On another note, I can't remember when New Zealand last had such a good crop of young batsmen. Taylor's 24, Ryder and Flynn are both 23- all of them have impressed so far (in different forms), and all of them could go on for 10 years. It seems to me that over the last 10 years, New Zealand have had to recycle Fleming, Astle, McMillan and Styris, but with McCullum only 25, then the future of New Zealand's middle order looks bright.

Also, Vettori became only the second Kiwi to take 250 Test wickets, so congratulations to him.

Thats pretty much what I've been saying for ages. This team is going rapidly backwards despite what Rachael thinks. Our batting is just not firing as a unit as the bowling lacks any penetration. - We couldn't bowl out the second weakest "test" playing nation for a low score under very bowler friendly conditions.


If we aren't careful we could well lose this series and we now will lose the series against SA. If we played the Ashes now it would be another 5-0 and if the weather was unkind all tests would be over inside 3 days.

How were we hiding behind a 5 man attack. When we had our 5 man attack we consistently bowled teams out and had our most successful spell for a long time. To win a test match you need to take 20 wickets otherwise you are relying on a generous declaration and you don't get too many of them!

The bowlers failed to stand up and be counted against India and Sri Lanka, only Sidebottom stood up against NZ in NZ and they failed to do the job at Lords. During these matches there have been lots chances for the bowlers to shine and with friendly conditions too.

What's going to happen in September when we have failed to beat NZ and been hammered by SA. The senior ECB staff will then say "**** we have the Ashes next summer what will we do?". The answer is sack the coach and the coaching staff and pray


Yes, Moores' is well on the way, to collecting his P45 at the end of the summer.

__________________
Mark.

Sidebottom started 2007 taking 16 wickets at 19.68, bowled a lot better than the stats suggested against India (not helped by the excuse for a wicket-keeper at the time) and despite bowling well with very little reward in Sri Lanka he came into this series having (quite rightfully) claimed a place as the world's No 6 bowler following an excellent series in NZ. Sure, he's still inexperienced at Test level and he's had a poor Test whilst leading a horribly inexperienced attack here at Lords... but that shouldn't be a major cause for concern given that he SHOULD be bowling alongside two veterans.

Hoggard started 2007 already rated in the world's top 10 (albeit down from a high of no 4 in the world). In an injury afflicted year he bowled well in the 2 home games of the spring, well in 2 games he played in Sri Lanka and had a single game that he started poorly when rushed back from injury in NZ - he's still the best new ball bowler in England.

Flintoff's injury problems over the past year or so are well enough documented, but earlier this season he was bowling very well indeed, Justin Langer was talking him up as one of the best fast bowlers in the world: overstatement, but there's no doubt he's well and truly ready to take a place as one of England's best three seamers.

Sides need strength in depth... and on top of the above, proven performers... England have unearthed Broad: a talent that's getting hailed from all quarters. He took 8 wickets at 31.25 as he started finding his feet in New Zealand and looks completely at home (and remarkably reliable). He needs to get more Tests under his belt (which he's currently doing) and to develop more as a bowler... but if any one of the above slips up between now and the Ashes series of 2009 he's quite clearly ready to become the 3rd seamer.

On top of this, England have unearthed an impressive fifth seamer. Tremlett had a very encouraging series against India with 13 wickets at 29.69 and only the misfortune of injury deprived him of further caps in NZ. He fully deserves his call up and would interest any Test side as a prospect.

Panesar has had a pretty shocking winter... and has quite rightly dropped out of the world's top 10. That said, he's just played a Test in which he bowled very well indeed: well enough to suggest he's ready to reclaim a top 10 spot.

Beyond Panesar, England also have Swann. The selectors have treated him badly and he should have been picking up caps during Panesar's slump (and alongside Panesar on several occasions) with a view to establishing healthy competition for the spot... but he's a healthy enough reserve.

Add in the fringe players (including a resurgent Simon Jones and a resurgent Harmison, as well as Onions) and the bowling situation looks very healthy: not as great as the batting, but very encouraging indeed.

The balance of the side is wrong and dropping Flintoff in there isn't suddenly going to transform yours or the existing side from a mediocre one into a winning one. Since Moores took over and instigated his 4 man bowling attack these have been the results -

P14, W5, D5, L3, two series wins and two series losses.

No prizes for guessing the opponents. The 5 wins came against the West Indies and New Zealand, two of the weakest sides in Test cricket. The draws and losses and not ONE single win against the two stronger sides of Sri Lanka and India.

Why are England beating weak sides and failing to beat stronger ones? Their bowling lineup cannot bowl stronger sides out twice. Don't beleive me? Look at how many times England have taken 20 wickets a game against those two stronger sides.

Your solution to this? Pack the side with batsmen and make the spinner the 4th bowler, who has to bowl as part of a 4 man bowling attack in conditions that won't suit him, because he has to be used! How is that going to redress the problem of failing to take 20 wickets?

Who's the 4th second change seamer? Your lineup also forces Flintoff to have to bowl far more overs than he should, almost being used as a frontline seamer when he's the allrounder and should shoulder a lesser bowling burden than the specialist bowlers. That's a sure way of forcing him to break down with injury again.

If Moores continues with this policy, England will lose against South Africa later in the year, the sooner he's replaced the better as far as I'm concerned.

No self respecting side should need one. Sure, some sides have done well WITH one... but if your spinner is even half-decent (as Panesar is) then he should be on at first change (early) and posing questions that the seamers cannot even dream of posing.

If I could outlaw sides using nothing but seam bowling for more than 20 overs in any session I would, but my concern is actually with introducing subtlety and guile, rather than spin - I'd take a 21st century Bedser as a 4th seamer ahead of a token spinner, simply because the new Bedser would offer more guile than the second rate spinner... but I just despair for the future of the game when I see a team sheet with 4 frontline seamers doing a job that three should be capable of doing.He's a frontline seamer or he's nothing. Sure, he's periodically flattered to deceive as a no 6 due to brute force and modern bat technology... but he's never been fit to wipe the boots of any genuine top order bat (though I'd take him ahead of the diabolical Symonds on principle).To say I never took to Fletcher would be understatement: I detested his malign influence from day one. I am glad he's gone.

That doesn't mean I'm convinced by Moores... but let's at least criticise him for his errors than for doing right what Fletcher always did wrong: Moores needs to find the ***** to pick an out and out gloveman, to ditch Anderson, and perhaps to try Shah... but at least we're beyond the days of Fletcher's blinkered obsession with pace and with multi-dimensional players.

England need 5 bowlers. Why are we competing against sides that play 5 bowlers. Are our 4 bowlers so good we don't need 5 or our batsmen so poor we can't afford one. Three fast bowlers, an allrounder and a spinner is what we need.

For the last 20 years it has worked well for Australia.

Looking at Vettori's bowling figures it does not look like Lords was that spin unfriendly.

I again noted that Oram played a fantastic innings when there was no pressure on him to do anything more than entertain the crowd for a couple hours late into a tamely drawn match.

But Australia had the luxury of having McGrath and Warne, plus a handy array of support bowlers including Gillespie, Lee, Fleming, Bichel and Kasprowicz in the pace department, and Stuart MacGill as a second spinner. England don't have anywhere near the same level of bowling resources that we had. Four bowlers worked well for us; five bowlers worked well for England. They should just do what works for them, and that's five bowlers.

Also, of the Australian bowlers I mentioned, six of them have retired. Coincidentally, the Australians seem to rely on allrounders such as Symonds in the Tests much more, and even Michael Clarke gets more overs. Food for thought?

If three seamers are good enough to warrant selection it should be because they are better than the fourth who has been left out: if you play the additional bowler... you then need to take overs away from your best three seamers (or worse, from your spinner) to give the other guy any... which is senseless.

If you had Sidebottom, Hoggard, Flintoff and Panesar all fit (and I mean match fit, not just able to play) and you were captain... would you REALLY choose to offer James "I can leak runs faster than you" Anderson the 25+ overs a day he'd need to bowl to warrant leaving out Strauss?

Broad is quite rightly competing for one of those specialist slots and is showing that he IS up to bowling the 25 overs a day he needs to be bowling. He's not the finished article yet, but he's going to become the finished article far more quickly by being relied on to do his job than he would by being molly-coddled with 12 overs a day so that Anderson can add to his vast collection of unwarranted caps.

To compound the folly being suggested, if England need a 4th seamer they have Collingwood: a perfectly competent reserve / occasional bowler (who could quite easily manage 12-15 overs in a match if the main bowlers were not able to bowl the 25 overs a day they should be up to bowling.

To cap it all, England also have Vaughan and Pietersen, at least one of whom should be used immediately before lunch / tea / the close of play in pretty much every session.

But consider this. Flintoff and Hoggard are both injured. Would you want them to come right back in to the team and have to bowl 25-30 overs are day? In that circumstance, then a fifth bowler would provide valuable cover. And if they can't play, then two of your premier bowlers are missing, leaving England with a considerably weakened bowling attack who are as consistent as wicket-takers. Therefore, having a fifth bowler maximises the chances of taking 20 wickets. So on balance, unless you have four exceedingly prolific wicket-takers (and a pretty decent fielding side to back them up) five bowlers seems to me to be the better option.