Pitch looks a belter

[sostenurter]

Originally Posted by Scott-Wozniak

sostenurter

Well you got one more wicket!

Can't say I'm unhappy to see the back of Richardson, jeez what a boring player. Neither was I unhappy he was out when he clearly got an inside edge. I really did feel he was extremely fortunate to get away with some of his play and misses, dropped catches etc - he was living a charmed life, and being so unbelievably stubborn and boring with it - good riddance to him - he's like a bloody limpet.

England's bowlers really do need a different policy with Richardson - he's a 'no risk taker' batsman, and if you let him, he'll just sit there all day letting balls go by. You've got apply pressure to him, for some reason not scoring doesnt seem to bother him in any way - they've got to make him play the ball, force him into making a mistake.

Scott

I don't know. I think once a player like Richardson reaches 50, he becomes more of a liability to his team, especially in a first innings where NZ are looking to post a big total and leave time to bowl us out. If he's gonna be so boring and not take any chances, we can just bowl around him and try and get the others out. Plus, he makes the job of restricting runs and applying pressure a lot easier. He might not get frustrated at the lack of runs, but the guy at the other end probably will. Where we went wrong today was letting the other batsmen score runs so easily. When we did apply pressure, players cracked - look at Fleming. And in any case, like you say, Richardson was leading a charmed life today - he's not going to get that much luck all the time

I thought we bowled and fielded very, very poorly today. The two opening bowlers wasted the new ball, Flintoff and Jones were good only in patches and the general attitude in the field seemed a bit poor. However, the positive side is that we played poorly and still NZ are only slightly ahead after the first day. Some good bowling early tomorrow and we are right back in this match.

[Richie Benauds Love Child]

Just out of interest, who would you rather have tresco or richardson ? I think harmisson needs to bowl much fuller.

[Scott-Wozniak]

Originally Posted by sostenurter

I don't know. I think once a player like Richardson reaches 50, he becomes more of a liability to his team, especially in a first innings where NZ are looking to post a big total and leave time to bowl us out. If he's gonna be so boring and not take any chances, we can just bowl around him and try and get the others out. Plus, he makes the job of restricting runs and applying pressure a lot easier. He might not get frustrated at the lack of runs, but the guy at the other end probably will.

sostenurter

I don't agree. Richardson is the NZ anchor man that all the others bat round - he's the 'glue' that sticks the batting together - and as such needs to be gotten rid of as soon as possible. While he's still there he can take pressure of the other batsman while they play themselves in.

Originally Posted by sostenurter

Where we went wrong today was letting the other batsmen score runs so easily. When we did apply pressure, players cracked - look at Fleming. And in any case, like you say, Richardson was leading a charmed life today - he's not going to get that much luck all the time

Where we went wrong today was letting all the batsmen score too many runs!

England's bowling was unbeleivably wayward and let them put away far too many bad balls - which is basically their strategy and they went about it in a very disciplined way - whereas England didn't. Where the NZ batsmen did well was to leave any ball they didn't have to play - and there were WAY too many of them - look at how many dot balls Richardson left - unbeleivable. All they did was pick off the bad balls, and left the dangerous ones alone - that's Englands fault - they needed to bowl to good, consistent line and length - and they didn't.

Originally Posted by sostenurter

I thought we bowled and fielded very, very poorly today. The two opening bowlers wasted the new ball, Flintoff and Jones were good only in patches and the general attitude in the field seemed a bit poor. However, the positive side is that we played poorly and still NZ are only slightly ahead after the first day. Some good bowling early tomorrow and we are right back in this match.

Well, in my mind England have already thrown this game away, unless they put in a very disciplined bowling performance tommorow and pull it back before NZ put on a massive total - they have to be looking at 500+ and knowing how bloody awful Englands batting is I cant see them making that many.

I'm very disappointed by this England performance today.

Scott

[Mike_Hock]

Originally Posted by Richie Benauds Love Child

Just out of interest, who would you rather have tresco or richardson ? I think harmisson needs to bowl much fuller.

I'd take Richardson.

[sostenurter]

Originally Posted by Richie Benauds Love Child

Just out of interest, who would you rather have tresco or richardson ? I think harmisson needs to bowl much fuller.

Richardson is in better form, so I might pick him. But to pick up on the thing Rachel was saying earlier, about players only being as good as their weakest link - Richardson's weak link is scoring quickly . He also has a very limited range of shots. I am in favour of opening batsmen grafting out their first 50, but after that, especially on a pitch like today's, there was absolutely no need for Richardson to be so circumspect. The only reason he was so cautious is because he is a poor player with a limited range of shots. He knows only one way to play and was unable to adapt as the circumstances required. Trescothick, on the other hand, has all the shots and can, when he feels like it, also play defensively - remember, he took 50 odd balls to get off the mark in Test cricket. Trescothick's weakest link is stronger than Richardson's weakest link. And I think Trescothick is the more talented player.

[Scott-Wozniak]

Originally Posted by Richie Benauds Love Child

Just out of interest, who would you rather have tresco or richardson ?

I'd take Tresco any day over this Mr Boredom personified Richardson. Tresco when he's on form is a very exciting player to watch - Richardson just puts you to sleep.

Scott

[Mike_Hock]

Richardson is just what England needs. He averages a little more then Tresco, and he sees off the new ball allowing others to attack around him. He would make the perfect foil for Vaughan.


You never know though, Strauss might do that anyway.

[Scott-Wozniak]

Originally Posted by sostenurter

And I think Trescothick is the more talented player.

Tresco is far more talented than Richardson ever will be. As you say - he only knows one way to play and only has about 3 or 4 shots he plays and only plays them when he gets a bad ball.

I'm all for gritty players like Hussain, who can dig in when its needed, anchor an innings, score slowly and carve out a score for himself, but we all know what Hussain is capable of. Richardson is just unbeleivably boring to watch, untalented, has a limited repertoire of strokes and generally brings 'dullness' to the game. The Kiwi's will argue that players like Richardson enable them to win games, I'd argue that it allows them to win games no-one wants to watch.

England need to learn from this and play Richardson at his own game. If he wants to sit there and not play at any ball unless its a bad one he can score off - don't give him any bad balls, don't give him anything he can score from. If he wants to be a **** and occupy the crease not scoring any runs - then let him do it - but don't give him ANYTHING, drive him out of Test Cricket.

Scott

[sostenurter]

Originally Posted by Scott-Wozniak

Tresco is far more talented than Richardson ever will be. As you say - he only knows one way to play and only has about 3 or 4 shots he plays and only plays them when he gets a bad ball.

I'm all for gritty players like Hussain, who can dig in when its needed, anchor an innings, score slowly and carve out a score for himself, but we all know what Hussain is capable of. Richardson is just unbeleivably boring to watch, untalented, has a limited repertoire of strokes and generally brings 'dullness' to the game. The Kiwi's will argue that players like Richardson enable them to win games, I'd argue that it allows them to win games no-one wants to watch.

England need to learn from this and play Richardson at his own game. If he wants to sit there and not play at any ball unless its a bad one he can score off - don't give him any bad balls, don't give him anything he can score from. If he wants to be a **** and occupy the crease not scoring any runs - then let him do it - but don't give him ANYTHING, drive him out of Test Cricket.

Scott

You're right, hussain is a totally different kettle of fish. Hussain digs in, gets himself set and very often digs the team out of a hole, but when he is set, he is a very talented strokemaker, with an array of shots. He's an adaptable player - he can change his game to suit the match situation. I don't see that with Richardson.

[sostenurter]

Originally Posted by Mike_Hock

Richardson is just what England needs. He averages a little more then Tresco, and he sees off the new ball allowing others to attack around him. He would make the perfect foil for Vaughan.


You never know though, Strauss might do that anyway.

Seeing off the new ball is fine. Getting stuck on 64 for about six million hours in the first innings of a Test match isn't so great.