91Èȱ¬

Aggers, you say swapping Vaughan and Strauss breaks the left/right hand partnership to open the innings. However, you neglect to consider the likelihood (or otherwise) of Vaughan sticking around long enough for that to be a problem. My prediction is for the LH/RH combination to be quickly reestablished, at the expense of 1 wicket every innings.

Vaughan is a wonderful captain, but it has been many years since I saw him perform consistently as a batsman. I now believe it is his captaincy rather than his qualities as a player keeping him in the side, and the captain should be picked from the best 11 players, of which Vaughan may now not be one. We're so obsessed with the wicket keeper contributing with the bat - why is the same standard not applied to the captain.

Saying all this, I do recognize that recently his average has improved, though the stat of 1 hundred in 22 innings is telling.

I for one am not worried about Vaughan. While he is not a prolific with the bat as many would like his average is still good. Not only that but were the captaincy given to another I have no doubt they would suffer the same fate. It is well known that most captains score less as captain than before (for many reasons, one of which is target status for opposing bowlers) I would be happy with him playing even if he scored a lot less, why? Because I've lost count of the number of times his captaincy has won England a match, His efforts in that department eaisly make up for his lower scores batting, and I believe that where he not Captain during the recent series in NZ we would have lost it.

Everyone has to contribute now. Last season was the breaking-in period for Moores. Now it's time to judge him. This year is the point where he has full control of the side, where his plans for the Ashes should be evident and performances have to be high every game.

Michael Vaughan does need runs but let's be realistic here. If he isn't in the XI to face Australia in the First Test next year, is there anyone better qualified and with a better track record to come in and replace him? I rate the like of Key and Shah but neither would get ahead of Vaughan. My hope is that Vaughan will score a couple of centuries this summer and get the doubters off his back and leave him to focus on the bigger prize of Australia next year. The Ashes next year. We have a drubbing to hand back to them and there is another entity to compete against, that of the IPL. Huge cash auctions is fine and dandy but nothing would be a better advertisement for traditional cricket than a tight ocmpetitive Ashes series a la 2005.

Mr Agnew mentions England's possible need to break in two new top-order batsmen for the Ashes. Hmmm. Do we need this? Back in 2005, we had no problems dropping Pietersen in for the vast experience of Thorpe. Bell was inexperienced in 2005 as was Collingwood and both have come a long way since then. The only real change from 2005 is the top of the order and Cook has shown that, although he is a totally different player to Trescothick, he can occupy that top slot and score runs against Australia. I have a firm belief in Andrew Strauss returning to top form so Cook and Strauss will open all summer for me. Vaughan at 3, KP at 4, Collingwood at 5, Bell at 6, Ambrose at 7. We have capable deputies who have scored runs in international cricket in the form of Key and Shah and I would like to see England bring James Hildreth.

The bowling department is harder to settle on. Sidebottom will be around all summer as will Panesar who undoubtedly showed his doubters a thing or two in the NZ series where he really did outbowl Daniel Vettori, and Stuart Broad will continue to develop. We don't have many certainties out there beyond them. Hoggard has something to prove after comments over his pace dropping. Flintoff is the perennial Maybe Man. Anderson is unpredictable. Who else could you add to the list? Steve Kirby? Simon Jones? A Harmison who finally pieces it together after spending the entire season bowling in county cricket? A fasttracked Steven Finn? The spin department is sewn up by Swann and Panesar.

Why has Anderson been 'desperately unlucky'? By his own admission, he's been desperately inconsistent.

Compared to players such as Owais Shah and Chris Tremlett, he's been desperately fortunate to be given so many chances.

I agree with comments about Vaughan. He is a good captain, but his batting perfrmanc MUST improve.

I would have thought the ideal if he does not perform is to give him a break from captaincy and allow him focus on his batting.

The problem is that all the messing around with the captaincy prior to the last Ashes and insisting on choosing Flintoff over Strauss not only completely shredded Strauss's confidence and subsequent performance, but it also destroyed the chance for England to have a clear line of succession.

Had Strauss remained captain instead of Flintoff (a better choice in anycase - Flintoff was NOT a good captain), we could easily have told Vaughan to take a break from captaincy to focus on his batting.

Right now, though, I suspect there is no way Strauss would be willing to take over from Vaughan with a bargepole and I cannot see who else is a viable long-term replacement (Pietersen would not make a good captian and, in anycase, his performance is also shot to pieces; Collingwood is a good one-day captain but not a test captain; and Cook is too young).

It is clear that it is Vaughan, and not Moores, that is calling the shots in the Tests team composition and strategy. Like Blair, by the time he sees the writing on the wall and calls it quits, it will be too late for the (party) team to redeem itself.

I think a new captain must be named right now, and Vaughan should play as a batsman on merit, like in the case of Hussain, and so many international skippers like Sachin, Ganguly, Jayasuriya etc.

With the batting remaining unchanged since the Ashes 0-5 whitewash, and despite further losing to India and Sri Lanka... it is difficult to see how the same batting can be expected to score heavily in next year's Ashes. It may already be too late to make changes to the batting - it is clear that the solidity of Trescothick and an in-form Flintoff are being missed for a long time.

How cruel the British weather can be. My poor dad and sister have always wanted to go to the first day of the first test in a series and bagged tickets months ago for Lords. Hope their journey to St Johns Wood isn't wasted today :(

Typical anti-Vaughan garbage from Swamy I'm afraid. The batting isn't unchanged from the 5-0 Ashes defeat as your favorite pantomime villain was injured for that series.

What is clear is that England play better with Vaughan as captain, and Vaughan himself does better coming in at 3.

I'm as surprised as Aggers that Anderson got the nod over Hoggard, but with Flintoff (when fit) and Hoggard in good form with the ball, then the pressure is on him to perform.

Couldn't agree more about Vaughan and Strauss Aggers; both need runs now, and if they don't produce in this series I think we must bring in new blood for SA. My only concern on that note is who gets the captaincy, as Strauss is (IMHO) the obvious successor to Vaughan!

I'm not so surprised at Anderson's inclusion: I think he is seen as a more threatening (although admittedly inconsistent) bowler than Hoggard, and his 9 against Durham probably cemented his selection. I think he is a luxury in a 4 man attack, but I'll be happy to see Hoggard at the Riverside for the next 3 days! Whether the selection would've been different had Flintoff been available we'll never know, though I personally fancy that if he had we'd have seen Flintoff and Hoggard rather than Broad and Anderson.

One thing we do have the luxury of in this side is plenty of decent part-time bowlers to take up some of the strain if the main-line bowlers have a bad spell, and hopefully Vaughan will have to confidence to use Collingwood, Pietersen and Bell (does Vaughan still bowl at all? Or has he given up to protect his knee?) to good effect if Anderson is wayward rather than destructive.

I don't agree with comment number 2 by LAUGHINGDEVIL about vaughan staying in the team for his captaincy. All England batsman have a decent average but the problem is all they get is their average every innings. How much times have we seen an engalnd player get 40 (bell, vaughan, collingwood, cook). It is costing us big time.
No one is compensating for vaughan's captaincy.
I would drop at least two of vaughan, cook, strauss, collingwood and even ambrose for hildreth, shah, bopara, prior, carberry.

Vaughn's captaincy has not been good for the last two series, in particular. his intuition seems to have deserted to him and he has frequently allowed games to drift by persevering with misfiring pre-arranged plans. yes, i do realise he's been marshalling an inconsistent bowling attack.

also, should be mentioned that he has always been a 'form' captain. when he's batting well he gets all chest-puffy and pointy but when he's not batting well his hands are in his pockets and he's noticably downcast in the field. thus, this sustained run of self-inflicted dismissals has had a very real impact on his captaincy and therefore the team. 22 innings without a hundred for an international number 3?

come on Vorner. i'm running out of ways of defending you to my mates!

Sorry, Aggers. Your constant "England must win easily" mantra is boring, and derogatory to New Zealand.

Your contact undermining of some players, and trumpeting of others (Vaughan and Strauss the former, and Jimmy Anderson the latter) is illogical, ill informed, and irritating in the extreme.

When are the 91Èȱ¬ going to grasp the nettle, and realise that you're a poor quality journalist, and replace you with someone decent?

Hinders, not only is it derogatory- it is misplaced - England by the end of the series will just be happy to win - as usual. Vaughan should be going in at no. whatever for his county - not playing for his country. Bowling-wise I don't think anyone minds Hoggard not playing - a seriously dull cricketer.

A couple of points in answer to Aggers. 1stly, get off Strauss' back - whilst his ton in Napier wasn't the classiest in his career it was what was needed and contributed to a win. Watching the way the Kiwi's have batted so far in this game what wiould they give for someone to play an obstinate and griity innings like Strauss'. I'm sure that in difficult conditions then AS's determination will result in a good innings in what will be a low scoring game.
2ndly the only way Anderson will iron out the waywardness in his bowling is by bowling regurlarly in test cricket. What Jimmy brings to the game is sheer pace and okay if his expensive he will still get wickets, especially if the other bowlers are tight at the other end. Lets see Anderson complete a test series and see how his bowling improves.

England need to stop focusing on the ashes, its one series why do we have to put out teams of player who have bowled 50 overs in First Class Cricket because they have got "potential". I think the main thing Ryan Sidebottom has shown us is that doing the hard yards in country cricket pays off because the bowlers can bowl it in a straight line.

Simon Jones took 5 for 92 today. Where would he fit in again?

Provided there are at least 7 full sessions of play remaining, given any bad weather, New Zealand will win this test match by 104 runs. Any comments?