England v New Zealand ODI series

[Yorkshire Blue]

Rashid's batting, rather than his bowling, is doing the impressing at the moment, but certainly a lot of people rate him highly. Munday also has a lot of pundits expecting big things, but at the moment we're dealing with potential, not the finished article in all the cases quoted above, and if just one or two of those five mentioned push on to challenge Monty, then I'll be delighted.

At the moment, I'd stick with Swann in ODI cricket. As for Middlebrook, I think two years ago he may have been a genuine contender, but he has been less impressive this season, and his batting has often gone off of the boil as well. I'd suggest that his place is under threat at Essex - presumably the only reason he retains it over Grant Flower when we are at full-strength is the fact that we lose money from the ECB when Flower plays.

Foster has proven over the past 18 months that he is becoming more than just a closer in one-day cricket - batting higher and higher up the order and contributing important half-centuries. His keeping is exceptional, and he is simply in a different league to the likes of Ambrose and Mustard. I think with Bell and Wright struggling at the top of the order, you could make a justified claim for Matt Prior to play as a specialist batsman in an opening role.

I was in no way suggesting Middlebrook for England. I'd be horrified if he got called up. Grant Flower is another canny bowler.

I couldn't see Foster batting above 7 in international cricket, although he'd make a fine no.7. However for the team to be balanced with Foster keeping we'd need a big hitter at no.s 6 and 8. Flintoff maybe at 6, but I'd be loathed to go for Mascarenhas, but we'd need someone with his explosiveness.

For that reason, I think the team is best balanced with Mustard, not a particularly good keeper and not the best batsman, but the best at performing the role of pinch-hitter.

I think Read is vastly over-rated. He was originally picked for his batting, but the legend of his keeping has grown with every match he's missed. He is a very conservative keeper and wouldn't go for a lot of the catches that Jones and later Prior put down.

 

[Exiled Shrimper]

I was in no way suggesting Middlebrook for England. I'd be horrified if he got called up. Grant Flower is another canny bowler.

I couldn't see Foster batting above 7 in international cricket, although he'd make a fine no.7. However for the team to be balanced with Foster keeping we'd need a big hitter at no.s 6 and 8. Flintoff maybe at 6, but I'd be loathed to go for Mascarenhas, but we'd need someone with his explosiveness.

For that reason, I think the team is best balanced with Mustard, not a particularly good keeper and not the best batsman, but the best at performing the role of pinch-hitter.

I think Read is vastly over-rated. He was originally picked for his batting, but the legend of his keeping has grown with every match he's missed. He is a very conservative keeper and wouldn't go for a lot of the catches that Jones and later Prior put down.

Foster is a much better batsman now than he was when last called up in 2001/2, though he's by no means top five in international terms. With his ability to close an innings, he could easily be interchangable with Flintoff at 6/7, given Freddie's recent struggles with the bat since returning from injury and throughout this season generally. With Swann (potentially progressing to Rashid in time) and Broad at 8/9, there's a strong tail.

As for Read, I still believe that he is a more compact and reliable 'keeper than any of the quartet recently used by England behind the stumps. When he was dropped after three Tests of the series in West Indies prior to the Ashes, I can't remember him making a mistake on what were notoriously uneven surfaces. However, I don't think, especially in one-day cricket, he is as good as Foster as a 'keeper-batsman.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

Foster is a much better batsman now than he was when last called up in 2001/2, though he's by no means top five in international terms. With his ability to close an innings, he could easily be interchangable with Flintoff at 6/7, given Freddie's recent struggles with the bat since returning from injury and throughout this season generally. With Swann (potentially progressing to Rashid in time) and Broad at 8/9, there's a strong tail.

As for Read, I still believe that he is a more compact and reliable 'keeper than any of the quartet recently used by England behind the stumps. When he was dropped after three Tests of the series in West Indies prior to the Ashes, I can't remember him making a mistake on what were notoriously uneven surfaces. However, I don't think, especially in one-day cricket, he is as good as Foster as a 'keeper-batsman.

Hmm, I'm not convinced by Swann at 8. Rashid's bowling unfortunately seems to have gone backwards this season and I think he remains very much a long term prospect.

Read was dropped prior to NZ and West Indies touring in 2004 (the summer England won all 7).

Keeping in the West Indies, he was standing back so the unevenness is less of a problem than late swing in England or humidity and cracked pitches in Sri Lanka.

 

[dloman]

and actually the bowler is entitled to stand his ground not the other way round

 

[C C Csiders]

I think it is wrong of Collingwood to apologise to NZ. Anything that winds Scott Styris and Vettori up in such a way is good in my book. DO you think the Aussies would not have appealed? Do you think they'd be apologising. And I reckon at least South Africa, Pakistan and probably India too would have appealed.

 

[BILLERICAY BLUE]

DO you think the Aussies would not have appealed? Do you think they'd be apologising. And I reckon at least South Africa, Pakistan and probably India too would have appealed.

They may well have appealed, but all would have been in the wrong (as Collingwood was last night). If you watch the replay closely, Elliott is trying to get away from Sidebottom, but it was like one of the times you walk towards someone in the street, and you both go the same way, while trying to avoid each other. The umpires were technically right to give Elliott out, but you could see on Benson's face that he thought Colly should withdraw the appeal. It's also not on to have a pop at NZ over the Murali incident, he (Murali) has played enough cricket to know that the ball wasn't anywhere near dead, and should have just waited. Plus McCullum had his back to the whole thing, and couldn't see what had happened.

 

[BILLERICAY BLUE]

Colly gets 4 match ban

Misses last ODI against NZ on Saturday, ODI against Scotland, 20/20 against SA, and 1st of 7 ODI's against SA. KP to captain ?

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

They may well have appealed, but all would have been in the wrong (as Collingwood was last night). If you watch the replay closely, Elliott is trying to get away from Sidebottom, but it was like one of the times you walk towards someone in the street, and you both go the same way, while trying to avoid each other. The umpires were technically right to give Elliott out, but you could see on Benson's face that he thought Colly should withdraw the appeal. It's also not on to have a pop at NZ over the Murali incident, he (Murali) has played enough cricket to know that the ball wasn't anywhere near dead, and should have just waited. Plus McCullum had his back to the whole thing, and couldn't see what had happened.

Surely if England should have withdrawn the appeal over Elliott, NZ should have withdrawn the appeal over Murali?

Elliott was taking a risky single and if he hadn't have collided with Sideshow there may have been a run-out anyway. I'd have a lot more sympathy if he was running directly towards the other end than running towards the ball. He knew he was in trouble, and whilst he didn't mean to collide with Sideshow, he certainly meant to make it a lot harder for England to run him out.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

Colly gets 4 match ban

Misses last ODI against NZ on Saturday, ODI against Scotland, 20/20 against SA, and 1st of 7 ODI's against SA. KP to captain ?

KP has been captaining at times, even when Colly has been on the field, so I'd have thought so. It will no doubt wind the Seth Afrikens up that he'll be captaining England against them.

I suspect the furore over the Elliott run-out didn't help Collingwood's pleas for leniency.

 

[BILLERICAY BLUE]

Surely if England should have withdrawn the appeal over Elliott, NZ should have withdrawn the appeal over Murali?

Elliott was taking a risky single and if he hadn't have collided with Sideshow there may have been a run-out anyway. I'd have a lot more sympathy if he was running directly towards the other end than running towards the ball. He knew he was in trouble, and whilst he didn't mean to collide with Sideshow, he certainly meant to make it a lot harder for England to run him out.

No, because Murali was being an idiot, should have known that the ball was still live, and it was all his own fault. Elliott was trying to get out of the way. Effectively, you are saying that he was trying to Obstruct the Fielder, which he wasn't. If you watch it, he trys to run straight, sees Sidey coming across his path, so veers to his right to avoid him, unfortuantely, Sidey also goes that way, hence the collision.

Just as an afterthought, had the tables been reversed, everybody would have been saying the Kiwis were cheating gits, and that our batter should have been reprieved.

I've played a lot of cricket at a pretty good standard, and I would have been appaled if we had got a wicket like that. If I had been captain, I would certainly have withdrawn the appeal.

 

[BILLERICAY BLUE]

I suspect the furore over the Elliott run-out didn't help Collingwood's pleas for leniency.

I don't think that came into it, he already had previous from a game last year.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

No, because Murali was being an idiot, should have known that the ball was still live, and it was all his own fault. Elliott was trying to get out of the way. Effectively, you are saying that he was trying to Obstruct the Fielder, which he wasn't. If you watch it, he trys to run straight, sees Sidey coming across his path, so veers to his right to avoid him, unfortuantely, Sidey also goes that way, hence the collision.

Just as an afterthought, had the tables been reversed, everybody would have been saying the Kiwis were cheating gits, and that our batter should have been reprieved.

I've played a lot of cricket at a pretty good standard, and I would have been appaled if we had got a wicket like that. If I had been captain, I would certainly have withdrawn the appeal.

Muse appears to have been the only one to complain when the boot was on the other foot.

http://www.shrimperzone.com/vb/showpost.php?p=491882&postcount=73
I don't remember Ian Smith saying KP should be recalled then.

 

[BILLERICAY BLUE]

http://www.shrimperzone.com/vb/showpost.php?p=491882&postcount=73
I don't remember Ian Smith saying KP should be recalled then.

Don't remember the incident to be honest.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

Don't remember the incident to be honest.

KP was run-out after he collided with the bowler, Pollock, who was standing there doing nothing in particular.

KP wasn't called back, nor was there any suggestion that he should have been.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

Colly gets 4 match ban

Misses last ODI against NZ on Saturday, ODI against Scotland, 20/20 against SA, and 1st of 7 ODI's against SA. KP to captain ?

KP confirmed as captain. Strauss called up as cover.

 

[number11]

KP was run-out after he collided with the bowler, Pollock, who was standing there doing nothing in particular.

KP wasn't called back, nor was there any suggestion that he should have been.

Indeed, from what I recall of that incident there was no great outcry for him to be called back, just rotten luck. I think the only difference was that KP was closer to getting back, whearas Elliott was a lame duck and England took the bails of in slow motion, which really emphasised the collision.

Personally, I would not have taken that as a run out (unless it was against the Aussies, which means Im no great idealist!), but Ive noticed it for years that the bowler will run across the ball, or in line with the stumps to make the run out difficult and the fielding side has generally accepted this dubious conduct.

On a different note, but still on minor infringements...what is the position regarding double hits. I always thought this was a mode of dismissal, but regularly now you see a batsman against a spinner block a shot into the ground and then tap the ball away to prevent it spinning back onto the stumps......is this allowed or has it just been allowed by convention?

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

Indeed, from what I recall of that incident there was no great outcry for him to be called back, just rotten luck. I think the only difference was that KP was closer to getting back, whearas Elliott was a lame duck and England took the bails of in slow motion, which really emphasised the collision.

Personally, I would not have taken that as a run out (unless it was against the Aussies, which means Im no great idealist!), but Ive noticed it for years that the bowler will run across the ball, or in line with the stumps to make the run out difficult and the fielding side has generally accepted this dubious conduct.

On a different note, but still on minor infringements...what is the position regarding double hits. I always thought this was a mode of dismissal, but regularly now you see a batsman against a spinner block a shot into the ground and then tap the ball away to prevent it spinning back onto the stumps......is this allowed or has it just been allowed by convention?

You are allowed to hit it twice to protect your wicket.

http://www.lords.org/laws-and-spirit/laws-of-cricket/laws/law-34-hit-the-ball-twice,60,AR.html

 

[The Big Shrimp]

Indeed, from what I recall of that incident there was no great outcry for him to be called back, just rotten luck. I think the only difference was that KP was closer to getting back, whearas Elliott was a lame duck and England took the bails of in slow motion, which really emphasised the collision.

Personally, I would not have taken that as a run out (unless it was against the Aussies, which means Im no great idealist!), but Ive noticed it for years that the bowler will run across the ball, or in line with the stumps to make the run out difficult and the fielding side has generally accepted this dubious conduct.

On a different note, but still on minor infringements...what is the position regarding double hits. I always thought this was a mode of dismissal, but regularly now you see a batsman against a spinner block a shot into the ground and then tap the ball away to prevent it spinning back onto the stumps......is this allowed or has it just been allowed by convention?

I guessing you mean batsman, as you often see batsmen divert & cover their stumps in a more subtle way than the Inzaman YouTube example I showed earlier.

Whilst taking my umpiring exams I was told that if a player is running in a straight line i.e. up one side of the pitch, & then deviates towards the stumps to stop the ball from hitting the stumps, he is deemed to have done this wilfully. Upon an appeal by the fielding side you can give the batsman out for obstructing the field.

The key word is wilfully & I defy anybody to say that either players actions were deliberate!

 

[number11]

You are allowed to hit it twice to protect your wicket.

http://www.lords.org/laws-and-spirit/laws-of-cricket/laws/law-34-hit-the-ball-twice,60,AR.html

Ah cheers for that....so is hitting the ball twice a mode of dismissal or am I going mad? And if so I guess it only refers to trying to score runs by hitting it twice? Seems odd that they deem trying to gain runs a greater no no then saving your wicket by hitting it twice, and that handling the ball to divert the ball is worse then using your bat to do it (albeit using the bat may require more skill!).

 

[The Big Shrimp]

Ah cheers for that....so is hitting the ball twice a mode of dismissal or am I going mad? And if so I guess it only refers to trying to score runs by hitting it twice? Seems odd that they deem trying to gain runs a greater no no then saving your wicket by hitting it twice, and that handling the ball to divert the ball is worse then using your bat to do it (albeit using the bat may require more skill!).

Yes it is! Most examples that you would think of would normally be adjudged as obstructing the field!