Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
2nd Text: NZ vs England
- Thread starter pasty
- Start date
Alex Alex Dawson oo! oo!
Primary data is fact
164/5 just after tea; Peterson & Bell both gone.
Seagull Stew
Well-known member
291/5 at close of play.
Scoffers
Well-known member
So, the top 5 fail again, after a promising start, none of them reach 50. It took the teams least experienced batsman to break the shackles and finally take the game to the Kiwis.
Will somebody please tell me why Strauss is in the side? I make that 15 failures in a row, even Jeff Wood had a better record !!!
Will somebody please tell me why Strauss is in the side? I make that 15 failures in a row, even Jeff Wood had a better record !!!
Mendoza
NSC's Most Stalked
i can see the media now hyping up Tim Ambrose for an unbeaten 97, and probable maiden century, and saying he is the best thing since Adam Gilchrist, and what England have been missing since Alec Stewart, and we have never had anyone that good in 10 years
forgetting that Prior made a century on debut
then as soon as Ambrose dips in form, slag him off and say he is the worst wicket keeper in history, and we sdhould bring back Geraint Jones
forgetting that Prior made a century on debut
then as soon as Ambrose dips in form, slag him off and say he is the worst wicket keeper in history, and we sdhould bring back Geraint Jones
sten_super
Brain Surgeon
Were people really advocating the return of Geraint Jones? I wouldn't ever want to see him back playing for England...
Ambrose has started well; and of course this century looks excellent given the failure of the rest of the team (and the fact that the NZ bowling has made us look really poor), whereas Prior scored his runs against a piss-poor Windies side, when we had already chalked up 400+ runs.
I'm not saying that Priors century was any less valid; just that Ambroses will at least appear to be better.
You clearly have an interesting idea of failure. His last 15 innings have included scores of 43 (in the last test match!), 55, 77 and 96.
crodonilson
He/Him
It's a failure to make centuries from Englands top order which costs them, batting is not good enough but batsmen and captain Vaughan isn't going to drop any of his batter mates is he?? Personally I think it's about time he stands aside and gives someone else a go, he's past it.
Whether or not he gets a century is irrelevant IMO. But as Sussex fans, we always knew that he was a *better* wicket keeper than Prior - but now his batting over the past 2 years has improved to the extent that he looks like a solid number seven. That's all the England selectors should be looking for: a good keeper who is a capable batsman under pressure.
Ambrose will be hyped up because he has saved the arses of our shit batsmen (with apologies to the consistent Collingwood). But he will deserve it on this occasion.
Wanderer is being a little unfair maybe, but 43 should be barely above his average score. What is his average in the past 15 innings? I bet it's around the 22 - 25 mark.
Also, why does Pieterson escape criticism? I'm fed up with the fact that he plays like a prat when he needs to ensure he shouldn't be giving his wicket away. Talented batsman, no doubt, but completely lacking discipline at times.
Don Tmatter
Well-known member
The thing with Strauss is, he was sent over early to NZ to play domestic cricket over there to get him into form. In the 6/7 matches he played he only averaged 25/26 with no hundreds and only 1 or 2 50's.
On current form he shouldn't be in the team.
On current form he shouldn't be in the team.
Scoffers
Well-known member
Nevertheless, his batting average against a poor WI side was 23, yes he did score 77, but that was his only half-century in 7 innings against them.
He did slightly better against India of course, but his overall average in those two series was under 30, which is simply not good enough.
His career average before this test was slightly over 40, so 43 is roughly what you'd expect him to be scoring. You're pretty close with the last 15 innings average - it's dead on 27.
I find Pietersen incredibly frustrating for that very reason. You know he's capable of big scores but loses concentration or goes for the big shot when he's got a start and should be scoring more than 20s and 30s with the odd ton thrown in.
He didn't actually play a single first class match for Northern Districts, only List A and 20/20 games. I agree that he shouldn't be in the squad, in fact I think I posted something to that effect when the squad was announced. However, singling him out for criticism over and above any of the other batsmen in the first test is rather unfair when he performed no worse than anyone else.
Seagull over NZ
Well-known member
I really think that Strauss has come back partly into the team for his slip catching. That may sound bizzarre but over the winter we were dreadful in the slips and he is a good 1st slipper. However, that doesn't warrant him being in the side. Shah should be straight in there in the 3rd test.
Scoffers
Well-known member
When was his last Century for England in a test? I'm not 100% sure but I think you have to go back to the home series against Pakistan in 2006 when he got 128.
Right series. The 128 was in the first test, he also made 116 in the third test. He's only had one score in the 90s since, against India.
"That's all the England selectors should be looking for: a good keeper who is a capable batsman under pressure."
ALL!
ALL!
Me said:
Yes. As opposed to a rather ordinary keeper who drops chances but keeps his place because he averages, say, 35 as a batsman.
crodonilson
He/Him
Also, with regards the Strauss debate, Bell was playing wonderfully at no.3, if Strauss was coming back in he really should have been number 6, if he fails in the 2nd innings he should be dropped with Shah bought in at number 6 and everyone moving up the order, this gives our side a better balance.
Was just making the point that it's not easy to find. There's no "all" about it. I think I was agreeing with you Simster.