*Official** New Zealand in England

[marc71178]

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

But then again neither have New Zealand - my point is the way the game was balanced, England having just got a small lead thanks to a great hour of batting and then an early wicket - the crowd were right behind them and they were lifted by it - it's happened before and the team have skittled reasonable batting sides out for not a lot, and I was sat watching thinking that this could've been another of those occasions - the momentum was definitely in England's court and I feel that 1 more wicket would've brought 2 or 3.

 

[southern man]

McCullum is new zealands mr fix it man but if everything goes to plan he would bat at 8, But Bracewell has said that he does have a future in atleast the top 6 even higher.

 

[marc71178]

Sounds a bit like Jones - he has the ability to go up the order (provided he can retain the wicket-keeping attributes)

 

[Tim]

The key in England's innings will be Flintoff.
It's going to be difficult for guys like Hussain & Thorpe who like to get their eye in and take their time to fully come to terms with the pitch, whereas Flintoff will throw the bat at anything and the pitch won't necessarily affect him too badly.

That's why I think tommorow Fleming needs to start using Styris more often as his variations on this pitch could be useful. I just wish Astle was bowling again because he also would be a frustrating bowler to bat against.
Vettori too, may have gained confidence from the 1st innings and if he comes to the party in the 2nd innings then that would give his career a much needed boost.

I think also sometime during this series, Cairns will have one last say with the ball (and be hammered the rest of the time) but I hope it's tommorow.

 

[Tim]

If McCullum gets a century then that could potentially lift his career to new heights...occassionally though he has the habit of playing a really stupid shot which makes him look decidedly average.

I don't know though if McCullum is quite good enough to consistently bat in the top #5 at this stage. I personally think he's better suited at #7 or #8 where if NZ have created a solid platform, he can cut loose and play aggressively with confidence.

He's definately the start of a new breed of cricketers in NZ though...far more aggressive than most of the other batsmen NZ have produced.

 

[southern man]

McCullum could have up to 10 or 12 years left in international cricket so there is plenty of time for his batting to calm down abit, I think he will be become of of our key players in the next few years.

 

[luckyeddie]

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.

If IO've told you once I've told you a million times - don't exaggerate.

They're only 9786 times better.

 

[Loony BoB]

I don't know, I have a lot of respect for Hoggard, even if he hasn't really fired in this test match. Didn't he do some notable damage to NZ in NZ a few years ago? That's probably why I respect him so much, if that's the case. Dunno for sure, though.

I still think we might have a bit of trouble in the morning session - I think a lot of wickets have fallen in the morning compared to other sessions. I'm yet to say for sure, though.

 

[meatspx]

England's bowling figures in New Zealand, 2002:

Name Mat O M R W Ave Best 5 10 SR Econ
MJ Hoggard 3 119.2 34 402 17 23.64 7-63 1 - 42.1 3.36
A Flintoff 3 93 20 313 9 34.77 3-49 - - 62.0 3.36
AF Giles 3 100 20 236 6 39.33 4-103 - - 100.0 2.36

Hoggard definately bowled well, only Caddick with 19 wickets performed better. IMHO Hoggard only bowls well when there is swing, and that is dependent on the conditions. In this morning session he will be at his most dangerous.

 

[meatspx]

New Zealand's fast bowlers have been utter tripe to date.

Tuffey was embarassing to watch when bowling to Flintoff (that half-tracker outside off-stump that was hit for six for example). Tuffey gets his wickets when he is consistently outside the off-stump hitting the seam, and at the moment he isn't there.

Cairns isn't at his best and should only be expected to bowl around 2-3 spells of 4-5 overs each innings. His most important role in the team is batting at 6.

Oram bowled tightly at times, but countlessly pushed the ball onto the legs of the lefties. Oram bowling in tandem with a fast(ish) strike bowler (Martin or Bond) would be ideal for NZ.

Martin isn't swinging the ball and hitting the seam, and is not bowling at his full speed. The rhythm isn't there for him.

If Bond is fit and has pushed himself to his limit in between the first and second test, I'd replace Vettori, or Martin/Tuffey depending on who bowls well in the second innings.

 

[Craig]

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!)

I saw that and it at first it looked like it came off his arm, not his glove. He certainly troubled the NZ batsmen from what I saw (flicking in between the FA Cup Final and and the cricket).

For a talented player, he does seem to be over releant on boundaries. He got tied down on his innings of 63, and then threw it away when he fell into Fleming's trap.

His innings helped put England back in the match, along with Geriant Jones' 46. I was impressed by their innings, but both threw their innings away with over aggresive shots.

 

[Craig]

What did people think of the decision to send in Hoggard as a nightwatchman?

IMO England were in a strong position and really I'm sure Nasser Hussain is capable of going to bat out of batting for a few overs and have to established batsmen at the crease, then one established batsman and a tailender.

Credit to Hoggard, he fullfilled his role to a tee as a nightwatchman, however, England needed to kick on, and him there held England back.

 

[Kent]

New Zealand's fast bowlers have been utter tripe to date.

Don't want to be too much of a joy-germ, but I agree with that. I think if that was a bowling effort against Australia we'd have been looking at a 250 deficit, but maybe England just aren't used to putting the foot on the throat as far as batting is concerned.

If I was Fleming I'd be very cautious about declaring if all goes to plan tonight. Some people have said England should be set around 300 in 4 sessions, but the NZ bowlers to me have looked a lot more out-of-sorts than when Pakistan and South Africa cruised home in recent 4th innings chases.

Play it conservatively, don't even make it possible for England to leave Lord's 1-0 up, and work damn hard on the bowling form. Think very hard about whether Bond is ready, sit Tuffey down and ask him how fit he really is, and ask Martin why he's been bowling up to 10kph slower than 2 months ago.

 

[Loony BoB]

I wouldn't replace Vettori right when his confidence may well be returning, and I can't see the captain and selectors letting that happen, either - for the good of NZ cricket in the future, they'll believe that Vettori needs confidence, and he needs wickets - he got two, so hopefully he can continue and move on to better things once again. He got a fair bit of turn at times, too. Still, it might end up a pitch-dependant choice.

I think it's just a case of us having a lack of true strike bowlers in the side at the moment. I agree that Bond should come in when he's fit, but only when fit. I don't think that this soon after injury that Bond will make that much of an impact, although I would love to be proved wrong.

 

[Kent]

I think Vettori has shown a few more signs of form with the ball, but it looms as a big 4th innings for him providing our batsmen do the business.

Many a time people have said "watch out for Vettori on the 5th day - he'll spin NZ to victory". Yet in his 7-year career this hasn't happened once. Not even a single time, if my memory is right. The slower and lower the pitch gets, usually the less of a factor he actually is.

There are a few England players who don't strike me as the best players of spin though, so with plenty of men around the bat and hopefully runs in the bank, fingers crossed for him.

 

[badgerhair]

Don't want to be too much of a joy-germ, but I agree with that. I think if that was a bowling effort against Australia we'd have been looking at a 250 deficit, but maybe England just aren't used to putting the foot on the throat as far as batting is concerned.

When the middle order batting engine is a collective failure, comments about "not used to putting the foot on the throat" seem considerably wide of the mark. If Butcher, Hussain, and Thorpe had batted the way they usually do, that 250 lead would have been a formality, but they all stuffed up big time, so it wasn't. I imagine that if Ponting, Martyn and Lehmann all failed, Australia would struggle to establish a 250 lead in the circs.

Cheers,

Mike

 

[tooextracool]

McCullum could have up to 10 or 12 years left in international cricket so there is plenty of time for his batting to calm down abit, I think he will be become of of our key players in the next few years.

mccullum does look a good player....anything short he cuts(even the ones on mid stump) and anything full he drives. although he did seem to be having a few problems against the ball coming into him.

 

[Kent]

If Butcher, Hussain, and Thorpe had batted the way they usually do, that 250 lead would have been a formality, but they all stuffed up big time, so it wasn't.

Just out of interest, when were the last times England actually amassed huge first innings leads against a decent rival?

That's not me trying to be snarky - I don't follow England closely enough to remember I guess.

 

[luckyeddie]

His innings helped put England back in the match, along with Geriant Jones' 46. I was impressed by their innings, but both threw their innings away with over aggresive shots.

Never a truer word.

I love listening to Boycott - what that man doesn't know about batting isn't worth knowing - and he spoke about something Richie Benaud (I think) had said about Flintoff... "Be there at the end of the innings".

The day he takes that advice to heart and learns to score more than just the odd 'not out' is the day I will look upon Flintoff as something other than a useful banger. There was a century to be had and a chance to go really big against an attack which was wilting.

 

[tooextracool]

Just out of interest, when were the last times England actually amassed huge first innings leads against a decent rival?

That's not me trying to be snarky - I don't follow England closely enough to remember I guess.

yea i think thats a major problem with england.....they tend to always look good for 500+ and then get out for 400. i think england invented the art of collapsing.
if things go well for NZ today they are going to have to chase 350+ and thats never going to be easy in the 4th innings of a test match.