Well Scott McCullum caused Anderson's bad figures early in the innings - he also thrashed Sidebottom all over the park.

4th ODI Broad stats did show his econ rate was slightly better than Andersons, but that did not tell the whole story, on top of his bowling figures Broad gave away I think 8 wides in an over.
The truth is England have a lightweight bowling attack, also the batting has let the team down game after game.

No one person should be singled out in this shambolic England one day side - no batsman chanced their are like McCullum did for New Zealand, that was the main difference IMO.

And if Moores does not get his finger out, the test series will go the same way.

__________________
Ern

What we need in the tests though are bowlers who can take wickets. So far in Moores reign our bowling attacks have been pretty toothless.

From what I've seen he can swing the ball around a bit but he can also do an Anderson

True, and i cant figure out why England played this series with such a poor attack

I get the feeling Moores wants to turn England into a Sussex - Fill the team with bits and pieces players and pick a gentle medium paced bowling attack. What he will find out and pretty quickly (if he hasnt already) is that those tactics will not work at test level.

__________________
Mark.

As usual PC perfectly put. The gulf between international and domestic is vast.

Yet Sidebottom still ended with better figures.

It's pointless doing those types of comparisons.

The problem with Anderson is that he doesn't quite know what to do when batsmen get after him and he loses the plot somewhat. If someone's advancing down the track at you trying to hit you over the boundary (as McCullum was doing) then bring the keeper up to stop him doing it and then start bowling yorkers until he stops doing it - so why is Anderson bowlng short and length at batsmen advancing down the track at him? It worked the first time, but McCullum took his revenge did he not?

Yes, Anderson is a talented bowler, yes he's a wicket taking bowler, but he does go for runs. I have to admit my patience with him is wearing very thin, he's simply too inconsistent for international cricket at the moment.

Look at how many ODIs Broad has played and compare it to Anderson. Broad is still learning his craft and you have to expect a bad game from him now and again - Anderson does not (or should not) have that excuse to fall back on.

They do have a lightweight bowling attack and the irony is their 'part -timers' returned better figures than their 3 frontline bowlers - what does that tell you?

I have little or no confidence in Peter Moores or his useless side kick Miller to put out a 'balanced' England side, balanced in the bowling and in the batting department either in ODI or Tests. He doesn't seem to have an answer to Flintoff's absence, he needs to realise and understand that it's Flintoffs bowling he misses far more than anything he added with the bat, so why does he insist on playing sides unbalanced and light in the bowling department? Why does he play that extra batsman?

Bowlers win matches not batsmen.

You mean apart from Peter Moores? The buck stops with him and he has to take responsiblity, and certainly not the nonsense platitudes he came out with after the last game -

"We're building a team and we've been a bit up and down but we played some good cricket and we're disappointed not to come away with a 2-2 draw," he said.

Well they didn't, they lost 3-1, so what an earth is he on about? And please spare me the 'we're rebuilding' nonsense, we've heard it all before and it's becoming weary.

"It was disappointing to get off to a slow start, losing the first two, so we were clawing our way back.

"We have learned some things and when the dust has settled we can make some decisions about the way forward."

Clawing their way back? If NZ won the toss and chased England lost, so where's the clawing back?

"The next one-day cricket will be against New Zealand in England and we'll have to look to see if we need to jiggle the side to move things forward. "

Jiggle the side? What IS this guy on?

"We've played on funny shaped rugby grounds with short edges where it has been difficult to play a spinner," he said.

"So we've gone down the route of not playing a spinner partly because of the shape of the grounds and partly because it extends our batting order and makes us more of a powerful batting unit.

Please, is he supposed to be an International Cricket Coach or some kind of sunday league part time coach who would come out with something like that? It didn't stop the Kiwi's from playing two spinners and winning games with them did it? The fact is, he misread conditions, misinterpretted pitches and selected incorrectly balanced sides for the conditions - and that's why they lost.

Quote sources: BBC SPORT | Cricket | England | Moores defends England failings