2nd Text: NZ vs England

[pasty]

Harmy & Hoggy dropped. Replaced by Broad and Anderson.

England
Vaughan (capt)
Cook
Strauss
Pietersen
Bell
Collingwood
Ambrose (wkt)
Broad
Sidebottom
Panesar
Anderson

I can go with Harmy out and Broad in, but Anderson for Hoggard ? :thud:

Still, what do I know eh

 

[Simster]

Anderson has already proved he's not good enough, so that's a bad selection choice.

 

[Papa Lazarou]

And somehow Strauss gets another chance :thud:

 

[pasty]

And somehow Strauss gets another chance :thud:

From BBC Website...

Asked whether England had considered making a change in the batting line-up, Vaughan added: "Not really...a change was talked about but we thought they deserved another opportunity to try and put it right this week."

England Team News

 

[CHAPPERS]

Hoggard is the victim of a shocking second innings batting performance. If that game had ended a draw, which it should have done, Hoggard would not have been dropped. I personally think that side is crying out for Luke Wright playing as an all rounder. Strauss should get the f*** out and Vaughan should move to open.

Cook
Vaughan
Bell
Pieterson
Collingwood
Wright
Ambrose (wk)
Broad
Hoggard
Sidebottom
Panesar


Isn't it funny that Sidebottom is our most consistent bowler, one of Moores' few successes as coach.

 

[Grendel]

And somehow Strauss gets another chance :thud:

Based purely on performances in the 1st test, why is he any less deserving of his place than, say, Cook?

 

[sten_super]

Based purely on performances in the 1st test, why is he any less deserving of his place than, say, Cook?

But if Vaughan and Moores are having a clear out, why was he given his place back in the first place?

It strikes me that these moves are entirely panic-driven. While Harmison and Hoggard were poor, so were most of Englands batsmen. It seems, however, that the England selectors have faith in the reserve seamers, but no the reserve batsmen, which seems a bit harsh on Shah. It's not as if mid-tour, when your options in terms of new players is extrememly limited, is the best time for a clear our is it?

 

[Don Tmatter]

It would be very unusual for Hoggy to have 2 bad games in a row, so he is unlucky.
Strauss and dare i say it Pietersen need to deliver pretty quickly,Shah deserves a run in the test team.

 

[Grendel]

But if Vaughan and Moores are having a clear out, why was he given his place back in the first place?

It strikes me that these moves are entirely panic-driven. While Harmison and Hoggard were poor, so were most of Englands batsmen. It seems, however, that the England selectors have faith in the reserve seamers, but no the reserve batsmen, which seems a bit harsh on Shah. It's not as if mid-tour, when your options in terms of new players is extrememly limited, is the best time for a clear our is it?

When have they said they're having a clear out?

I didn't agree with the selection of Strauss for the touring party, but to single him out for criticism over and above any of the other batsmen from the first test just doesn't make any sense.

 

[simmo]

I can't believe they have dropped Hoggard for the failure's yet again of the batsmen. Not enough runs in the 1st innings and a disgraceful batting performance in the 2nd. To barely scrape 100 against a pretty mediocre bowling attack is barely county standard.

The bowlers actually got us back into the game. 300 in the last innings is not an impossible ask.

 

[Grendel]

I can't believe they have dropped Hoggard for the failure's yet again of the batsmen. Not enough runs in the 1st innings and a disgraceful batting performance in the 2nd. To barely scrape 100 against a pretty mediocre bowling attack is barely county standard.

The bowlers actually got us back into the game. 300 in the last innings is not an impossible ask.

I'd imagine his return of one wicket for 151 runs had more to do with it.

Over 300 in the 4th innings to win a test has been scored just 22 times in 1866 test matches. It's hardly an easy target, though that doesn't excuse the woeful performance.

 

[keaton]

Harmison had to go, but Hoggard wasn't that bad and he's always performed well. I suppose they assume that Sidebottom can do what he does and a little bit more.
We really don't have anyone capable of explosive batting down the order so i'd give Wrighty a chance as well

 

[Uncle Buck]

Harmison had to go, but Hoggard wasn't that bad and he's always performed well. I suppose they assume that Sidebottom can do what he does and a little bit more.
We really don't have anyone capable of explosive batting down the order so i'd give Wrighty a chance as well

If they chuck Wright in now, I can see him going the same way as the Ealham's and Irani's of this world. Decent enough County all rouders, but not up to test standard.

Also England do have a habit of ruining younger players by picking them too soon.

 

[simmo]

I'd imagine his return of one wicket for 151 runs had more to do with it.

Over 300 in the 4th innings to win a test has been scored just 22 times in 1866 test matches. It's hardly an easy target, though that doesn't excuse the woeful performance.

So he should be dropped on the basis of one performance in his first test for 3/4 months. We will forget about the other 250 test wickets he has taken shall we.

I am sure the Aussies and even the Saffers would have failed to reach any where near the 300 against the "quality" bowling attack the Kiwis have.

 

[Grendel]

So he should be dropped on the basis of one performance in his first test for 3/4 months. We will forget about the other 250 test wickets he has taken shall we.

I am sure the Aussies and even the Saffers would have failed to reach any where near the 300 against the "quality" bowling attack the Kiwis have.

I didn't say he should be dropped, more that I can understand why he's been left out and that it isn't down to the failures of the batsmen, as you stated. The fact that he's taken nearly 250 wickets in the past isn't a valid reason for continuing selection in the future - if it was then you could just as well argue that Darren Gough should still be in the test squad.

A comparison to Australia or South Africa is completely redundant and misses the point I was making, which was that scoring 300+ to win in the fourth innings of a test match is not an easy thing to do.

 

[sten_super]

When have they said they're having a clear out?

I didn't agree with the selection of Strauss for the touring party, but to single him out for criticism over and above any of the other batsmen from the first test just doesn't make any sense.

Clear out was probably the wrong phrase... Vaughan said it was 'the end of an era', suggesting that these 2 bowlers have seen the end of their tenure as automatic first choice bowlers for England. If it was his intention all along to do this at this stage (and I don't for one moment think it was) why have the batsmen (most vulnerable of which is clearly Strauss, given that he was dropped for the last series and is the oldest batsman apart from captain Vaughan) not been subject to the same criteria? Even given it wasn't intended, why have the batsmen been given a chance to put right their wrongs, and the bowlers (particularly Hoggard, who has been an excellent bowler for a number of years) not?

Incidentally, I said during an earlier thread about the first test that I didn't think that Hoggard and Sidebottom could play in the same side unless we are playing on a green wicket. It just makes no sense to me to play them in the first test, on the worst wicket for swing bowlers, and then to drop one for a game on what seems likely to be a fairly green wicket.

 

[simmo]

I didn't say he should be dropped, more that I can understand why he's been left out and that it isn't down to the failures of the batsmen, as you stated. The fact that he's taken nearly 250 wickets in the past isn't a valid reason for continuing selection in the future - if it was then you could just as well argue that Darren Gough should still be in the test squad.

A comparison to Australia or South Africa is completely redundant and misses the point I was making, which was that scoring 300+ to win in the fourth innings of a test match is not an easy thing to do.

Do you think Hoggard is finished on the basis of one poor performance (alongside below standard perfomances from everyone else in the team excluding Sidebottom) in his first meaningful game since December?

I agree on paper scoring 300+ in the last innings is a big ask, but excluding Vettori the Kiwis have a very very average bowling attack.

 

[keaton]

The Times have three sports-playing columnists, two of whom have just been dropped (Johnny Wilkinson and Hoggard). The third is Michael Owen. Fingers Crossed

 

[CHAPPERS]

It wasn't even about scoring 300 though was it? It was about NOT getting bowled out for 110 with only one meaningful score in thye whole line up.

 

[sten_super]

The Times have three sports-playing columnists, two of whom have just been dropped (Johnny Wilkinson and Hoggard). The third is Michael Owen. Fingers Crossed

Er Owen was dropped for Capellos first game in charge, where he started with Rooney up front on his own. so 3/3 for The Times!