So why did we drop Hoggy and Harmy?

Anderson has always been inconsistent, in fact i don't think he has managed to bowl well 2 innings in a row.
As I said a few times and got pilloried for it, Broad isn't as good as we think (he will make a decent bowler though and be able to fill the "Giles" role) and has a tendancy to bowl short and get hit.

The problem is on flat wickets we have no penetration in our attack, its too medium paced .

__________________
Mark.

I knew the Anderson love affair would come to a crashing halt.

Got his 5 days grace one for each wicket, and that was it on this forum.

The James Anderson hunting season is officially back on.

But I am slightly puzzled, does Michael Vaughan have a permanent amnesty due to captaining the ashes winning side in 2005.

Because as well as being fairly innocuous with the bat recently, I think his field placements have been at best ordinary and un-inventive.

And the English team batting strategy appears to be based solely on reaction rather than anyone wanting to stick their head up and attack with any real conviction.

Kiwi's 1/93 at lunch and cruising.

In my eyes Vaughan's captaincy much like Moore's coaching seems to be drifting aimlessly along.

Maybe that's how they bowl in Kazakstan.

Actually, he's not looking too bad. Apart from that second over, he's bowled relatively tightly, and when he has gone for four, it seems more a case of good batting than poor bowling, like that bouncer to How.

I hope Fleming can get himself a farewell century, because he really looks good for it- he's already halfway to the 113 runs he needs to average 40.

Yes, Fleming would have been out if Vaughan had a second slip in place- but even at this early stage of the innings, his mind was on defence and plugging the gaps- and it still didn't work! Maybe it's time that the openeing position was given to someone new, like this Carberry fellow I've heard so much about.

I never realised it was back on again When he bowls well twice in a row i'll be a little happier.

Perhaps so but he's limited by this (poor) attack which cant consistently take wickets or slow the scoring rate.

__________________
Mark.

Maybe they set Anderson up? Maybe once and for all they could show why he shouldn't play Test cricket.
Really with this attack they needed a big score and to be honest 7 times out of 10 they would of got a big score. The NZ batsmen would be under pressure and Anderson would have been under less pressure. Unfortunately his shortcomings have been exposed.

__________________
"Checkout the big brain on Brett" Pulp Fiction

Well putting my "devil's advocate" hat on and fantasizing that I'm in charge of English cricket for a moment

Knowing that the next ashes series is coming up in about 16 months, I would be tempted to drop Vaughan as captain and possibly from the test squad at the end of this series. Along with Strauss and Harmison and install Pietersen as captain for the following England test series.

With the intention of giving Vaughan a well aimed and deliberate kick up the ass, sending a very clear and concise message to him that he needs to lift his game and his captaincy and stop taking it for granted.

I think currently he is just cruising, and so is over half the team.

Am surprised NZ batsmen havent copped some flak off here for their approach, 93-1 from 20 overs. Should they not have been playing 'proper cricket' and be 30-1 instead off those 20 overs. Maybe Fleming and How should have just left alone those awful deliveries from Anderson or just defended them. Maybe they should have copied Englands magnificant effort in the first test, oh but wait a moment England actually lost that test. I bet everyone who hates on the Fletcher positive approach that saw England actually winning lots of matches, including turning the whole 2005 series on its head by the first day carnage at Edgbaston, were loving the last day at Adelaide in the last ashes series, where England played some lovely 'proper cricket', ie. lets block-a-lot even though we arent far enough ahead in the game and lets keep Australia in with a chance of winning because they dont have many runs to chase down.

Rachael Anderson only bowled one rank bad ball, that was the short ball.

He does bowl full to get swing.

Two things happened - a short boundary with Anderson bowling with pace made attacking him a good percentage tactic.Which could have gone wrong.

Broad gets a wicket after not bowling that well, that's how cricket goes.
Strange thing is Rachael the commentators you frequently quote - have just agreed the four boundaries were not from bad balls.

__________________
Ern

New Zealand collapsing - emulating England.

__________________
Ern