**Official** England in New Zealand

[PY]

Geez there was some clean hitting there.

Yeah I thought the same, some of those balls came racing off the bat and even if the ground isn't the largest, some of those strikes by Ryder and McCullum went friggin' miles!

 

[Jono]

I'd love to know McCullum's record as a batsman in ODIs held in NZ. He always seems to do well there, and the small grounds really help his batting style (not taking a shot at him, I quite like watching him bat).

So much so I think I may go find out now.

EDIT: He averages 31.03 overall at home.

His last few scores in NZ have been 10, 32, 22, 17, 22*, 86*, 40, 35, 80*, 42, 80*

Not bad.

 

[Matt52]

Ryder got interviewed tonight on the main news programme in NewZealand, I think they may be getting carried away, I think they should wait until the tests, before they start singing his praises.

Yeah. I think Ryder is gonna be good but I was just thinking about how many nz batsmen come on the scene, do well in their first few games and then dont quite kick on.

McMillan got a 50 against Aus in his first test innings iirc.
Fleming got 90 odd in one of his first few odis.
Styris got a century and a 50 against the windies in his first test
Vincent got a 100 and a 50 in his first test, batting out of position against Aus
Taylor did well and got a century in his 7th or 8th game iirc
Fulton averaged over 50 odd in his first series against sri Lanka
How scored a 50 in his first or second odi against Sri Lanka
Papps averages over 50 for the few odis he has played.
Hamish Marshall did really well in his first tour. That Pakistan tour where most of the team pulled out.
Sinclair got a double century in his first innings.
and now Ryder has done very well in his first few innings.

This was just off the top of my head so it may not be exactly correct but you get the idea. But they never turn out to be as good as we initially hope for. It must be something with nz batsmen....nothing to lose maybe??....... who knows.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Online this late on your birthday Jack?

Had a big shindig on Saturday night, and have work tomorrow morning.

 

[Langeveldt]

Highlights of yesterdays match. I pretty much included every boundary of McCullum and Ryder

good stuff

 

[Langeveldt]

As for his inital selection, we all know that you'd struggle to name an XI based on outstanding domestic List A form, so there's always going to be hunches. Bopara was certainly no worse a pick than the guys you've mentioned, and we could all add to that list fairly easily. Admirable restraint on your part, btw, to the previous post. Given the cast of mediocre cricketers of all hues who have played for England's one day side , I shudder to think why anyone would want to bring race into this. 'Hideous' indeed.

Huh, was joking? Jeez..

 

[wpdavid]

Huh, was joking? Jeez..

Not immediately obvious, but if you say so ...




Better?

 

[aussie]

Bopara remains one of the most hideously poor players ever to grace international cricket since, well, Saj Mahmood? One would reckon England have some sort of quota of cricketers of Asian extraction going on, so why not at least pick a fellow who can impress, ie Mascarenhas?

Damn yo, thats way harsh on Bopara. Bopara's problem is that he has been wasted since the home summer vs IND in ODI's by being played at #7 & test @ #6 when he clearly a top order batsmen. Bopara is clearly one of the more talented young batsmen in this country ATM.

 

[Flem274*]

Yeah. I think Ryder is gonna be good but I was just thinking about how many nz batsmen come on the scene, do well in their first few games and then dont quite kick on.

McMillan got a 50 against Aus in his first test innings iirc.
Fleming got 90 odd in one of his first few odis.
Styris got a century and a 50 against the windies in his first test
Vincent got a 100 and a 50 in his first test, batting out of position against Aus
Taylor did well and got a century in his 7th or 8th game iirc
Fulton averaged over 50 odd in his first series against sri Lanka
How scored a 50 in his first or second odi against Sri Lanka
Papps averages over 50 for the few odis he has played.
Hamish Marshall did really well in his first tour. That Pakistan tour where most of the team pulled out.
Sinclair got a double century in his first innings.
and now Ryder has done very well in his first few innings.

This was just off the top of my head so it may not be exactly correct but you get the idea. But they never turn out to be as good as we initially hope for. It must be something with nz batsmen....nothing to lose maybe??....... who knows.

Those highlighted have been good for most of their careers/so far

 

[Richard]

How can you possibly say that?

 

[Natman20]

Was looking at highlights again and every boundary that McCullum and Ryder scored was timed and looked outstanding. They definately look the goods. How many times can they produce performances like that though? Will he do a Ross Taylor, Hamish MArshall on us and start well then lose the plot?

 

[Natman20]

"Children" by Robert Miles at the start right? Great song choice if so. Love that track.

Remix. Children of the Sandstorm - Darude ft. Robert Miles

 

[Richard]

If Bopara and Mustard both play in thr next match, then I'll support the oppostition, deffo.

I do hope you were talking about the Tests there...

 

[Jamee999]

Rich - if you don't mind me asking, if you had got to choose the squad - with the injury status as is, what XI would you have had lining up for the first ODI?

 

[Richard]

Was looking at highlights again and every boundary that McCullum and Ryder scored was timed and looked outstanding. They definately look the goods. How many times can they produce performances like that though? Will he do a Ross Taylor, Hamish MArshall on us and start well then lose the plot?

Well I think it's important to remember that 1) neither of them would have scored much if Shah and Mustard could catch and 2) there's loads of other mediocre players (like Marshall; not like Taylor IMO) who've had the odd decent start to ODI careers despite long mediocre domestic careers.

Taylor is a cut above the Ryders and Marshalls for mine.

 

[Richard]

Rich - if you don't mind me asking, if you had got to choose the squad - with the injury status as is, what XI would you have had lining up for the first ODI?

It's certainly far from a straightforward question, especially with the lack of Flintoff and Trescothick, but I'll have a go...

Cook
Bell
Afzaal
Pietersen
Collingwood
Shah \ Bopara
Read
Swann
Mascarenhas
Broad
Sidebottom

This is taking account of both on-the-ground realities (Collingwood, much as I don't rate him, is currently an irrevocable fixture in the side, as well as captain; and while Cook and Bell makes me cringe at the possibility of being 27 for 0 after 10, I honestly don't see any strokeplaying openers with anything remotely resembling the requistite class to score at ODI level if Trescothick is out; my thoughts on Shah and, currently, Bopara are well-documented but both are ensconced at the current time; and Broad's form this winter has been compelling even as he still fails to convince me) and my own preferences. Afzaal I still believe might have a ODI career in him, even though he should have been in the side 7 years ago now. The bowling-attack has the potential to be better than any time since 2000, even though I've only got 4 genuine bowlers in there. In Sidebottom, Mascarenhas and Swann, there are three who I honestly think have it in them to do the business. If we could get Flintoff in there with them, that'd be better still. Then we'd just need another. As of now, though, Collingwood and Pietersen\Afzaal will have to do the fill-in job; it's the only way not to end-up with a stupidly weak batting-line-up.

With the wicketkeeping in mind, I still see Read as a better option than Ambrose. I hope Ambrose doesn't play in this series - I want convincing evidence of Mustard's rubbishness, which 10 consecutive failures or relative failures would give - but if he goes well again in the one-day game this coming summer, I'll be happy to see him leapfrog Read.

 

[Woodster]

It's certainly far from a straightforward question, especially with the lack of Flintoff and Trescothick, but I'll have a go...

Cook
Bell
Afzaal
Pietersen
Collingwood
Shah \ Bopara
Read
Swann
Mascarenhas
Broad
Sidebottom

Interesting Rich, but what I deem a perennial problem for the England ODI side is the genuine lack of a wicket taker and it appears the same with this side. I appreciate we cannot magic one from nowhere, but those middle periods of the game where the batting side milk the bowling for ones and twos and the odd boundary is easily achievable against us. It makes it imperative we strike with the new ball.

 

[Richard]

For mine, I'm happy that we could stop the easy milking with bowlers like Mascarenhas and Swann, combined with good field settings (ie, not the innate stupidity of sending all bar 4 fielders to the boundary the minute the 20th over is up).

In modern times, England's best ODI bowlers in the middle overs have always been the likes of Fraser, Mullally, Ealham, Croft, who can bowl dot-balls aplenty with good fields set, and then you don't need to bowl the wicket-taking deliveries. Gough was the only one who could bowl wicket-taking deliveries with new and old ball as well as keeping it tight, and he rarely bowled more than a couple of overs in the middle of the innings, specialising in opening and bowling at the very end.

But it's been proven time and again that in the one-day game, if you have good bowlers who can keep it tight (and I mean proper tight, 3.5-an-over or so, not this 4.5-an-over lark that any batting side will be very happy with) then you'll get the wickets even without bowling the wicket-taking deliveries.

It'd be nice if we had another Flintoff or a next Gough, someone who could bowl wicket-taking deliveries in the middle rather than just with the new-ball. But we don't. And it frustrates me immensely when we pick rubbish like Plunkett and co, who can neither bowl the wicket-taking deliveries nor keep it remotely tight, in the vain search for prospective wicket-takers.

 

[Woodster]

I agree that the accumulation of dot balls naturally builds pressure and by the same token wickets are the best way of slowing down a run rate (think we've had this kind of discussion before). For example, if a partnership is building and we need to break it before it becomes a big problem, these kind of bowlers are not going to succeed. The top batsmen will work the ball around and be patient, and only get themselves out, even the best do this. The middle overs, providing the batting side have made a solid start, are all about setting the innings up for the onslaught later on, rightly or wrongly, or capitalising on an excellent start. Personally I would like to see teams take a few more chances during this middle period.

 

[Richard]

If the batsmen are patient, and the bowling is good, in the 20-40 overs (presuming Powerplays have been taken consecutively), then they'll score really slowly, around 3-an-over or so.

Of course, the biggest trouble with England currently, with no Flintoff, is that teams could indeed do that and they'd probably still get a decent total, because England's death-bowling is abysmal. If England keep a team to 160 for 2 off 40 overs, they could still get 250 or even more because England can't contain them at the death with wickets in hand.

For mine, if the bowling is really accurate, batsmen have to take a chance to try to score quickly enough. This might sometimes come off, but more often than not it'll result in the fall of wickets. If batsmen know the death bowling is good, they almost have to take more risks in the middle.

And yeah, I have had this discussion with most people many times. IMO, the effect of truly outstanding precision bowling in the middle overs (rather than acceptance of mediocrity - 4.5-an-over, which some fielding captains accept easily, will benefit the batting side greatly) is oft-underestimated by many people.