-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
***Official*** New Zealand in England series 2013
- Thread starter NZTailender
- Start date
wellAlbidarned
International Coach
If he was actually injured then he wouldn't have played. He's making excuses.
hendrix
Hall of Fame Member
It does sound like he was carrying an injury. Perhaps he should have made that assessment himself. That might be a bit hard to expect of a player though given the medical staff gave the green light.
Still though, he will have a point to prove. He was only good in one spell in Wellington.
Still though, he will have a point to prove. He was only good in one spell in Wellington.
straw man
Hall of Fame Member
Can barely believe there's a test series involving NZ again starting tonight. I hope NZ are more prepared for cricket than I am for watching it. Still half expecting a rain-ruined 0-0 though.
Pleased to see Rutherford will be playing for Essex this season. I can see him improving a lot from that.
Pleased to see Rutherford will be playing for Essex this season. I can see him improving a lot from that.
straw man
Hall of Fame Member
Can't comment much on series 94 and earlier but that 2004 team is an interesting comparison to the current one. Some good names on paper but I remember how toothless and samey our injury-depleted right-arm-medium bowling attack was.
Batting is fairy strong though - stronger than our current lineup which despite home performances suggesting they're tough, still has a marshmallow centre. Though that 2004 series was also where we established our habit of losing matches through dreadful second-innings collapses, despite Mark Richardson.
I guess you're saying our current team is slightly better than the 2004 team? We're definitely more likely to win matches imo. Probably more likely to lose and lose badly also.
Jezroy
State Captain
Think it was mainly around the fact we had been good against SA at home (drawn 1-1). Our bowling had (care of Chris Martin) performed well, and our batting had been fairly solid.
And when they added Shane Bond to that squad, we did look like a monster squad (for us).
Plus, the fact that the most recent tour to England (1999) had been quite a turning point for the NZ team. That series was massive to what was supposedly the worst team in the world at the time.
Then we got tickled up by injury, an England team on the rise, and our lack of an ability to play 5 good days of cricket. Or even 3...
Bahnz
Hall of Fame Member
Yeah, the problem with the 2004 team for me, was that they were basically incapable of winning games. No question that the batting in that series was very good, but I don't think it's vastly superior to the current side. Williamson, Taylor, McCullum and Brownlie form a similarly solid middle-order - though I conceed that the 04 side was stronger at the top and the bottom. And as you noted, the 2004 team was similarly prone to 2nd innings collapse.
But the bowling was pretty awful. Vettori was in dreadful touch in the 2004 series, even by his standards. Tuffey was really bowling injured. Oram was being asked to fill the 3rd seamers role, when he has only ever been a decent medium pacer with a bit of extra bounce. I remember on the final day of the first test at Lords, the bowler who looked most likely to get Hussain out was Scott Styris. That just about says it all.
Martin and Cairns were the only bowlers in the side even approaching genuine test class. And until the last test of the series (when injuries to other players forced him to assume the role of leader of the attack) Cairns was bowling well within himself.
So yes, I'd give the current side a slight edge, and I'd back them to win a series against the 04 mob, especially if it was played out on relatively placid surfaces. However, I agree that the 2004 bunch were a better bet to draw a test (even though - Bangladesh aside - they lost 6 tests on the trot that year). I reckon they'd win a series on the sportier pitches that were on offer in 2002/03 and 2006/07 - if only because of Richardson's ability to glue the batting lineup together.
Last edited:
wellAlbidarned
International Coach
You're giving broad the benefit of the doubt. With his history of being a moany little twit, I'm not.
Last edited:
Cabinet96
Global Moderator
Thing is, if he'd made the assessment himself, then he'd be giving fuel to the KungFu_Kallis sort. Especially after England were thrashed so badly in Ahmedabad. Think of the stick Gambhir gets for missing Durban and Trent Bridge because he was injured.
Hurricane
Hall of Fame Member
Good Stuff. Someone message HowardJ and pay him a stipend to do the weather updates for this series.Kippax's Weather Wall
He should do them in every tour thread.
Last edited:
wellAlbidarned
International Coach
Holy **** I thought this started tomorrow night. Stoked and gutted simultaneously.
Hurricane
Hall of Fame Member
Normally I enjoy watching us bat more than bowl as I am a batsman. But first morning of a test match in England in May I sincerely hope to see Southee steaming in.
Also even though it is the wrong call I would prefer to see the 4 seamers in action. The sensible call is to play Bartin - will probably get more wickets that Doug.
Also even though it is the wrong call I would prefer to see the 4 seamers in action. The sensible call is to play Bartin - will probably get more wickets that Doug.