*Official** New Zealand in England

[badgerhair]

Astle was off the field for an entire day, so does that mean he can't bat until around the middle of lunch time tommorow?
Or isn't there a rule that he can only bat at #7 or lower?

England bowled well in the West Indies..but I think there's a different proposition going on here & more pressure added I think.

He can come in at the fall of the fifth wicket. Which is useful, because if he had to wait until the innings had gone on as long as he'd been off, he wouldn't have been able to bat until about 4:15pm on Monday. He was taken ill on Thursday night and did not take the field when England started their innings.

Cheers,

Mike

 

[marc71178]

Personally I think the bowling from both sides has been fairly even so far. Both sides have bowled a fair amount of rubbish and I don't think any bowler has really stood out, except for maybe Flintoff...but he hasn't really taken a huge amount of wickets.

Not sure about standing out, but Jones bowled a superb spell on the first day, Harmison's first spell in the second innings was hostile and Flintoff hasbeen typical Flintoff - unlucky (the McCullum glove is giving me nightmares!)

If NZ were struggling against the English attack they would be out for far less than 300...I think poor shot selections from both teams have attributed too.

Not so much poor shot selection as uneven bounce making the shot look poor IMO.

If Bond returns in the 2nd test & strikes form, NZ's attack will immediately pose a new threat as I believe Tuffey & Oram are at their best when they've got a genuine strike bowler to partner up with.

I'd say that's a very big ask - he's been out a long time, and his Test career thus far doesn't suggest he's as effective as in ODI's - yes he has 43 wickets at 24.3, but 23 of them came either against Bangladesh or India in that farce series - it remains to be seen what he'll do when faced with a reasonably strong batting line-up (as I think we'll be playing 6 + Fred + Jones at Headingley)

 

[badgerhair]

Personally i would rather have McCullum and Vettori than Hoggard and Giles.

I'd be happy to take Vettori rather than Giles, but, badly as Hoggard bowled today, I thikn I'd still prefer him to McCullum. Unless it was a wicketkeeper I was actually after in the first place.

Cheers,

Mike

 

[marc71178]

Yeah sure the English bowlers have more variety but if that was the case, you'd think they would have been heads & shoulders above NZ in this test..which clearly they haven't.

See the comment about underperforming by Mike - Fred apart, none of the bowlers have really performed to their best.

Clearly Tuffey is struggling for rhythm & Cairns is below test standard now for bowling..I also think NZ's bowling can improve.

As can Englands.

 

[southern man]

I'd be happy to take Vettori rather than Giles, but, badly as Hoggard bowled today, I thikn I'd still prefer him to McCullum. Unless it was a wicketkeeper I was actually after in the first place.

Cheers,

Mike

I was refering to thier batting abilities as those 4 batted similar positions in the first innings.

 

[Tim]

Even if the bowling attacks are still under-performing, you've still got to do the job & at the moment NZ are doing pretty well for a supposedly poor bowling attack.

 

[badgerhair]

I was refering to thier batting abilities as those 4 batted similar positions in the first innings.

I see. Remind me - which of McCullum or Vettori batted at #4 in the first innings?

 

[Tim]

I'd be more worried about Cairns than Astle. But if Cairns & Astle both bat together it could be double trouble.

 

[badgerhair]

Even if the bowling attacks are still under-performing, you've still got to do the job & at the moment NZ are doing pretty well for a supposedly poor bowling attack.

It's all a bit academic, really. It's fairly rare for every part of any given team to perform well on any given day, let alone a whole match, still less a whole series.

England won in WI because the bowlers either maintained previous good standards or established new and higher standards for themselves and the established middle order bats stood and delivered their share, mostly having to pick up the pieces after the failure of the openers.

In this match, the openers have delivered, the middle order has been rank, and the bowling has been below par.

For New Zealand, the lower-middle-order (nominally) of Oram, Cairns and McCullum have delivered, as has Richardson, and Vettori's shown signs of life, while the rest have been pretty ordinary (assuming Astle is unable to make much more contribution).

As far as I can see, these games wil be won by the teams which get the larger number of players to perform well in any given match.

Cheers,

Mike

 

[southern man]

I see. Remind me - which of McCullum or Vettori batted at #4 in the first innings?

Neither but they did even out as McCullum batting at 3 in the second and with abit more sucess than Hoggard at 4.

Well it is bovious that McCullum and Vettori are 10000 times better batsmen than Hoggard and Giles.

 

[marc71178]

Even if the bowling attacks are still under-performing, you've still got to do the job & at the moment NZ are doing pretty well for a supposedly poor bowling attack.

Who's said anything about poor?

Although they've underperformed, the way the England openers were running in this afternoon, had McCullum been given to make it 10-2, I think another couple of wickets may have fallen cheaply - they seemed to havethat little X-factor about them and the crowd firmly behind them...

 

[Tim]

And the same could be said about Richardson on Day 1...had he stayed in NZ could have got more runs.
The game's moved on, I accepted Richardson's dismissal..maybe you should accept that McCullum got lucky.

 

[marc71178]

Neither but they did even out as McCullum batting at 3 in the second and with abit more sucess than Hoggard at 4.

Differnece being that McCullum is expected to bat, but Hoggard was doing a nightwatchmans job (which he did very well indeed - an hour and a half batting and seeing off the potentially worst overs of the second new ball) - if you feel compelled to compare like for like, Hoggard should be compared with Tuffey...

Well it is bovious that McCullum and Vettori are 10000 times better batsmen than Hoggard and Giles.

Yes, but try comparing keeper / left arm spinners - Jones and Giles against McCullum and Vettori rather than a rabbit and Giles...

Jones batted very well (and only got out once...)

 

[southern man]

Yes but this is New Zealands usual 8 and 9 vs Englands usual 8 and 9.
While McCullum has only batted at 8 twice doesnt really matter.

 

[Tim]

Rabbit...you mean Read?

 

[marc71178]

The game's moved on, I accepted Richardson's dismissal..maybe
you should accept that McCullum got lucky.

Oh, I know he got lucky, but at that crucial stage of the game with the fans behind the England attack and the recent history of that foursome the match could have been all but over by now with the correct decision on McCullum.

I know Richardson's was a bad one, but you yourself said how the second morning was typical of NZ on the second mornings so who's to say he wouldn't have got out shortly after?

 

[Tim]

I perhaps should have said "typical of the NZ middle order"

 

[marc71178]

Rabbit...you mean Read?

No, Hoggard - he's never claimed to be anything as a batsman, but be heck, he can defend if asked to...

 

[Tim]

England have shown no signs of running through NZ's batting order so far in this test, they've done it in stops & starts.

 

[marc71178]

Yes but this is New Zealands usual 8 and 9 vs Englands usual 8 and 9.

Has anyone ever claimed that England's lower order is better - no.

That said, our lower order are better at what they're in the team for.

While McCullum has only batted at 8 twice doesnt really matter.

Doesn't that contradict the first part of your post (usual number 8)?

Either way it doesn't change the fact that you cannot compare McCullum at 3 with Hoggard at 4 meaningfully - McCullum has batted that high in Domestic Cricket - Hoggard has no pretensions at being suited ot batting that high unless in a specific role (as he did in this innings)