New Zealand vs England 2013 - Series Page

First topic message reminder :

While we'll likely have individual match threads, I figured I'd set this up for general pre-series stuff.

Tour fixtures:

Spoiler:

An NZ XI squad has been named for the tour opener T20s:
Andrew Ellis (capt), Anton Devcich, Colin Munro, Hamish Rutherford, Ian Butler, Jimmy Neesham, Luke Ronchi, Matthew Henry, Michael Bates, Neil Broom, Neil Wagner, Nick Beard, Ross Taylor, Tom Latham

NZ T20 squad:
Brendon McCullum (capt),
Trent Boult,
Ian Butler,
Grant Elliott,
Andrew Ellis,
James Franklin,
Martin Guptill,
Roneel Hira,
Mitchell McClenaghan,
Nathan McCullum,
Colin Munro,
Hamish Rutherford,
Ross Taylor

NZ One-day squad:
Brendon McCullum (capt),
Trent Boult,
Grant Elliott,
Andrew Ellis,
James Franklin,
Martin Guptill,
Mitchell McClenaghan,
Nathan McCullum,
Kyle Mills,
Colin Munro,
Ross Taylor,
BJ Watling,
Kane Williamson


England T20 Squad
Stuart Broad (captain),
Jonny Bairstow,
Danny Briggs,
Jos Buttler,
Jade Dernbach,
Steven Finn,
Alex Hales,
Michael Lumb,
Stuart Meaker,
Eoin Morgan,
Samit Patel,
James Tredwell,
Chris Woakes,
Luke Wright.

England ODI Squad
Alastair Cook (captain),
James Anderson,
Jonny Bairstow,
Ian Bell,
Stuart Broad,
Jos Buttler,
Steven Finn,
James Harris,
Eoin Morgan,
Samit Patel,
Joe Root,
Graeme Swann,
James Tredwell,
Jonathan Trott,
Chris Woakes.

England Test Squad
Alastair Cook (capt),
Nick Compton,
Jonathan Trott,
Kevin Pietersen,
Ian Bell,
Joe Root,
Jonny Bairstow,
Matt Prior,
Chris Woakes,
Stuart Broad,
Graeme Swann,
Steven Finn,
James Anderson,
Monty Panesar,
Graham Onions

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:

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.

True. And I'm expecting a complete pasting in the tests regardless of who opens - McCullum at 5 may just give him a chance to re-find his test mojo though. The limited overs stuff, (especially with no KP) should be pretty close - England have just shown in India that they have some issues with team balance to work on in limited overs. Also, Jan/Feb pitches in NZ won't be green seamers given the summer NZ's having. There may be a bit more juice in the tracks by March though.

But there is a difference in the quality of the SA and England pace attacks. With SA there are 3 quality matchwinning pace bowlers who are consistently doing the business for SA, whereas with the England attack it is only Anderson that seems capable of taking the wickets consistently with the support bowlers of Finn, Broad and Bresnan being very erratic and inconsistent. As for the NZ team, I don't think Guptill should play as he is very vulnerable to the away swinger due to his tendency to play the ball with his hands a long away from his body.

Well, almost certainly no Vettori for March http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/cricket/8238005/Daniel-Vettoris-test-chances-remain-slim, while Southee isn't a definite starter either

Just found out on the cricinfo website that there are 2 more South African born players which play their cricket in NZ and are eligible for the Black Caps in test cricket. Carl Cachopa born in Bloemfontein currently plays for Central Districts whilst his brother Craig Cachopa currently plays for Auckland having previously been the NZ U-19 captain. So with these 2 brothers together with guys like Grant Elliott and Kruger Van Wyk, NZ if they want can select a playing XI which contains more Saffa born players than what England will select in their XI !

i doubt Van Wyk will get back into the side..

BJ Watling is doing a very good job in the side.

gboycottnut wrote:Just found out on the cricinfo website that there are 2 more South African born players which play their cricket in NZ and are eligible for the Black Caps in test cricket. Carl Cachopa born in Bloemfontein currently plays for Central Districts whilst his brother Craig Cachopa currently plays for Auckland having previously been the NZ U-19 captain. So with these 2 brothers together with guys like Grant Elliott and Kruger Van Wyk, NZ if they want can select a playing XI which contains more Saffa born players than what England will select in their XI !

I've been talking about the three Cachopa brothers on here for weeks GBN (Brad plays for Otago)

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.

I know he is not fit anyway but Vettori in a 4 man attack is a non option. When you pick only 4 bowlers, they all have to be wicket keepers. Vettori can play as the allrounder but he has to bat in the top 7 and plays as the 5th bowler, allowing them to play 4 frontline seamers.

I can't see how a critic of Harbhajan advocate the inclusion of Vettori in a 4 man attack.

ShankyCricket wrote:

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.

I know he is not fit anyway but Vettori in a 4 man attack is a non option. When you pick only 4 bowlers, they all have to be wicket keepers. Vettori can play as the allrounder but he has to bat in the top 7 and plays as the 5th bowler, allowing them to play 4 frontline seamers.

I can't see how a critic of Harbhajan advocate the inclusion of Vettori in a 4 man attack.

Well, there is a difference between Harbhajan and Vetori.
First, R Ashwin, even when not being a top class typical Indian spinner, at the moment is a better option than Bhaji is. New Zealand don't have many better spinners than Vetori, not Jeetan Patel, not Tod Astle.
Second, Vetori is an all-rounder, while Harbhajan is just a capable slogger.
Third, NZ has a decent pace bowling unit, and Vetori, even when he doesn't take too many wickets, can keep an end quiet and help the seamers, India on the other hand doesn't have such quality in the other bowlers.
But unfortunately, this debate is a non-starter, as Vetori won't be available for the series.

Again, I have no problem with Vettori in the side as an allrounder/5th bowler. He should not be the 4th bowler however.

That says more about New Zealands batting optoins than anyting else though. Itd be like England resorting to picking Samit Patel.....oh wait

ShankyCricket wrote:Again, I have no problem with Vettori in the side as an allrounder/5th bowler. He should not be the 4th bowler however.

Shanky, do you think Niel Wagner, Jeetan Patel, Tod Astle or even the Fantom offer a great deal more than Vetori with the ball at this stage? I doubt, although the Fantom is the greatest entertainer with the bat in the world.
Southee, Boult and Bracewell could form a pretty decent pace unit, Vetori's control with the ball would suit that attack very well, even if he plays as the 4th bowler.

guys on the sky sports website, there is a blog from Bumble on why Rikki Clarke should be in the test side....must admit its a good read, and i tend to agree with him.

msp83 wrote:

ShankyCricket wrote:Again, I have no problem with Vettori in the side as an allrounder/5th bowler. He should not be the 4th bowler however.

Shanky, do you think Niel Wagner, Jeetan Patel, Tod Astle or even the Fantom offer a great deal more than Vetori with the ball at this stage? I doubt, although the Fantom is the greatest entertainer with the bat in the world.
Southee, Boult and Bracewell could form a pretty decent pace unit, Vetori's control with the ball would suit that attack very well, even if he plays as the 4th bowler.

Yes, Wagner certainly does. Vettori was absolutely awful in the WI. McClenaghan is another option. Mark Gillespie is not too shabby either.

ShankyCricket wrote:

msp83 wrote:

ShankyCricket wrote:Again, I have no problem with Vettori in the side as an allrounder/5th bowler. He should not be the 4th bowler however.

Shanky, do you think Niel Wagner, Jeetan Patel, Tod Astle or even the Fantom offer a great deal more than Vetori with the ball at this stage? I doubt, although the Fantom is the greatest entertainer with the bat in the world.
Southee, Boult and Bracewell could form a pretty decent pace unit, Vetori's control with the ball would suit that attack very well, even if he plays as the 4th bowler.

Yes, Wagner certainly does. Vettori was absolutely awful in the WI. McClenaghan is another option. Mark Gillespie is not too shabby either.

Of course Vetori had a pretty poor series in the West Indies, but he has been playing cricket for 13 years at the highest level.
Wagner has the potential, but doesn't look a world beater, besides, he goes for a few. Gillespie did have his chance, and never did enough to command a regular test place. McClenaghan has natural tallent, but his test match temprament has to be explored.
Besides, even England, Australia, or South Africa, all sides with much better pace bowling depth, do not usually go into a test match with 4 seamers.
New Zealand is pretty light on their batting, an extra batsman is something they would need more often than not. Vetori is certainly capable of batting 7, or even 6 for New Zealand, but they need the batting depth that they would get by having him at 8. And even when he's not at his best, he is better than Jeetan Patel.

Vettori has 360 test wickets and 4516 runs at test level...

crazy that his place in the test side is being questioned!

I don't think anyone is suggesting a fit Daniel Vettori shouldn't be in the playing XI. If only because at the moment he is clearly amongst the best 6 or 7 New Zealand batsmen anyway. What Shanky is saying is that he doesn't anymore possess enough threat with his bowling to play as part of a 4-man attack; what msp is saying is that even if he doesn't possess the same threat that he used to, his containing skills are still enough to allow him to bowl long spells whilst the other 3 bowlers rotate.

I think both points of view have merit, but would be uncomfortable trying to take 17+ wickets with only 3 bowlers, which is realistically what you are asking if you pick Vettori as part of a 4-man attack, even more so when the other 3 bowlers are largely young (so prone to breaking down) and fairly inexperienced. Historically, when a side has been forced to pick a containing spinner because of a lack of other options and done so with a measure of success, they have had 5 bowlers (SA with Kallis, England with Flintoff).

Of course Patel is not actually more threatening than Vettori, and a considerably worse batsman, so I wouldn't pick him as part of a 4-man attack either. I'd go for 4 seamers. If absolutely necessary, Williamson or even Guptil can bowl a few overs.

Harbhajan Singh has over 400 wickets at Test level and yet I have seen the hypocrite in you say that he's "finished" at Test level. I think we were talking about current form, CF, FFS!

Mike Selig wrote:I don't think anyone is suggesting a fit Daniel Vettori shouldn't be in the playing XI. If only because at the moment he is clearly amongst the best 6 or 7 New Zealand batsmen anyway. What Shanky is saying is that he doesn't anymore possess enough threat with his bowling to play as part of a 4-man attack; what msp is saying is that even if he doesn't possess the same threat that he used to, his containing skills are still enough to allow him to bowl long spells whilst the other 3 bowlers rotate.

I think both points of view have merit, but would be uncomfortable trying to take 17+ wickets with only 3 bowlers, which is realistically what you are asking if you pick Vettori as part of a 4-man attack, even more so when the other 3 bowlers are largely young (so prone to breaking down) and fairly inexperienced. Historically, when a side has been forced to pick a containing spinner because of a lack of other options and done so with a measure of success, they have had 5 bowlers (SA with Kallis, England with Flintoff).

Of course Patel is not actually more threatening than Vettori, and a considerably worse batsman, so I wouldn't pick him as part of a 4-man attack either. I'd go for 4 seamers. If absolutely necessary, Williamson or even Guptil can bowl a few overs.

now that Watling and Brownline are back in NZ side, Vettori wont bat 7, but i would still pick him in the side, i wouldnt write him off just yet, and i think NZ as a side lift, when Vettori is in the side. Patel is useful back up.

msp83 wrote:

ShankyCricket wrote:

msp83 wrote:

ShankyCricket wrote:Again, I have no problem with Vettori in the side as an allrounder/5th bowler. He should not be the 4th bowler however.

Shanky, do you think Niel Wagner, Jeetan Patel, Tod Astle or even the Fantom offer a great deal more than Vetori with the ball at this stage? I doubt, although the Fantom is the greatest entertainer with the bat in the world.
Southee, Boult and Bracewell could form a pretty decent pace unit, Vetori's control with the ball would suit that attack very well, even if he plays as the 4th bowler.

Yes, Wagner certainly does. Vettori was absolutely awful in the WI. McClenaghan is another option. Mark Gillespie is not too shabby either.

Of course Vetori had a pretty poor series in the West Indies, but he has been playing cricket for 13 years at the highest level.
Wagner has the potential, but doesn't look a world beater, besides, he goes for a few. Gillespie did have his chance, and never did enough to command a regular test place. McClenaghan has natural tallent, but his test match temprament has to be explored.
Besides, even England, Australia, or South Africa, all sides with much better pace bowling depth, do not usually go into a test match with 4 seamers.
New Zealand is pretty light on their batting, an extra batsman is something they would need more often than not. Vetori is certainly capable of batting 7, or even 6 for New Zealand, but they need the batting depth that they would get by having him at 8. And even when he's not at his best, he is better than Jeetan Patel.

I don't think that's fair at all. He took 11 wickets in 2 tests versus South Africa last year in his comeback series and then got injured. His Test bowling average of 28 isn't bad at all.

msp83 wrote:

ShankyCricket wrote:

msp83 wrote:

ShankyCricket wrote:Again, I have no problem with Vettori in the side as an allrounder/5th bowler. He should not be the 4th bowler however.

Shanky, do you think Niel Wagner, Jeetan Patel, Tod Astle or even the Fantom offer a great deal more than Vetori with the ball at this stage? I doubt, although the Fantom is the greatest entertainer with the bat in the world.
Southee, Boult and Bracewell could form a pretty decent pace unit, Vetori's control with the ball would suit that attack very well, even if he plays as the 4th bowler.

Yes, Wagner certainly does. Vettori was absolutely awful in the WI. McClenaghan is another option. Mark Gillespie is not too shabby either.

Of course Vetori had a pretty poor series in the West Indies, but he has been playing cricket for 13 years at the highest level.
Wagner has the potential, but doesn't look a world beater, besides, he goes for a few. Gillespie did have his chance, and never did enough to command a regular test place. McClenaghan has natural tallent, but his test match temprament has to be explored.
Besides, even England, Australia, or South Africa, all sides with much better pace bowling depth, do not usually go into a test match with 4 seamers.
New Zealand is pretty light on their batting, an extra batsman is something they would need more often than not. Vetori is certainly capable of batting 7, or even 6 for New Zealand, but they need the batting depth that they would get by having him at 8. And even when he's not at his best, he is better than Jeetan Patel.

Eh? He has played only 5 Tests and averages a shade under 29.

CF wrote:now that Watling and Brownline are back in NZ side, Vettori wont bat 7, but i would still pick him in the side, i wouldnt write him off just yet, and i think NZ as a side lift, when Vettori is in the side. Patel is useful back up.

Fair enough but its by no means crazy to question his place as a specialist bowler. We're talking about current form here. Quoting career stats means zilch.

msp83 wrote:

ShankyCricket wrote:

msp83 wrote:

ShankyCricket wrote:Again, I have no problem with Vettori in the side as an allrounder/5th bowler. He should not be the 4th bowler however.

Shanky, do you think Niel Wagner, Jeetan Patel, Tod Astle or even the Fantom offer a great deal more than Vetori with the ball at this stage? I doubt, although the Fantom is the greatest entertainer with the bat in the world.
Southee, Boult and Bracewell could form a pretty decent pace unit, Vetori's control with the ball would suit that attack very well, even if he plays as the 4th bowler.

Yes, Wagner certainly does. Vettori was absolutely awful in the WI. McClenaghan is another option. Mark Gillespie is not too shabby either.

Of course Vetori had a pretty poor series in the West Indies, but he has been playing cricket for 13 years at the highest level.
Wagner has the potential, but doesn't look a world beater, besides, he goes for a few. Gillespie did have his chance, and never did enough to command a regular test place. McClenaghan has natural tallent, but his test match temprament has to be explored.
Besides, even England, Australia, or South Africa, all sides with much better pace bowling depth, do not usually go into a test match with 4 seamers.
New Zealand is pretty light on their batting, an extra batsman is something they would need more often than not. Vetori is certainly capable of batting 7, or even 6 for New Zealand, but they need the batting depth that they would get by having him at 8. And even when he's not at his best, he is better than Jeetan Patel.

I'm not sure SA have better pace bowling depth than NZ. Their first choice attack is of course better, but I think NZ have better reserves than Kleinveldt and Mclaren (who are SA's reserve seamers atm).

As far as McClenaghan is concerned, he has been consistent in NZ domestic cricket and his Test match potential can only be explored if he is given a chance. Its hard to see how he can do possibly worse than Vettori in terms of wicket taking. I don't see whats the harm in giving him a go? I am of the believe that in a 4 man attack, all 4 bowlers have to be genuine wicket takers. A containing bowler is fine in a 5 man attack (which is why I'd pick Vettori as the 5th bowler) and let 4 seamers attack.

I like McClenaghan (what I've seen so far). Boult and Southee are good bowlers also, and Bracewell shows promise. None of them are world beaters though.

I guess if everyone's fit and willing:
Williamson
McCullum
Guptil
Taylor
Brownlie
Wattling
Vettori
Bracewell
Southee
McClenaghan
Boult

I worry about the top 3, but the rest is reasonable IMO.

With Vettori injured, I'd honestly just pick an extra batsman (Ronchi? NOT Ryder) rather than someone like Franklin or Munro...

Would pick Redmond over Guptill but agree with the rest.

Mike Selig wrote:I like McClenaghan (what I've seen so far). Boult and Southee are good bowlers also, and Bracewell shows promise. None of them are world beaters though.

I guess if everyone's fit and willing:
Williamson
McCullum
Guptil
Taylor
Brownlie
Wattling
Vettori
Bracewell
Southee
McClenaghan
Boult

I worry about the top 3, but the rest is reasonable IMO.

With Vettori injured, I'd honestly just pick an extra batsman (Ronchi? NOT Ryder) rather than someone like Franklin or Munro...

Well with Vettori injured I guess NZ's best bet would be to play 4 frontline pace/seamers for their frontline bowling unit. So this for me this would be a decent NZ team that can give England a run for their money in the tests :-

1 Franklin (to play the Luke Watson type role V England)
2 Watling
3 Brownlie
4 Taylor
5 Williamson
6 Ronchi
7 Munro
8 Bracewell
9 Southee
10 Bolt
11 Milne


So that is a 4 man pace attack of Southee and Bolt with the new ball, Bracewell as first change and Milne as the 4th pace bowler.

Interesting that NZ could conceivably end up playing 3 keepers, does display the issue they have with batting depth (part time boxers aside)

Have England ever played Buttler, Keiswetter, Bairstow and Morgan in the same limited overs side?

*edit : yes of course they did for most of last years T20s

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Interesting that NZ could conceivably end up playing 3 keepers, does display the issue they have with batting depth (part time boxers aside)

Have England ever played Buttler, Keiswetter, Bairstow and Morgan in the same limited overs side?

*edit : yes of course they did for most of last years T20s

One Plunkett Shield match pre-Xmas Auckland had 5 wicket keepers batting in their top 7! Reece Young, Craig Cachopa, Gareth Hopkins, Phil Mustard and (ok a small stretch) Lou Vincent



Ross Taylor has been named in the NZ limited overs squads to face England:

Twenty20 squad Brendon McCullum (capt), Trent Boult, Ian Butler, Grant Elliott, Andrew Ellis, James Franklin, Martin Guptill, Roneel Hira, Mitchell McClenaghan, Nathan McCullum, Colin Munro, Hamish Rutherford, Ross Taylor

One-day squad Brendon McCullum (capt), Trent Boult, Grant Elliott, Andrew Ellis, James Franklin, Martin Guptill, Mitchell McClenaghan, Nathan McCullum, Kyle Mills, Colin Munro, Ross Taylor, BJ Watling, Kane Williamson


23 year old opener Hamish (son of Ken) Rutherford has been called up for the T20s as well, while Andrew Ellis and Ian Butler earn recalls, while Tim Southee and Corey Anderson are still sidelined with injury.

good to see Ross Taylor is back in limited overs squads, but they need him back in tests desperately.[b]

Warm up T20 for England tomorrow against a 'New Zealand XI' at 4 in the morning live on Sky Sports 1.

Duty281 wrote:Warm up T20 for England tomorrow against a 'New Zealand XI' at 4 in the morning live on Sky Sports 1.

Match was washed out with the NZ XI 70/1 after 9 as the NZ habit of scheduling cricket matches to to break droughts paid off again (there had been no rain in the whole of NZ for 10 days prior to yesterday )

As a result they're going to replay the match tomorrow

Jade Dernbach hit form with a cracking 12 off one over.

Harris has been sent out early to cover for Meaker whos had an injury

Hamish Rutherford looks a very promising batsman for NZ. With him being left-handed as well, he could well play in this upcoming test series V England as an opener to partner BJ Watling.

gboycottnut wrote:Hamish Rutherford looks a very promising batsman for NZ. With him being left-handed as well, he could well play in this upcoming test series V England as an opener to partner BJ Watling.

Potentially yes, though I don't think he's quite ready for tests yet - he's only played 19 first class matches, and only really established himself in the Otago 1st class side this season. And given the way his father's early career was wrecked by being chucked in at the deep end vs the Windies quicks ...

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:

gboycottnut wrote:Hamish Rutherford looks a very promising batsman for NZ. With him being left-handed as well, he could well play in this upcoming test series V England as an opener to partner BJ Watling.

Potentially yes, though I don't think he's quite ready for tests yet - he's only played 19 first class matches, and only really established himself in the Otago 1st class side this season. And given the way his father's early career was wrecked by being chucked in at the deep end vs the Windies quicks ...

Agreed.. I'd pick Aaron Redmond.

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Warm up T20 for England tomorrow against a 'New Zealand XI' at 4 in the morning live on Sky Sports 1.

Match was washed out with the NZ XI 70/1 after 9 as the NZ habit of scheduling cricket matches to to break droughts paid off again (there had been no rain in the whole of NZ for 10 days prior to yesterday )

As a result they're going to replay the match tomorrow

England XI won quite easily in the end. They made 186/3 off 20 overs (Wright 44, Morgan 48, Buttler 57) and bowled New Zealand XI out for 140.

Broad 3-22, Woakes 3-27, Dernbach 3-24

Buttler 57 off 24

That's a bit better!

Broad took a hat-trick to finish the innings. I'm quite underwhelmed by that to be honest given it was a warm-up match against questionable opposition.

trouble is we already know Wright and Buttler can devastate mediocre sides, theyve yet to prove they can really do it on a vaguely regular basis in internationals

england lost today's game....

Buttler and Morgan made 50's...

Finn's temper nearly boiled over, with frustaration at the umpire...he called 2 no-balls....and the first one clearly wasnt a no-ball.

Finn out-performed Dernbach in the battle of the crap figures. 1-44 from 4, Dernbach 1-38. Looks like it was the bowling that let us down today with Tredwell also going for 44 from his 4.

England started their four-day warm-up today against a New Zealand XI - England 357/7 at stumps, Bell's on 127*.

Good first day of warm-up. Compton and KP could have done with a bit more time in the middle, but the batting line-up is settled.

I guess the issue will be whether Onions or Woakes can make a good case for being picked ahead of Broad.

Ian Bell back to his best....

drop Compton,open with Root and bring bairstow in!

CF wrote:Ian Bell back to his best....

drop Compton,open with Root and bring bairstow in!

Compton deserves to play this series at least imo

chrisss wrote:

CF wrote:Ian Bell back to his best....

drop Compton,open with Root and bring bairstow in!

Compton deserves to play this series at least imo

Yep. Played well in India. Maybe deserves two tests, if I was a selector and he failed in both.

Compton did enough to stay in the Test team. Root has only played one Test match so far! Yes, he's done well in the limited overs now as well but lets not pin all our hopes on him just yet.

6 seems ideal to me to bring a young player into the team in the toughest format. He will rise up that batting order pretty rapidly if he's as good as everyone thinks.

Compton deserves to play in this series for me. Compton to open, Root at 6, Broad to just about hang on to his spot. Meaning my team for the first Test would be:

Cook, Compton, Trott, KP, Bell, Root, Prior, Broad, Swann, Anderson, Finn.

6 warm-up Test at the Kiwis, before 10 at the Aussies! I already feel drained.

VTR wrote:Compton did enough to stay in the Test team. Root has only played one Test match so far! Yes, he's done well in the limited overs now as well but lets not pin all our hopes on him just yet.

6 seems ideal to me to bring a young player into the team in the toughest format. He will rise up that batting order pretty rapidly if he's as good as everyone thinks.

A vital factor to consider about whether to use Compton or Root as the opener for the ashes is whether how good they are at playing fiery hostile pace bowling which is the Aussies main strength in their bowling attack. Personally I would have someone like Trott moving up to open the batting, moving Pietersen to 3, Bell at 4 and bringing in either Bairstow or James Taylor to bat at 5 with Root at 6. In any case, things are really healthy for England in terms of the batting depth/options available to the head coach and selectors now unlike was the case after the disastrious Headingley test match in 2009 when the selectors lost complete faith in Ravi Bopara as a number 3 batsman and even more worrying was that there was no Kevin Pietersen either for that final test match at the Oval.

I doubt we're going to find out from playing NZ who is best at dealing with fiery fast bowling. By the time The Ashes comes round all these young quicks could be back on the operating table. They might end up with a bowling attack of something like Ben Hilfenhaus, Mitchell Johnson, Stuart Clark and Beau Casson!

VTR wrote:I doubt we're going to find out from playing NZ who is best at dealing with fiery fast bowling. By the time The Ashes comes round all these young quicks could be back on the operating table. They might end up with a bowling attack of something like Ben Hilfenhaus, Mitchell Johnson, Stuart Clark and Beau Casson!

Well NZ if they really want to can play a unit of really fast bowlers with good hostile pace. Adam Milne is NZ's fastest bowler at the moment, with others like Mitchell McClenaghan, Trent Bolt and Neil Wagner there as well for candidates in a NZ all-out pace attack.