Eng Squad for NZ

[greg]

I wish we were about to start this series as that would mean the Aussie v India series would be behind us and we might be able to concentrate on cricket rather than controversy.Having seen the New Zealand side that played against Bangladesh you have to fancy our chances of a win in this series as the New Zealand side looks pretty ordinary outside the established names.

A big series for us and in particular Michael Vaughan,anything other than a series win could see him lose the captaincy for the summer.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by EllN

You all talk of anderson in past tense or as cover,[...] but this is the same bowler who won man of the series against india, not least for how he made tendulkur his bunny. He has much more potential than sidebottom along with more pace, yes he may be bit wayward but so is harmison

No we don't all talk of Anderson in the past tense, look at my posts on Anderson - or those of darksideofthemoon.

Yes he is the same bowler that won the man of the match against India, but that counts for little to the morons that are the England selectors - remember Devon Malcolm who blew the South African batsmen away, only to find himself dropped at the earliest oppertunity.I think we can thus understand anyone talking about Anderson in the past tense if selections in the past are anything to go by.
Yes he has pace, yes he like Tait and Lee can be wayward - however Anderson is not a popular player with most England supporters, unless he can take 20 wickets in a match.

Same goes for Saj Mahmood, he can go for runs, but is far more potent that either Sidebottom or Broad will ever be, shame England don't have decent bowling coaches anymore.

[Beny]

I've only been seeing bits and pieces but everytime I look there appears to be massive changes being made to the England team... Surely Englands biggest problem is that they lack a consistant teamsheet.

When players who have obvious quality are going through lean times it seems that England (as opposed to many other test playing nations) are far too quick to bin them.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Beny

I've only been seeing bits and pieces but everytime I look there appears to be massive changes being made to the England team[...] Surely Englands biggest problem is that they lack a consistant teamsheet.

That's true Beny - and things have got worse for England since Fletcher retired.

Originally Posted by Beny

When players who have obvious quality are going through lean times it seems that England (as opposed to many other test playing nations) are far too quick to bin them.

Again true, the players who stould in for the injured players in Australia in 2006 must have learned something, yet players not quite ready but full of potential like Mahmood and Plunkett appear to have been discarded, in favour of players who struggle to reach the other end of the wicket at their pace.

The only real possitive IMO in the squad to face New Zealand, is the inclusion of a refreshed Strauss, but the bowling is little different to the attack that failed in Sri Lanka.

[acker]

Originally Posted by greg

Very surprised Prior was dumped so quickly

I agree

And I think England will regret dropping him over the next couple of seasons.

He had some lean times towards the end with the bat. But he did look like someone that had not reached his full potential, yet was still better than most others competing for the position.

Maybe the "badboy" shaved head was his downfall. But I would prefer you dont play him or blow his confidence totally prior to next years ashes....... thats from an aussie point of veiw though

[pie_chucker]

Originally Posted by Ernest

No we don't all talk of Anderson in the past tense, look at my posts on Anderson - or those of darksideofthemoon.

.... but is far more potent that either Sidebottom or Broad will ever be, shame England don't have decent bowling coaches anymore.

I do worry about Anderson when we play a 4 man attack though, if he's having a bad day.........

The problem with our attack is that it lacks pace and potency. Sidebottom bowled tidily without looking like taking a wicket even when the ball was swinging miles as the batsman had loads of time to watch the ball. Broad was similar he bowled tidily but suggested he needed another season in CC and a yard of pace.

Prior needed a rest his confidence behind the stumps was shot and we couldn't afford him to keep missing sitters.

[engssmoothcriminal]

Originally Posted by Ernest

No we don't all talk of Anderson in the past tense, look at my posts on Anderson - or those of darksideofthemoon.

Yes he is the same bowler that won the man of the match against India, but that counts for little to the morons that are the England selectors - remember Devon Malcolm who blew the South African batsmen away, only to find himself dropped at the earliest oppertunity.I think we can thus understand anyone talking about Anderson in the past tense if selections in the past are anything to go by.
Yes he has pace, yes he like Tait and Lee can be wayward - however Anderson is not a popular player with most England supporters, unless he can take 20 wickets in a match.

Same goes for Saj Mahmood, he can go for runs, but is far more potent that either Sidebottom or Broad will ever be, shame England don't have decent bowling coaches anymore.

Ern if Anderson had remotely the same pace as Lee, Tait or going back a Malcom I'd agree he's worth percervering with in tests but the harsh reality is he's nothing more than a brisk fast medium swing bowler and at that pace you really have to be a darn sight more accurate if you are going to succeed at the highest level. That's a skill he's not going to miraculously pick up in the test arena but through 3-4 years playing county cricket bowling shedloads of overs for Lancashire something as you have rightly pointed out before should have happened years ago.

(though I do agree with you on Saj Mahmood he unlike Anderson has all the raw attributes of a op notch test match bowler)

[pie_chucker]

The annoying this with Anderson is that in ODI's he usually pretty accurate.

I still feel that the England management need to do more to develop their young quick bowlers like Plunkett, Mahmood, Broad..... They should be using the winters to play abroad and get overs and experience under their belts to make them better bowlers and better prepared for test match cricket.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by engssmoothcriminal

That's a skill he's not going to miraculously pick up in the test arena but through 3-4 years playing county cricket bowling shedloads of overs for Lancashire something as you have rightly pointed out before should have happened years ago.

That's right - Anderson would have been better served being dropped from the England squad 3 years ago, and be allowed to bowl at Lancashire rather that being the regular tea boy, a brisk fast medium pace bowler would be an asset, it he gets overs under his belt and gets some regular control.

The problem for England is, that Sidebottom is not that potent, and is never going to rip though a team of decent batsmen.

Originally Posted by engssmoothcriminal

(though I do agree with you on Saj Mahmood he unlike Anderson has all the raw attributes of a op notch test match bowler)

Originally Posted by pie_chucker

I still feel that the England management need to do more to develop their young quick bowlers like Plunkett, Mahmood, Broad..... They should be using the winters to play abroad and get overs and experience under their belts

I agree with these comments, I think being Mahmood as Plunkett got that experience in Australia - top priority for England would have been to make sure they got top notch coaching - Australia would have got the best out of these players.

A final point here - Mahmood looked very bad at times useing that slower ball far to much, why was he not TOLD to stop that - and bowl at top pace with only a sparce use of the slower delivery. I don't understand why he was allowed to bowl like he did.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Ernest

The problem for England is, that Sidebottom is not that potent, and is never going to rip though a team of decent batsmen.

No team ever struggled due to lack of penetration when bowling on unhelpful wickets: if the batsmen don't give wickets away and the bowlers keep the ball in the right areas the side is always going to be competitive.

What matters is being able to apply pressure when the chances come alone: with the new ball, when conditions suddenly favour swing, if the ball starts reversing, when the cracks open up and when there's some rough to encourage the spinners.

Of course... that all goes out of the window when you move from bowlers like Hoggard and Sidebottom to bowlers like Anderson and Mahmood: suddenly, profligacy means opponents can bat you out of the game in no time flat... and instead of the likely options being win or draw... the additional time that the opposition gets when bowling means that the odds on losing shoot up.

No side stops opponents entirely through wicket-taking: eventually opposition skill and lady luck combine to see major partnerships built (no matter WHO is bowling): what matters is that the bowling and fielding ensures that those partnerships are built SLOWLY, eating up overs, keeping the bowling side in the game and doing everything possible to ensure the side can come back in another Test.

Wins are nice, but not always achievable: you win series by making sure of a decent result when the win doesn't happen.