England v New Zealand, Headingley 29th May to 2nd June

After an England win that for much of the first four days looked unlikely we move up to Leeds for round 2.

England have added Plunkett to the squad either as cover for Wood, who has a poor fitness record, or maybe because the senior seamers may be a touch tired. Very much doubt we will see any changes to the starting XI however. Selectors will be hoping that Adam Lyth can get some runs at his home ground as lord alone knows where they go next. Lyth and Ballance will both be hoping to be in the runs - and England need them to as you cannot keep losing 3 or 4 cheap top order wickets.

New Zealand have their own issues. Anderson and Watling have caused the physios some concern, Craig did not look like an internationalk spinner and with Anderson's issues the 3 main seamers were perhaps overbowled.

I would add Bell to the list of batsmen needing a score. He has been very poor for 3 Tests now.

I very much doubt Plunkett will play - I assume he is cover for Wood, as I can't see England going into a live game without Broad and Anderson

Not sure what the options for NZ are if those two don't play, and must be a concern as they were their best batsmen in the second innings of the first Test

http://www.espncricinfo.com/blogs/content/story/881433.html

Weather doesn't look great for the duration of this Test.

And the draw is 13/8. Ho hum.

I am pretty sure it will be n unchanged England side. As has been said Lyth and Bell need runs and Ballance needs to rediscover a bit of form. Also with the ball Anderson will be after a better share of the wickets than he had at Lords. I am not sure how much of this match I'll be able to watch as have a busy few days coming up.

CaledonianCraig wrote:I am pretty sure it will be n unchanged England side. As has been said Lyth and Bell need runs and Ballance needs to rediscover a bit of form. Also with the ball Anderson will be after a better share of the wickets than he had at Lords. I am not sure how much of this match I'll be able to watch as have a busy few days coming up.

Well just leave your route map here and I'm sure Cook can follow it.

VTR wrote:I would add Bell to the list of batsmen needing a score. He has been very poor for 3 Tests now.

Was concentrating on Lyth and Ballance as it is a "home" test.

Hope the weather wouldn't create too much trouble. Unless there are fitness issues, there is no reason for England to change things around. For NZ though, there are fitness concerns already, both BJ Watling and Corey Anderson aren't sure starters for the next test. Though NZ would badly miss the fighting qualities of Watling the batsman, there is enough and more cover for him with the gloves, Latham is a domestic regular wicketkeeper, McCullum can keep of course, and then there is their ODI keeper Luke Ronchi in the squad who can come in if they don't want to put additional burden on their opener as well as the skipper. But Anderson's case is different, James Neesham is out injured, and though both Bracewell and Wagner are no slouches with the bat, they aren't all-rounders. With Craig who can be a bowling all-rounder not in the best of shape in terms of confidence and performance with ball and bat, it would be a tough call to go in with 5 bowlers. But think that is their only realistic option, already Southee, Boult and Henry had to bowl long in the first test. So perhaps Ronchi for Watling, and Bracewell, who is the better bat between Wagner and him to come in for Anderson.

guildfordbat wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:I am pretty sure it will be n unchanged England side. As has been said Lyth and Bell need runs and Ballance needs to rediscover a bit of form. Also with the ball Anderson will be after a better share of the wickets than he had at Lords. I am not sure how much of this match I'll be able to watch as have a busy few days coming up.

Well just leave your route map here and I'm sure Cook can follow it.

Depends how close a tab I can keep on things. I will try.

New Zealand were definitely lacking a 5th bowler at Lords so I reckon they will be very tempted if Anderson can't play/bowl. Wattling would be a big loss for them - alongside Williamson he's the only player who England probably don't fancy getting out. You'd think Ronchi would come in, but at 6 that leaves the batting a bit fragile. Another option may be to turn back to Rutherford (either as an opener, pushing Latham down if the latter takes the gloves, or down the order). Not sure about Rutherford in English conditions TBH.

England will name an unchanged XI unless there are injuries. I think that is a given. We all know what areas England will be keen to improve on: Lyth, Bell and to a lesser extent Ballance will want runs (that's 3 of your top 4, so unideal) and Moeen will want increased consistency with the ball.

Not sure pushing Latham down the order, even if for only 1 game, would be a smart idea. Opening combination, like the case with many sides, has been a problem area for New Zealand for long. Latham has brought some much needed stability to 1 half of the combination for the last year or so, there is absolutely no need to do a messing up job....... Besides, Rutherford has had his well documented issues, there is a reason why he's not in the playing side. If at all they want to bring him in, I would say use him in the middle order, leave Latham alone....... Either McCullum can take up the keeping responsibilities for 1 game, bat at 6 rather than 5, and Rutherford can come in at 5 perhaps. Or ask Latham to do the hard yards for one more game, open the batting and take the gloves........
But considering Rutherford's overall record and his technical issues, I'd rather have Ronchi in as wicketkeeper, and Bracewell in with the additional bowling that they lacked in the first test....... That can add further fire power to the bowling, and even make the likes of Tim Southee a better strike bowler.......

In the England lineup, the one player who need a score even more than Lyth or Ballance for that matter, is Ian Bell. Yes unless they take their unEnglishness from the last test to new levels, Bell would not get dropped at least up to the 2nd Ashes test even if he doesn't score a test run till then, but before and after his spectacular 2013 home Ashes, Bell has been patchy and inconsistent, and his recent failings have to be viewed in that light........

Can't disagree with any of that msp.

msp83 wrote:Either McCullum can take up the keeping responsibilities for 1 game

I thought McCullum's back was such that he cannot keep wicket.

Since the start of 2012, Bell averages 36.15 in 40 matches, with 6 hundred (3 of which were in the last home Ashes series)

Let's be honest, that is not very good over a long period now, and I fail to believe there aren't plenty of other players who wouldn't give at least similar returns, but with the potential to improve

With the ashes around the corner, and us having to bed in Lyth, or another opener, Bell's place will be secure for at least another three matches. Plus, he's bound to score a few sooner or later.

Stella wrote:With the ashes around the corner, and us having to bed in Lyth, or another opener, Bell's place will be secure for at least another three matches. Plus, he's bound to score a few sooner or later.

I agree he won't be dropped before the Ashes, no chance of that. The bound to score sooner or later seems to have been the argument keeping him in the team for most of his career!

VTR wrote:

Stella wrote:With the ashes around the corner, and us having to bed in Lyth, or another opener, Bell's place will be secure for at least another three matches. Plus, he's bound to score a few sooner or later.

I agree he won't be dropped before the Ashes, no chance of that. The bound to score sooner or later seems to have been the argument keeping him in the team for most of his career!

He won't be dropped until after the Ashes and even then he may keep his place - unless the selectors rapidly change their policy of being more lenient with long-term regulars out of form.

VTR wrote:

Stella wrote:With the ashes around the corner, and us having to bed in Lyth, or another opener, Bell's place will be secure for at least another three matches. Plus, he's bound to score a few sooner or later.

I agree he won't be dropped before the Ashes, no chance of that. The bound to score sooner or later seems to have been the argument keeping him in the team for most of his career!

I would guess his place is his for another three tests after this one. Of course this is result depending. If we are three up (never gonna happen) but his form is still patchy, then he'll probably keep his place, but if we're two-three down then maybe not. All guess work of course. He's a classy player, and will surely score a few.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

VTR wrote:

Stella wrote:With the ashes around the corner, and us having to bed in Lyth, or another opener, Bell's place will be secure for at least another three matches. Plus, he's bound to score a few sooner or later.

I agree he won't be dropped before the Ashes, no chance of that. The bound to score sooner or later seems to have been the argument keeping him in the team for most of his career!

He won't be dropped until after the Ashes and even then he may keep his place - unless the selectors rapidly change their policy of being more lenient with long-term regulars out of form.

Well I think the policy is changing as England are re-building the team, the likes of Bell are not the future, and he bats in a position where there are alternatives such as Taylor, or the more outside bets of the likes of Roy and Vince.

Anyway, back to this Test, I wonder how much of a hand weather is going to play? If you take the forecast at face value, we could easily lose 150 overs of play from the match. So is the draw the favourite?

The weather does look bad. With us one up, England will be happier.

VTR wrote:Since the start of 2012, Bell averages 36.15 in 40 matches, with 6 hundred (3 of which were in the last home Ashes series)

Let's be honest, that is not very good over a long period now, and I fail to believe there aren't plenty of other players who wouldn't give at least similar returns, but with the potential to improve

True but the only immediate competition for his spot (KP aside who averages 38.7 in that period) is Bairstow who averages 27 in tests and Taylor who averages 16. In that light Bells form is not so shabby.
That said Bairstow is knocking pretty hard on the door with his county form, I guess it just depends if people trust him more than they do Bell. Dropping Bell would leave them desperately short on experience going into the ashes as well.
Its certainly not a call that was goign to be made now with a new coach set to come in, but it may be his first real decision if Bell fails again.

I would rather stick with Bell than bring in Bairstow, he's been given enough chances and failed every time.

I'm a Taylor fan.
#TaylorForBell

Unfortunately Taylor is having a pretty mediocre season so far. I guess if he hist a 300 against the worst county team ever then Strauss will have to break it to him that hes too short anyway.

Since every Tom, Dick and Harry have been hitting county triple tons all day every day, Strauss will have a tough time!!!

Msp - as you'll be interested, the only scorer of a triple ton this season has tweeted that he'll be playing in Surrey's CC match against Lancs starting on Sunday.

Thanks Guildford, will be following that game.......

If Eng were serious about their prospects in Ashes, then they could consolidate and bring KP in the middle order and move Bell to open.

I also likes the look of James Taylor...they should find a way of getting him in the palying 11 also.......in place of KP and Bell who-ever fails once they have played both as aforesaid

Because nothing quite screams being serious like moving a career #4-5 to opener, does it?

kingraf wrote:Because nothing quite screams being serious like moving a career #4-5 to opener, does it?

sehwag, dravid ,  laxman, langer, Mccullum,  and a number of other have opened and played in middle order.

while I agree you can't blindly put just anyone as an opener......you can however make out there are a number of batters especially at Nos 3 and 4 that can easily open because of their technique and/or overall game.....Bell, Amla, Pujara, Latham all fall in this category among contemporaries.

and if this  allows the team to get a super strong player in the 11....then this is what should be done.

Bell opening and KP at 3 or 4 is far stronger a side than a "musical-chair-opening" and Bell at 3 or 4 is a no brainer

[quote="KP_fan"]

kingraf wrote:

and if this  allows the team to get a super strong player in the 11....then this is what should be done.

Who is this super strong player who would come into the middle order? Its not some 35 year old who averages about the same as his age over the last few years is it?

Root can open. Let's move him, play Bell at three, therefore making way for Pietersen, and bat Ballance at six. Could be fun!!!

VTR wrote:

KP_fan wrote:

kingraf wrote:

and if this  allows the team to get a super strong player in the 11....then this is what should be done.

Who is this super strong player who would come into the middle order? Its not some 35 year old who averages about the same as his age over the last few years is it?

Wasn't that again Aus in a 5-0 whitewash when no one scored as many runs as he did on that tour.

Look....to keep him out on form / ability to score runs is delusional.
To keep him out for any other reasons is self detrimental

I don't think root should be touched from his no.5 where he has struck gold.
What can be done though to have likes or Moeen or Butler open in case Bell is absolutely unwilling.
These guys won't do worse than the 'musical chair ' opener......and allow a super strong batter to come in improving the overall strength of the side

KP_fan wrote:I don't think root should be touched from his no.5 where he has struck gold.
What can be done though to have likes or Moeen or Butler open in case Bell is absolutely unwilling.
These guys won't do worse than the 'musical chair ' opener......and allow a super strong batter to come in improving the overall strength of the side

I wasn't being serious.

KP_fan wrote:

VTR wrote:

KP_fan wrote:

kingraf wrote:

and if this  allows the team to get a super strong player in the 11....then this is what should be done.

Who is this super strong player who would come into the middle order? Its not some 35 year old who averages about the same as his age over the last few years is it?

Wasn't that again Aus in a 5-0 whitewash when no one scored as many runs as he did on that tour.

Look....to keep him out on form / ability to score runs is delusional.
To keep him out for any other reasons is self detrimental

So the least worst of an utter failure = super strong batsman. Ok, I get it now!

Raining currently in Leeds

and stopped, but much work to do and clouds still look threatening

Stella wrote:Root can open. Let's move him, play Bell at three, therefore making way for Pietersen, and bat Ballance at six. Could be fun!!!

Oh come on Stella - Buttler to 5, Moeen 6, Balance 7 and Stokes 8 makes much more sense

Why can't Jimmy open? He scored 80 odd about a year ago. Surely that makes him one of these "super strong players"

1) Moeen - well he does it in ODIs
2) Root - got a hundred once opening
3) Broad - needs a kick up the arse and Pietersen refuses to bat 3
4) Pietersen - because he is god
5) Morgan - Piers Morgan that is
6) Pietersen (C) - well england owe him this
7) Buttler - we need a keeper
8) Pietersen - purveyor of high quality spin
9) Wood- we need some bowlers
10) Pietersen - he once bowled seam up
11) Anderson - so he can get 400th wicket


sorted

We all know the reasons for not picking kp, and whether we agree or disagree that's the way it is for the foreseeable future and probably for good. Kp has also managed to divide the public's opinion with most people seeming to love or hate him. Indifference isn't often an emotion associated with the kp saga. However, I do wish people would stop pretending that in terms of ability kp isn't one of our best batsmen. He so clearly is and to suggest otherwise is quite frankly ridiculous and tends to cloud what is in reality quite a simple and clear cut decision.
Is he good enough for the team? Yes
Should he be selected for the team? No

End of story.

Anyway, enough about a bloke who will probably never play for England again.

How is the weather looking? It is pretty dire a bit down South in Nottingham

Back to drizzle, but light.

Once it stops will take some time to clear ground as there had been a lot of rain overnight. Hopefully an eartly lunch then start.

Cheers for the update. Perhaps we will get 3-4 hours in today? Surely a bowling day for whoever wins the toss.

Weather seems better further north. Don't believe it would be possible to have any cricket at Guildford Towers today!

Chucking it down here now - torrential rain! Incredible to think there could be play anywhere in the country today. Normally I'm a ''win the toss and bat or think about it and then bat'' man. However, even I accept today could be a bowling day!

Covers coming off, lots of work going on. Dark overhead but blue sky heading in.

Toss in 10 minutes, start at 13:30