2nd Text: NZ vs England

[Scoffers]

This is what the team should have been

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

So, complete agreement with Chapmans then !

 

[Grendel]

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.

I think the difference with the batsmen is that none of them actually failed completely in the course of the match. All of them got starts, and Cook was the only one not to make at least 40. On that basis, I'd be more inclined to give them another chance than the bowlers, although it is harsh on Hoggard particularly given the likely conditions for the second test (and the fact that Anderson isn't very good).

 

[Grendel]

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.

Of course he isn't finished, nowhere have I said he is. In fact nowhere have I said that I think dropping him is a good thing. All I've said is that I can understand why he isn't playing in the next test - I don't necessarily agree with it, but I can see why he's been dropped.

With regards to the New Zealand attack, it may not be the greatest in the world but (Patel excepted as it was only his second test) Vettori actually has the worst bowling average of all of them, whilst Kyle Mills has a bowling average significantly better than any of the England attack.

 

[simmo]

Of course he isn't finished, nowhere have I said he is. In fact nowhere have I said that I think dropping him is a good thing. All I've said is that I can understand why he isn't playing in the next test - I don't necessarily agree with it, but I can see why he's been dropped.

With regards to the New Zealand attack, it may not be the greatest in the world but (Patel excepted as it was only his second test) Vettori actually has the worst bowling average of all of them, whilst Kyle Mills has a bowling average significantly better than any of the England attack.

Mills has got 29 test wickets, both bowlers and batsman can get mis-leadingly good averages when they have played very few games. Two 5 for 30's, for example, early in your career will give you a damned good bowling average.

Martin, Mills, Patel and Oram do not have as many test wickets as Hoggard alone, but yet you think Hoggy should be dropped! It is the batters whom are at fault for getting barely over 100 against a mediocre test bowling line-up.

Hussey averaged 80 over his first 20 games or so and as we have mentioned him Strauss had an incredible batting average in his first dozen or so tests. As a career pans out you get a true "average" of how good a career that a player has.

 

[Grendel]

Martin, Mills, Patel and Oram do not have as many test wickets as Hoggard alone, but yet you think Hoggy should be dropped!

For fucks sake. It's pointless continuing this discussion with you as you clearly aren't paying attention to a word I've written.

 

[Seagull over NZ]

I'm sorry but I don't see anything in Luke Wright that tells me he should be anywhere near the test side. Until Freddie is back firing, then there isn't an allrounder good enough to be in the side.

Vaughan and the selectors have been very inconsistent here. Dropping Hoggard but not dropping any of the batsmen is very harsh.

Wellington is unlikely to be a swinging wicket so that may have also influenced the decision a bit but either way he has been our most consistent performer for the last 203 years longside Sidebottom.

 

[Mendoza]

who are the replacement batsmen should Strauss, I mean the whole batting line up fail again

 

[Grendel]

who are the replacement batsmen should Strauss, I mean the whole batting line up fail again

Owais Shah is the replacement specialist batsman.

 

[Dave the OAP]

ramprakash?

 

[Papa Lazarou]

ramprakash?

I think Mendoza was referring to the other batsmen on the tour, rather than a bloke that probably should have been there but isn't.... I've heard him (harshly) described as a 'flat track bully', so he would have loved the one for the 1st test.

 

[sten_super]

I think Mendoza was referring to the other batsmen on the tour, rather than a bloke that probably should have been there but isn't.... I've heard him (harshly) described as a 'flat track bully', so he would have loved the one for the 1st test.

I think there was some mileage in calling him a flat track bully until the last couple of years, when he's scored tons of runs everywhere. Now I think he can just be called a 'track bully'.

 

[Seagull over NZ]

I think the only thing left to criticise with Ramps is his temperement. He had all the skills and didn't produce it on the international stage. However, we'll never know whether he could have don ein the last 4-5 years.

 

[Chesney Christ]

I think Mendoza was referring to the other batsmen on the tour, rather than a bloke that probably should have been there but isn't.... I've heard him (harshly) described as a 'flat track bully', so he would have loved the one for the 1st test.

Graeme Hick, not Mark Ramprakash.

 

[Seagull over NZ]

New Zealand win the toss and have stuck England in. Looks a bit overcast but if they apply themselves it won't be the worst toss in the world to lose. I'll be there on day 4 so come England !!!

 

[pasty]

38-0 after 14 overs.

 

[Marc]

good first hour...trouble with watching England you find yourself waiting for a collapse!

 

[pasty]

50 up without loss

 

[pasty]

Lunch Day 1

England 79/0

Cook 43
Vaughan 32

Good solid start.

 

[pasty]

good first hour...trouble with watching England you find yourself waiting for a collapse!

Well here it comes.

Lunch 79/0.
10 minutes into second session 82/2

Vaughan and Cook both gone

 

[Zesh Rehman]

going well so far...oh i spoke to soon