Cricket: England vs New Zealand Test Series

[kevshat]

Re: Cricket: England vs New Zealand Test Series I understand the backwards step to an extent but it's all about winning test matches isn't it :unsure. We've got players coming through the system like Hildreth and Denly and even Michael Carberry who for some reason is highly regarded among the selectors but the truth is they need a year or two more ploughing runs for their counties while the national team needs someone stable who can score runs in the middle order. At the end of the day, Ramps will still be playing in 3-4 years time so we've got 2 years of him if we choose to use him and following the county circuit like I do, I've not seen anyone anywhere near as good as him this season or indeed last. Tomorrow is a tricky one for an England fan I think. Do we want England to win and paper over the cracks or will it be better long term for us to get rolled over and changes be enforced. Problem is, as is the way with any sport in this country, we'll probably get rid of the coach before the culprits.

[WoodyTHFC]

Re: Cricket: England vs New Zealand Test Series I admit Strauss has played better in the second innings as he has at least attempted to play in a slightly more positive manner (I know his strike rate is slightly lower but that was more playing for the close and the detoriating pitch is another factor) whilst not being reckless on a pitch that is detoriating however I completely stand by my earlier comments about Strauss being far too negative in the first innings along with Vaughan and I believe that has cost England big time imo. The pitch was far easier to bat on yesterday and yet England adopted a terribly dour approach against what is not exactly world beating bowling. They did little to put the Kiwi bowlers of their line and length and just let them bowl and eventually they got out. Look at the facts, Vaughan scored 30 of 133 balls faced. He didnt bat like that in Aus 2002/2003 or when we won the 2005 ashes against a far better attack. It is not the first time in the recent era that England have suddenly changed to a negative approach in their batting and it has cost them, New Zealand first test over there, in Sri Lanka and even Adelaide are some of the most high profile examples. Look at Oram's bowling analysis in new zealand, he bowled 74 overs going at just 1.6 runs an over and he is not going for much more than that over here and I cant say that he is a world beating and unplayable bowler, England have simply let him bowl line and length. Im not sure if I agree with the statement that there is nothing wrong with the top 3 either and I eluded to that in the earlier post. If Strauss was in the form of his early test match career, Cook similarly and Vaughan in his 2002/2003 form then maybe that would be true. However Im not sure that they are and they seem remarkably more defensive then they were when they first started their test careers and to keep up with the modern test game this is not required. Im not saying go out and play recklessly but just go out and and bat and runs will come at some sort of decent rate. The top 3 in this game and in some of the examples I have already mentioned simply have not done so. I would like to think it is a one off but im not sure at all. This is where Tresco is badly missed. Vaughan can be an aggressive batsman especially when he gets past 50 but in his first innings mood he certainly was not, maybe for him it was a one off but even so it is a worry. I would even contimplate putting KP at 3 to try and get a more aggressive batsman up the order to influence the game more. If KP moved back to 5 that is just KP hiding imo and he needs to have the strongest influence possible on the game, at no.5 Im not sure he would, especially with the current top 3 in the defenisive mood they have been so far in this test. I will say it now that with Strauss, Cook and Vaughan as the top 3 we will not come close to winning the ashes next year, I would love to be proved wrong though but atm in this defensive mood I cant see it. Of course the problems are just not with the top 3, far from it and I probably should have indicated this in my initial post, the lack of runs from KP, Bell and Colly is simply not good enough. To play 6 genuine batsmen you would have thought we would have scored more, far from it. KP is still a class act for me and despite his recent 'bad form' I would not drop him and indeed I would consider KP at 3. Bell is becoming ever frustrating. I know he has been messed around a bit with his position and that could hardly help but considering the faith England have shown with him as one of their bright young things ie. playing him in 2005 ashes team despite terrible form that could have cost england, one would have wanted him to be a consistent and reliable player by now and he is not that atm, maybe move him to his most successful position, no.6 and that is only on the provision that 6 batsman are played, if not, then I would drop him. Collingwood is simply in awful form atm and despite his success in the one day game, he is not proven as a test match batsman and if he is not going to bowl at all then there is no need for him, Ramps/Key/Shah would do a better job with the bat imo. Regarding some of the names Kev picked I cant say Im convinced by all of them. Bopara had his chance and was awful in Sri Lanka, he would be a bits and pieces for me and too similar to Colly, not going to be a genuine bowler nor a good enough bat (Ramps/Key/Shah) all better. Mahmood I would not have anywhere near an England team until he proves himself as a bowler who is not going to go for the amount of runs as he does. He is far too expenisve and should never have got into the eng. team ahead of Sidebottom/Broad etc. He would be a backward step from Anderson who I actually think has bowled respectfully in this match although he does need to be a bit less expenisve. Read is the best keeper in the country and enough of an adequte batsman to play for eng however Im not sure if he is eligible due to ICL commitments (not sure on that though.) So for the meantime I would go for Ambrose to continue, if got in a real rot then I would go for Foster. My Team Strauss Cook KP Vaughan Ramps/Shah/Key (could also be an opener replacement and the other two are possibles for the no.3 role I mentioned) Bell Ambrose/Read/Foster Broad Sidebottom Anderson or when properly fit, Jones Monty Flintoff would come back into the team when fit. Where that will be is a different matter, his batting is not really no.6 form on recent evidence but equally using Flintoff as part of just a 4 man bowling attack could create further problems especially if Jones was with him, would they be able to produce enough overs in a day? Just a few thoughts.

[meatman]

Re: Cricket: England vs New Zealand Test Series

Tomorrow is a tricky one for an England fan I think. Do we want England to win and paper over the cracks or will it be better long term for us to get rolled over and changes be enforced. Problem is, as is the way with any sport in this country, we'll probably get rid of the coach before the culprits.

yeh tough question lol Personally I hope Vaughan and Strauss can get big scores, along with maybe KP. But if we went 0-1 down against NZ at home then it'd really make everyone sit up and realise we got some problems. The Fltintoff issue is an interesting one as well. On his current form he cant bat at 6 though can he? If he was fit right now i'd drop Anderson for him

[kevshat]

Re: Cricket: England vs New Zealand Test Series

yeh tough question lol Personally I hope Vaughan and Strauss can get big scores, along with maybe KP. But if we went 0-1 down against NZ at home then it'd really make everyone sit up and realise we got some problems. The Fltintoff issue is an interesting one as well. On his current form he cant bat at 6 though can he? If he was fit right now i'd drop Anderson for him

As would I. No he can't bat at 6 on current form, in fact, I think we need to drop the all rounder tag from Flintoff. He's not really performed with the bat since 2005 but he's quite simply the best bowler in the country. Will we ever see him again though is the question. Having said that, Collingwood's averaging 4 for this series so far :eek. Just a few things I've picked up on from Woody's post - Read: No problem re ICL commitments. He's not centrally contracted so he can do as he pleases. He just needed permission from Notts which he got. Strauss/Top 3: He's averaging 50 for 2008 so I can't see where the problem is with him. I see where you are coming from with the top 3 but the times you was comparing with was superb summers with the sun shining, these last two test matches, Hamilton and Wellington were windy, cloudy conditions. The fact is in the two tests so far in the 7 completed innings our top 3 have played they've delivered 3 half centuries and a ton. Ironically in both innings in this series so far Stuart Broad has only scored 10 less runs in his two innings than our numbers 4-7 have in their 8. That's where our problem is. Bopara: I'm not really that bothered about how he did in Sri Lanka in truth. He won't be batting in Sri Lanka now, he'll be on pitches he knows and he's gone back to Essex and scored a shit load of runs. When Collingwood went back to Durham he scored 12 runs in 4 innings with a top score of 6 in first class cricket. KP at 3. Kind of covered that above but I can't see the logic in batting him at 3 in his current form. I'd bat him at 3 in the one day game all day long but not in tests. I'd play him at 5, after all he apparently kicked up a storm when we moved him to 4. Simon Jones: I saw Jones at the Rose Bowl on Tuesday night. Unfortunately, as horrible as it is we can forget him ever playing for England again. His knee is nowhere near strong enough. He couldn't even run on Tuesday and he bowled 2 overs then went off for 20 overs for treatment. The fact Worcestershire are playing him on a play one rest one routine says as much. One name I forgot to mention in the ones to watch in the next year or two if he chooses England is Chris Jordan at Surrey. This kid is a serious talent. Excellent bowler who'll be pretty quick when he's finished growing and decent number 8 batsman who could get better there too. Alan Butcher said he's the best 18 year old he's ever seen and that'll do for me.

[kevshat]

Re: Cricket: England vs New Zealand Test Series Forgot to add that Flintoff can only replace Anderson in the side if the number 6 bowls 10-12 overs a day. If Collingwood can't/won't/isn't then Flintoff can't replace Anderson unless Colly goes. Another thing I keep forgetting to mention is why have Vaughan and Bell stopped bowling? They don't have to bowl 20 overs a day but when they 1st hit the international scene they both bowled but now neither do. It's 2 more options instead of wearing all our bowlers out.

[meatman]

Re: Cricket: England vs New Zealand Test Series

Having said that, Collingwood's averaging 4 for this series so far :eek. When Collingwood went back to Durham he scored 12 runs in 4 innings with a top score of 6 in first class cricket.

shocking are those stats :eek:eek

[WoodyTHFC]

Re: Cricket: England vs New Zealand Test Series Regarding Read that is good news if available, I just wondered whether it was the ICC or the ECB who had banned all ICL players from playing international cricket, may have got that wrong though. I think some countries have banned certain players who played ICL and that is why Bond cant play for New Zealand. Im still of the same opinion about the top 3. This does not mean I dont think 4-7 is not a problem either and indeed it arguably is the bigger problem, certainly in terms of runs they are scoring. However the top 3 should not be forgotten and it was the approach they took especially in the first innings here which I maintain was dour cricket and cost England. They went into a completely defensive mindsight and it was not as if in a Boycott style they played this way but still went on and made proper runs that win matches like 100s, they got themselves in, took ages to do it only to get themselves out, when the pitch was relatively easy to bat on. They missed a trick in my book and should have been more attacking against an average looking bowling attack who admittedly bowled well. Another worrying statistic for England is the lack of 100s from all parts of the team. Since the West Indies last summer these are the respective amount of hundreds from the batsman: Colly and Bopara none, Cook, Strauss and Bell all one, Vaughan two and KP three. Given the modern day scoring of international cricket those statistics are not good enough and show a general lack of consistent form. when one thinks that Hoggard a great servant for us, had one of his only bad games for us and got dropped in New Zealand and then you look at the batsmen who all have pretty 40+ averages but have seldom delivered in a consistent manner of late it does raise some questions in my book. As I have already mentioned I would look at Colly going out and a proper batsman coming in (Ramps/Key/Shah.) Bopora does not fit the bill as a proper batsman imo. Ok he has started the season in good form for Essex but the three I mentioned have been consistently churning out runs for the last few years in county cricket and deserve their chance now to appear for their country again. Bopora just looked totally out of his depth in Sri Lanka, it was not just down to the surfaces out there, he was just poor. Let him score proper runs in county cricket and make himself a proper batsman, then consider a test place maybe in a year or two, one day game I have no probably with him playing as that is a different matter. The KP issue is just an opinion. Personally, I think no.3 would let the team have an attacking batsman in the top 3 that they require imo and that most international teams have all around the world. Either that or one of the top 3 has to play slightly more attacking, I cant have them batting like they did in the first innings here. However if KP is moaning about where he wants to bat then I would not pick him at all. As for Jones well I hope he can get truly fit again. Whether he will be ever again is a different matter. I only saw tues. match on the box but he was at least bowling with real pace, 90mph+, worrying batsmen and taking wickets, even if it was just shortish spells. Maybe let him play in county cricket all year and then nurse him back on one of the winter tours if he is fit. The problem could be that Flintoff and Jones in a 4 man bowling attack would have serious fitness concerns, 5 bowlers would be a must in that case. Agree that Jordan looks promising. The only thing is Im not certain he is going to play for us, is it still possible he could play for the WIndies? Anyway as an england fan I still hope that we turn it around tomorrow and that these batsmen turn it around as they do actually have a habit of doing just when they look ready for the chop. At least Monty has at least given them the chance to.

[TheRat]

Re: Cricket: England vs New Zealand Test Series BRING BACK HICK :loon

[WoodyTHFC]

Re: Cricket: England vs New Zealand Test Series

Forgot to add that Flintoff can only replace Anderson in the side if the number 6 bowls 10-12 overs a day. If Collingwood can't/won't/isn't then Flintoff can't replace Anderson unless Colly goes. Another thing I keep forgetting to mention is why have Vaughan and Bell stopped bowling? They don't have to bowl 20 overs a day but when they 1st hit the international scene they both bowled but now neither do. It's 2 more options instead of wearing all our bowlers out.

Also why doesnt KP bowl more? In South Africa he was a no.8 who bowled. Remember he got Athers, Hussain out in a tour match over there. Now he rarely seems to turn his arm over or at least nowhere near the amount he should do. When I have seen him he is not a completely help yourself bowler and I question whether it is down to his attitude? He seems to see himself as a batsman and that is that. I recall him even saying that at one point and that is a selfish attitude imo. Looking at a county match the other day, Hampshire bowled 150 overs as Somerset got 650 and yet KP bowled only 4 overs, hardly stepping up for his team. Lamb bowled 34 overs in that innings and from what I have seen of him, he does not strike me as that much of a better bowler than KP so why such the big difference. It could well be down to attitude again.

[kevshat]

Re: Cricket: England vs New Zealand Test Series

Also why doesnt KP bowl more? In South Africa he was a no.8 who bowled. Remember he got Athers' date=' Hussain out in a tour match over there. Now he rarely seems to turn his arm over or at least nowhere near the amount he should do. When I have seen him he is not a completely help yourself bowler and I question whether it is down to his attitude? He seems to see himself as a batsman and that is that. I recall him even saying that at one point and that is a selfish attitude imo. Looking at a county match the other day, Hampshire bowled 150 overs as Somerset got 650 and yet KP bowled only 4 overs, hardly stepping up for his team. Lamb bowled 34 overs in that innings and from what I have seen of him, he does not strike me as that much of a better bowler than KP so why such the big difference. It could well be down to attitude again.[/quote'] I actually asked the Judge that when I was down at the Rose Bowl because I noticed it. The reason KP only bowled 4 overs is because we won't see him again this season unless we're in a final somewhere so they wanted Lamb to get overs under his belt. Greg Lamb's a decent enough bowler. I'd imagine the other reason was the short boundaries and Lamb fires it in while KP throws it up. Completely agree with you about him in tests. The only reason I didn't include him was because he did bowl a few overs at Lords. Like you say, when Hussain spotted him and in his early days at Notts he was an all rounder. Couple of things you want clarifying, it's the individual countries which decide the ICL situation. Basically, it's outlawed by the ICC so countries need to give their players permission to play - an NOC it's called (No Objection Certificate). If they don't get one of them and choose to play they can't play for their country. As I said earlier, Read isn't centrally contracted so it was up to Notts to decide on Read. Read's contract out there has run out now too. Chris Jordan has to decide who he'll play for at the end of this season as he's only 18. Amazingly enough, when he went back to Barbados to play cricket 2 years ago he was only 12th man in the u16s so I'm assuming he'll choose England but he has until the end of the year to decide unless he's called up before then (highly unlikely). Jones wasn't quite 90mph but he was high 80's but that was down wind. When he came on at the end he was off a shorter run up and was down to low 80's. I looked forward to seeing him but watching him in the field you could see he's not right which was a shame. I saw Mark Wagh at Northampton a couple of years ago and he was the same. That was also a pity as he could've been England class. I'm not disagreeing with you that Key/Ramps/Shah are better batsmen than Bopara but that number 6 spot has to have a bowling element to it especially if we're on about bringing Flintoff back into the side as a bowler. Ian Bell's spot can't be very secure either and as I said right at the beginning I'd be happy with any of them 3 being put in there, with preference for Ramprakash.

[Pie-chucker]

Re: Cricket: England vs New Zealand Test Series Good stuff, lads. Although a Pom (and around since the days of Cowdrey and the broken arm) I'm not a dyed-in-the-wool Team England (yeuch) supporter, except against Aussies when I'm fiercely one-eyed. Tend to support depending on the situation (egging Ross Taylor on), the spreads in play (!), whatever will set up the game well etc. I detect I'm not alone in hoping England stuff this today. Yup, there's recently been 'doing just enough' to hang on to a place, eg Napier. There's the terrible thought that if they show backbone and knock off the runs soon after tea the exact same XI will play for the 4th test in a row. And we'll have to read crap Bell ghosted columns about how this side have got character blah, blah. Bollocks. Complacency, coasting more like. If Ramps were to skewer the 100th 100 in the next week the clamour for inclusion would only increase. Bloody right, the 'long-term' plans for England extend precisely to the Ashes next year. I think Collingwood only would go, bringing in A. Decent Batsmen. This will be spun as reconstructive surgery on his shoulder/needs a break from the game to get right. Bell will once again finger his file full of pics of Peter Moores doing a Max Mosely :spankand pop up again at 6. C'mon kiwis, today!

[Pie-chucker]

Re: Cricket: England vs New Zealand Test Series 1.80 Eng 2.40 NZ I'd call it 2.30 Eng 1.90 NZ but much will depend (cliche time) on the first 45 mins.

[StormSignal]

Re: Cricket: England vs New Zealand Test Series With a run rate of only about 2.30 England should win easily. After 15 minutes the progress is snails pace but I've been tempted to take the 8/15 on offer for an England win.

[StormSignal]

Re: Cricket: England vs New Zealand Test Series The snails pace suddenly suddenly changed to turbo pace with 12 in one over. Now that was good timing to put a bet on. Come on England.

[Charlie Wong]

Re: Cricket: England vs New Zealand Test Series 150-2 Vaughan caught behind.

[Pie-chucker]

Re: Cricket: England vs New Zealand Test Series LUNCH England are a talented, gutsy and positive test side coached by a motivational mastermind. Same XI for the 3rd Test and same again right through to the Ashes. :\

[Charlie Wong]

Re: Cricket: England vs New Zealand Test Series Pietersen almost run himself out.

[Charlie Wong]

Re: Cricket: England vs New Zealand Test Series England, glad it was finished off before tea. NZ must be gutted, thrown it away, all credit to the Montster and Straussy.

[meatman]

Re: Cricket: England vs New Zealand Test Series Great knock from Strauss today and useful Vaughan and KP runs I thought Bell looked ok ish, Collingwood was absolutely shocking at times :loon I'd like to see some changes made but I'd be surprised if it's a different XI for Trent Bridge

[WoodyTHFC]

Re: Cricket: England vs New Zealand Test Series Yeah NZ definitely threw that match away, 240 odd runs ahead with 8 wickets in hand (effectively 7) but then a dramatic collapse and suddenly England were back in it. However credit to Monty for giving them the opportunity and to the batsmen for actually performing and knocking off the runs and doing so in a much more positive manner than the bizarre first innings performance. Still though it must be said that I do think the win does paper over some cracks and one that will be exploited by better teams. After all this was only NZ and we made them look like world beaters for a stage. Certainly on form, Colly should not be playing atm, whether through injury (shoulder) or whatever it is, he looks poor and when you consider that Hoggard was dropped for his first bad match in years it does raise some questions. Bell needs a proper score too. Also I still refer to the strange first innings batting aggression (or lack of it), in the second innings I thought they played really well and that bit more aggressive without being foolish, if they played like that all the time then there would be no problem but I just dont understand the first innings approach here. Im not sure england did either and Bell eluded to that prior to the play. Against a good team that would cost england. Anyway a win is a win, well done England for beating the mighty force of New Zealand.

[meatman]

Re: Cricket: England vs New Zealand Test Series

. Also I still refer to the strange first innings batting aggression (or lack of it)' date=' in the second innings I thought they played really well and that bit more aggressive without being foolish, if they played like that all the time then there would be no problem but I just dont understand the first innings approach here. [/quote'] Well England batsman were heavily criticsed for 'giving their wicket away' a few months ago weren't they. I know this negative batting was an issue in the Hamilton test match and it cost us that game. It's almost as if they are too scared to get out sometimes. For me it's very hard to criticise those top 3 at the moment though, at the end of the day you've gotta have solid foundations in any innings.

[WoodyTHFC]

Re: Cricket: England vs New Zealand Test Series

Well England batsman were heavily criticsed for 'giving their wicket away' a few months ago weren't they. I know this negative batting was an issue in the Hamilton test match and it cost us that game. It's almost as if they are too scared to get out sometimes. For me it's very hard to criticise those top 3 at the moment though' date=' at the end of the day you've gotta have solid foundations in any innings.[/quote'] It is all about finding the balance between attack and defence. I stand by that in the first innings the balance was wrong, Vaughan scoring 30 of 130 odd balls, that is just snail pace, too defensive. It is not the first time it has been like that either, you mention Hamilton, what about the Sri lanka tour and in that adelaide second innings. In the second innings the balance was right for me and england should be congratulated for that. Im not saying go out and give their wickets away but just bat in a slightly more attacking frame of mind without being reckless, rotate the strike a bit more and keep the scoreboard ticking.

[meatman]

Re: Cricket: England vs New Zealand Test Series

It is all about finding the balance between attack and defence. I stand by that in the first innings the balance was wrong' date=' Vaughan scoring 30 of 130 odd balls, that is just snail pace, too defensive. It is not the first time it has been like that either, you mention Hamilton, what about the Sri lanka tour and in that adelaide second innings. In the second innings the balance was right for me and england should be congratulated for that. Im not saying go out and give their wickets away but just bat in a slightly more attacking frame of mind without being reckless, rotate the strike a bit more and keep the scoreboard ticking.[/quote'] yeh you've gotta find the right balance, not always easy though.

[Charlie Wong]

Re: Cricket: England vs New Zealand Test Series I think Ravi Bopara should be brought in for Collingwood, people will probably disagree but Ravi's young, had lots of first class cricket with Essex, ODI experience with England and offers a bowling option like Collingwood does.I think he's ready, thats been Englands problem for years, never throwing them in when their young, Stuart Broad,Panesar and Cook have all shown what the youngsters can bring to the test side.

[WoodyTHFC]

Re: Cricket: England vs New Zealand Test Series They did throw Bopara in though. Remember Sri Lanka last winter? Somehow he played the tests ahead of Shah and the consequences were disastrous, Bopara scored just 42 runs in the whole series (34 of them in one knock), averaged just 8.4 and finished the series with a pair. His 'bowling' took just one wicket in the whole series at an average of 81. Whenever I have seen him play, he does look to have some talent and he has proved that to some extent in the ODIs but I would not have him in the team ahead of Shah/Key/Ramps as a batsman and tbh I think too much is made of his 'bowling.' As discussed Bell/Vaughan and Kp could do a similar job and even some could argue Shah would be more effective with the ball, certainly on a turning pitch.

[kevshat]

Re: Cricket: England vs New Zealand Test Series You are really clutching at straws by picking fault with our run rates in Sri Lanka. Our run rates in that series were 3.01, 2.77 (trying to bat out the final day for a draw), 2.77, 3.24, 2.62 and 2.64. Now on Sri Lankan pitches there's absolutely nothing wrong with those run rates, in fact I'd take that all day long. So it comes down to 3 slow innings in how long? Not really much of an arguement. Maybe, just maybe it could be that NZ bowled well and we need to accept that? One thing I will say is Vettori bowled down wind in that 1st innings meaning if we came down the ground and went over the top we'd be hitting into the wind. We may have been slow in that 1st innings but that's how the conditions dictated and as Meatman says it's all about working the conditions out and adapting to them. The fact all of our batsmen played the same way would suggest it was more the conditions than anything else. I like your selective stats on Bopara too ;). What you failed to mention was he bowled 26 overs in that series and condeded only 81 runs, on pitches which probably didn't suit him. The pitches over here do and given he's a year older and wiser and continues to churn out runs I think he deserves a proper chance if you like. As I said earlier whoever comes in at 6 has to be able to bowl 10-12 overs a day and so he's the best option we've got. Shah's bowling is irrelevant because KP will always bowl in a test match before him and we don't produce turning pitches. Back to this match and I thought we played well today. For me, Strauss is batting really nicely at the minute and the captain is beginning to show signs of his quality which can only be a good thing. It's important we don't brush this under the carpet though but hey, we've won when not playing particularly well so that should bode well I guess.

[kevshat]

Re: Cricket: England vs New Zealand Test Series Just doing the housekeeping and on the bets from 2 pages ago, all 4 lost so I'm now -14.3pts for the series despite the good start although Sidebottom looks like he'll be good for 8 of those as he only needs 4 wickets on his home ground to bring my outright bet in. Final test is at Trent Bridge next Thursday.

[TheRat]

Re: Cricket: England vs New Zealand Test Series Yep, was a very good chase Was worried about chasing here, but Monty put is in a great position and the batsmen took their opportunity.

[WoodyTHFC]

Re: Cricket: England vs New Zealand Test Series Disagree regarding run rates in Sri Lanka. You highlight all those examples but yet on every single one of them, Sri Lanka, had a higher run rate for their respective innings and sometimes it was substantial. I reckon most, if not all international sides, would muster a better run rate than us in those circumstances. If you want a specific point where I reckon we batted too negatively then I would highlight the first innings of the first match. We had Sri Lanka in major trouble, bowled them out cheaply and started our innings well and positively, indeed Vaas and Malinga went at over 4 runs an over. However England then went into their shell when facing Murali. Now we all know scoring off Murali is not an easy thing to do but nevertheless, England scored at a paltry 1.57 runs an over during Murali's 35 overs. Murali one by one picked them off and ended up with six. Consequently, England achieved a lead of 90 odd that was quickly wiped off and in their second innings they could not save the game. The general consensus that I picked up on from around the world after that game was that England were too defensive against Murali in the first innings. If you look at the series after that, Murali was played in a slightly more positive manner and generally played better by the England batsmen imo. Indeed in every innings after that he would go for at least 2 an over bar one occasion when he only bowled 4 overs. It is all about the balance between attack and defence and that balance was wrong on at least one occasion in the first test, the vital occasion, and the series was lost. One way I could understand the run rates a bit more was if we actually made them count and went onto make the truly big scores. We did not do that in Sri Lanka. Whereas the Sri Lankan batsmen like Jayawardene, Sangakarra and even Vandort all went onto make 100s and big 100s at that, we made the hugely significant sum of 1 hundred in the very last innings of the series (Cook.) The England batmen made lots of starts, lots of 50s but in terms of making them count into significant match winning scores (ie. big hundreds) they were not there. I do not disagree with you that NZ bowled well in the first innings. However Im not changing my mind, england were too defensive in particularly on the second afternoon. New Zealand at that stage were bowling nothing more than basic line and length on a pitch that during that stage was not playing many major tricks. England should have been looking to push on more a touch more at this stage but they did not, they played negative cricket in stark contrast to the way they used to play say during 2004 and 2005. At the rate Vaughan scored, only 121 runs in a day would have been scored and it was not as if he went on a made that big 100 I already mentioned, he made a torturious 30 and then got out in a defensive manner. Yes New Zealand bowled well but even still England scored too slowly at the start of the first innings and approached it in the wrong frame of mind. Too negative. If they did that against a good side they will get murdered imo and they were lucky that Panesar gave them an opportunity to recover. As for Bopara and my 'selective stats.' You are of cause correct, I failed to mentioned that he bowled the massive amount of 26 overs in Sri Lanka going for 81 runs (3.11 runs an over) and taking 1 wicket in the whole series. Big bloody deal. Vaughan hardly hard the confidence to actually use him, sometimes 100 overs would be bowled before Bopara would get anything like a proper bowl. Bopara should not have played that series ahead of Shah, big mistake and it cost England and I would not want him to play ahead of the likes of Shah/Ramps/Key and even araguably I would say someone like Sales or even Mark Butcher (he used to bowl a little bit of medium pace, does that mean he should be in the Eng team :lol) His batting is not better than these guys imo, indeed Im not even sure it would be that much better than Flintoff, even in Flintoff's recent struggles with the bat, he did not average 8.4 in a series. If bowling 10/12 overs a day is that important (KP,Vaughan and Bell could all do it Im sure anyway and if it meant they would get in the team because of it then Im very sure they would do it) then go for more of a bowling type of all rounder in that position like Flintoff, even Dimi. This is not a witch hunt on Bopara. I actually think he maybe a good cricketer for Eng one day but he was thrown into the team too soon in Sri Lanka and was totally out of his depth. Let him score a bucket load of runs for Essex for at least the whole season and then maybe look at him again, maybe let his bowling improve in county cricket so he could become soemthing like a genuine all rounder (he has 12 first class wickets this year, is that a start?) Im all for putting youngsters in if they are good enough and better than other alternatives, Cook, Broad, Panesar I believe are good examples of that but if they are not better than other alternatives (ie. Fletcher picking the likes of Mahmood and Plunkett over Sidebottom) then do not pick them until they do make themselves the no.1 choice imo.

[Charlie Wong]

Re: Cricket: England vs New Zealand Test Series im sorry but the whole selection process is wrong, youngsters from less 'fashionable counties' dont seem to get a chance, i played cricket few years ago with Alex Gidman, who i still see now and again, (got me free tickets for the weekend Gloucester cricket festival aswell;)) Why aren't the players from England A coming through.