*Official** New Zealand in England

[anzac]

If you look at the overall series...Aggers & a few other BBC commentators pointed out that in all 3 tests on Day 4, NZ held the advantage..yet released it rather easily.

So in reality the 3-0 scoreline was flattering yet at the sametime fully deserved by England because they indeed played the better cricket when it mattered most.

and on Day 4 is when the NZL 2nd innings fell apart................batting not bowling...............leaving ENG with a gettable run chase & the bowlers not enough to work with considering their form / resources.............

 

[badgerhair]

Ah, fair enough then. I still think Harmison was the biggest difference between the two sides in England, though. If we had a player doing as well as he was, well, yeah. If if if if if if.

I don't really buy this.

For one thing, it fails to explain why New Zealand never achieved this sort of dominance over a side when they had Richard Hadlee leading the attack.

For another, it ignores my pet theory of Test series, which is that they are generally lost by the side with the worse change bowlers.

Mediocrity in your change bowling allows batsmen to wait out the good bowlers and then make hay on the rubbish. The good bowlers are partly blunted because there is no incentive to try and score off them, and the poor bowler leach runs all over the place, allowing the batsmen to get really well set, thus making the task of the good bowlers more difficult still.

England's backup bowlers, Hoggard and Saggers for the most part, performed better than did NZ's nominal strike force of Tuffey and Martin.

Cairns's performance at Trent Bridge was actually better than any of Harmison's match performances in the series, and Franklin's performance there was at least the equal of any of Flintoff's (and he was basically England's second-best bowler) - yet NZ lost. So it can't have just been Harmison. But at Trent Bridge, Harmison and Flintoff had Giles as useful backup and Hoggard and Saggers to fill in the gaps, whereas after Cairns and Franklin, NZ had Styris and an injured Oram.

I'd agree that Harmison was a cut above the rest of the bowlers in the series, but the reason that NZ lost was that their weak links were very weak and England's only really weak link was Butcher - and even he came up with a pretty useful 59 in the last innings.

The real difference between the sides was that England had eleven players who all contributed strongly, while New Zealand were carrying at least three passengers in every match.

Cheers,

Mike

 

[anzac]

Far too soon for that conclusion IMO. Was the coach to blame when we got spanked 3-0 in SA in 2000, or was it just the fact Kerry Walmsley and Brooke Walker were on the field? That SA side weren't mugs, and neither are England.

Bracewell did misread the so-called English conditions, but the only thing he clearly got wrong in his selections was Mills over Franklin IMO. Can you imagine the backlash if he'd left Bond/Astle/Tuffey at home, and they were coming out in the media right now saying they were fit and wished they had been there?

He put a lot of faith in Tuffey for this series, but Tuffey let him down. He put faith in Martin, but Martin let him down. He kept faith in Vettori.....

Bracewell can't be blamed for the batting positions thing I don't think either. He batted McCullum at #3 a few times, and he was the only one who openly said he wanted to bat there. Generally he tried to make things as comfortable as possible for his middle-order, but once again, the players let him down.

yes but in RSA in 2000 we got spanked after a fully fit bowling attack was decimated by injuries - the batting wasn't affected from memory, but we lost a better bowling attack than we had here.............

I don't buy that he had to take the '3 stooges' - as per my favorite comments from him.............if that had been the policy then Tuffey should have been rested mid PAK series & perhaps he would have recovered in time..........if that policy had been enforced earlier then perhaps the cupboard wouldn't seem so bare, and the public would accept the decisions more readily..........

in that context there could have been NO arguement re not taking Astle in light of his having broken down during his 'recovery' prior to the PAK / RSA series, particularly if viewed in the context of getting him right for the ICC Trophey & lead up to AUS..........

so far as the batting is concerned (apart from not liking the squad in the 1st place) - once injuries had taken their toll then the side more or less picked itself regarding who was fit enough to play........he was entitled to pick 'the usual suspects' for Lords & perhaps Headingly, then injuries impacted upon the squad for Trent Bridge..........

my only grumble is that I'd have left McMillan out, played McCullum as a specialist bat & given Hopkins the gloves...........

he was entitled to use McCullum at #3 IMO because of his experience in the top order in domestic cricket - I still don't think of Styris as a #4, let alone either him or Astle batting at #3...............

 

[anzac]

A caller questioned Snedden on talksport on saturday why McMillan was in the team. Snedden answered with: "50 test matches, an average of 43..enough said"

But if you go deeper you find he has scored a truckload of runs against weak bowling attacks & little against good attacks.

Sorry Macca but I think it's time for Peter Fulton or someone else.

an incredibly **** poor response - no wonder the selections are farked up.......

it's not just the bowling attacks for Macca, but also the type of pitches..........

 

[anzac]

McMillan is gone now, surely.

The ball kept low, but yet another creasebound LB to a fast bowler. It's become as predictable as a clay court specialist losing in the first round of Wimbledon, so he can forget about answering his critics by scoring 200* in Bangladesh. We already know he can flay minnows on slow tracks, so his 40+ average should no longer be halting the development of another player on a tour like that. If Richardson and Fleming eventually retire in quick succession, McMillan looks incapable of shouldering anything like their runscoring responsiblity.

I'd add Astle to the Fleming / Richardson equation.............Fleming is the youngest of the 3...........

 

[anzac]

If Sherlock continues from where he left off...they'll be unstoppable this season.

If he was fit I'd like to see Sherlock in the squad to go to BAN - not too much pressure & at 20 he's not too young IMO...........mind you I'd really prefer him to have had a full season of FC under his belt.............

 

[anzac]

Bracewell used to be described as a fast bowler in an offspinner's body, and right now I think he's trying to be Australia with NZ's talent pool.

Both have fragile confidence and limited talents, while I get the feeling Bracewell would rather be working with a whole team of McCullums.

Braces has a rep of being very forthright & aggressive in his cricket & not backwards coming forward to give someone a gob full - perhaps that does not go well with 'confidence' players.......

I also think that is what he is trying to do re the 'advance the game' theory - a more aggressive approach to winning cricket - unfortunately I do not think that he has the right 'mix' to do this...........either batting or bowling.........

 

[anzac]

Just as a sidenote - I was amazed Snedden said the BC's management confirmed to him that Tuffey is 100% fit and was simply dropped on form.

cough*bull*****cough

 

[anzac]

McCullum isn't the greatest keeper, but he's definately not rubbish either.
I can see in the future McCullum dropping the gloves in tests if he becomes consistent with the bat though.

currently I'd rather see McCullum playing as a specialist bat at #5 than Macca..........

but by the same token does it strike anyone else re the number of 'allrounder' converts that the side is shaping up with?????

& didn't we bemoan this fact during the WC?????

 

[Dougie Rydal]

There is a 17 year old from Christchurch who recently got into the NZ Academy..he's been officially clocked in the mid 140's..NZ Cricket have to make sure these guys stay on track.

I assume you are talking about Leighton Burtt. From what i hear around the traps he is a bit of a head case and is injured often, and personally i wouldn't hold out a lot of hope from him.

Sherlock is impressive. I play club cricket in Ch-Ch and have faced both Burtt and Sherlock and was most impressed with Sherlock. Someone likened him to Sami and i think that's right on the money, skinny and quick. He is certainly one to look for the future. Too early to take away on a NZ tour even to Bangladesh, he bowled in one innings last year (i think) before getting injured and sitting out the rest of the season. Let him have a season or two of first class cricket.

 

[anzac]

Luckily we play Bangladesh first & not the other way around with Australia because we definately need to sort out some issues.

I think they've got to make the call & leave McMillan & Tuffey out of that tour & suggest to them that they're not in the frame for Australia either.
Tuffey needs a spell with his knee & McMillan is not justifying his place in the side anymore.

Personally I want to see Astle down at #5 because that's where he's been the most successful for NZ. We have a huge cluster of attacking batsmen who don't necessarily want to stick around for too long & that is part of the reason why we're having 2 or 3 wickets falling in quick succession.
Cairns retiring will open up a slot for the selectors to decide whether they want another bowler or batsman..and then what type of bowler or batsman they need.

How many more chances does Sinclair get before he's gone for good? should Peter Fulton come in & if so where should he bat? or do they bring in Taylor & continue the attacking combination?

To be fair Sinclair has only played a game or two per season since the Tour to AUS. He backed up for the series v BAN but only got 2 innings one of which was a n.o. During that time he was coming in at #3 behind Richardson & Bell, with Fleming at #4. Since then he hasn't had much of a go but looked ok v RSA...........

one guy who seems to have been forgotten as an option is Vincent..........I don't want to see him as an opener, but would like to see him in the BAN squad.........he very definately averages a lot better Away than he does at Home...........

 

[anzac]

Harmison is 25

ta muchly..............makes no diff to my post tho' - still got 3 years to improve...............

 

[anzac]

so what's the verdict re Fleming as an option for Opener?????

do we persist with him & open up the batting options for the likes of Sinclair / Fulton / Vincent / Marshall at #3,

or do we look to keep Flem at #3 but still look to have Fulton & Co at #4, with Styris moving to #5 & Astle #6?????

 

[Craig]

I would have to say congratulations to England.

I guess people like Strauss, Flintoff, both the Jones' (well apparently Simon Jones bowled well at Lords without the wickets), Trescothick, Giles, amongst others were two good for NZ on occasions.

Goodbye Chris Cairns, and hopefully Craig McMillan!

 

[superkingdave]

And Ashley Giles beat Richardson in the 100m race on sunday night!

 

[luckyeddie]

I would have to say congratulations to England.

I guess people like Strauss, Flintoff, both the Jones' (well apparently Simon Jones bowled well at Lords without the wickets), Trescothick, Giles, amongst others were two good for NZ on occasions.

Goodbye Chris Cairns, and hopefully Craig McMillan!

Harmison doesn't get a mention because he's only performed at his normal, impeccable standards?

 

[Tim]

Richardson's 100m race is starting to become quite famous..he's now 1 win (Kaneria) & 2 losses (McKenzie & Giles)

 

[Tim]

I have also heard bad reports about Burtt...apparently he shattered one of his feet last year after he stood on a beer bottle whilst drunk.

The 17 year old..or 18 year old I was referring to was William Lonsdale.

 

[Craig]

Can somebody tell me the history and reasoning behind Richardson's 100m races?

Is he trying out for New Zealand's Olympic team?

 

[Craig]

Harmison doesn't get a mention because he's only performed at his normal, impeccable standards?

Naturally.