Lets face it he's no cricket expert and I wouldn't rely on any bulletins that come out of cricinfo!!!

Hang on, this is test cricket here. If the bowlers cant handle a breeze then they shouldn't be playing.

And how is that? A poor NZ team have made a well above par score on a decent track. We only managed 9 wickets and 2 of them were gifted to us.

He kept it tight but never looked like taking a wicket. If we must play 4 bowlers then they must all be threatening.


Me neither, but you still cant afford to be that inconsistent at test level. We will probably lose this series now and as for the series against SA. Do you still think we are heading in the right direction??

__________________
Mark.

Yes, but that's because the attack is SO inexperienced.

When Australia destroyed England at Lords at the start of the 2005 Ashes, the four bowlers had an average of 85 Tests under their belt. England's most experienced four bowlers had an average of 42 Tests under their belt.

In this Test... Monty's the veteran with 27 Tests... and he's a kid who's still learning his craft. Anderson's the seam-bowling veteran with 23 tests (and let's face it, he's hardly bowled in most of those: after years of being hidden away he's racked up an average of fewer than 17 overs per innings). Fletcher's idiocy means that Sidebottom has racked up just 14 Tests: even playing ahead of Mahmood and Plunkett would have brought him up to over 30 tests, and he really ought to be on 40+ by now). As it is, Broad is catching up fast with a whole 4 Tests to his name.

Average Test experience? 17 caps.

We tend to overlook the inexperience of the batting as well. India's Top order when England last played them included Dravid (112 caps), Ganguly (96 caps), Laxman (83 caps) Tendulkar (140 caps): the four most experienced players had an average of 108 caps to their name... and the other trio were hardly novices.

England's line up? Vaughan knows what he's doing (77 caps). Strauss is getting there (48 caps). The other four have fewer caps BETWEEN them than Tendulkar brought to the party: none of them have 40 caps! On top of that, the side as a gloveman (if we can flatter him with that title: slip catcher with mitts might be more appropriate) who's a complete novice at international level.

We obviously look ahead to the 2009 Ashes as the next really big challenge... but that's in part because it's going to take that long to get this current team the experience needed to really compete at the highest level. Finding a winning habit en-route would be helpful... but NZ are contesting this series very strongly, and SA will probably start their tour as favourites - so expecting the home side to just cruise to victory against either strikes me as foolhardy.

ps. How long did it take Fletcher to build a reliable attack after losing Caddick, Gough and Craig White? It didn't happen overnight!

The bowling in the series so far

http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/...41;type=series

Vaughan 30 in 130+ balls would have to be of concern

Another example of the typical Anglo-centric thinking on this forum.

England may not have needed one yet, but New Zealand have certainly demonstrated the need for a fifth bowler. Mills bowled an expensive five overs, which went for 27 runs. Naturally, he wasn't bowled a great deal after that, but luckily the Kiwis had the good sense to pick O'Brien as the third specialist seamer, who not only was more economical, but picked up two wickets as well. Are you saying that picking say Matthew Sinclair would really be a better move than having O'Brien as a fifth bowler?

P.S. By the way, West Indies are in a potentially winning position after playing a five-man attack for the first time in I don't know how long. All of the bowlers contributed vital wickets, restricting Australia's lead to a manageable total. When they batted, Bravo made a brisk 46, sharing in a vital partnership with Chanderpaul, in the process proving that he's just as capable in that position as any other "genuine" batsman!

New Zealand are right on top and I do not see them losing this match. In fact they are well on course for a surprise victory.

A lead of around 125 would be very handy for the Black Caps.

England bowling was very poor and their batting too has been fragile. As I pointed out earlier, Vettori will be a difficult proposition for the English top order in the second innings.

It wouldn't be a total surprise!

Unfortunately Moores cant learn from his mistakes. It looks like I'll have to suffer until the end of the summer until he gets fired .

Think about it we were in the second day of a test and already we are playing for a draw!

It seems like Moores and Miller are exerting a lot of influence on tactics and selection and giving Vaughan a team he doest want.

Vaughan always wanted our batsmen to bat positively, now they try to bat attritionally but just block for 15 overs, score 20 and get out. Vaughan was always an advocate of 5 bowlers but now he's saying he wants to play 4 (even if Flintoff plays).
Finally, Vaughan understands the value of pace in test cricket and always wanted quick bowlers in the team. Now he's being forced to play medium pacers. Incidentally, I'm led to believe that Vaughan wanted to play Tremlett in this match but was overruled by coach and chief selector. Instead he was left with Broad who although bowled tidily never looked like taking wickets.

__________________
Mark.

They didn't show the first session here, but I was following the match on CricInfo and I got the impression that Broad could have had Oram a couple of times- beat the bat, nearly had him edging on to the stumps, etc., and troubled him with the bouncer. I don't know what kind of form Tremlett's been in, but Broad has some decent Test form behind him so I think it's a fair enough selection.

Anger boiling on my face right now

Englands best batsmen is on 22 and has had 2 lives now?!?!

1st the LBW to Dan Vettori, now a blatant inside edge from O'Brien, a real surprise package with his bowling to me.

Albeit the 2nd one was party due to a lack of appeal from the Kiwis, barring the bowler, but if NZ keep up this very disciplined work, they could definitely force a win here.

__________________
Hoggy Hoggy Hoggy...OI OI OI!!!

navsites.co.uk <<< Join, post and have fun

That says it all. Cricinfos commentary isnt the best....


He did make him look a bit uncomfortable with the short ball early on, but still never looked like getting him out. I'm sure a bowler with 5-10mph more pace would have caused him more problems. Orams one of those players who never looks to be "in" even when he is going along nicely.

Tremletts county form has not been as good as that of Harmison. Broads bowled tidily with out ever looking like taking wickets. If we play a 5 man attack I can see him doing a good job at doing Giles' role. Coming in at no.8 and bowling 15 overs or so for not many runs. To me he could play 100 tests as part of a 4 man attack and i doubt he would take 250 wickets.

Edit: Just read this on cricinfo (it does have some uses!): Cricinfo - Blogs - The Surfer - Jones' pedigree shines bright (and fast)

I like this part: and also If Jones can stay fit for the summer, Flintoff can get fit and Harmison can hit form we will have the makings of a potent attack.

__________________
Mark.