New Zealand in England

[Leicester Fox]

Don't like Tremlett, just don't like the idea of 3 balls on the stumpf per innings from a bowler. If we had a wicket taker like Flintoff or Jones but with no real strike bowler someone like Tremlett who really just keeps it tight isn't hte right choice imo, although I think they liked a tall player at Old trafford.

 

[Vcassano]

Keep it as it is. We've not lost with this XI, we were in the driving seat in the last test, and would have probably won if we had another day, and if it wasn't for the resilience of Oram and Flynn we'd have won on the final day. Tremlett's not actually THAT fast, he just gets bounce. Harmison and Flintoff would be much better options, if they were on form/fit. Broad is the future of our attack, bowls with good pace, and takes wickets at key times. Anderson will be good at Old Trafford, it's his home ground, and if it swings he'll be mightly dangerous with swing, pace and bounce. Keep the same XI. Chopping and changing every game won't help the team.

We were only in the driving seat when we were on 110-0 and on that last day New Zealand were amassing a tricky lead. They were outplaying us. Though of course it is difficult to measure how different our performance would have been had there been a strong chance of a positive resullt.

Also how can you say we would have won if there players hadn't played well? That's just silly!

As for Tremlett: good point about the injury Kev I'd completely forgotten about that. But if any other bowler will play it's Tremlett. (12th Man). Tremlett is about the same pace as Broad and Anderson so he's no slouch and I think his ability to consistently hit the ribcage area on bouncy pitches can only help.

 

[King Pietersen]

Wow, way to go asshole. You really want to take away one of our best players when we have an already inexperienced and new side? Wow, that's low. Really pathetic.

I think with Oram's hundred we well and truly deserved the draw and infact, i'd say we could have set the game up for a win had we had the time left. I think we take more out of that game then England

I don't think you could have set the game up for a win. McCullum fell right at the end of play, and with Oram back in the shed you have very little batting left. Flynn doesn't exactly look capable of taking the game away from us either, he wasn't exactly in an attacking frame of mind. Southee's slogging won't come off for him again anytime soon, and Mills and Martin don't exactly offer much batting. I think we'd have won the test if given an extra day, how far ahead were you by the end of the 5th day ? 200 or so wasn't it ?

 

[Sureshot]

Don't like Tremlett, just don't like the idea of 3 balls on the stumpf per innings from a bowler. If we had a wicket taker like Flintoff or Jones but with no real strike bowler someone like Tremlett who really just keeps it tight isn't hte right choice imo, although I think they liked a tall player at Old trafford.

Tremlett has a better strike rate than both Flintoff and Jones.

 

[Xuzuno]

My New Zealand XI for the second test:

1. How
2. Redmond
3. Taylor
4. Fulton
5. McCullum
6. Flynn
7. Oram
8. Vettori
9. Mills
10. Mason
11. Martin

 

[angryangy]

I honestly don't know why they picked James Marshall.

 

[irottev]

He's a good fielder and was one of the best performers in our domestic competition. With so many batters out, you really have to go with people who are performing domestically. Marshall did look the worst

And I believe we had a 225 odd lead. Vettori was in there, Flynn was looking solid.. Mills and Southee could have heaved it around for a bit. I'd say there was another 60-100 odd runs there easily. Sets a decent sized total. Of course, you can never predict what would have happened. For all we know NZ could have gotten another 20 runs or on the other-hand maybe another 200. All I do know is that we were gaining control of the test match and out-playing England ever since that first wicket fell in their innings.

I'm actually quite upbeat and positive about the whole game. We were put in in helpful conditions and got a decent total considering. No early breakthroughs in England's innings, but we didn't let them get away from us. No real dropped chances or anything. Then second time batting there were some really good signs. The only problem seems to be the top order. How was good, but needed to kick on for a bit more, but hey, not often an opener gets a fifty for us these days. Redmond looked good considering he was on debut, sure he got a duck, but that happens some times. Marshall looked average but again in-experianced. Taylor's form isn't the best, but we know he's capable.

 

[angryangy]

I think people confuse 'could' with 'would'. There is nothing presumptuous about saying that if time had played differently, NZ could have scored 50 runs with 4 wickets in hand and bowled England out for less than 280.

 

[karnog]

If you ask me NZ are in danger of riding on Oram's success. The fact of the matter is that their top 4 needs to shoulder more responsibility. They can't keep relying on the middle order (yeah nothing shocking but i do get the feeling that NZ are gonna relax a little). Personally Marshall should be dropped. Get in an under-19 player or a youngster.

 

[Niv]

They have Southee?

 

[karnog]

I meant a batter. I think NZ's bowling is a completely different story.

 

[Tubbs Farquar]

I honestly don't know why they picked James Marshall.

Oath!

 

[Sureshot]

He's a good fielder and was one of the best performers in our domestic competition. With so many batters out, you really have to go with people who are performing domestically. Marshall did look the worst

And I believe we had a 225 odd lead. Vettori was in there, Flynn was looking solid.. Mills and Southee could have heaved it around for a bit. I'd say there was another 60-100 odd runs there easily. Sets a decent sized total. Of course, you can never predict what would have happened. For all we know NZ could have gotten another 20 runs or on the other-hand maybe another 200. All I do know is that we were gaining control of the test match and out-playing England ever since that first wicket fell in their innings.

Even though we had a 1st innings lead and were the only side with any chance of winning? However small that chance may have been.

It's impossible to say about ifs and buts on New Zealand's second innings and setting a total, because there wasn't enough time to set a total for us to chase. Both sides knew that New Zealand setting us 300 to win on the last day was not possible.

I think it's quite hard to draw much out of that game, Lord's rarely reflects what happens in the rest of a test series. It almost always stands on it's own in terms of how the game pans out. Positives and Negatives for both sides. I do think we under-estimate New Zealand though, I often hear people saying who weak a side they are, yet I think they have a decent bowling unit and have some very good players in: Oram, Vettori, McCullum and Martin. The top three of those would get into our side, easily.

 

[King Pietersen]

Southee might not play in the next game. Wouldn't be a big loss for NZ i don't think. I've not been massively impressed with him, and i'm not falling for the hype that everyone's giving him. He's had 1 decent bowling innings in Test Cricket. I don't think he's ready for test cricket. He's too young, and he's got too much pressure on him to perform. People want him to play aswell as Hadlee already. He's been brought into Test Cricket far too early for me. He may have raw talent, but England's problem in the past few years has been bringing players into test cricket too early, Anderson, Plunkett, Mahmood, Sidebottom (first game), and a few others, i'd have given Southee a few more years in domestic cricket before bringing him into the test side.

 

[Sureshot]

England name an unchanged side.