England pay for batting uncertainty
The final one-day match in Christchurch may have ended farcically with Duckworth-Lewis deciding the outcome but England could have few complaints about .
There was widespread surprise when England named an unchanged team, and this was compounded by the fact that New Zealand, who read the conditions correctly, opted to play two spinners. England chose none and, unwisely, continued their policy of choosing just three front-line bowlers.
Clearly, this is because of uncertainty about their batting – and they have every reason to have concerns. But you have to field a team that does not leave the captain constantly searching for options with the ball and, in this part of the world, includes at least one bowler who takes the pace off the ball.
I hope England learn some important lessons from this experience. The first is that, in order to score quickly at the start of the innings, you do not slog.
does not slog, and neither does Graeme Smith, but Philip Mustard aimed a dreadful cross-batted swipe in the second over and gifted New Zealand a confidence-boosting early wicket.
This brought Ian Bell and Alastair Cook together, and regular readers of this blog will know that I have a problem with these two in the top three. Both are fine batsmen, don’t get me wrong, but they are one-dimensional and incapable of innovation in one-day cricket – it just isn’t the way they bat.
Bell’s innings said a lot about the way he plays in one-day cricket. He hit four fours in making 24 from 34 balls but managed one two and six singles from the other 30 deliveries he faced i.e. seven scoring shots. Cook, meanwhile, faced 70 deliveries for his 41.
There is room for one of them in the same one-day team, but not both, and I think Kevin Pietersen should be batting at number three.
Luke Wright will return home with his reputation enhanced, and he should be given a proper run higher up the order, perhaps even opening. He is a clean striker of the ball, not a slogger, and more than capable of emulating the fearsome damage inflicted by when it was England's turn to bowl.
The jury is definitely very much out, however, as far as Dimitri Masceranhas and Ravi Bopara are concerned, while Graeme Swann appears to have drifted out of the equation altogether.
Masceranhas struck 22 off the final over in typically belligerent style, and has scored crucial runs before, but his bowling created few problems and, tellingly, Collingwood turned to Wright for the crucial over in the penultimate game at Napier instead.
°ä´Ç³¾³¾±ð²Ô³Ù²õÌýÌýPost your comment
I went to bed after Colli was out. I couldn't take any more.
My main concern is that the higher order English batsman just cannot work the ball into space to keep the scoreboard moving (think Neil Fairbrother or Graham Thorpe and you'll get the idea).
What are the English coaches doing?
Anderson has come up short again and not playing a spinner was madness.
Complain about this comment
Aggers.
1) Spot on about Bell/Cook, both are fine batsman but lack the imagination and in the case of Cook - placement - to put England in a good position on a consistant basis.
In the case of Cook, you knew that there'd be maidens againgst him as soon as he blocks the first ball. He has to improve in this form of the game. There's no way he can turn in2 a 'Matt Hayden-esque' type player if he dosn't at least try and punish the bad ball.
Number 3 shud be KP who comes in and ups the tempo and can score runs not by slogging but by his normal game. He needs to bat as many balls possible in order for England to score highly.
2) Mustard's shot today wasn't that good but he's shown enough to keep his place in the ODI side and warrant him a run in the tests.
3) Luke Wright has been a fantastic addition to the ODI side. Pure cricketing shots and the kid appears to be a gutsy cricketer as well. Remember him playing for the u19s couple of years ago and he appeared to be a prospect then. I dont know about you AGGERS but id go as far as saying that if Freddie's injury worries dont improve long-term, if Wrighty can improve his bowling i think Freddie should think of quitting ODI's and preserving a test career. Bopara dont get me wrong will still be a gr8 player for us as well but he'll hav to improve.
4) Dimi Mascheranas - I think there is a place for him in the England ODI setup, T20s defiently. When the conditions are right he has got 2 come in 4 contention in the lineup.
5) As for the spinner, i still think Swann as a future in the ODI side, he bowled well in Sri Lanka and that wont be forgotten. The next world cup is in the sub continent and we need to groom both him and Monty to bowl spin in the ODI side b4 the tournament.
Complain about this comment
Should have won today and in Napier. Must do better reads the England report for the tests!!
Complain about this comment
Should have played a spinner instead of a part timer. Bring back Monty!
Excellent analysis, Aggers, as usual.
Complain about this comment
Another disappointing performance especially on the back of impressive wins against India and Sri Lanka, both of who are top one day teams.
How England would long for a fit and healthy Marcus Trescothick back in their team. The impetus he gives them at the top of the order has been severely missed and his inclusion would mean there is no need for an ungainly slogger in Mustard to play.
Whilst I agree that people need an extended run in the team, I don't see Mustard sticking around. His one decent performance came in a batsman's paradise where 680 runs were scored in 100 overs.
In through agreement that Bell and Cook should not both play, when Mustard gets out early, we then have two orthodox players at the crease.
Good point for KP to come in at three, although he needs to improve his current form. I would welcome Andrew Strauss back in to the middle order. We have struggled in the middle overs and his nouse and nurdling could prove important.
However, my biggest gripe about all this is the continual inclusion of Jimmy Anderson. What has this guy done to warrant so many international appearances. He is so expensive and is not a genuine wicket taking threat. You cannot rely on him to be tight and he offers no variation. The worst thing that ever happened was Anderson taking a 5 for on his test debut against Zimbabwe in swinging conditions. Please now that Graveney has been replaced (about time) can someone see sense and let Anderson stick to County cricket.
Complain about this comment
Anybody know who would have won if Vettori had been given out, or walked?
Complain about this comment
why cant we bat like mcCullem ?
Complain about this comment
Couldn't disagree more Aggers with your analysis. Vettori said his team had prepared for a slow pitch and used their bowlers and spinners accordingly. Pietersen did no better than Bell or Cook against them. Neither did Collingwood or Shah. Credit is due surely to the NZ bowlers? Why do you always want to blame our batsmen rather than praise their bowlers?
Our bowlers did not bowl to the conditions and were punished accordingly.
NZ play One-Day cricket all the time and Tests infrequently. This shows in their play.
They ought to have beaten us. We had two dismal games, two brilliant games and one mediocre which was finally wrecked by rain and a few dodgy umpiring decisions on the way.
But all this is swept aside so the familiar mantra about the top three can be tossed around again.
Bell has improved amazingly since the World Cup and his rate is up with Pietersen now. In Auckland he was out-scoring him. Aren't you ignoring this to make a pet point which is now out of date?
Pietersen will suffer if he comes in at 3. He is already a poorer batsmen at 4 than he was at 5. He needs licence and freedom for his idiosyncratic playing. At the moment he's being strait-jacketed.
Already far too much heart and not enough head from the pundits as usual. These players need a rest from everybody chipping in like a set of old grandmothers.
Complain about this comment
How can this be considered a farcical conclusion, or is Mr. Agnew trying somehow to draw parallels between this result and the World Cup final? And is this because just before the rain came England suddenly had a sniff of victory which then got snatched away from them by the officials? Looked pretty clear to me - rain came in, the game ended and according to the competition rules New Zealand won the game and the series. Congratulations! New Zealand played an excellent innings knowing the weather could go bad and deserved to win. Hardly a farce at all but then I guess that this type of populist and narrow minded reporting has got me to react, so job done...
Complain about this comment
To the point made above about Flintof, I think it should be the other way round. He should retire from Tests and just play ODI. I dont think he will ever be able to handle bowling 20+ overs a day, and he is not a good enough batsmen to warrent a place in the test team. But he could get through 10 overs in an ODI.
Complain about this comment
Good blog aggers - I think you're right and England have missed a trick or to with the selection in this whole series. I don't think pietersen should go up to 3 though - he's said himself he does not feel comfortable there. This should have been the team.
cook
wright
shah
pietersen
collingwood
bell
ambrose
plunkett
swann
broad
sidebottom
Here's a future XI to watch out for as well.
A Cook (c)
B Goddleman
A Wakely
R Newton
R Hamilton Brown
J Haynes
T Sallis (wk)
J Harris
W Beer
S Broad
S Meaker
Complain about this comment
In response to comment #5
New Zealand would have won anyway, as they were far ahead of the D/L calculation even if a 7th wicket had gone down.
Complain about this comment
The result of today's match clearly proves why the D/L method is flawed. You cannot decide an interrupted match by extrapolating a result from what has already happened before. Any sporting contest including cricket must allow the game to run its full course. Can we for instance decide to award a football match to the team leading by the odd goal in five after 80 minutes if a thunderstorm interrups play ? Today NZ were effectively awarded 30 free runs without the loss of a wicket and yet England could have turned the tables and dismissed NZ for less than 242 in final overs !
Complain about this comment
There was nothing farcical about the way the match ended. NZ played a better match and the outcome was fairly decided bt the D-L method.
Complain about this comment
Why was Monty not even in the squad? He has been effective in the past and I'm not sure demoting him to the Lions will have done his confidence much good seeing as there was a clear need for another spinner on this tour.
Time for Rashid to make the step up? Why wait when the other option is an out of form Swann?
Complain about this comment
Well, England didn't win but they might just have done if it hadn't rained... which would have been a great fightback after the first two thrashings. So well done England. How come rain never comes and helps England to victory ????
Complain about this comment
Aggers,
Totaally disallusioned with the selection process,Cook is a Test Match player of high quality and will I feel occupy the opening spot for many years to come but he is not a One Day player,Anderson reminds me of my good self getting carted around the park no more thank-you,Shah flatters to deceive,godbye.Alternatives please help!!
Mac
Complain about this comment
I totally with cook n bell not suited in starting 11. but i don't have any idea how england post huge target in ODI matches coz there must be one batsman who bats till the end to post a good total and other big hitters like kevin bats around him. in my opinion bell should be included in odi rather than cook coz cook is one dimensional.England lacks if decent opening batsman Peterson is ok but i don't think he can open or bat at no.3 .I hope colly will fill the no.3 spot in coming days.
Complain about this comment
"Anderson has come up short again."
How appropriate. I don't know if it's just me, but I really do fail to see why the selectors persist with James Anderson, a bowler who to my (albeit untrained) eye seems to have a fundamental flaw in his action. How a bowler is supposed to achieve consistent line and length when he is looking at his feet at the point of delivery is completely beyond me. Is this why he has a tendancy to pitch it half way down the track?
The last thing a team can afford in the current one day game is to let the opposition get off to a flier, and yet time and again we see Anderson serve up four or five overs of early innings filth, giving teams the opportunity to build a solid foundation for a huge total. To go for 40-odd in his first four overs is poor, and it surely is time to leave him out.
Complain about this comment
Luke Wright looks a great addition and Broad looks good - he's got a future. Chuck Bell, Cook and Mustard out and bring in Rashid (genuine allrounder) Foster and Yardy or something like that. My Team:
Wright
Rashid
Pietersen
Shah
Collingwood
Yardy
Mascarenhas
Foster/?Geraint Jones?
Broad
Sidebottom
Anderson
Not much experience but loads of quality!
Complain about this comment
NZ are a much better one day outfit than England, so the series result should be no surprise to anyone. The Kiwis have capable all-rounders, clean hitters of the ball and great fielding. Their batsmen work singles, can hit boundaries and they bat a long way down the order. England could learn a lot from this side.
The only real surprise to me was England winning a game and the tie.
Complain about this comment
I totally agree with BobRoth regarding Anderson.
All the talk about the team not being big enough for Cook and Bell, which is fair enough, but is it big enough for Broad and Anderson?
Anderson's inclusion in the 1 day team, as a front line wicket taker doesn't make sense. Ok fair enough, 1 in 8 matches maybe he has a great game, but 1 in 2 he has a stinker. Wide long hops are only wicket taking deliveries when the batting team is England!
Who replaces him? God knows.
Complain about this comment
At the end of this year kp's odi and test average will both fall under 40.
Complain about this comment
It seems to me that we are always looking to the future with the one-day side in particular. When is the future ever going to arrive? The team needs to start performing with consistency and putting all their concentration into the next game. The management need to pick the best team for the job. Don't worry about what is going to happen in 2/3 years time, start performing now!
There are one or two who I fear we'll be waiting forever for consistent performances - Anderson & Bell spring to mind.
Complain about this comment
For the second winter in a row I have
tried to stay up as long as possible to watch England be totally ineffectual(with minor exceptions such as the batting performance at Napier and the Commenwaelth Bank tournament last year).
As one of the many Scots who follow England's progress, people think I am mad to like cricket never mind support England.
I confess that I do not follow as much domestic cricket as other subscribers but every time I see James Anderson bowl I see runs flowing and generally off continual short bowling. I can remember few great performances.Surely there must be better available. If not England have real problems in that area.Contrast that with the contribution of Ryan Sidebottom who again was the pick a the bowlers by a mile. Too many are medium paced with no ability to vary their pace.On the bowling front I do not understand the assertion that the type of grounds did not suit a spinner. It did not put off Daniel Vettori!
For me the successes of the one day series are few but Wright,Sidebottom and Collingwood were the best. Cook and Bell are very good players and I still have hope that they can adapt their Test form to the on day game. Pietersen is fantastic player but the fantastic players of Australia, India and Sri Lanka make match winning contributions. If a batsmen cannot get a hundred then the chances of England winning becomes much more difficult as their is not the depth for four others to get 50 plus per innings.
Mustard has kept well but he should be down the batting order unless he learns not to slog every ball. I would retain him for the Test but Ambrose must be close also.
As for the rest, three and four over cameos with the bat does not compensate for lack of bowling ability.
Peter Moores has continually said after every defeat that lessons have been learned. I certainly hope that shows in the forthcoming Tests.
Complain about this comment
I've just been reminded that James Tredwell was in the squad for the ODIs. Why he wasn't selected for action in this game, I don't know. He's certainly a bowler who can keep it tight, as he proved in the T20 for Kent last year. On top of this, he constantly scores valuable runs for Kent - I certainly rate him above Swann in this respect, as Swann has failed with the bat at ODI level (probably the reason he was dropped?).
Looking forward to the test series, as we should be better than the Kiwis for that, but, given that it's England, you never know!
Complain about this comment
England's problem is an inability to think for themselves and I am talking about the management and selectors. They get into a rut. Before it has been the need to find a Botham and then we "needed" a Flintoff. With no one to fill the role any other game plan seems to escape them. The new madness is hearing Warne say Mustard is the new Gilchrist and so they throw him in as opener. He is just starting in international cricket so it is asking too much. When Gilchrist first came into the Aussie OD team did he open or was he allowed to start lower down and evolve into the player he became? We put too much pressure on new players to be a "Botham", a "Flintoff" and now a "Gilchrist". England don't need a particular player, they need to have someone who can think about the game sensibly, intelligently and come up with a game plan that suits the players available instead of trying to force the players into moulds they don't fit.
Complain about this comment
broad and anderson were dreadful if this is our best we are in deep trouble
Complain about this comment
Quite right Aggers, you obviously share the same frustrations as many of us. Bell is the prime example as to why we will never compete at the highest level with the best teams. He talks the talk, complete with war paint and collars up but after all this time in that critical batting position flatters to deceive.He is not alone, Anderson only plays well when he is a last minute replacement,without any pressure. Shah will not contribute to a winning formula ,but Bopara will,and Mustard, although he has done relatively well in an unfair position is not the long term answer to open. Also am i the only sane person who has been saying for the past 12 months that Pieterson's batting is showing worrying signs of major malaise?
There are positives,though not many.
Luke Wright is transfering Domestic form to a higher level and will open at the next WC but hopefully for him not yet. Plus the raw real deal of Stuart Broad (even though he had a bad day today) and the grit and nous of Sidebottom gives us some hope.
Complain about this comment
The addition of Luke Wright, for me, adds another dimension to this side in terms of approach. He is a whole-hearted cricketer, and one could say he is in the Australian mould in that he's made the most of his talent (thus far) and will never be found out for lack of effort (see his last over in Napier, such a calm effort for one so inexperienced). which brings me to my second point; why was he so chronically underused as a bowler? Moores of all people should know that he is a frontline bowler in the one-day format at Sussex, often opening the bowling in fact, and has reached 85mph over in NZ. meanwhile, Anderson keeps getting brought back on despite repeatedly going for double figures per over; at the very least Wright warranted a couple of overs after his effort in Napier. I believe that long term we shall see Rashid take Mascarenhas' place in the side, and Onions, who bowled superbly in the recent Lions one day match, taking Anderson's place. Lastly, Ambrose will take up the mantle of wicketkeeper in all three formats, his domestic performances warranting his elevation-but we have not yet seen the last of Matt Prior, and I cant help but feel he cant be far of this side purely in terms of his batting.
Complain about this comment
Steve L, ur absolutely spot on!jus cos of gilly we have to put r wicket keeper as an opener!y????luke wright has been sensational the last few years at the top of the order, giv him a chance!!!chris tremlett was distructive in the few tests he played, and where is he now,get him in! why do people keep saying ravi boparas gona be so good too? did lara score a handful of 30's and 40's in losing world cup matches?if hes so talented he should be scoring hundreds or big match winning scores now!sachin 16.... say no more
Are only hope is in tests with micky vaughn the best english cricketer we have (what a cricket brain and personality too!)who is constantly being let down by his team.
your a legend aggers!
Complain about this comment
wat about this team from now on in odi's. obviously starting this summer.
In batting order:
bell
mustard
kp
bopara or shah
colly
wright
flintoff - assuming he is bk
mascarenhas
swann
broad
sidebottom
would like to see bell open with mustard. right handed/left handed combination and i feel bell has the timing to hit fours through the covers in the early stages of innings.
Kp has to come in at 3 i feel to give the innings momentum.
ok between bopara and shah is a tough choice at 4. prob just go on whoever is in better form at the time.
Middle to lower order looks very strong in big hitters. Bats right down to 10 aswell. :)
Bowling will be strong with broad and sidebottom opening then flintoff 1st change. then u have swann,mascarenhas,colly, wright, bopara and kp to make remaining 20 overs up.
Option 2:
If we play on a pitch that is gonna turn. then we can have option of maybe playin another spinner in monty or rashid and leave out mascarehnas. ok it will weaken our battin a bit but we can still bat up to 9 anyway and if rashid plays he can bat a bit aswell.
So we can therefore have 2 of swann,rashid and monty bowling 2gether in some matches. especially on slow dead pitches and one's that are gonna turn a bit.
Option 2 we will prob need in the 2011 world cup anyway so we need to try this when we have the pitches suited to it.
wat u fink ppl?
Complain about this comment
Slogging won't work in the top order at this level,we'd be better off using a proper batsman who can get on with it and keep the score board ticking over rather than No.3 going in in the third over with 5 on the board. I would try Shah as opener, not sure with who though as I think Cook is a thoroughbred test batsman and should be left to concentrate on the longer form of the game.
Complain about this comment
I've watched Mustard for some time and think he's well worth his place, but he's being affected by Cook at the other end to some extent.
With Durham, Mustard hits out, but he doesn't have to do all the scoring, because Di Venuto clocks up 1s and 2s off most balls, so the run rate ticks over without Mustard having to take silly risks. For England, he seems to think that he has to get all the runs. When it comes off, they start really well, but too often that isn't happening.
If we could persuade Cook that his job is primarily to run well between wickets and nudge singles at every opportunity, he'll clock up nearly a run a ball and everyone will be very happy. He'll get 2 or 3 each over, Mustard will get 6-8 and England will be around 100 after 10-12 overs.
Complain about this comment
Mustard
Wright
Bell
Collingwood (c)
Pietersen
Shah
Mascarenhas
Broad
Sidebottom
Panasar (for turning wickets)
Anderson (non turning)
Mustard and Wright are both capable of playing sensibly and opening with a flurry with Bell to step in next and keep that going.
Collingwood next (likely in the middle overs) to settle it down, keep things ticking over.
Pietersen & Collingwood would be a great pair to have at the crease, Collingwood keeps it ticking over while Pietersen plays his natural game
Shah and Mascarenhas next near the end of the overs to ensure a final push, I don't think we can deny Mascarenhas is capable of doing that
and Shah has potential
Broad can bat, okay he's not a destructive player but he can hold his own, at least long enough to give the man at the other end a chance to improve the score quickly. He's also a relatively reliable bowler who will improve with time and experience. Let's not forget how young he is.
Sidebottom is effectively our Flintoff replacement. He's consistent and dangerous with the ball and generally doesn't make the same mistake twice in a session.
Panasar or Anderson depending on the type of wicket. Panasar's spin is not only changing it up for the batsman who've been facing fast bowlers but if he bowls well will at least slow down the run rate.
Anderson on the other hand can't seem to find a rhythm either turning up on fire or off the mark.
----------------------------------
I think Collingwood's variation makes him an asset with the bowling, a little more work with the coaches may improve it further. He's an intelligent player (hence the captaincy) and knows where to bowl.
We have to seriously consider Anderson's inclusion in the Test's, he's either brilliant or awful and you never know which will turn up on the day. I'd prefer to see Panasar but that's all dependent on the type of wicket.
Complain about this comment
If you look at the progress of the "A" (Lions) side in India then it becomes even more worrying. Foster had not got any runs and Plunkett's bowling is awful. Not sure which of that team would would slot into the England side.
More worrying is the management of the England side. Collingwood did not use Wright at all today despite bringing him in for the last over in the previous match. Who on earth picked this side? Surely the most important park of a side is the ability to bowl the other side out. We just don't have a side like this with three main bowlers and bits and pieces. Flintoff is the only genuine all rounder in the country and when he is not available anyone else picked is just a shadow. Anderson is a wonderful fielder but he has no consistancy as a bowler. Broad is still not up there as a match winner and needs a good season with Notts to hone his skills.
But what about our coaches? If our bowling attack is the result of our coaching staff, The future is very bleak indeed.
Complain about this comment
I can't understand this "not enough room for both Bell and Cook". The regularity with which England collapses demonstrates the need for batting anchors - the problem arises when they both bat together - surely therefore the solution is to allow flexibility in the batting order - Bell comes in when Cook is out - and not before - then gives the hitters more licence to be expansive at the other end
Complain about this comment
Peter Moores is slowly becoming the Steve Maclaren of cricket.
Complain about this comment
True about the scoring rate of Cook and Bell, but what about Shah coming in at 6? He does not score fast enough for me, looks nervous at the crease, and surely someone like Wright or Masca has to come in at 6 to boost the scoring rate and try to dominate the bowling attack. I would keep Masca but ditch Shah, swap Mustard and Wright around, and of course include a spinner. Broad should open the bowling with Siders.
Complain about this comment
lets face it the batsmen have been poor for years,not one of them has the ability to think on there feet,even kp has been dragged down to there level.as for the bowlers sidebottom did well broad needs improvement and anderson has bowled himself into county cricket for the next couple of year's the players are well paid professional players and should be responsible for the way they face each game,a game of cricket will change many times during the day and these players do not seem to have the nous to change there game accordingly
Complain about this comment
The answer to the spinner/lower order batsman problems may have actually arisen in the Lions rather than New Zealand this winter.
Abdul Rashid surely must come into the team this summer, and if Panesar struggles could be pushing him very hard for the Test place very soon.
Complain about this comment
Just a reminder .. this's the best england squad out there .. The Lions recently lost in INDIA to a second string west zone who were missing the likes of sachin tendulkar,rohit sharma etc .. so the future doesnt look any bright either .. the only person who scored runs there was michael yardy who has already been tried and discarded by the seniors ..
so basically england must just try & get the best out of the current lot & management need to get their strategies right.Like aggers correctly pointed out they missed a spinner in this game & the bowlers should have varied the pace while being belted by mccullum.Im afraid the results of england will always be up & down.We better learn to live with it.Happy days!
Complain about this comment
what about bringing in graham onions for the ODI's in the summer, he's quicker than anderson, can control the direcion of the ball and nearly always takes an early wicket.
Complain about this comment
I think England have to be disappointed with the results of this ODI series in NZ.
Before the start of the NZ tour, they were widely being touted in the press to be the favorites for the whole tour.
While the NZ team has a tendency to show its fragility at times, they must be very satisfied beating England after all the pre-Series press banter. They are ranked #3 for a reason!
The Test series will be very interesting and in this phase of the game, England does look more naturally suited. However, it is always dangerous to write-off teams like NZ, particularly when on their home soil.
Complain about this comment
Bell
Mustard
Shah
Wright
Pietersen
Colly
Mascarenhas
Swann
Broad
Tremlett
Sidebottom
Complain about this comment
I can't believe how many people still want to axe Bell, he has come on significantly in the last year as a ODI batsman and must be given more time to learn his trade. Look at the likes of Ponting, Jayasuriya and Tendulkar with about 700 odd ODI appearances between them. Do you think they would be the players they are today if they were dropped or shuffled around the order every other series?
Complain about this comment
England were poor again in all facets of the game. Mustard is not an opener or a good keeper, because he lacks composure. He was out with an awful shot and too many chances are missed and runs lost because of his limited glovework.
The rest of betting lacks balance, and it seems obvious that Wright ought to open and Cook ought to be dropped. Cook doesn't score at a higher enough rate to play in the one day game.
The bowling was terrible again. Anderson continuously bowls short despite having no success. These are often outside offstump. However, England have other options on and off the pitch, which they did not use and that's poor management.
It will be different in the tests, but all the top sides play both tests and one days well. England haven't coped again with one day. Worst of all, they have been boring and uncompetitive.
Complain about this comment
WHY DOES JAMES ANDERSON PLAY FOR ENGLAND?
In 2002/2003 a 20 year old bowler burst onto the 1-day scene for England, bowling 10 overs for only 12 runs against Australia, and clean bowling Mohammed Yousuf in the World Cup with a yorker, twisting him up like a pretzel in the process. Because James Anderson had only ever played 3 one day games for Lancashire before this, everyone assumed we were seeing raw talent performing straight on the international stage. Coach Duncan Fletcher vowed to nurture and protect this tender plant, and to rear him as a horse trainer would a promising young colt.
That is the James Anderson myth. The truth is, he is not a very good bowler, and it is time to give up on him. In 86 one-day internationals, he only has 121 wickets, at an average of 29.25 and an economy rate of 4.95. In other words not many wickets for a lot of runs. His Test Match Record is 62 wickets from 20 matches at an average of 39.20. Again, poor. Nor does his First Class record supply much evidence that he is a good bowler. 232 wickets from 68 matches at an average of 30.03.
When Peter Moores took over, he realised that those other two bowlers who had played little county cricket but whom Fletcher was hoping to nurture, Mahmood and Plunkett, were not very good, and dropped them. (Mahmood had taken 20 wickets in 8 Tests at 38.10, Plunkett 23 wickets in 9 at 39.82). But he did not do the same with Anderson, even though there was fresh evidence before his eyes. Against India in the 3 Tests of 2007 he and Chris Tremlett bowled (roughly) the same number of overs and took the same number of wickets, but Tremlett was far less expensive, taking 13 wickets from 143.1 overs
at 29.69, versus Anderson's 14 wickets from 146.2 overs at 35.57. And yet it was Anderson who went to Sri Lanka to play in the Tests, while Tremlett was not even in the squad.
It is time for England to swallow their pride, admit that Anderson's explosive start to his international career was an aberration not an indicator of things to come, admit they have been wasting their time with him, and drop him. If he does better than his competitors in county cricket over a period of years he can always be recalled. Meanwhile it is embarrassing when a frontline one-day-international bowler goes for 10 an over in tight matches and does not seem able or even willing to land two deliveries in the same spot. He made his mark in the team because he bowled wicket-taking balls that swung, but bowlers who try to do that every delivery are easy to hit, and because he has hardly played county cricket, he has no basic line-and-length training to fall back on. Let's end this failed experiment as soon as possible.
Complain about this comment
Given the gurrent world rankings this result for the series should have been expected. Why England (particularly the media ) thought that they were going to win the series is a bit of a mystery. Perhaps it is the English belief that they have always been better at cricket than the NZers. Not enough credit is being given to NZ who batted and bowled better than England and in particular fielded very well in comparison to England who at timed looked sluggish and uninterested in the field. The major reason for NZ winning however was they picked the right side and outthought the english thru the series.
Complain about this comment
England team as a whole has not yet gained self confidence.
They generally have timidity in batting at the beginning and then when wickets fall the on coming batsman in the middle order go in their shell and then they quickly fold up unless the tail end like Wright Broad or Mascarenhas and the like go to the bowlers as they have shown recently.
It is strange that England team does not have a guy especially in the middle order to stand up against a difficult situation and anchor
the batting when odds are against while others fall.
It is unfortunate that J. Anderson though a hard working bowler, in the present series as well as in the past proved to be of great concern and does not deserve to have a place in the England team. If you were to have an aerial view of this bowler's action and his movement while he runs to bowl you will be awe-struck. He has a whobbling movement of the body which itself shows where the ball is going to land. He might even be trying to be a faster medium bowler; it does not serve him better. Just have look at the '606 your comments' All the comments, on this unfortunate bowler, are very negative. EG.: stats: 4 overs giving away 48 runs in the last one dayer of 50 overs against New Zealand.
It is alarming, how on earth the England Cricket Board continues to favour him over others while he is horrible to watch. Now, in how many tournaments has he appeared almosst consecutilvely for last three years? One wonders whether there is nepotism of any kind or political push behind. That brings up the question, is it serving the glory of the Nation or Individual's aims and gains?
The England coach and the bowliing coach should tell these young good talents like Broad and Plunkett and the like that they should learn to bowl on the spot most of the time with certain variety as they learn and improve their bowling, once they have got into that habit of bowling on the spot- target with good line and length they could speed up as they younsters. This was how Glen MiGrath highest fast bowling wicket taker and now the Australians are having in his groom S.Clark. These ideas should be ingrained into their mind permanently. The question of opeining pair in Cook and Mustard or Bell I wonder whether they have the aptitude to the one dayers or twenty/20 matches. You should not include a player who slogs only, especially in the opening pair. If you were to observe Australlian Gilchrist one of a kind, he does not slog, he is a class of his kind, though he did not succeed every time. England need to look for such potential young talents and select and train and get them to the squad. These are crucial to succeed in the one dayers and twenty/20
a.joe
Complain about this comment
"England picked the wrond team and paid the price"
? Agree, they should have picked their other team, the winning team that does not exist
Complain about this comment
Mr Agnew, once again you never surprise me with your slating of an English team. These players are young and have little experience of playing together, let alone international cricket. Your criticism of Mustard is way out of order as he is young and at the start of his career. Cook, I agree needs to learn to score a run a ball at the start but they have potential. Bell is class- thats a fact. You say KP needs to bat at 3. Maybe a year ago, but teams seem to have worked him out and he is getting out for 40 odd far too much. I think our bowlers have disappointed in NZ but you haven't mentioned this? Broad and Anderson never came to the party. I agree Wright has one hell of a furure but to build the team around him this early would be foolish. Its been a tough job and we have struggled, but take the positives.
Complain about this comment
Why does anyone care about these made-for-TV friendlies ? England should use them as warm-up matches for the only games which matter, which start on March 5th
Complain about this comment
The fact that England dont play Month shows that the managment is one dimensional. They always want their bowlers to be "be able to bat" and some of their batsmen to "bowl". They should play the best people. Monty would have given alot more variety, although he still isnt the best at one day matches, he can only get bettter. He would also be up against the best left arm spinner in the world! No better place to learn from!
Complain about this comment
The problem with English cricket is how fans and the press rate players before they play enough games.
Wright is now the latest in a long line of players who at first has played well-nothing fantastic-but gets talked up too much. Give him some time and then we will see if he is good player.
Other teams may well work him out, and once they do he will just be another ok player. This has happen to so many English players over the last couple of years.
As for Pietersen batting at number 3, surely it is obvious that he does not want to bat there. Therefore, the coach should order him to play there. It is the same in tests where he should bat at 4. It seems like he may well be scared of the new ball-another example of how he can sometimes not be a team player.
Complain about this comment
Whilst I am a massive fan of Paul Collingwood I must say his captaincy in Napier and yesterday in Christchurch left much to be desired. His field placings for Broad, Anderson and Sidebottom were bizzare at times and laughable at others. Also, what is the point of bowling three men who all produce similar deliveries when they are all being hit around the park? A bit of variety is what was needed, as proved by Colly's success when he came on.
When batting, what's wrong with changing the order depending on who loses their wicket? Ideally you want a big hitter with a supporting batsman - Bell and Cook make great supporting batsmen who can provide stability when building an innings.
James Anderson is too erratic and we had other options which should have been taken in this game. Obviously a spinner was required for this pitch.
One last thing, the performance of Billy Bowden in the last two games was absolutely shocking. Getting a third-umpire decision wrong is unforgiveable and he made a couple of bad calls yesterday both of which went against England. Unfortunately, his poor umpiring had as much of a say in the last two results as England's often clueless and toothless attack!
Complain about this comment
The farcical ending I believe was the confusion surrounding the umpires saying play would start at 9.45pm only to then state NZ had won!
Whilst I'm a massive fan of Paul Collingwood I must say his captaincy in Napier and yesterday in Christchurch left much to be desired. His field placings for Broad, Anderson and Sidebottom were bizzare at times and laughable at others. Also, what is the point of bowling three men who all produce similar deliveries when they are all being hit around the park? A bit of variety is what was needed, as proved by Colly's success when he came on.
When batting, what's wrong with changing the order depending on who loses their wicket? Ideally you want a big hitter with a supporting batsman - Bell and Cook make great supporting batsmen who can provide stability when building an innings.Combine them with Pietersen or Wright.
James Anderson is too erratic and we had other options which should have been taken in this game. Obviously a spinner was required for this pitch.
One last thing, the performance of Billy Bowden in the last two games was absolutely shocking. Getting a third-umpire decision wrong is unforgiveable and he made a couple of bad calls yesterday both of which went against England. Unfortunately, his poor umpiring had as much of a say in the last two results as England's often clueless and toothless attack!
Complain about this comment
How depressing - the usual denigration on this website of our team; it's so hideously predictable. The England team have won in Paris and I'm waiting for the 'unconvincing victory' cliche.
Face it, England since time immemorial have not done that well in 1-day cricket: Michael Vaughan's record was at least as good as, if not better than most of, England captains' record in this regard. He bowed out, and now we're expecting a complete culture change.
I find it very encouraging that, before the rain fell, England took 3 wickets for 1 run - how good is that? Ryan Sidebottom is a great player and he steps up to the plate. Dimi Mascarenhas, much touted by Shane Warne, has not really produced the goods.
Can we put the Adam Gilchrist/wicket keeper obsession to rest now? He was an amazing phenomenon and he's off to the IPL. I don't see why other teams have to ape exactly what the opposition is doing: surely, surprise is desirable? So stop emoting about getting the next Adam Gilchrist and start concentrating on the importance of a great wicket keeper, a great batsman, not necessarily contained in the same person.
Complain about this comment
Don't be too hard on the English attack - it has been dismantled by the prodigous talents of one player. I was at the ODI in ChCh. I feel priveleged to have seen a magnificent innings by Brendan McCullum. He must now rate as one of the most feared ODI batsmen in the world. For just a little fellow, the power he gets is astonishing. TV cannot do justice to the speed with which the ball leaves the bat, or the sound as one of his cuts or square drives hits the advertising hoardings. His series stats are astonishing - 261 runs off 203 balls at an average of 65.25 and a strike rate of 129. The rest of the NZ batting has largely struggled against the English bowlers (with perhaps the exception of Ryder from time to time, and Howe in one innings). And to follow the theme above in referencing Gilchrist, McCullum is not a slogger either. He has some outrageous shots, and his habit of moving about the crease will be emulated by many players over the next few years. But his shot making is essentially orthodox -hooking, pulling, driving. Roll over Gilly - your crown has been stolen from you!
Complain about this comment
As a New Zealander and a follower of world cricket I am surprised how the media played the series up in Englands favour. New Zealand is Never an easy beat in a series at home. Firstly England beat a few understength provincial sides, which started the pundits chirping. Then came the two twenty twentys which NZ never really take overly seriously... people seemed to forget we lost a game to Bangladesh at the start of their series in 20/20.
Watching First Class Cricket in New Zealand it doesnt take a brain surgeon to see the teams with quality spin bowlers really dominate the middle overs. So for Enlgand to say the ground size/shape comes into play... b/s. All they need to do is bowl correct line... i.e. Vettori and Patel
Complain about this comment
I feel alot of the experienced England behind the scenes people have only onething on their mind and that series is still a long way off.The Ashes.
Complain about this comment
Billy's umpiring had nothing to do with the result - How many times were McCullum and Ryder dropped during the course of the series and in particular the last two matches. Englands fielding was generally poor and unenthusiastic.
Complain about this comment
Aggers,
You are being extremely harsh on Cookie. You cannot compare the strike rate of the England openers to the New Zealand openers without considering the quality of the bowling that they are facing. Cook, Mustard and Bell had to face some very tidy bowling, good field placements and fine fielding.Our bowlers just had a bad day at the office. Cook may be a slow starter, but he is there to anchor the innings and the other batsmen are meant to bat around him. In my opinion, the selectors should keep faith with Cook as he has to be the ODI opener for years to come - surely he will improve with experience. Remember he is only 23. I'm sure he'll come good in the Test series. Anyway, he's by far the best looking guy in our team!!
Complain about this comment
Aggers
I think you are spot on about Bell/Cooke getting themselves tied down not getting singles and getting the innings started at a 5/6 runs per over. It put pressure on the next 4 batsmen to catchup. I'd forgive Mustard, a poor shot, but at least he can score, and didn't hang around scoring 40 0ff 70 balls.
One thing you miss is that the choice of Broad and Anderson on these slow wickets was an error. Runs were very easy for the Kiwi batsmen from these two bowlers.Perhaps swann and panesar (if chosen) could have tied the batsmen down, forced stokeplay and posed more risks. Also they would have got through the overs a lot quicker.
Your thoughts?
Complain about this comment
this is disturbing, Anderson has two World Cup campaigns under his belt and yet he bowls like a rookie, English players just dont get to learn their disciplines in county cricket and he has gone backwards. When we had Donald as a bowling coach he helped Jimmy out by giving him focus and confidence but since the summer he has been as poor as ever. I love his potential but the reality is that his bowling often glides to the bat as a half volley. Time to move on, let him go back to Lancs for a season or two and see if he can get his game tightened up sufficiently to bowl international class on a regular basis. Shame. As for Peter Moores, a poor test series and he will be under the microscope, and quite rightly.
Complain about this comment
agree with #13 wat a shame it had to end like that..I think we would have got the runs but who knows
Would England have deserved to draw the series..not really!!
The Napier tie well we all know England got out of Jail and in the last game it could have been heading that way...mmm such is life we will never really know now!
Test cricket though
us v you chaps I find that rather scary..you chaps are good and we are just food
Complain about this comment
Apparently this is the "Lets all bash Jimmy to death" blog...
Yeak ok he had a bit of a 'mare with the new ball (though I think some people underestimate the difficulties of bowling to McCullum on a flat pitch with very short boundaries) but I would point out that he came back pretty well later in the innings in both these games. So it isn't that he can't bowl well in one dayers (despite some claims to the contrary he has much more often been effective than otherwise in the past)but rather that he got rattled by the Kiwi openers assault, tried to over attack and suffered.A lesson he needs to learn from but not I hope an end to a career.
And yes I know he has been around for a while now and should be more consistent:he isn't the only England player of whom this could be said.Still think he offers more than the alternatives and a bit more patience will pay off eventually.
Complain about this comment
Why isnt Hoggard in the team? its ridiculous to have him only for tests when he is the best swing bowler that england have...
Complain about this comment
how about open with prior and wright of sussex then bell at 3 and KP at 4 etc ???
Complain about this comment
England were simply not good enough, and if Pietersen is not bang-in form we will always struggle. Anderson is poor, and should be dropped and someone else given a run. We are lacking in the bowling department hence we need so many one day players that can chip in with a few overs. I think you can't have Cook, Bell and Shah in the same team, and Bell is better suited to scoring quickly than Cook, while Shah can bowl if needed so Cook would be left out. Swann should play while i disagree than Wright should be any higher than 5 in the order because against the opening bowlers he struggles at this level.
My team would be (batting order flexible); 3 front-line bowlers with 5 others capable of completing the remaining 20 overs.
Mustard (wkt)
Bell
Pietersen
Shah*
Collingwood*
Wright*
Mascarenhas*
Swann*
Broad
Sidebottom
Tremlett??? (or someone who can bowl tight - so NEVER Anderson).
Complain about this comment
i don't care if pieterson "doesn't want to bat at three"?!?!? he'll bat wherever's best for the team, surely?!?!
1st test
cook
mustard w
pieterson
strauss v
bell
collingwood c
bopara
broad
swann
sidebottom
anderson
Complain about this comment
Good point Aggers,Fairly put.,My personal view is surely Cook is really not a 1 day player..he is best at test & 4 day games....mould him into one or the other.you need positive aggressive shot playing in todays one -dayers...Luke wright should open with Mustard..KP,Belly Colly,then whoever after...NZ played very well,But i don't think there was much in both teams.Englands bowling was dissapointing to say the least,Watched a few games & could count so called block-hole balls or attempting/trying something diffrent on one hand!!!
Complain about this comment
In my opinion it is time to consider what im[act 20over cricket will have on the overall future of cricket internationally.Myself I put the twenty game in the same category as five a side football,fun to watch 'but not the real thing.Test cricket is the true examination of skills,yes 20 can give cricket at all levels a welcomed influx of cash,and perhaps entice people to cricket in it's truest form.Another question that must be posed is the effects the shorter version of the game has on techniques,continually asking players to adapt to continually changing forms of the game will be difficult,and youngsters coming into cricket will be influenced by the monies that are being bandied about.I cannot see younger players using for example Geoff Boycott as a role model,and the question musted be asked if as indicated the demise of test cricket would there be any room for specialist opening batsmen.I feel our beloved game may be strangled out of existance by teams of all rounders
So lets apply a little caution,I will watch the twenty game but watch it for what it is,a bit of fun,and an opportunity for a group of aging superstars to have a final big payday in order to swell their pension funds.
In conclusion yes let's greet anything that will attract more spectators to the game,but ensure it is not detrimental to the game in it's truest form.
Complain about this comment
It was interesting 2 watch afar this ODI series and i think that England have actually tried to do TOO much changing from the world cup. There was no need to drop players like Joyce (who i think is perfect to open with Wright), Plunkett (quick, can swing the ball and bat) and even someone like lewis. My england ODI XI would be:
Joyce
Wright
Bell (YES- i think he can do the job)
Collingwood
Pietersen (was at his best when he came out against the slower bowlers and had gaps to work in)
Bopara (plays well under pressure- world cup v Sri Lanka and v India at Old Trafford)
Mustard (Better suited to late order slog)
Plunkett
Swann (deserves a long run)
Sidebottom
Tremlett (for accurate spells in the powerplays)
* I didnt count Flintoff b/c of injury, i think strauss if he was to come back would be better at 4 or 5, he has a great One Day record there, and Panesar should concentrate on becoming england's test spinner for the next decade.
* Also, New Zealand showed a marked improvement in this series, thanks mainly to oram's return to form with bat and ball and McCullum at the top-He could now justifiably be the most damaging ODI opener around
Complain about this comment
Only ONE fifty from Bell in 5 games.
And just one ton now in nearly 70 one day knocks. Not good enough I'm afraid. Keysy has to come back in the summer - End of Story!
Complain about this comment
Regarding the team in comment 74 - where are the bowlers there??? Anderson (Mr Ten-an-over), Sidebottom (ok), Broad (mostly ok) and Swann (?) would all HAVE to bowl 10 overs, with only Bopara and Colly to make up the other 10 - now that is suicidal! I think my team in comment 73 is about as good as it gets at the mo. It would be nice to have Flintoff in there to bowl 10 in the future, as we currently have no world class one-day bowlers!
Complain about this comment
Jonathan, Love your stuff, but I am increasingly convinced that looking for the player who will be England's saviour is totally misplaced at the moment. This strategically flawed and vacuous "Moorsie" regime is presiding over ruined talent at an alarming rate of knots. How many more potential greats are going to be dragged down to the lowest common denominator before the finger turns to the backroom culture that leads to endless drawing of "positives" from a growing list of abject and amateur failures? PEople quote the winning of the Sri Lanka ODI series as evidences of progress - where was Murali? Against that side how can we possibly explain being all out for 104 in the opening match? This is going to get much worse before it gets better - and reform inteh back room will be the source of improvement, not a single messiah from the counties!
Complain about this comment
Jonathan , you are absolutely correct in your observations..
You pointed to batting but the same applies to bowling as well w.r.t. lack of innovations
However what surprises me is that the 91Èȱ¬ have an excellent Sports Editor in Mihir Bose and he does not take these points higher up forcefully so that we all see positive reactions instead of the ECB management just waffling....
In fact he should go up another step and grill the Sports Minister effectively as the problems you have mentioned exist in Tennis , Football to name only two other sports..
Complain about this comment
So many points of view, thats what is great about Cricket!! James Anderson should be able to bowl yorker length by now! every ball seems to be short of a length, he never seems to learn, and Colli never seems to make the point either! I see Bell opening, cook just can not bat as u should in ODI. Pieterson needs to bat 3, although I do feel he bats too much to leg, often ignoring open space to the offside. Tremlett, what has he done wrong? he would be a lot tightter than Anderson, Broad also looks a little light at this level at the moment.
Roll on the Tests, with Hoggard at least we will have some control and along with the impressive Sidebottom, a useful swing attack.
Complain about this comment
Hi Aggers, great analysis. I'm a Brit living in NZ and it's been fascinating to watch so far. Here's what the Kiwi's are saying in the terraces. Is Jimmy Anderson ever going settle down and become a reliable bowler, yep, he can be a good new ball bowler on his day - but when is that day going to be when England needs him ? I couldn't agree with you more about Cook / Bell. I have to say I favour Bell, better fielder and has promise in a Michael Clark sort of role, if he keeps progressing. Scoring 40 of 70 balls (Cook) is simply putting pressure on the rest - McCullum does the exact opposite and I think Luke Wright could have a role here. Mustard needs some 'man management', he strikes the ball really well and looks like he's about to destroy the attack, then he loses his head. England pay a full time 'mind coach' but I see no effect here on this player. Peterson has to bat at three, kiwi's couldn't believe the position he bats. Graham Swann can handle a bat as well and has to count himself unlucky not to have helped England in their last lost cause. There seems to be a real 'inflexibility' about this England side - Cook set completely the wrong tone for the innings and Shah screamed of 'playing for his average' when runs where being screamed for by the team - why did the 'assault' not start until the 45th over - madness, surely ? New Zealand may not have the talent that England do but they sure have the cricketing brains to use what they have and seemed to have England sussed out in every department. If Andrew Strauss gets a recall it will be the craziest selection of all time - would anyone agree ? Keep up the good work Aggers, you make a North Yorkshire lad homesick for his cricket and Tetley's ! Cheers !
Complain about this comment
The England cupboard must be overflowing, positively overflowing, with 'positives'.
But totally devoid of results.
Complain about this comment
One of the most successful openers in domestic one day cricket last season was Mr. Swann. Worth a punt perhaps?
At the end of the day, I loathe to start saying drop this guy and get rid of the other guy. We do have a young squad of 15 or 16 decent players. With some fine tuning to the balance, we can certainly get ourselves in the top 3 over the next couple of years.
The only player who I would seriously be looking at is Anderson - little improvements here and there aren't good enough any more. He has reached the stage Bell reached about 12 months ago - he is too experienced now to be making the same rookie mistakes. I can understand Broad occasionally being wellied for 8 an over, but it should not still be happening to Anderson.
Pieterson, Bell, Collingwood, Shah is our best 3-6 - the problem here is the same as in test though. It is no good them all having one good knock in every 4, they all need to be having an effect on games at least once every couple of innings.
Complain about this comment
Vettori, if he had been a true captain, should have walked. He can't be too proud of himself.
His bowling is easily handled providing the batsman is not in a hurry. Hopefully the tests will prove that point. Pieterson's lack of concentration made Vettori look a lot better than he is.
Complain about this comment
As far as i am concerned, that is it for Anderson. Too many times he has threatened to have developed a level of consistency, only to dash our hopes by hitting rock bottom. Like the time my mate Damo got a round in last September, but none since. He is a good fielder (Anderson not Damo), but remember he is in the side primarily to bowl.
That said this is going to be one of the most one sided test series for a while, Mark my words!
Complain about this comment
This is going to be a one sided test series is it? Seems to me how one sided the ODIs were going to be, before that series started. The english public and media are still not recognising how well the kiwis played during the ODIs and how much they outthought the english. Thinking is much more important during tests and the english look to be too rigid and unimaginitive.
Complain about this comment
In answer to 76, i dont see anyway to add an extra bowler because the fact of the matter is, another bowler would make the batting line up fatally short and with no Flintoff, England does not have a world class all rounder. I see a future for Wright with the ball, he hits the bat pretty hard and bowled brilliantly at the death in napier, and england may have to mix and match until flintoff (Maybe) returns or someone else comes along. Maybe Dalrymple or Yardy is a better short term option than Bopara?
Complain about this comment
As an Indian fan, the turn of events with this England team has been shocking. I did not get to see the ODIs with NZ, but from what I understand reading all these comments, the England seam bowlers have under performed. Let me offer an outsider view here.
What I saw was a fine bunch of young seam bowlers when they played against India, both ODI and Tests. Anderson was swinging the ball at more than decent pace and staring the likes of Tendulkar in the eye. If the barometer of a bowlers worth is the fear he creates in opposition , including opposition fans. he is the real deal. I hated it when he came on to bowl.
There is a problem with swing bowlers when they loose rythm. You need good bowling coaches to nurse them around. Troy Cooley is one and India seems to have unearthed a genuine one in Venkatesh Prasad. The biggest blunder England did in the last 10 years is letting go off Tro Cooley.
To make it short, Anderson and Broad are fine bowlers and have the stuff in them. A combination of poor support staff and a under-estimating New Zealand are the problem. NZ ,maximizes their talent pool and hats off to them. They regularly drive India crazy with players like McCullum, Craig McMillan and Oram. McCullum seems to have come of age and is in the Gilchrist/Dhoni mide. Good for them.
My message to England and their fans is dont throw out Anderson and Broad. Give them a goof bowling coach and the support staff too. I remember seeing Bell bat. He is a good one too.
Complain about this comment
Our bowling is more of a concern that our batting. If Flintoff was fully fit for the tests, one of Harmison or Anderson 'could' play, but without him NEITHER one of these should play - it's a luxury we can't afford. Anderson and Harmison flatter to deceive time and time again. One good game in 4 is not good enough to get a regular place in the test team and when they get picked again and again it smacks of favouritism and bum-chumism. These two have no concept of line & length and it's just luck when things go well. They more often than not go for more than 4 an over (especially Anderson), which is almost never backed up by a 5-for. Other strike bowlers keep it tight and still get wickets, Lee and Z.Khan manage it because they CAN bowl the ball roughly where they want (which is a fundamental element when it comes to being a good bowler) - our boys blatently cannot. We should play Hoggy, Sidebottom, Broad, Panesar (if he's turning it otherwise play Swann who'd offer more in the way of an all-rounder to replace Freddie), and get Tremlett (maybe) and someone else over to compete for the last paceman spot.
Complain about this comment
Steven, I'd just like to remind you that Harmy retired from ODI's a while ago, but thanks for your input!!
Yes it's depressing when England lose but we are told they are 'building a team for the future' so basically bear with us, which lets the selectors chop and change endlessly and not build anything!
All this moaning about James Anderson is a little unfair as it's not his fault that he's probably told he's the most penetrating bowler in the side and his job is to take wickets. Sidebottom does a good job and is the steady performer getting the more defensive fields etc. while Anderson takes the wickets, has the attacking fields and tries to get at the opposition. When this doesn't work though it is the duty of the captain to go to plan B, shut down the batsman's scoring areas and make sure the bowler knows his role.... unfortunately when your major batter doesn't come in 'til No.4, makes a frustrating 40-odd (probably because he's worn out!) then gives his wicket away heaping pressure on the rest of the inexperienced line up who don't set a decent, defendable total then all is lost!
ODI's are won by runs on the board, not three slips and two gully's and I'm afraid and we do not run well enough between the wickets to turn a maiden or two run over into 4 or 5 an over, pressurizing the bowlers and making them bowl where they don't want to. I watch a lot of international cricket on sky and that is the biggest difference I think between us and the other nations in the vast majority of games played. Yes some games are full of 4's and 6's - 350 - 400 plus per side and all that but these are not the games in which we are being hopelessly outplayed regularly, getting 280 - 300 on a regular basis would be a nice start so someone like Anderson has some confidence to bowl!
I wonder if the biggest problem he has had is the endless travel around the world and up and down the motorways of this country to play 12th man and not actually bowl in matches for long periods?
Complain about this comment
you chaps fought hard but we were simply betta..any questions??
kiwi kiwi kiwi kiwi
(none on test cricket though please)
Complain about this comment
you chaps fought hard but we were simply betta..any questions??
kiwi kiwi kiwi kiwi
(none on test cricket though please)
Complain about this comment
I think England are struggling to find top quality bowlers. Get rid of Anderson, keep Broad and Sidebottom but find someone in place of Anderson. If you want a spinner, have a look at James Tredwell, he must be worth a go. Also, Mustard SHOULD play as you need someone to hit runs whilst Cook gets going. And what about Monty. He should also be around the XI.
Complain about this comment
re: 83: "[Vettori's] bowling is easily handled providing the batsman is not in a hurry. Hopefully the tests will prove that point. Pieterson's lack of concentration made Vettori look a lot better than he is."
Vettori can't be made to look any better than he is because he is already ranked the number one ODI bowler in the world.
Meanwhile, England's "mighty" test team are rolled for 131 by our second stringers. I predict a one all draw in the test series, and another month of English excuses: "We'd have won if they weren't better than us."
Complain about this comment
As an Indian fan, the turn of events with this England team has been shocking. I did not get to see the ODIs with NZ, but from what I understand reading all these comments, the England seam bowlers have under performed. Let me offer an outsider view here.
What I saw was a fine bunch of young seam bowlers when they played against India, both ODI and Tests. Anderson was swinging the ball at more than decent pace and staring the likes of Tendulkar in the eye. If the barometer of a bowlers worth is the fear he creates in opposition , including opposition fans. he is the real deal. I hated it when he came on to bowl.
There is a problem with swing bowlers when they loose rythm. You need good bowling coaches to nurse them around. Troy Cooley is one and India seems to have unearthed a genuine one in Venkatesh Prasad. The biggest blunder England did in the last 10 years is letting go off Tro Cooley.
To make it short, Anderson and Broad are fine bowlers and have the stuff in them. A combination of poor support staff and a under-estimating New Zealand are the problem. NZ ,maximizes their talent pool and hats off to them. They regularly drive India crazy with players like McCullum, Craig McMillan and Oram. McCullum seems to have come of age and is in the Gilchrist/Dhoni mide. Good for them.
My message to England and their fans is dont throw out Anderson and Broad. Give them a goof bowling coach and the support staff too. I remember seeing Bell bat. He is a good one too.
Complain about this comment
Simon, i was refering to the upcoming test series, hence the mention of Harmison.
The problem with Anderson is that he is not international class in either form the game. Any idiot can run up and bowl fast. It's where you bowl it and what your strategy is that counts. When Anderson or Harmison have a good day it is nothing more than pure luck - not skill. If Broad doesn't play instead of these two then it'll be a travesty. He'll be a consistent performer who has the ability and correct attitude to be successfull. He should have played in tests last summer but was bizarely overlooked despite getting 5-69 in warm-up game against the tourists.
Not only are the selections poor, so are the organisation and decision making during matches. Vaughan is an ok test captain, given a good set of players at his disposal but England teams generally lack focus. We were a laughing stock in the world cup, the 20-20 world cup as we were in the last ashes (don't get me started on that).
Moores is like McClaren in the football - he has his favourites and doesn't give the players the kick up the back-side they need. The way some players have performed for England since winning the ashes would be enough for them to be dropped permanently from most other countries test teams.
Players that have had their day and should be shown the door;
Strauss, Harmison, Anderson.
Virtually all the others, with the exception of Sidebottom & Hoggard, Bell & Pietersen should be told they are on thin ice. Just look at the averages - they don't lie.
Complain about this comment
Might as well start at the top and work my way down.
I think they need to give Mustard more time. They can't keep ditching their wicky after a few games, or one series. I mean Gilly and Healy didn't start off that great, if the were ditched then... yeah you get the picture. He's there as a pinch hitter anyways, although I agree you don't want him slogging.
Cook needs to work the singles more, but he didn't have the worst series.
(I wonder if they'd contemplate Wright up the top and try Mustard in the middle order, probably not, but who knows).
KP should bat at three, but I wouldn't want them to ditch Bell. he's imposing enough at the crease, and sometimes they are 2 for not many and it doesn't matter so put him at three.
Collingwood and Shah are all good.
Masceranhas should play, his bowling wasn't too flash... punished like Hitchcock and O'brien were. His batting obviously adds great impetus. Bopara could make it back eventually.
Swann needs to play... like the commentators said during the series, why pick two spinners in the squad when you don't play one. I mean he bowls great and bats competently in the series against the Lankans, performs average in the first two games and gets ditched, its rubbish.
Broad and Sidebottom are all good.
Jimmy just needs to get his swing back, and get his action all good and not pull away too early, that way he should be good, no point being harsh on him.
My Side would be:
1.Mustard (WK)
2.Cook
3.Pietersen
4.Bell
5.Collingwood (C)
6.Shah
7.Masceranhas
8.Swann
9.Broad
10.Sidebottom
11.Anderson
Complain about this comment
It's the same old story England are just not good enough at one day or at test match level , the sooner they get back to the basics and stop thinking they are better than most other sides only then will they begin to get competative in world cricket.
Complain about this comment
sport!
vaughn and moores should go after this test series. also, harmison. why is he still here?! hilarious! don't play for england any more please.
if i were king i'd get graham ford, former SA coach and current coach of kent, in there. he knows the counties, is vastly experienced, respected within the international cricket community and - gasp - has already had success as an international coach.
cook and bell are fantastic players. kp's getting into a bit of form. great. collingwood needs to be there for continuity, but bopara is awesomely talented and i'd love to see him thrown in there again this summer. also, i strongly believe that strauss will come good.
the best england top 6:
cook
bell
strauss
pieterson
shah
collingwood/bopara
Complain about this comment
Predictions for upcoming test series;
-Pietersen will have our highest batting average
-Hoggard & Sidebottom will have our best bowling figures (probably by some distance).
Can't understand the 'he'll get it back again' attitude to our pampered bowlers. Why continue play someone who's not performing? When Gillespie lost his way for Australia they dropped him until he had proven that he had got his act together (and even then he was never the important cog he once was - the Aussies knew he wasn't the man anymore). We continue to pick underachievers and actually rest them (nice little holiday) or tell them to 'work' at their game for some tiny amount of time (like a week), and then pick them for the next matches. Some players are given a billion chances; like good old Jimmy, while others are dropped quicker than a hot potato, or never get a chance. Why is that? Hmmmm? Maybe it's not how you play but who you're friends with...? Farce.
Complain about this comment