From what I've seen (which hasn't been an awful lot) England seem to be batting okay, but from the position they're in now, 236-4, after 45 overs, they really ought to be looking for 300+, with Pietersen on 97.

Interesting discussion being thrown up by the Sky boys, lead by Michael Holding, who seems to think that a recent committee that met to discuss the issue of reverse sweeping, that technically it's not fair because the batsmans switching from a right handed batsman to a left handed batsman.

It is an interesting discussion and as far as I'm concerned, if you're clever enough to be able to do it, then good luck to you and I certainly wouldn't want to see anything brought in to stop or curb it.

It does form part of the larger argument though - have things swung too far in favour of the batsman? Bats these days are perhaps oine of the biggest factors here.

Oh and congratulations to KP on his ton

I think Owais Shah is trying to prove a point here, because he keeps whacking 6's, anyone would think he wants to get into the T20 team

I think Rachael that the way Bell has played in this ODI proves what I have been saying for a while: He is a better one day player than a Test player, Collingwood has proved the same.

If I was an England selector I would look with care at the batting available to be selected against South Africa in the coming Test series.

Bell, Collingwood and Pietersen are making England look a better one day side, I wonder what the bowling will show in the New Zealand innings.

I will be surprised if Anderson or Broad don't go for runs.

__________________
Ern

I don't think you can conclude that Ern, mostly because we know both Bell and Collingwood have been successful in Test Cricket. It's the 'change in mindset' thing from Test Cricket to the freer form of One day. I'd liken it to your mental state and style of driving in conjested stop start city traffic compared with the open road and traffic free drive in the Country.

Well, another ODI and another convincing win for an England side that is still missing Cook (shoulder injury) and Flintoff (of the obvious first choice picks). Luke Wright and Ravi Bopara haven't done much to grab their chances as yet, but with few seeming to doubt that they are worth investing in as squad-players and long term prospects... the selectors and coach currently seem to be silencing their critics (though I've still a quibble over Mustard's omission).

By contrast... NZ seem to be in need of some magic from someone to paper over ever widening cracks...

Yes another convincing win from England and the margin rather reflected the difference in playing level between the two sides. England are going forwards, whilst New Zealand appear to be going backwards.

I think we need to be careful about drawing positive conclusions from this as, whilst England are definitely improving, this New Zealand side really isn't up to much without Oram in it, who plays an important role for them with both bat and ball. As the Sky boys pointed out, this NZ side is really a two man show - Vettori with the ball and McCullum with the bat and if they both fail so do the rest.

Having said that, England did play a good game. The batsmen generally did their job and, apart from Bopara, most got a start. Bopara's failed yet again and it's not as if he's out of form, questions do need to be asked as to whether he has the mental strength for this level of cricket, although it's more than fair to accept that it's probably too early to tell.

Pietersen played a lovely innings, slow and measured at the beginning whilst he took in the pitch and conditions and then started accelerating it with Collingwood at the crease with some absolutely outrageous reverse-sweep 6's at the end. He deservedly received man of the match.

With all the money floating around in Cricket now, Pietersen see's his opportunities - he sees himself as an 'entertainer' who will get paid millions of dollars for 'entertaining' the public, very American style. Whether people like it or not - that's the direction cricket is going and don't be surprised if Pietersen leads these ODI and T20 sides forwards kicking and screaming into the cricket future.

With such a formidable total on the board, NZ were always going to be behind the 8 ball, it was game over in my mind as soon as McCullum went so early. They may have been keeping up with the rate up to the halfway mark, but England really accelerated their innings in the second half with Shah's rapid 49, Pietersen still at the crease and wickets in hand. New Zealand were never going to match that. Shah wanted to show what he could do and whacked an array of sixes that were futher than Pietersens, he wants some of the action too - competition for places is good - it'll make them batter.

Bowler wise, Anderson was his usual sitting duck at the beginning when the ball wasn't swinging and went for a lot of runs in his first 4 overs, McCullum primarily doing the damage, so after 4 overs he was pulled from the attack and only brough back on later on when the game was pretty much won. He did better in his second spell, but there was less pressure then and less able batsmen. In fairness to Anderson, he is improving his batting and fielding and took some good catches today.

Broad bowled well, as did Swann but Sidebottom was no more effective than Anderson.

I criticise Moores when he gets it wrong - so this time I'll applaud him for getting it right, but there's still some way to go yet.

I'd agree that it's too early to tell in terms of settling into ODI cricket (Stewart used to say it took about 30 ODIs to really adjust to the intensity, and that doesn't seem a bad rule of thumb). What concerns me is the technical side of his game: I've not seen much of him, but I get the impression he's another player who looks to get onto the front foot and go hard at the ball.... and my guess is that he's got the typical failings of such players - a high backlift, high (hard) hands a tendency to over-commit and an approach that makes playing the ball late (as generally required at the highest level) very, very difficult.

This should be evident enough to seasoned observers of his 1st class play... but as most are too easily impressed by the front-foot drives that find the boundary I'm reserving judgment on whether he's really fit to be playing alongside the likes of Bell and Shah.I'd argue that both are "solid enough", especially given that Anderson seems to have started making decent progress once again after years where coaches appeared to do him few favours, and given that Sidebottom (a novice at ODIs) is quite clearly bowling despite being well short (perhaps for niggling-injury reasons) of the sort of form and fitness that he has demonstrated in the past.

Once Flintoff is back the attack should be a strong point of the ODI side: for now it seems perfectly adequate!

Anderson is not coached anymore - and for him his natural self is turning out to be the best.

England don't need Flintoff in the one dayers, as Anderson - Sidebottom and Broad seem more than an adequate unit.
Better he concentrates on the Tests so England can make best use of the years he may have left - he is England best bowler that's true, more the reason for bowing him in Tests.

With a bit of tweaking to the batting, England are becoming a half decent side. New Zealand are not strong, but are allowing England to build a momentum, and that was the key to the run up to the Ashes in 2005.

__________________
Ern

I'm amazed that a 22-year-old bowler in this day and age can go for less than three an over when the opposition's chasing 300! And I'm really looking forward to seeing what Anderson and Sidebottom can do against the Australians- Ponting could have another tough time of it next year.

The downside is, the uniforms are even more retro-grade than the T20 ones.