England v NZ, 3rd Test, Trent Bridge, 5th-9th June

Anderson's analysis of 7-43 is the best by an England bowler since Harmison's 7-12 at Sabina Park in March 2004 and the best in a home Test since Devon Malcolm's 9-52 against the Saffies at The Oval in August 1994.

Allan D wrote:

Botham's lacuna against the strongest attack of his era throws a long shadow over his claim to be considered a great all-rounder.

His stats against the West Indies might not be as good as they were against other countries, but they weren't awful and can't take away his status as a great all rounder. You only had to watch him bowl or bat to see that.

At his prime I think he was the best all rounder out of the 4 in that era, but taking his whole career into account I'd but him at 3rd.

Poorer day from England - the bowling looks a bit rubbish when the batsman start to play properly. Broad was probably the pick of the bowlers, but he needs to hit off-stump more often and cut out the buffet balls if he wants to become a top bowler. Has a lot of ability, et cetera, but needs to grow up quickly if he doesn't want to be chucked out (them England's selectors ruthless when it comes to bowlers, I'll have you know, unless they're called James and have nice hair) on his ear soon-ish.

Anyway, a comfortable victory tomorrow followed by Vaughan mouthing off about the exciting, new, young bowling attack. Probably the "A" word will be thrown into the conversation a few more times than is appropriate. Then he'll stand-up for the out-of-form batsman, mentioning how the ODIs are a chance for them to regain form. Yes...Ian Bell, that monolith of hope and light in the limited-overs game, will regain his form. Anyway, I'm conjecturing, though I'm quietly confident that the England selectors will bend the rules to accomodate certain players if they perform well in different forms of the game. Remember Chris Read being dropped from the Test side after a poor Champions' Trophy?

vilkrang wrote:

Allan D wrote:

Botham's lacuna against the strongest attack of his era throws a long shadow over his claim to be considered a great all-rounder.

His stats against the West Indies might not be as good as they were against other countries, but they weren't awful and can't take away his status as a great all rounder. You only had to watch him bowl or bat to see that.

At his prime I think he was the best all rounder out of the 4 in that era, but taking his whole career into account I'd but him at 3rd.

One canot explain Botham's performance without considering the influence of Mike Brearley. It is no coincidence that his most outstanding all-round match performance with both bat and ball, first rescuing England from collapse and then turning the match around came in the Golden Jubilee Test at Mumbai in 1980 which was Brearley's intended final interbnational appearance. His total loss of form in 1980-1 was not only accountable by his premature assumption of the captaincy (Peter Willey would have made a far better choice) but also by the absence of Brearley. His renaissance coincided precisely with Brearley's return in 1981. After Brearley's second retirement Botham only performed fitfully and never ascended the heights he had scaled under Brearley.

Like Rhodes, Botham's Test career can be divided into phases. The first phase from 1977-80 was Botham's development as a significant allrounder under Brearley's tutelage. The second phase was his 12-match captaincy in 1980-1 which even his strongest supporters would describe as dismal. This was followed by his annus mirabilis after Brearley's return. After Brearley's second retirement there was a gradual decline resulting in his off-the-field behaviour in 1986 on both the West Indies tour and at home receiving more attention than his moderate on-field performances.

My own reaction to Botham at this time was totally negative. His connection with a dodgy agent and his stated desire to launch a Hollywood career, like some latter-day C.Aubrey Smith, although minus the talent, all seemed to confirm my impression that he was like some over-paid footballer who was totally self-absorbed and had come to believe in his own publicity. I regarded his criminal conviction for drug possession and his subsequent disciplinary exclusion from the Test side that year as totally merited hubris.

The third phase of his career began with his well-trumpetted return to the side against New Zealand towards the end of the 1986 season when he, briefly, became the overall leading Test wicket-taker. However despite appearing in his only successful Ashes tour against a full Australian side and scoring the final century of his Test career at Brisbane in the 1st Test he was not one of the primary contributors to England's success and de Freitas' debut in the Brisbane match signalled the fact that the selectors were on the lookout for a replacement.

The 1987 home series against Pakistan, fatuously billed by some tabloids as the battle of the two all-rounders, Imran and Botham, turned out to be an unpleasant and bad-tempered affair with the only positive result found at Headingley where Imran proved himself to be the infinitely superior player.

Botham's refusal to tour Pakistan the following winter closed the third phase of his career and led to a four-year exile from Test cricket (bar two forgettable appearances against the 1989 Australians). The final phase of his career opened with a selectorial sleight-of-hand that was widely condemned by press and public but turned out to be fully vindicated when 5 changes were made before the final Test at The Oval against the Windies in 1991 when Botham was brought back as part of a triumvirate of all-rounders including De Freitas and Lewis that enabled England to squa\re the series. Even so the chief comment surrounded not Botham's return but the exclusion of Jack russell and the decision to hand the gauntlets to Alec Stewart for the first time.

Botham's Test comeback proved to be short-lived however and after one final tour to New Zealand that winter his services were dispensed with in 1992 although there was a curious Rhodes-like emergence as Graham Gooch's opening partner in the 1992 World Cup where England were one match away from triumph. However once again it was Imran Khan who proved the more inspirational and the greater matchwinning performer.

As for the merits of the four leading all-rounders of the time, by which you presumably mean Botham, Imran Khan, Kapil Dev and Sir Richard Hadlee. Head and shoulders above the rest of the quartet was Imran Khan both for his consistency and the contributions he made to the outcomes of games. He also excelled asa captain and was one of two outstanding captains of that era (the other being Border) in that he salvaged a moribund side and gave it self-belief again. Of the other 3 Kapil Dev was probably superior

As for the relative merits of the other 3 I would say that Kapil Dev was a slightly better bat than Botham but a slightly inferior bowler whilst Hadlee was the reverse. However despite the critical tone of much of the above I agree that Sir IT deserves the accolade, at least at Test (but not fc) level, of "England's Greatest All-Rounder"

Augustus wrote:Poorer day from England - the bowling looks a bit rubbish when the batsman start to play properly. Broad was probably the pick of the bowlers, but he needs to hit off-stump more often and cut out the buffet balls if he wants to become a top bowler. Has a lot of ability, et cetera, but needs to grow up quickly if he doesn't want to be chucked out (them England's selectors ruthless when it comes to bowlers, I'll have you know, unless they're called James and have nice hair) on his ear soon-ish.

Anyway, a comfortable victory tomorrow followed by Vaughan mouthing off about the exciting, new, young bowling attack. Probably the "A" word will be thrown into the conversation a few more times than is appropriate. Then he'll stand-up for the out-of-form batsman, mentioning how the ODIs are a chance for them to regain form. Yes...Ian Bell, that monolith of hope and light in the limited-overs game, will regain his form. Anyway, I'm conjecturing, though I'm quietly confident that the England selectors will bend the rules to accomodate certain players if they perform well in different forms of the game. Remember Chris Read being dropped from the Test side after a poor Champions' Trophy?

177-5 probably justifies England invoking the follow on, although that was looking a bit ropey if they hadn't got those last 2 wickets.

There's nothing really spiteful about the pitch - it's pretty flat in general. Bit harsh on Broad there Augustus, 4-46 in the day was much needed from his point of view.

Pretty much agree with your comments about what'll be said after the game.

Perhaps Ontrack will do his post-match interview from the Captain's Sofa.



I just love this picture. I can't help it. It's so icky.

Augustus wrote:Poorer day from England - the bowling looks a bit rubbish when the batsman start to play properly. Broad was probably the pick of the bowlers, but he needs to hit off-stump more often and cut out the buffet balls if he wants to become a top bowler. Has a lot of ability, et cetera, but needs to grow up quickly if he doesn't want to be chucked out (them England's selectors ruthless when it comes to bowlers, I'll have you know, unless they're called James and have nice hair) on his ear soon-ish.

Anyway, a comfortable victory tomorrow followed by Vaughan mouthing off about the exciting, new, young bowling attack. Probably the "A" word will be thrown into the conversation a few more times than is appropriate. Then he'll stand-up for the out-of-form batsman, mentioning how the ODIs are a chance for them to regain form. Yes...Ian Bell, that monolith of hope and light in the limited-overs game, will regain his form. Anyway, I'm conjecturing, though I'm quietly confident that the England selectors will bend the rules to accomodate certain players if they perform well in different forms of the game. Remember Chris Read being dropped from the Test side after a poor Champions' Trophy?

Today was always going to be a bit of a letdown to England supporters after yesterday's fireworks and a side usually performs better after it follows-on for a number of reasons: the bowlers are tired and less focussed since bowling twice in succession is against the natural order of things and the batsmen tend to be more resistant after getting a verbal bollocking in the dressing room. Vaughan also had to ring the changes to keep the game going because of the umps' predilection for bad light. Nevertheless I should expect the game to be wrapped up by tomorrow lunchtime.

However once again, the Kiwis have lost the match rather than England winning it. They let oportunities slip through their fingers like sand at the beach. England were on the ropes at 86-5 on Thursday with Pietersen having been dropped. Pietersen and Ambrose not only salvaged the wreckage but the last 3 wickets put on 102 runs. The New Zealanders' batting also has the consistency of cheese straws. At this rate the Kiwis will be lucky to beat the Bangas and the Zimbas.

Moores & Co must be aware that the Saffies will not let England off so lightly and they face their sternest Test before the Ashes next year. Only at the end of this summer will we be able to hazard a guess as to whether or not England will be able to make next summer's series competitive or not. I think it far from certain that Moores will create a new Test record by naming an unchanged side for the 6th time in a row against South Africa at Lord's on 10 July.

I certainly think the bowling attack is safe, injury apart, but I think the one-dayers will be a competition between Bell and Collingwood and Shah and Bopara (as well as others who may enter the frame). Also Moores may be forced into changes if Collingwood's shoulder gives way. There is also the spectre of Freddie waiting in the wings (or should it be hospital wing?). Moores has already said he would bring him back at the earliest opportunity (imo, a mistake). However the minds of those charged with the responsibility of selecting the England team are like the Peace of God. They 'passeth all understanding."

I didn't personally think I was harsh on Broad at all - he was our best bowler but it's clear that he could be better (and will be better, for that matter). It's obvious that he has an awful lot of potential, but his natural line seems to be a little wide and his natural length a little short. He needs to improve both to become the class bowler that he is clearly capable of being. He also throws in a few too many boundary balls (balls that are too full mostly), but he is only 22 and I suppose we've got to appreciate that fact. I'm pleased with his progress so far and am happy that he is a genuine all-round prospect. His attitude, and his batting, deserve to keep him in the team at the very least even if his bowling isn't quite reaping the rewards it perhaps deserves.

England have quite obviously been average throughout this series, but it's reassuring in a way that we've comfortably beaten New Zealand - a below average, yet still a potentially feisty and frustrating side - comfortably whilst carrying four or five passengers throughout the series. If we can replace the aforementioned passengers with reliable players then we might yet be able to compete with South Africa. Clearly, playing South Africa will be much more difficult and will be the true acid test ahead of the Ashes, though the series in India shall also be very difficult. If the selectors are prepared to be a little more pro-active then there's no reason why we can't compete (even though we'll still lose). Bowlers will win the series looking at the two sides, but we still can't carry three batsman (out of six).

If Flintoff plays then we'll be carrying another.

Just in case an England selector happens to be tuned in here .....

Shah managed 144 runs off 251 balls today at Lord's.

That is all.
Thank You for listening - but I know you guys will do f**k all ...

PS. God day for England today - all over bar the shouting - but Jeez, aren't the Kiwi's a pile of crap who lack nous and balls.
If Thunderqunt quotes 'positives' from this game tomorrow morning when it's dun 'n' dusted(other than about his bowlers who batted a bit better than his bum-boy Belley), then Gawd help us in 4 weeks time.

Broad may not yet be the finished article as far as being a Test player goes but he seems to improve with every Test he plays and may well be complete by next year. If he could only put on an extra half yard or so of pace he would be a superb prospect. However in all the discussion about Broad there seems to be none about Alistair Cook who seems to be suffering a severe case of arrested development and seems to be stuck on the learning curve rather than moving along it, as Broad is doing.

Why, in heaven's name, does he keep being included in the one-day squad when he is not a one-day player nor ever will be? He is there at the expense of Solanki or the much-lamented Mal Loye. I can only presume there is some long-term plan for him to inherit the captaincy at some future date so he has to "experience all forms of the game" rather like Prince William tasting all three branches of the Armed Forces. In the meantime, England gets screwed. As the late Sir John Junor would have said:

"Pass the sick bag, Alice!"

Cook with eight test centuries behind him is, I would suggest, fairly well advanced up the learning curve. Although he does seem to be having a lean trot at the moment, I doubt if its anything more than a blip.

Basil wrote:Cook with eight test centuries behind him is, I would suggest, fairly well advanced up the learning curve. Although he does seem to be having a lean trot at the moment, I doubt if its anything more than a blip.

He should bulk up on more carbs in that case.

It's a blip that places him just 3 runs above the much maligned Paul Collingwood in terms of averages in the past twelve months, and a mere 1 run above Ian Bell. It's obviously not as cut and dry as that in some cases, especially in Alastair's case for he has mostly got starts and then succumbed mysteriously, often to dibbly-dobbly medium pacers who shouldn't really be getting him out (and Chamara Silva, I seem to remember!). He's an odd one, I'm not really sure what's going on with him. He often looks good but never backs it up with a massive score.

Cookies got to be fecked off about his performances v NZ home and away.

One of the easier test sides to play against it has to be said...

Augustus wrote:It's a blip that places him just 3 runs above the much maligned Paul Collingwood in terms of averages in the past twelve months, and a mere 1 run above Ian Bell. It's obviously not as cut and dry as that in some cases, especially in Alastair's case for he has mostly got starts and then succumbed mysteriously, often to dibbly-dobbly medium pacers who shouldn't really be getting him out (and Chamara Silva, I seem to remember!). He's an odd one, I'm not really sure what's going on with him. He often looks good but never backs it up with a massive score.

Aha! I see that the guillotine is being sharpened for Cook, once Bell and Collingwood have been despatched.

Not exactly. I've said numerous times in the past few weeks that, but for Bell and Collingwood playing so badly and taking the heat off him, Cookie would be in trouble. I like him personally - he hangs around and can score ugly hundreds. Not quite producing at the minute, but, like Broad, he's young and has the class to do so in time. Has balls as well.

Go Cookie lad.

Reading my "Playfair Cricket Annual", as one is wont to do, I noticed that Cook is the second consecutive England opener to have been born on Christmas Day (the other being Marcus T whom he replaced after MT decided to go into the wilderness). So even if he is "despatched" he will presumably rise again although, sadly, that does not seem to have applied in Tresco's case.

Whereas Bell is already being crucified.

Bring me the head of Ian Ronald Bell!

I'd have Bell open in the ODIs. Essentially, he's an orthodox batsman not given to great flights of unorthodoxy. If he opens, he has the advantage of being able to play the ball into the gaps caused by the powerplay fielding restrictions.

It's a risk though, because he would be opening with Cook.

Cookie just shouldn't be anywhere near the ODI's

Blackwell and Key to open in the ODIs?

JKLever wrote:Cookie just shouldn't be anywhere near the ODI's

I think he's too young to be jettisoned from the ODI side just yet. It's not as if Denly or Newman have made an unanswerable case for selection.

I shall henceforth stop mentioning the name of a certain Somerset player as I appear to have put the curse on him - suffice to say that when he regains some semblance of form, room has to be made for him in the ODI squad.

PeterCS wrote:Blackwell and Key to open in the ODIs?

Apart from the fact neither has been selected - good idea!