Prediction League - England Vs New Zealand

[sostenurter]

Originally Posted by R W S

Afternoon all.

Let's hope for more rain at the New Road ground today!! Undercooked Kiwi - yummy!

I understand that the reason we (the GBR) have not entered a football team in to the olympics is that the football assoc. of each of the four home nations has a vote on both the FIFA (world body) and UEFA boards - this can lead to a stong block vote when supporting or attacking certain policy stances. If GBR entered a unified team into the olympics there would be a strong case made by both FIFA & UEFA to combine the seperate home nations into one voting member -a situation undesirable to the FA, Welsh FA, Scottish FA and NI FA.

Have a gander at the history of olympic football since 1900 here .

Please spare a thought for my footie team this afternoon (Crystal Palace - go Eagles!!)

The reason why cricket is not an olympic sport is beacause the governing body(sic) of cricket does not administer both the womens and mens game - a condition for entry as an olympic sport. Jacques Rogge, the IOC president, has encouraged recent discussions within the ICC to include the womens game as he would like to see cricket at the Beijing olymics in 2008.

I feel in a cricket vacuum, with the new international home season just around the corner . . .

Hey RWS,

I don't think cricket should be an Olympic sport - there's a crowded fixture calendar as it is, and the Olympics demean themselves when they start handing out medals in sports where that medal isn't the highest achievement in the particular sport. I'm talking about football, tennis, basketball, etc. - in all those sports the Olympics is a sideshow. A tennis player would rather win a Slam, a football player the WC, basketballers the NBA title. In cricket, any cricketer worth his salt would rather win the World Cup or the Ashes. The Olympics could, however, be very useful for promoting the women's game though. If men's cricket was introduced to the Olympics, I'd like to see there be some kind of age restriction as there is in football (in football it is under-23 plus three overage players). That might be quite fun.

However, I remember reading some crazy fact about cricket being an Olympic sport in the 1924 Olympics, in LA. Don't know if it is true or not. If it is, it would be very interesting to know who had won it.
And here's an interesting parlour game - which sporting authority is more corrupt, inefficient and generally wrong: IOC, ICC, FIFA?

Interestingly, I am a West Ham supporter! I'm expecting wine and a thank-you card by the next post (well...at least some kind of virtual wine and thank you card), and you'd better not be ungrateful enough to beat us in the play-off final! In fact, if you are feeling grateful enough, you could give us Dowie as a manager...I really rate him (as a manager, he was a terrible player)and think we should have got him instead of Pardew. nice avatar, btw.

Sostenurter

[Scott-Wozniak]

Originally Posted by sostenurter

Obviously, the NZ has had changes as well, for the better and for the worse, but I firmly believe that England are good enough to win this one.

I think they are too, but I'd play the extra specialist seamer instead of Giles and not an extra batsman.

Scott

[sostenurter]

Originally Posted by Scott-Wozniak

I think they are too, but I'd play the extra specialist seamer instead of Giles and not an extra batsman.

Scott

I must admit, before I saw the team we played in 2002, I was thinking the same way as you. But in 2002 we played just 2 specialist seamers, and were never in trouble. In the WI, we played five bowlers and very often the fourth bowler was hardly used, let alone the fifth! I realise the scores and bowling in that match were exceptional, but I think there is only a case for playing five seamers when the five are very poor and the opposition are practically guaranteed to rack up a big score. There is a case for playing five bowlers if one's a spinner, for variety, but with five seamers... If four won't get 'em out, five certainly won't.

Also, I think that Strauss has leaped above Collingwood in the reserve batting line-up (though I dont think Fletcher will see it that way because he's invested so much in Collingwood and given him a central contract). If I were picking the team, I 'd be tempted to put Strauss in to open, move Tres to No. 6, with Flintoff at 7 and Jones at 8. That'd be some lower-middle order! But it won't happen, because, as I say, Fletcher has too much invested in Collingwood to overlook him.

[Kirsty Harris]

Originally Posted by Scott-Wozniak

I'd play the extra specialist seamer instead of Giles and not an extra batsman.

Scott

Scott

I wouldn't be surprised if this was the case for at least a couple of test matches this year. I have to admit, on paper Harmison, Hoggard, Flintoff, Jones and Anderson sounds pretty impressive...

[Richie Benauds Love Child]

Evening kirsty. Have a look at the rather rambling post which initially started by ernest about beefys rant at nass. The pros and cons of the 5 th seamer extra bat are all there !

[Kirsty Harris]

Originally Posted by Richie Benauds Love Child

Evening kirsty. Have a look at the rather rambling post which initially started by ernest about beefys rant at nass. The pros and cons of the 5 th seamer extra bat are all there !

Yep, I'm working my way through them now...hot topic of conversation of the day by the looks of it!!!

[kriss]

'

I think that England can win this series comfortably if they play as they did against the West Indies. The current squad is full of confidence and with the boost to their self belief from the strong win against the West Indies, England can knock over the Kiwis.

As for the team they should include Giles in the squad for the Lords Test, but only play him if the conditions are not seamer friendly. With a week of dry weather ahead this looks more likely. My only concern is a slight lack of form in the England middle order but the openers and all rounders can make up for that. My prediction 2 – 0 to England.

[Scott-Wozniak]

Current Betting odds on the first Test Match England v NZ are -

A draw 7/5
England to win 13/8
New Zealand to win 3/1

Interesting they have England as favourites.

Scott

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Scott-Wozniak

Current Betting odds on the first Test Match England v NZ are -

A draw 7/5
England to win 13/8
New Zealand to win 3/1

Interesting they have England as favourites.

Scott

Scott

I though England would have been odds on,

Ernest

[R W S]

Originally Posted by ernest

Scott

I though England would have been odds on,

Ernest

England to Win

There's better value on the exchanges . . .

England 2.7/3.0
Draw 2.22/2.44
NZ 4.3/4.8