Ryder run out - I feel this is to little to late for England.

__________________
Ern

Looks like its time for the morning shift.

179-3, it's a cakewalk. 64 needed from 124 balls.

This is exactly why I went to bed when I did - England simply didn't have the bowlers to defend this total. Looks like England have been outplayed yet again by the Kiwi's.

Look at Andersons figures, 4 overs for 45! Is he really the best we've got? As I type, short ball from Anderson thwacked to the boundary board by Styris! He's bowling too short yet again. 86 Matches and he still hasn't learnt.

No doubt Andersons continuing poor form is down to the mismangement of the Fletcher era as his fans love to use as his main excuse.

Well, well, well, things starting to happen at last. First Anderson gets Styris, more of a mistake by Styris than anything Anderson did. Then Flynn was out plumb LBW, trapped on the crease playing across the line and Oram out first ball to a peach from Sidebottom taking out his off stump!

198-6

197/6.....is it a twist in the tail??....wow i'm hoping this one gets more and more exciting...!!!!.....need no more reason to love the game of cricket!!!!

billy bowden doesn't give a massive edge....so much drama.....!!!!

I think the series result is justified. NZ were the better team overall and so deserve the victory.

Once again the England bowlers let the team down, granted they weren't given much to bowl at but....

Anderson seems to have discovered consistency, he can bowl long hops ball after ball now and consistently goes at over 6 an over.

Broad is still not ready for international cricket. He's had one good game but in the rest he has bowled too short and to me he seems easy for a batsman to go after.

On paper Sidebottom looks a good ODI bowler but this series even he has been unable to create any pressure. I just hope that for the test series none of these are anywhere near the team or we will struggle there too.

One thing i cant understand though is the team selection The bowling has been very light with no spinner picked and 2 of your main 3 seamers have a reputation (which was lived up to!) of being expensive. I just cant figure it out.....

__________________
Mark.

He's had a hell of a series allright- 3-26 (9), 0-32 (3), 3-32 (10), 2-75 (10), 0-41 (6)!

I thought he's bowled very well- he beat the bat on numerous occasions, was always economical, and should have taken more wickets than he did. I think if he opens with Hoggard, there'll be a lot of pressure on the New Zealand top order.

I just hope that England has the good sense to play a proper spinner in in the Tests. Based on the selections in the last series, one never knows, though.

Is that good or bad? Because in 3 of the matches he's been very poor. His career economy rate is worse than Collys!

I agree he was unlucky but he still went at over 4.5 an over for the series and seemed unable to pin the scoring rate down

I'm in full agreement there!

__________________
Mark.

Inconsistency's bad. But I will say that I think he has more going for him than a lot of the others England's thrown in at the deep end over the last few years- the Plunketts, Mahmoods and the like.

Well, considering the carnage frequently inflicted on the bowling attack by the Kiwi top order (particularly in the 2nd and 4th matches) I think going at only 4.5 an over is pretty darn good. And I think he can do a similar job in the Tests, where his economy is under 3 an over- something not even Haggard or Flintoff can match.

I'm also going to be interested in seeing what Kyle Mills can do in the Tests- apart from Bond, he's been far and away the best Kiwi ODI pace bowler, and I'm really surprised that he's only played 9 Tests so far.