Yep greg - that's all it was.
O'h that explains it - England had 10 men missing , well England will have 11 men playing in 2009, and a rough ball to reverse swing.

Friday - we will see, the higher you are, the greater the fall hurts .

__________________
Ern

I am a bit worried that this is the big story of the day, rather than England finally picking up a win. What is it with England's guys? I am beginning to think it can't all be bad luck. Surely other teams are not routinely being decimated by injuries as England have been since the 2005 Ashes series? We must be getting something wrong. I just hope that this is not a portent of a premature end to Michael Vaughan's career, he being more injury prone than most, it seems. If I were he, I might be getting the CV dusted off for Rupert Murdoch right now in the hope of having at least something to do when the World Cup comes along.

__________________
Money won't buy you friends. But it gets you a better class of enemy.
Spike Milligan

If you rush your self back into cricket, and not just any cricket, but at the highest level, after a serious injury, like he had, with not sufficient rehab, then something like this was always bound to happen.

I've no doubt that Vaughan's pretty much as recovered as he's ever going to be on the bad-knee front... and that he's not rushing things in terms of THAT injury. The obvious counter is firstly that "as recovered as he's ever going to be" might be considerably less than "fully recovered" and secondly that he's almost certainly been compensating with other muscles in ways that does make injuries elsewhere more likely.

I'll admit concern: he already seems to be getting improved performances out of Anderson and Flintoff... and with so little time before the world cup, England seemingly need every minute they can get of his leadership!

Vaughan's contribution to Anderson's and Flintoff's improvement is non-existent Rach. Anderson, from what I have read, got wickets because for once, he actually started bowling in a way that first earned him wickets, i.e. by pitching it up - this is nothing to Vaughan's credit.

Also, as suggested before also, Flintoff is not some one you can expect to lead the side and also be on the top of his game, both his bowling and batting, at the same time. Since the Ashes the pressure of captaincy has been off him and he's seemed more like him self. Again, this is nothing to Vaughan's credit.

The line of argument that he is able to get the best out of the team as leader might be true to an extent for England's test side under his leadership, but is most certainly flawed when spoken of in terms of the England one-day side. In one-day cricket, as a matter of fact, Vaughan's captaincy has often been found wanting, his use (or lack their of) of spinners especially has been bizarre.

Today's example of Dalrymple only bowling 2 overs is not the sole one as you'll recall, the infamous ICC CT finals a couple of years ago, saw Vaughan similarly not use Giles at all, despite conditions then also suggesting he might have brought England success, and then too, England, similar to the manner in today's game, allowed the opposition back into the match from a hopeless situation. If Vaughan had given at least have as many overs he offered to Lewis over to Dalrymple, 146 for 7 would not have been converted into a total that nearly won NZ the match.

All of this, of course, is an addition to the fact that as a batsman alone Vaughan just doesn't merit a place in the side. In principle, you really cannot and should not select a player because of his supposed "affects" on the rest of the players.

Why was Anderson's length so erratic in the Ashes? Was it a technical flaw, above and beyond his normal failings? No one has suggested his Test match problems (as opposed to the problems that plague him generally) were technical... and the fact that he bowled far better in the tour matches than in the Tests suggests not. In any case, Fletcher has long warned against assuming that technical flaws lead to a lack of confidence: so often it's the reverse.

If Anderson's extreme (greater than usual) struggles to find his length has been a confidence-related mental thing... and you've got infamous cases like Caddick and Harmison as evidence that dropping short is a classic response to unease amongst seamers... then Vaughan should be getting credit for the improved performance.

That's Andersons's one-day record, split series by series, since the time Vaughan took over as a full time captain. If I'm correct Vaughan was captain during all of occasions except the series, in Pakistan (when he took 7 wickets @ 25), India (9 wickets @ 32) and the CT (3 wickets at 47). So under Vaughan in successive series he's managed 9 wickets @ 15 against SA & Zim, 4 wickets @ 21 against Bangladesh, 0 wickets against Sri Lanka, 4 wickets @ 37 against WI, another 7 @ 28 against WI & NZ, then 2 wickets @ 56 against Zimbabwe...this, if anything is a highly mixed record, that suggests that his performance really is capable of blowing hot and cold, with little affect from who is captaining the side, for he has had everything from shocking peformances to okay performances to absolutelty great performances under both Vaughan and other captains, including Trescothick and Flintoff.

To clear it all up his one-day record, under Vaughan's captaincy is: 23 matches 26 wickets @ 26
Under everyone else this record is: 14 matches 19 wickets @ 34

On the face this would suggest he has performed marginally better under Vaughan, but that really is not saying much as Anderson's average and wickets tally under Vaughan had the benefit of him having playing against sides like Zimbabwe (twice) and Bangladesh under him, and also had the advantage on more occasions of playing at home. It might well be argued that if Anderson had played under Trescothick or Flintoff longer, his stats under different captains might have had no difference, or may even have been better then under Vaughan.

In fact, if you're talking about test cricket, Vaughan, was perhaps the one person more responsible for destroying Anderson's confidence completely then anyone else, especially against West Indies at home in 2004, when he underbowled Anderson to a diabolical extent (he bowled less then 57 overs in 3 full tests, which is barely 10 overs per innings! His confidence IMO suffered so badly in that one series, that he never really recovered in his subsequent test apperences in the Winter, away in the Carribean, and also further down the winter against SA, by which time he completely lost his place in the side to Simon Jones.

So contrary to what you imply Vaughan is not Anderson's savior in any capacity, mental or technical, in fact the opposite might be argued with some justification. This I repeat for the umpteenth time is irrespective of the fact that Vaughan has proved him self incapable of consistently performing with the bat at the one-day level, and you cannot keep on selecting him merely for his alleged influence on the team, a fact that many England fans conveniently like to ignore.

I'm not going to defend all aspects of England's handling of Anderson over successive seasons: some of it has NOT been ideal. On the other hand:

{i} He needed to remodel his initial action as (quite aside from the fact that it was diabolical) he was becoming known (not least in umpiring circles) for being incapable (for technical reasons) of staying off the business areas of the pitch: he was heading towards repeatedly being forced to withdraw from attacks... and thereby being forced out of the side.

{ii} The circumstances that meant he spent years attached to the England circus rather than working his backside off for Lancashire are quite independent of the impact Vaughan had as coach in terms of getting Anderson settled within the team, clear as to what he was in the team to do and confident that the role assigned to him was realistic.

For what it's worth I'd have preferred for him to just go back to Lancs, with first Sidebottom and then Lewis getting the long run as Test-match tea-boy and occasional reserve bowler (a role more suited to a senior, experienced player than to someone still finding their way and undergoing major remedial work on their action).

England made a mistake in remodelling Anderson's action when he had been bowling the same way injury free and taking wickets for years. There is nothing wrong with a bowler having his head down and not looking up as he is bowling. The ball has already left his hand before his head goes down. Another bowler who bowls with his head down is Pollock. Anderson's new action caused his back injury. Now he has gone back to his original action and is bowling at an average of 88mph. They want to change Broad's action now. I don't think his father is going to let that happen.

I found under Hussain Anderson got his ODI wickets at 1.50 per match, under Vaughan 1.33 and under Strauss/Flintoff 1.66. That could be because Vaughan used him as a first change bowler rather than an opener. He is going to have to be the major wicket taker in this series otherwise Vaughan will go for Plunkett for his batting.

First, a 36-year old wicketkeeper is drafted into the squad (Nixon), now a 34-year old batsman (Loye). well, England are certainly not rebulding for the future. Hell, they aren't even rebuilding for the WC in 2011!

And THAT is the problem....

__________________
Nobody has a batting stance quite like the mighty Shivnarine....