England in New Zealand

[Sureshot]

Well, Allan Donald did a pretty good job but we should have signed him up quicker perhaps. I know he went to South Africa for commentry reasons but really we should have signed him as soon as we saw what a good job he was doing.

I suppose Fletcher's strive for bowlers with pace helped us but Moores doesn't have the same ideas.

AD didn't have the commitment. He sodded off as soon as he realised he would be away from his family.

Joe, how can Moores hate Broad? He's in the ODI side isn't he? It's quite common for a player, especially a bowler, to establish themselves in the ODI team before he gets in the Test team.

 

[Adarsh]

AD didn't have the commitment. He sodded off as soon as he realised he would be away from his family.

Understandable really. It's not like he commited to a long term and then opted out.

 

[Leicester Fox]

Yeh but he chose Tremlett over Broad! Tremlett is good and reliable but Broad could turn out to be one of our best ever bowlers. Admittedly I don't like Tremlett because he bowls about 3 balls on the stumps per innings

I didn't like Donald, he got in on reputation, which is all very good but Cooley hardly had much of a reputation and most would agree he's the best. I'd have Nasser in there too, we need a bit of passion.

 

[Sureshot]

Joe, just because someone was chosen for a tour game ahead of another players doesn't neccesarily mean he is overlooking Broad. Maybe he wanted to see how Tremlett would bowl?

 

[MUFC1987]

I wouldn't say Broad has done anything to really prove that he's going to be a brilliant bowler at Test level either. If Tremlett could stay fit, I think he could offer us something which Harmison is struggling with at the moment.

 

[irottev]

Vettori's captaining was decent, if a little negative at times, especially to his own bowling. Their batters looked poor in the 2nd innings aswell, and if it wasn't for a good 1st innings performance the match would have been closer. Winning the toss was the key though, the pitch certainly detiriorated as the game went on, not by a lot, but 2 2nd innings scores of just over 100 prove that the pitch wasn't that great.

Decent? Negative at times? How much of this game did you actually watch? His captaincy was top notch. He rotated the bowlers well, fields were excellent. If you want the definition of negative, look at the England performance in the second innings with the bat. How is that Vettori being negative? He turned the screw on the batsmen because they weren't scoring. I don't know how you can fault his captaincy to be honest. It astounds me.

I think the toss was indeed very important, however, England still could have drawn the game if they weren't outplayed. They didn't score enough runs in their first innings. They batted long enough. Their second innings, sure it was hard to bat, but it wasn't 110 all out. However, that was some pretty good bowling from our bowlers.

England need to ditch Harmison. He's not the bowler he used to be and never will be again. England need to get either Anderson or Broad in the side. I'd probably add both and get rid of Hoggard who is obviously also a shadow of what he once was and under-prepared probably. Anderson was pretty unflattering for Auckland though, so maybe not. Panesar was also poor I felt, though he took 3-33 or something in the second innings, they were all gifts really from attacking strokes. He does seem to be the best guy England has and doesn't deserve dropping, but he seems also under-prepared.

Another point I want to make, is the comment about our batters looking poor in the second innings. Why is that? We were almost 100-1 and sure, we lost a bunch of wickets quickly, but you do realize it was because we were playing aggressively trying to get a lead so we could win?

 

[Arunava]

As a neutral, i feel the same as Englishmen will do well in next match, but winning the match will be a big ask now as they are 1-0 trailing. .New Zealanders won't give it away and try their best to knock them out.

 

[vaibhav mehta]

I wouldn't say Broad has done anything to really prove that he's going to be a brilliant bowler at Test level either. If Tremlett could stay fit, I think he could offer us something which Harmison is struggling with at the moment.

Well Broad has not done anything to get chance..But certainly Harmy And Hoggard have done lot to give him chance..
If you take chance by giving chance to Tremlett rather I say broad has played in ODIs..He has been in good form there..Let him try first..And He has good advantage that He can bat a damn bit..
Well I want both to get in Tremlett and Broad but I don't think thats gonna happen.
And Anyway this team changes not gonna change the course of series..That something English batsman and Bowler have to do..I can see Vaughn also in some Danger..

 

[0601731]

i think its about time harmisson is dropped,their are much better bowlers than him rt.now.

 

[cheese]

Agree with HArmison dropped. But I think once this guy is dropped, I'm not sure he's got the mental fortitude to fight his way back in. In a way, once he's dropped, so is his career finished.

 

[vaibhav mehta]

If Harmy get drooped...I can advice him something free.he can have chlorpromazin.
It will give him moral support...

 

[Animator!]

I personally think our whole team moral and mental set up will change if Harmison is dropped, for the better. We always looked as if we were trying to carry a player into the game, even in the first innings.

 

[lancashire666]

I wouldn't say Broad has done anything to really prove that he's going to be a brilliant bowler at Test level either. If Tremlett could stay fit, I think he could offer us something which Harmison is struggling with at the moment.

broad has had 1 test! on a sri lanka pitch doing nothing for fast bowlers! he averages less that 30 in ODI's and 28.99 in first class games. he deserves a chance.

but i dont like hearing everybody having a go at tremlett, he has a great first class record and had a good start at test level for england with 13 wickets in 3 test at avg of 29! but everyone remembers your most recent performances, and for tremlett that has been in the ODI team where has was targeted by india in the ODI series and got dropped because he was so poor, id love to see him get another chance for england, i just wish at 6' 7" he was a bit quicker, i think he is in prime position to take over from hoggard as moores doesnt seem to have too much faith in jimmy anderson, who to be fair has had a pretty terrible career with injurys so far but still have an avg of around 40 after 20 test matches, im not writing him off at all, i think anderson is great, but id like to see him back at lancashire this year playeing as much first class cricket as possible as i think anderson, sidebottom and broad whold be too similar attack for england, so if hoggard doesnt play id like tremlett in there for his hight

 

[Sureshot]

Decent? Negative at times? How much of this game did you actually watch? His captaincy was top notch. He rotated the bowlers well, fields were excellent. If you want the definition of negative, look at the England performance in the second innings with the bat. How is that Vettori being negative? He turned the screw on the batsmen because they weren't scoring. I don't know how you can fault his captaincy to be honest. It astounds me.

I think the toss was indeed very important, however, England still could have drawn the game if they weren't outplayed. They didn't score enough runs in their first innings. They batted long enough. Their second innings, sure it was hard to bat, but it wasn't 110 all out. However, that was some pretty good bowling from our bowlers.

England need to ditch Harmison. He's not the bowler he used to be and never will be again. England need to get either Anderson or Broad in the side. I'd probably add both and get rid of Hoggard who is obviously also a shadow of what he once was and under-prepared probably. Anderson was pretty unflattering for Auckland though, so maybe not. Panesar was also poor I felt, though he took 3-33 or something in the second innings, they were all gifts really from attacking strokes. He does seem to be the best guy England has and doesn't deserve dropping, but he seems also under-prepared.

Another point I want to make, is the comment about our batters looking poor in the second innings. Why is that? We were almost 100-1 and sure, we lost a bunch of wickets quickly, but you do realize it was because we were playing aggressively trying to get a lead so we could win?

I disagree with you on Panesar. I thought he did really well at Hamilton. It wasn't exactly a spinner friendly pitch and he showed good flight. Comparing to his tour of Sri Lanka is what I'm doing. He was awful in Sri Lanka.

 

[Leicester Fox]

I was talking more about the India series, Tremlett did well in terms of economys and stuff but every time we needed a wicket he wasn't the man. It was usually Colly or Anderson as Sidebum had a lot of bad luck. If we're going to play Hoggard and Sidebum we need someone who can take wickets in the middle overs and I don't think Tremletts that bowler, he'll just keep it tight but I can't see him producing too many brilliant spells that change the game and given Montys poor form we need someone who will do it.

Don't know why but I feel confident ahead of this next game. Maybe it was because I was expecting it but hopefully this defeat will be the one where we turn things around.