New Zealand v England Test series

[Mr Tourette]

Good comeback by England, but I cant help feeling they made hard work of beating a very poor NZ team

The line up just doesnt quite do it for me anymore. The ashes winning side had a bit of everything outside a decent keeper.

without flintoff, jones, harmison circa 2004/05, and trescothick - we just arent in the top 3 sides anymore. No one scores big enough runs and the bowling attack is chopped and changed and generally just not very worrying on paper.

we were also lucky that oram was injured for the last test, hes a good player. Sidebottom has taken over hoggards mantle (although i think hoggy will be back in summer) as our premier bowler, until today i was thinking how monty just hasnt really come on......

[Matt]

Did you watch cricket in the late '90's?

Michael Slater was a quality test player

Slats is my favourite commentator

Australia are excellent at bringing through new talent, unlike England, however, if they lost 4 of their best players long term without warning they would struggle. They would however, be able to bounce back within a couple of years. We don't have that conveyor belt of players and so will have to wait a lot longer. We have been rubbish for years, decades even, however, we got lucky and around 2003 we had clutch of very good players in the same age group who started peak. In two years they showed unbelievable potential and it is just a shame that they were robbed of showing what they were capable of. IMO that group of players was good enough to reach the world number 1 spot.

I agree, Australia will always have a very strong side and a larger pool of quality players than England to pick from.

As for England, well we scraped home like I thought we would. Vaughan has got some serious work to do, Strauss has probably saved his arse and Ambrose has done a Prior with the bat but it's too early to judge him yet. If the team plays as we know they can we'll wipe the floor with NZ in the summer Tests.

I take back what I've said about SideshowBob-bottom in the past. He's improved massively and has lead the line very well.

As for NZ, I think they've uncovered a real gem in Southee. He looked excellent in the ODI's so will be interesting to see what they have planned for him. If anyones got a spare 10 minutes they should read Nasser Hussain's interview with Steven Fleming. He makes some interesting observations about the way cricketers in NZ and England are developed.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/sport/cricket.html?in_article_id=538573&in_page_id=1849

[Jayesh87]

Good comeback by England, but I cant help feeling they made hard work of beating a very poor NZ team

The problem NZ have is that they don't take Test Cricket seriously (as in they see ODI and 20/20 as their no.1) And they play the least Test Cricket out of all the countries. So they are always going to struggle.

I watched the end of the game and have to say Southee (sp?) was ****ing ace, was entertaining to watch. Also its obvioust to see Monty struggles when batters go after him but is deadly when batters are just trying to survive.

[Jayesh87]

The bloke could take a game away from a side within a few overs.

In test cricket?

[dww]

Good comeback by England, but I cant help feeling they made hard work of beating a very poor NZ team

We haven't won a series away from England in years though so hopefully this will be a confidence boost. There are a few positive to come out of it with Broad and Sidebottom's progress and form being the most obvious but overall I think most players ran to stand still in terms of their long term prospects.

Strauss, Bell, Anderson, Hoggard and to some extend Vaughn all still have large question marks over their future in the side and there aren't that many options beneath them. We also lack a really destructive bowler unless Harmison decides to put in a great deal of work which hasn't appeared to have been his want for a few years now.

I think the new selection system proved it's worth with the Harmison/Hoggard for Anderson/Broad choice.

[Matt]

We also lack a really destructive bowler unless Harmison decides to put in a great deal of work which hasn't appeared to have been his want for a few years now.

I think the new selection system proved it's worth with the Harmison/Hoggard for Anderson/Broad choice.

I think Flintoff fits that bill.

Flintoff
Broad
Hoggard
Sidebottom
Panesar

I'd be happy to see that unit but it'd mean dropping one of the current batsmen and putting a lot of faith in Freddie and I can't see it happening.

[Colemere]

In test cricket?

Yeah he was **** at one day, he only average about 24.

But that is the ****est form of the game, (50 overs).

[dww]

I think Flintoff fits that bill.

Flintoff
Broad
Hoggard
Sidebottom
Panesar

I'd be happy to see that unit but it'd mean dropping one of the current batsmen and putting a lot of faith in Freddie and I can't see it happening.

I think he did, not sure about how he will come back from his injury. When we were a good team we had three really fearsome bowlers in Harmison, Jones and Flintoff plus one steady and dangerous one in Hoggard. Now we have a much more pedestrian attack, I really hope Freddie makes a full recovery but I think he should be given as long as it takes to get him fully ready rather than rushing him back.

[Matt]

Agreed. Such a shame about Jones.

[captainfog]

If Flintoff isn't fit, I'd play hoggard rather than Anderson and then bring Freddie back for Hoggy.

[Shaggy]

Not been online for a few days. A thoroughly enjoyable series of which I saw almost every ball. Fair play to England, although it was a curate's egg of a performance. The batting order could do with a shake-up but otherwise the future looks bright.

I fear it's goodbye to Steve Harmison. He's obviously not comfortable touring - a la Trescothick - so perhaps he ought to knock it on the head.

Stuart Broad's continual development was a joy to watch and for me he should now be a fixture in the team.

Strauss, and to a lesser extent Bell, could not have timed their centuries this week any better. An in-form Strauss is a top class Test batsman and he's earned the right to stay in the team.

Michael Vaughan's place, with a series tally of just 123 runs at 20.50, ought to be under threat. He won't be dropped but needs to score some runs, sharpish. He should be dropped in the order for me.

The jigsaw has become much clearer now. The batting line-up, on paper at least, is top class, with Strauss, Collingwood, Pietersen, Cook, Bell AND Vaughan all with a Test average of comfortably over 40.

The word is Flintoff won't be considered for the NZ series in the summer and is more likely to come into contention for South Africa - in which case the obvious change to our strongest line-up would be Freddie for Anderson. I'd set them up like this:

1. Cook
2. Strauss
3. Pietersen
4. Bell
5. Vaughan
6. Collingwood
7. Flintoff
8. Ambrose
9. Broad
10. Sidebottom
11. Panesar

For too long we've been six down and all out, with four number 11s clogging up the lower order. Here, with Flintoff at 7, Ambrose at 8 and Broad at 9, we're considerably stronger. Flintoff would have to be used as one of three front-line seamers, supplemented by the spin of Panesar and Collingwood as the bits and pieces bowler.

[Shaggy]

If Flintoff isn't fit, I'd play hoggard rather than Anderson and then bring Freddie back for Hoggy.

I wouldn't have Hoggard and Sidebottom in the same team. For the NZ series, until Flintoff is fit, I'd give someone else a go in place of Anderson - perhaps Tremlett.

[Jayesh87]

I wouldn't have Hoggard and Sidebottom in the same team. For the NZ series, until Flintoff is fit, I'd give someone else a go in place of Anderson - perhaps Tremlett.

Jon Lewis

[Shaggy]

Jon Lewis

Plunkett

[Neil Young]

Plunkett

I think it's fantastic the way he hasn't let his blindness stop him becoming a professional cricketer but he's not good enough for Test level. He was a crap Home Secretary too.