some strange reason), then you are left with Trescothick(?), Vaughan, Collingwood, then two vacant places. Unless Rikki Clarke and Anthony McGrath will play as batsmen.

Well, if Hawkeye can replace umpires

Then Tests would get over in 2 days and ODI's, in 20 overs!

 

[Arjun]

If you have seen Andy Strauss in action, what's your opinion? He was once named as Trescothick's best replacement.