New Zealand vs England 2013 - Series Page

Spoiler:

VTR wrote:I'd have to say Cook, KP, Trott would be my top 3. Bell has not set the world alight as an opener at all. He's done ok, no more, whereas KP opening a year ago was excellent (back to back hundreds?)

With that top 3 I don't really see a place for Bell in the term as I'd rather have a more dynamic middle order.

gboycottnut wrote:

Gerry SA wrote:I'd say the Kiwis will be happy that the limited overs stuff is first.

As they showed against South Africa(still crying ) they are more that good enough to beat anyone in the shorter formats.

I'd say that the Kiwis could build some momentum ahead of the Tests by winning the limited overs contests.

Well for the tests, they now have a few of their best players back like Southee, Vettori and their leading batsman Ross Taylor. Also throw in former Australian wicketkeeper Luke Ronchi into the test side and suddenly New Zealand have a strongish and very healthy test XI again. People must remember that NZ aren't that bad at test cricket as they did manage to beat Australia in a test match in 2011 in their own backward and not many teams have managed this in recent times apart from England in 2010 and South Africa last year. A very strong India team got absolutely thrashed by Australia at the start of 2012 in test matches.

Mike Selig wrote:

England want to pick an all-rounder in the top 7, but at the moment neither Patel nor Woakes are good enough bowlers.

guildfordbat wrote:

Mike Selig wrote:

England want to pick an all-rounder in the top 7, but at the moment neither Patel nor Woakes are good enough bowlers.

And the same surely applies to Rikki Clarke who has been selected for England Lions squad going to Australia.

Mike Selig wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:

Mike Selig wrote:

England want to pick an all-rounder in the top 7, but at the moment neither Patel nor Woakes are good enough bowlers.

And the same surely applies to Rikki Clarke who has been selected for England Lions squad going to Australia.

That's strange (and a bit worrying). I like Clarke, I think he's had a lot of stick for something which wasn't his fault (getting picked) - he's done well since moving from Surrey and is a good hard-hitting batsman and decent partnership breaker at county level. Not to be sniffed at. But international class? Not for me...

gboycottnut wrote:Does anyone think that Woakes got selected for the NZ tour purely because the selectors want to try out a 5 man bowling attack with Prior at 6 in case this plan may be needed for the ashes?

CF wrote:IMO england will stroll to a series win in the tests and odi's.

Stella wrote:NZ are playing better than us at present, in ODI's, that is.

guildfordbat wrote:

gboycottnut wrote:Does anyone think that Woakes got selected for the NZ tour purely because the selectors want to try out a 5 man bowling attack with Prior at 6 in case this plan may be needed for the ashes?

Boycs - I wouldn't say ''purely'' but the different strings that Woakes has to his bow and the options it might give England won't have been overlooked by the selectors.

That said, the inclusion of Rikki Clarke for the Lions squad (as posted earlier on this thread) might just go some way to further supporting your view as to what the selectors are now seeking.

As regards Woakes, I'm unconvinced by his bowling and have real doubts that he'll make the grade at top Test level. He may do alright if he gets a game against New Zealand but so probably would the likes of David Masters and Tim Linley.

Happy to be proved wrong. He would be very valuable if he could justify a Test starting place and so I don't slate the selectors for wanting a decent look at him despite my doubts. As I've said before, I think he certainly has batting potential and is already a very good fielder (something rarely mentioned).

CF wrote:NZ's test side will also be strengthend by the likely return of Dan Vettori

Shelsey93 wrote:

Stella wrote:NZ are playing better than us at present, in ODI's, that is.

I don't know. SA were missing a lot of top players for big parts of the series. I'd be very disappointed if we didn't win the series.

CF wrote:NZ's test side will also be strengthend by the likely return of Dan Vettori

ShankyCricket wrote:

CF wrote:NZ's test side will also be strengthend by the likely return of Dan Vettori

I hope you mean batting rather than the bowling. His bowling record over the last 2 years or so is worse than even Harbhajan's, whom many consider finished at Test level. Vettori has been a ridiculously innocuous Test bowler for some time now.

msp83 wrote:But NZ doesn't have a terrific spin bowling tallent who can step in for Vetori. He has to play as an all-rounder, and in that role, he'll be miles better than James Franklin, with both bat and ball.
Guptill
McCullum
Williamson
Taylor
Brownlie
Munro
Watling
Vetori
Bracewell
Southee
Boult. Could make a half decent side. Ryder for Munro would have been even better. and if Watling opens along with Guptill despite the job being demanding, McCullum bats 3 and Williamson can come down to 5, where I think he could be best suited for NZ.
Bats down to 8, and both Southee and Bracewell are capable hitters in the lower order. Munro is a useful support seamer in helpful conditions, and Williamson too is a decent parttime spin option.
The pack of young seamers could be pretty handy for NZ, and Vetori, even now is hard to get away and hence help build sustained pressure.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

msp83 wrote:It was a fine performance from Bell in the context of the game. But I am not yet convinced that he's the man to do the job at the top for England. The style of batting is too demanding on the guy at the other end, and I wouldn't fancy him opening in a chase of 270+.

To be fair hes ben a run monster, taking over Trotts role in that regard. His record, especially in chases since taking the openers role again he been very good. Averaged 56 at 0.8 (Cook in the same period is 36 at 0.7...and career wise hes not that much better)
People also say this about Trott...he was being selfish or his slow scoring was hamstringing england ..yet England are still winning games (and finaly all over the world), and these two players have played a huge part in England establishing themselves firmly back at the top table of ODI cricket and finaly capable of at least putting up a decent show in India.
Yes maybeits true that certain players arent much use when chasing 700. But then how often do England actualy conceed over 270? Not very often...so why pick players for the exceptions? The majority of games its guys who can bat the long innings that have helped England settle into a comfortable total.
Of all the games hes opened since regaining the role England have only had to chase over 270 twice. The first of those he score 45 in 41 balls, more than adequate and by a country mile Englands best batman in the game. The other one he got 1 run off 6 balls in a complete dicking of such epic proportions he can hardly be held soley responsible for it.
Earlier in his career (as an opener) he scored a slow 50 in a chase of 272 , England won. There was a chase of 387 against India where frankly Gilchrist Hayden and Chuck Norris wouldve struggled, and one other where he failed.

All in though Bell has played 44 matches as an opener, of those England have only had to chase 270 plus 5 times.Thats retty much once every 9 games or every other series.
So whilst his record hasnt been amazeballs in these situations doesit really need to be? Why not pick players for the situations that happen more often, chasing 220-260 or bating first? Have pinch hitters ever worked out for England long term (no)
In sumary I would cede its a fair point that Bell isnt the best big total run chaser in world cricket, I would argue its not that much of a problem and more important to have plyers who are good at setting totals and chasing normals ones first, and the ability to score run a ball centuries on demand a nice bonus.

The more daring option would be Hales, I certainly wouldnt want Bell Trott and Root in the side together with Cook as well. But right now this is working for England
They arent a perfect side, but they keep doing OK.

msp83 wrote:Would really like to see how they go about when Trott comes back. Well they have a top 3 of Cook, Bell and Trott? Will that mean Root has to sit out? An interesting choice.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Of the 4 its Cook who would be dropped on form *shrug*
Obviously it wont happen.We also assume KP and Morgan are untouchable as they are the ones who can make rapid runs more regulalry.
Roots had an impressive start but Bells record in his latest stint as an opener matches that and over a longer period. Id also note that England have won 8 and lost 1 of the games where Bells opened and Trott batted 3 despite playing SA, Aus and the Windies.

I think it will could down to what they do about spin options, with Trotts swing perhaps beng better suited to NZ and home conditions (also the locations of upcoming ICC tournaments). If they play Swann and Tredwell then Roots bolwing really goes out the window, a third right arm off spinner really isnt much use.
Im gonna stick my neck out and say Cook Bell Trott KP Morgan Butters Broad Swann Tredders Finn Anderson. It doesnt bat deep but they have the stability at the top of the order and 3 explosive batsmen plus 3 bowlers who can score. 5 proper wicket taking bowlers and some variation from Trott and KP at a push.

I forsee though a raft of bizare circumstances leading to a top 5 of Keiswetter Bopara Clarke, Wright Patel

msp83 wrote:Broad's batting has declined over the last year or so, and I don't think he can bat 7 in an ODI side. If the top 3 aren't going to score quickly, then Pietersen and Morgan will have to pick up the pace regularly, and that increases the chances of more wickets, meaning that the number 7 will have to chip in with good consistent contributions, something I don't see Broad doing.
Its a dificult situation for the team management, and lets see how they would take up the task. Perhaps Morgan should be pushed to 6 with Root batting at 5, and they can then hope Root, Pietersen and Trott will help them through the 5th bowler overs. Or make one of Root, Trott and Bell sit out in favor of Woakes who can then come in at 7.

ShankyCricket wrote:I am not sure why people are getting carried away by Bell's "superb" ODI summer. We have seen plenty of false dawns from him in ODIs before. He had a similarly "superb" summer in 2007, esp against India in that 7 match series, where he virtually scored in every game. That didn't improve his ODI performances in the long run however. I think his performances in the summer earned him the next couple of series (ie. the current one and the one in NZ) but I fail to see how a player with such an average ODI record becoming "undroppable" on the basis of 4 good months. FWIW Root has outperformed Bell in this series and if he continues to do so in NZ (where he will surely play given that KP has been rested) then I see no reason why Bell should be picked ahead of Root, especially considering that Root offers a bowling option.

Not hyping him up at all (my original choice would've been Hales or Taylor anway) but if he continues to outperform Bell then he should be picked.

Biltong wrote:Pete, why would you think Ronchi should play ahead of Watling as a possibility?

When I look at Watling he has really applied himself and did very in SA.

msp83 wrote:Cook's been off form? The one relax line in an otherwise serious debate I assume!.
By the way is KP part of the ODI squad? wasn't he rested from one of the limited overs squads?
If he's not there, then it has to be Cook, Bell, Trott and Root top 4, Morgan at 5, Buttler at 6, and one of Patel and Woakes at 7.
Swann, Broad, Finn, and Anderson the bowling lineup. Should also help England decide on who among the 3 of Bell, Trott and Root should take up the first choice position when Pietersen returns.

msp83 wrote:So Root, Bell and Trott, all should get a fair chance to put forward their case.
Pete, do you thing Daniel Flynn has the game to open at the test match level? I doubt whether he really deserves his place in the side itself.

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:

msp83 wrote:Cook's been off form? The one relax line in an otherwise serious debate I assume!.
By the way is KP part of the ODI squad? wasn't he rested from one of the limited overs squads?
If he's not there, then it has to be Cook, Bell, Trott and Root top 4, Morgan at 5, Buttler at 6, and one of Patel and Woakes at 7.
Swann, Broad, Finn, and Anderson the bowling lineup. Should also help England decide on who among the 3 of Bell, Trott and Root should take up the first choice position when Pietersen returns.

KP's only playing the tests in NZ, no ODIs or T20s. Squads are in the OP

msp83 wrote:So Root, Bell and Trott, all should get a fair chance to put forward their case.
Pete, do you thing Daniel Flynn has the game to open at the test match level? I doubt whether he really deserves his place in the side itself.

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:

msp83 wrote:So Root, Bell and Trott, all should get a fair chance to put forward their case.
Pete, do you thing Daniel Flynn has the game to open at the test match level? I doubt whether he really deserves his place in the side itself.

I wouldn't have Flynn in the team. He did post 160-odd opening for Northern the other day, but that was on a flat pitch, with Chris Martin the only "name" seamer on the other side. Then again, I wouldn't have McCullum or Guptil opening at the moment either if there was anyone there to fit in.

Peter Fulton is back from his injury so he may just get a shot at the top

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:

msp83 wrote:So Root, Bell and Trott, all should get a fair chance to put forward their case.
Pete, do you thing Daniel Flynn has the game to open at the test match level? I doubt whether he really deserves his place in the side itself.

I wouldn't have Flynn in the team. He did post 160-odd opening for Northern the other day, but that was on a flat pitch, with Chris Martin the only "name" seamer on the other side. Then again, I wouldn't have McCullum or Guptil opening at the moment either if there was anyone there to fit in.

Peter Fulton is back from his injury so he may just get a shot at the top

Just how bad is Flynn that youd seriously turn to a 34 year old with an average of 20 ahead of him? Is it not better to stick by some of the kids and force them to face up to the fact that at some point there wont be dads army to try and hide behind

Even with the injury/sulk list clearing up its a pretty makeshift batting lineup.

msp83 wrote:Pete you said Vetori won't be available for the series. Any idea about his injury status and as to when would he be back?

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:OK that I understand, but would it not be better to stick by Guptill and Mccullum ..despite their recent struggles...or is one out?
The names you are trotting out put into context their performances...sub-standard but not as bad as others whove been given a go.

TBH its a tough ask for anyone to face steyn and co then get andersons mob turn up a few weeks later.