***Official*** England in New Zealand series 2013

[Flem274*]

My point merely is that Watling doing well enough for New Zealand isn't cut and dried proof that he's automatically a better player than Ronchi. And given that Watling's only been a regular in the test side for 3 matches now, his test record doesn't offer that much on which to base the assumption of his superiority.

Taylor doing well for NZ doesn't prove he's a better player than Ryder either, but Taylor's the one in the team. But this isn't what we're debating. You said Watling definitely isn't a better keeper than Ronchi, and I was wondering why you think this.

 

[Bahnz]

Saw the highlights of yesterdays play for the first time just now. Not liking how low and slingy Southee's action is looking.

 

[Flem274*]

So how far away does everyone think Raval is for pushing for an opening position?

One big season next summer, or a Peter Fulton pair in Wellington followed by another Ford Trophy ton from Raval.

 

[Jezroy]

I think the underlying point behind the outbursts on the previous page is fair: .

Meh - didn't feel like there were outbursts. Just think it's an interesting argument between two different points of view.

 

[Flem274*]

NZ lead by 235 runs.

Approx 98 overs left per day (Assuming no rain/light issues)

NZ declare over night? England will need around 80 overs to get rid of the deficit. Leaves around 120 overs.

I would say England then need to bat around another 70 of those 120 overs to save the game.

So the question is, can England bat around 150 to save the game?

Yes. Cook batted geological time in the test England lost to India, and this pitch is a road.

 

[Flem274*]

Meh - didn't feel like there were outbursts. Just think it's an interesting argument between two different points of view.

IIRC there were a few "**** him"s and "he can gagf". Stop being pedantic.

 

[Jezroy]

Yes. Cook batted geological time in the test England lost to India, and this pitch is a road.

Ah yes. But the road is long with many a winding turn.

 

[Jezroy]

iirc there were a few "**** him"s and "he can gagf". Stop being pedantic.

gagfc :-P

 

[theegyptian]

Question for Michael Vaughan: What do you call a great English cricketer? Myth?

Ha. This is why i can accept England playing like this occasionally and be happy when we win. Fact is that England is a good team with a combination of good (Cook,Trott, KP, Bell, Prior, Swann, Broad, Anderson) and average/unproven players (Compton, Root, Finn, Panesar). There are no greats to dominate opposition consistently. South Africa have two atg's of the game (and possibly a future one in Philander) in Kallis and Steyn and yet it's only in the last year that they've really shown they're number one in test cricket even in this period of relative international weakness.

It says something about the standard of the current international game that england made it to number 1 without any great players but it also says a lot for the achievement of the England players as a collective and professional unit. England have probably overperformed imo in the last few years but have also benefited from the weaknesss of others.

Yes I would like England to have a great player to fawn over but the fact is England haven't had one of them in my lifetime. Yes I'd love a Ponting or Steyn to really admire as a great and to destroy opposition.

That's not to say that I don;t cherish English players for what they are. My admiration for Cook is immeasurable. Here is a player with less natural talent than many other internationals and without a brilliant technique but is a giant in the English team and who I've been lucky to witness in person many of his best performances. He will probably always be my hero (unless he turns into a Vaughan type character post retirement but that seems unlikely- for my sake I hope he doesn't turn to cricket commentary/journalism after his career ends).

 

[Bahnz]

Taylor doing well for NZ doesn't prove he's a better player than Ryder either, but Taylor's the one in the team. But this isn't what we're debating. You said Watling definitely isn't a better keeper than Ronchi, and I was wondering why you think this.

His general reputation for keeping excellence, which comes from more than just Siddon. He's also picked up a lot more stumpings than any other kiwi keeper in the domestix this year, which considering he's been keeping to Luke Woodcock and Jeets is indicative of some pretty slick glovework.

 

[Howsie]

Saw the highlights of yesterdays play for the first time just now. Not liking how low and slingy Southee's action is looking.

Yep, looked much better during the winter. The ball just seemed to be floating out of his hand yesterday unlike the fizzing stuff we saw in India and Sri Lanka.

 

[Prince EWS]

Ronchi is definitely better with the gloves than Watling, ftr. Watling's been surprisingly sound with the gloves for someone who basically gave up keeping for a few years and then just had to suddenly pick it up again - no complaints - but Ronchi is a genuinely good gloveman. McCullum league, IMHO.

I think, though, if you're looking for someone bat seven in this lineup, that Watling will do a far better job of it. Ronchi's probably more likely to pound the opposition into submission or even to hit a ton in general, but Watling is a much better starter than Ronchi and is far less likely to trigger lower order collapses. He'll build partnerships with set batsmen and get consistent starts there which is what I think you need at this point more than someone who will hit a ton every couple of series but get ducks almost as regularly as Chris Martin. Ronchi does love a duck.

 

[hendrix]

Saw the highlights of yesterdays play for the first time just now. Not liking how low and slingy Southee's action is looking.

was this in his first few overs or later on? I'd heard him talking about trying to get reverse swing with a slightly lower action.

TBH there wasn't much swing even for Anderson anyway.

 

[Howsie]

His general reputation for keeping excellence, which comes from more than just Siddon. He's also picked up a lot more stumpings than any other kiwi keeper in the domestix this year, which considering he's been keeping to Luke Woodcock and Jeets is indicative of some pretty slick glovework.

Fluffed more than a few chances during the HRV cup tbh, was really poor during that comp.

I honestly can't remember Watling screwing up behind the stumps a single time since he's been given the job, he's been bloody good IMO, much better than I thought he'd be.

 

[straw man]

I think, though, if you're looking for someone bat seven in this lineup, that Watling will do a far better job of it. Ronchi's probably more likely to pound the opposition into submission or even to hit a ton in general, but Watling is a much better starter than Ronchi and is far less likely to trigger lower order collapses. He'll build partnerships with set batsmen and get consistent starts there which is what I think you need at this point more than someone who will hit a ton every couple of series but get ducks almost as regularly as Chris Martin. Ronchi does love a duck.

Except against the new ball I guess. Agree that Watling 'the calm accumulator' is a good fit for our lower order though.

 

[the big bambino]

Ha. This is why i can accept England playing like this occasionally and be happy when we win. Fact is that England is a good team with a combination of good (Cook,Trott, KP, Bell, Prior, Swann, Broad, Anderson) and average/unproven players (Compton, Root, Finn, Panesar). There are no greats to dominate opposition consistently. South Africa have two atg's of the game (and possibly a future one in Philander) in Kallis and Steyn and yet it's only in the last year that they've really shown they're number one in test cricket even in this period of relative international weakness.

It says something about the standard of the current international game that england made it to number 1 without any great players but it also says a lot for the achievement of the England players as a collective and professional unit. England have probably overperformed imo in the last few years but have also benefited from the weaknesss of others.

Yes I would like England to have a great player to fawn over but the fact is England haven't had one of them in my lifetime. Yes I'd love a Ponting or Steyn to really admire as a great and to destroy opposition.

That's not to say that I don;t cherish English players for what they are. My admiration for Cook is immeasurable. Here is a player with less natural talent than many other internationals and without a brilliant technique but is a giant in the English team and who I've been lucky to witness in person many of his best performances. He will probably always be my hero (unless he turns into a Vaughan type character post retirement but that seems unlikely- for my sake I hope he doesn't turn to cricket commentary/journalism after his career ends).

All fair points though I'll admit England should be rated higher for their talents rather than against the weakness of their opposition. Look if Cook isn't an great he sure has been batting like one and coming off big in all conditions. Superb player.

Finn hasn't performed today but from an Aussie pov Eng's new ball attack for this test is the one I fear the most. Unless Tremlett is getting fit again. He isn't, is he?

You've had a bad day at black rock. You tend to have a few. But I think you'll be too consistent for Aus come the ashes and I suspect you'll come back in this series too. Only real question mark over England's immediate future is how they'll cope without Swann.

As for the comment abt Vaughan - well I had to throw his tweet back at him as he's such a smug prick with a punchable face.

 

[Hurricane]

in the end the reason NZ has a chance of winning is Rutherford's SR. If it had've been 40 or 30 something like Fulton's we would not have enough runs to declare tonight.

Prior to observing this innings - I always wanted an opener with an SR of 40 or 50 tops. But he really advanced the game and made things happen. Will have to rethink my attitude about openers.

I have never enjoyed watching Sehwag dismantle attacks and just regarded him as a freak.

 

[Wright]

Question for Michael Vaughan: What do you call a great English cricketer? Myth?

A South African?

 

[Wright]

I fail to see how that's good news. You've shoehorned yourself into picking Peter Fulton or Martin Guptill every game now but if Ryder wants to play, there's no spot for him. This is not a good thing; this is a waste of resources.

Not sure its about Ryder wanting to play, he needs to earn it, both off the field and on.

 

[CricAddict]

a south african?

:d