**Official** England in New Zealand

[Richard]

How
Bell
Fulton
Fleming
Sinclair
Oram
McCullum
Vettori
Mills
O'Brien
Martin

I'm not sure whether Fulton will be at #3 but I think those will be the 11 starters anyway. Grant Elliott might even sneak in ahead of O'Brien and bat below McCullum. But I think O'Briens recent performance will get him selected.

Wouldn't Sinclair and Fulton be best swapped around?

And don't we still have some form of hope that Gillespie will play instead of O'Brien? Especially if he cleans-up in the second-innings (which, with the tail we have, is eminently possible).

Either way, I think it's good that Strauss has at least managed a half-century, and good that Pietersen managed twin ones. But really, if he bats three in a Test, we'll know for certain the management have lost their minds. Maybe it might've been better if he'd not scored and Shah was picked, if Vaughan was to open.

 

[wpdavid]

If I was clutching at straws, I'd be grateful that at least Harmison's now recognising that he isn't bowling well, whereas for years we'd read his views that he'd "done enough" or that his "track record speaks for itself". It's probably too late though. He's had so many years at both county & international level having mediocrity rewarded that it would be astonishing if he sorted his game out now.

As for Broad & Tremlett, has there been any sort of explanation why Tremlett seemed to have leapfrogged Broad again in the queue for a test place? IIRC we now have a situation where Broad was picked for the 1st test against India but when Tremlett joined the squad due to someone else's injury, he also played ahead of Broad. Thereafter, he did OK in that series, but Broad was picked ahead of him in SL. After playing one test on as unforgiving a track as you could wish to see, Broad had now again been overtaken by Tremlett. I don't get it, tbh. Given Tremlett's track record, I'd like to see Broad given a decent run in the side now, presumably alongside H&H for the time being.

 

[Richard]

If I was clutching at straws, I'd be grateful that at least Harmison's now recognising that he isn't bowling well, whereas for years we'd read his views that he'd "done enough" or that his "track record speaks for itself". It's probably too late though. He's had so many years at both county & international level having mediocrity rewarded that it would be astonishing if he sorted his game out now.

He's acknowledged he's not been bowling well before now TBF on him. I mean, last summer or the South Africa tour no-one could possibly have pretended otherwise.

As for Broad & Tremlett, has there been any sort of explanation why Tremlett seemed to have leapfrogged Broad again in the queue for a test place? IIRC we now have a situation where Broad was picked for the 1st test against India but when Tremlett joined the squad due to someone else's injury, he also played ahead of Broad. Thereafter, he did OK in that series, but Broad was picked ahead of him in SL. After playing one test on as unforgiving a track as you could wish to see, Broad had now again been overtaken by Tremlett. I don't get it, tbh. Given Tremlett's track record, I'd like to see Broad given a decent run in the side now, presumably alongside H&H for the time being.

Seems extremely odd indeed. You know my views - that Broad was ever ahead of Tremlett for a Test place simply beggars belief, Tremlett should always have been the first cab off the rank. But they really do seem to have changed their minds 4 times now, within the space of 7 or 8 months, if that. Madness.

 

[wpdavid]

Followed by the logic, When Harmison plays, England are more likely to win. Which has a lot of merit.

Is that actually true though? Obviously we won a lot more games during his uninterrupted run in the side, but that owed much to the presence of others who have subsequently been missing.

 

[Goughy]

Is that actually true though? Obviously we won a lot more games during his uninterrupted run in the side, but that owed much to the presence of others who have subsequently been missing.

% Games won when player is in the Team

Name		Games Played in Won		Games Played in Not Won		% Games Played Won
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Harmison		28				27				51%
Strauss			21				22				48.8%
Vaughan			35				37				48.6%
Trescothick		37				39				48.6%
Hoggard			31				34				47.7%
Anderson		9				11				45%				
Flintoff		27				40				40.3%				
Bell			12				20				37.5%

The above taken from a post in another thread which I believe was a debate on roughly the same topic between myself and you

 

[wpdavid]

% Games won when player is in the Team

Name		Games Played in Won		Games Played in Not Won		% Games Played Won
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Harmison		28				27				51%
Strauss			21				22				48.8%
Vaughan			35				37				48.6%
Trescothick		37				39				48.6%
Hoggard			31				34				47.7%
Anderson		9				11				45%				
Flintoff		27				40				40.3%				
Bell			12				20				37.5%

The above taken from a post in another thread which I believe was a debate on roughly the same topic between myself and you

Aye, I remember it now.

tbf my previous post was badly worded insofar as I'm not questioning your statistics, but just asking whether there's other factors involved rather than simply GBH's presence. Anyway, as you say, we've done this before.

 

[Goughy]

tbf my previous post was badly worded insofar as I'm not questioning your statistics, but just asking whether there's other factors involved rather than simply GBH's presence. Anyway, as you say, we've done this before.

Without doubt there are other variables and Im as frustrated as the next man over Harmison and his inability to get it right very often and his sevings of dross.

For all that, he is still a special bowler, that cannot be replaced. There is no equal or better to replace him with. People talked about Saj as he supposedly possessed some of the good (and bad) qualities of Harmison. However Saj was similar but lacking the same pace and bounce. Not by much, but enough to make him near useless. A small drop off in a couple of areas equals a massive drop off over all.

 

[TT Boy]

% Games won when player is in the Team

Name		Games Played in Won		Games Played in Not Won		% Games Played Won
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Harmison		28				27				51%
Strauss			21				22				48.8%
Vaughan			35				37				48.6%
Trescothick		37				39				48.6%
Hoggard			31				34				47.7%
Anderson		9				11				45%				
Flintoff		27				40				40.3%				
Bell			12				20				37.5%

The above taken from a post in another thread which I believe was a debate on roughly the same topic between myself and you

The Flintoff stat is surprising considering his apparent significance to the side.

 

[Goughy]

The Flintoff stat is surprising considering his apparent significance to the side.

Yeah, I think though that stat is relevant for 2 reasons. Firstly he wasnt anything too sharp early in his career.
And more importantily and secondly
I think it illustrates the problems with playing a player that is not capable of being either a specialist bat or bowler. When he bats top 6 then the batting order is severely weakened and when playing mainly as a bowler, an extra bowler has to be selected to cover for the supposed risk that he cant bowl a full workload in a day or a test.

Basically his selection in Tests weakens the team unless he can bowl the full responsibility as a front line bowler or sorts his batting out.

Unless he is really at the top of his game, his inclusion weakens and unbalances the side.

 

[wpdavid]

The Flintoff stat is surprising considering his apparent significance to the side.

Don't forget that Fred played for a number of years when England weren't as good as they later became.

Looking at the games we've won when GBH played and his role in those wins:
2007 home to WI - not geat part
2006 home to Pakistan - big part in one of them, absolutely appalling in the other
2006 in India - can't really remember, tbh.
(EDIT turns out he didn't play in that game)
2005 home to Aus - no big part in the 2 tests won
2005 home to Bang - probably took lots of wickets, but so could anyone.
2004/5 in SA - played no part whatsoever in the 2 tests won
2004 home to WI - cleaned up in the dead rubber after others had won us the first 3 tests
2004 home to NZ - fair enough, earned his place
2004 in WI - as above, obviously
2003 in Bang - played a big part, but no better than Richard Johnson in the following test, which suggest that it wasn't all that special
2003 home to SA - no big part in 1st win and somewhat overrated part in 2nd.
2003 home to Zim - see Bang in 2005

Make of it what you will.

 

[wpdavid]

Yeah, I think though that stat is relevant for 2 reasons. Firstly he wasnt anything too sharp early in his career.
And more importantily and secondly
I think it illustrates the problems with playing a player that is not capable of being either a specialist bat or bowler. When he bats top 6 then the batting order is severely weakened and when playing mainly as a bowler, an extra bowler has to be selected to cover for the supposed risk that he cant bowl a full workload in a day or a test.

Basically his selection in Tests weakens the team unless he can bowl the full responsibility as a front line bowler or sorts his batting out.

Unless he is really at the top of his game, his inclusion weakens and unbalances the side.

Yup. There's a tough call waiting to be bottled at some point this summer. Wasn't true on 2004/05 of course, but I don't see that level of performance being repeated.

 

[Goughy]

Yup. There's a tough call waiting to be bottled at some point this summer. Wasn't true on 2004/05 of course, but I don't see that level of performance being repeated.

A lot rests on Collingwood and KP. If they can do a successful job as the 5th bowler and keep Flintoffs overs down and fill in in case of injury, then I think England could have a really good side.

That would allow them to bat either Flintoff or Collingwood at 7 (I think its a very important position that can require lots of different roles to play in a number of scenarios) and a choice of keeper at 8.

An issue is that Flintoff still sees himself as a batsman first and frankly if that is the case then we have better.

If Collingwood and KP (or another top order bat that can bowl) are not up to the task of taking some of Flintoffs slack then he shouldnt be selected.

As you said, tough choices ahead.

 

[wpdavid]

A lot rests on Collingwood and KP. If they can do a successful job as the 5th bowler and keep Flintoffs overs down and fill in in case of injury, then I think England could have a really good side.

That would allow them to bat either Flintoff or Collingwood at 7 (I think its a very important position that can require lots of different roles to play in a number of scenarios) and a choice of keeper at 8.

An issue is that Flintoff still sees himself as a batsman first and frankly if that is the case then we have better.

Agreed on all counts. I'd only add that Bell and, if at all possible, Vaughan should also be in the mix as additonal options with the ball to allow us to play only 4 specialists. certianly Bell & Colly should be well capable of bowling to a field (old fashioned concept, I know, but there you go). And KP and/or Vaughan's offspin should complement Panesar or, if he improves a lot, Rashid.

As for Fred, I find it even harder to se him as a genuine test number 6 than being fit enough to operate as one of 4 bowlers nowadays. Outside of England, he never was anyway.

 

[Pratters]

good that Pietersen managed twin ones.

Pieterson was dropped early in his first inning, not that I am trying to make any point.

 

[Richard]

Yeah, he might not have played that well, but it's good that he got time in the middle.

 

[Pratters]

Yeah, he might not have played that well, but it's good that he got time in the middle.

Yeah, exactly...

 

[Silver Arrow]

Black Caps Squad for 1st Test has been named:

Daniel Vettori (c)
Matthew Bell
Grant Elliot
Stephen Fleming
Jamie How
Brendon McCullum
Chris Martin
Kyle Mills
Iain O'Brien
Jacob Oram
Jeetan Patel
Matthew Sinclair
Ross Taylor

Wellington Firebirds all-rounder Grant Elliott has been included in the BLACKCAPS squad for the first time.

The South African-born all-rounder has already played for New Zealand A. Elliott is a solid middle order batsman and a good bowling option with his ability to swing the ball.

Jamie How, after his excellent form in the recently completed National Bank ODI series win over the English, comes into the team as an opening batsman to partner Matthew Bell.

Ross Taylor also returns to the test team after missing selection against Bangladesh.

The experienced Stephen Fleming is likely to bat at number three. Peter Fulton is unavailable for this test with a reoccurrence of the right knee injury he sustained last year.

He will be confined to strengthening work in the gym and the injury will be reassessed prior to the second Test.

Michael Mason and Jesse Ryder were also not considered because of injury.

 

[NZTailender]

Elliott, no Gillespie

 

[NZTailender]

I imagine the first XI will be:
1. Bell
2. How
3. Fleming
4. Sinclair
5. Taylor
6. Oram
7. McCullum
8. Vettori
9. Mills
10. O'Brien
11. Martin

 

[Matt52]

Elliott, no Gillespie

Elliots domestic averages are 27 with the bat and 34 with the ball in 4 day cricket. So his batting is not great and his bowling doesnt frighten anyone. A little bit of a strange selection.