Topic: England tour of New Zealand 2019/20 (Read 63012 times)

jonny77 · « **Reply #390 on:** December 04, 2019, 07:42:28 AM »

Personally I didn't think it really mattered not having a back up keeper this tour. It was two tests, which were effectively friendlies. Taking Foakes to carry the drinks would have been a waste and if he'd have played in the final test, would we have learnt anything new? I'd have much rather taken some younger players to give them experience, like Pope and Crawley.

If it was the Ashes or a meaningful series then fair enough, but with the gap that great between county and test level, these are great opportunities to test a few new players imo.

SouthpawMark · « **Reply #391 on:** December 04, 2019, 09:40:13 AM »

Every test should be meaningful, and every squad should be the strongest available, and there should be sufficient cover in all areas.

If England start classing these types of tests as not meaningful, then the death of test cricket will be accelerated. England is pretty much the only country where the test side is supported as much as the ODI sides, and it�s important that this continues.

jonny77 · « **Reply #392 on:** December 04, 2019, 09:45:54 AM »

I agree, but there are series which surely are more important than others? The Ashes for example or a 5 test series against India etc. This was essentially a warm up for the SA series, so a good chance to look at the likes of Pope. I'm sure England were taking it seriously, but not having a specialist back up keeper didn't really affect the result. Just an opinion.

SouthpawMark · « **Reply #393 on:** December 04, 2019, 09:58:22 AM »

Yes, England vs Aus or India is the most important (particularly at home), but the other series shouldn�t be disregarded. I�m not sure NZ or anyone else would appreciate their series being classed as a warmup for another series. I think you still need to take these series seriously, regardless of who it is against, or whether it counts towards the world test championship. I am all for trying out new players, but there needs to be justification for doing so, and a core of established players in every match, treating it for what it exactly is... a test match.

mo_town · « **Reply #394 on:** December 04, 2019, 10:13:01 AM »

Quote from: jonny77 on December 04, 2019, 09:45:54 AM

I agree, but there are series which surely are more important than others? The Ashes for example or a 5 test series against India etc. This was essentially a warm up for the SA series, so a good chance to look at the likes of Pope. I'm sure England were taking it seriously, but not having a specialist back up keeper didn't really affect the result. Just an opinion.

Are you seriously ranking NZ as a poor Test team? They have had an excellent record of late winning matches. Not sure this is the right attitude. If anything, SA are in a process of rebuilding and Eng should have it easy.

jonny77 · « **Reply #395 on:** December 04, 2019, 10:50:17 AM »

I've never once said they are a poor team, or that we shouldn't take it seriously. I'd rate them better than, or on par with England at present. My point was in the grand scheme of things the result here wasn't crucial to anything really. How many times do you hear that CC games don't prepare players for the test arena, or that 'its a huge step up'. So why not try new players and rest others, in a two game series against quality opposition but which essentially has less riding on it (not part of the test championshop etc). Makes sense to me and as I say the lack of back up keeper for me didn't really impact massively at all. We all know what Foakes can do.

I've also clearly stated that these should be taken seriously, but you also need some games against quality opposition to try new players without fearing a loss too greatly.

Again, just an opinion

NT50 · « **Reply #396 on:** December 04, 2019, 11:34:03 AM »

Quote from: jonny77 on December 04, 2019, 10:50:17 AM

I've never once said they are a poor team, or that we shouldn't take it seriously. I'd rate them better than, or on par with England at present. My point was in the grand scheme of things the result here wasn't crucial to anything really. How many times do you hear that CC games don't prepare players for the test arena, or that 'its a huge step up'. So why not try new players and rest others, in a two game series against quality opposition but which essentially has less riding on it (not part of the test championshop etc). Makes sense to me and as I say the lack of back up keeper for me didn't really impact massively at all. We all know what Foakes can do.

I've also clearly stated that these should be taken seriously, but you also need some games against quality opposition to try new players without fearing a loss too greatly.

Again, just an opinion

They have 6 blokes that average 40+ and a world class seam bowling attack. I think it's pretty safe to say they're a much better team than us...

JTtaylor145 · « **Reply #397 on:** December 04, 2019, 11:45:18 AM »

Playing at home is such a massive advantage in test cricket. Very few sides win away from home. Australia and India are the best sides in test cricket by a distance. It would be more interesting if you had Australia vs England...in India. Of course no one would watch in person but it would be more interesting on TV.

Can't help but worry about the next Ashes series in Australia. Hate to think it but I can see England losing 4 or 5 test matches.

Still I guess we will follow the same pattern of win most matches at home and lose most matches away. Makes test cricket a bit boring, doesn't it?

jonny77 · « **Reply #398 on:** December 04, 2019, 12:30:10 PM »

Quote from: NT50 on December 04, 2019, 11:34:03 AM

They have 6 blokes that average 40+ and a world class seam bowling attack. I think it's pretty safe to say they're a much better team than us...

I agree, they're probably better (i did say this below). But 'much better'? I'm not so sure. Man for man it would be interesting to see who everyone would select. I wouldn't take Southee over Broad or Anderson, Boult over the Archer at the minute, but of the Archer from the Ashes? Henry or Mitchell over Stokes? Wagner over Woakes/Wood/Curran is obvious, then Ravel over Burns? Watling would make it over Butler, but Buttler isn't playing to his full potential. Williamson and Taylor obviously. The bowlers have all toiled to some degree this tour due to the pitches and England's fielding/catching has cost them also.

Yes they've got some class players in the top order with higher averages, but they are more established players than most of ours. Root is still in my opinion a class batsmen, as is Stokes, but we're admittedly behind them in that department. Doesn't scream much better to me tho, but if we're just going on averages and stats, there's no debate to be had I suppose.

six and out · « **Reply #399 on:** December 04, 2019, 12:46:50 PM »

the simple fact is, as soon as the ICC announced that the NZ series wasn't going to be part of the Test Championship it changed the whole nature of the series. Does it make it any less important? Depends how you look at it and who you ask, it was bloody important to Dom Sibley and Oli Pope! Did it mean they were trying any less? They are professional sportsman, so i would hope not!

What i would say is that the 2nd test pitch was an awful test wicket and we are trying to encourage people to watch test cricket (whether it's in the Test Championship or not) and that sort of wicket will do absolutely nothing for the game.

jonny77 · « **Reply #400 on:** December 04, 2019, 01:06:34 PM »

I agree mate, not a great pitch really. As I've said I've no doubt everyone was taking it seriously, but my point was the result was not the all important thing. Much as in football friendlies, it gives the chance to try new things and players.

Obviously winning is important, but so is blooding new players so when the 'big' series come around we have more established players with experience of test . If the likes of Pope are the future it will have done him the world of good being there. I'd also have liked other newbies to be given a chance too tbh.

Manormanic · « **Reply #401 on:** December 04, 2019, 02:14:34 PM »

Quote from: jonny77 on December 04, 2019, 12:30:10 PM

I agree, they're probably better (i did say this below). But 'much better'? I'm not so sure. Man for man it would be interesting to see who everyone would select. I wouldn't take Southee over Broad or Anderson, Boult over the Archer at the minute, but of the Archer from the Ashes? Henry or Mitchell over Stokes? Wagner over Woakes/Wood/Curran is obvious, then Ravel over Burns? Watling would make it over Butler, but Buttler isn't playing to his full potential. Williamson and Taylor obviously. The bowlers have all toiled to some degree this tour due to the pitches and England's fielding/catching has cost them also.

Yes they've got some class players in the top order with higher averages, but they are more established players than most of ours. Root is still in my opinion a class batsmen, as is Stokes, but we're admittedly behind them in that department. Doesn't scream much better to me tho, but if we're just going on averages and stats, there's no debate to be had I suppose.

Tricky one, isn't it. I reckon, if both teams have everyone available and at their peak, I'd go:

Burns
Latham
Williamson
Root
Nicholls
Stokes
Watling
Santner
Archer
Boult
Anderson

I reckon 9 of those 11 would be fairly universal, with Santner and Nicholls the slight tricky picks. So a 6/5 split in my side.

jonny77 · « **Reply #402 on:** December 04, 2019, 02:40:55 PM »

I wouldn't be far off mate. Is like to get Wagner in there, but at full tilt Archer was great in the Ashes. Maybe Taylor for Nichllls too for me.

csnew · « **Reply #403 on:** December 04, 2019, 09:47:45 PM »

Absolute crap - some suggesting since series was not part of the ICC test championship the players had no interest. Just another excuse for losing.
The test championship has just started, I�d say not many care about that right now.

NZ have a fantastic record at home as do aus and India. However the number of matches England lose at home is far too high.

Time the English bowlers stopped moaning about the kookaburra ball and get on with it, other teams have no issues with it. Let�s not forget they played with the dukes ball in the West Indies and also lost.

Mister Le Chiffre · « **Reply #404 on:** December 04, 2019, 09:51:00 PM »

New Zealand are a great team, whilst England are great individuals. A great team beats great individuals 99/100. That�s the crux of the matter.

Author Topic: England tour of New Zealand 2019/20 (Read 63012 times)

jonny77

Re: England tour of New Zealand 2019/20

SouthpawMark

Re: England tour of New Zealand 2019/20

jonny77

Re: England tour of New Zealand 2019/20

SouthpawMark

Re: England tour of New Zealand 2019/20

mo_town

Re: England tour of New Zealand 2019/20

jonny77

Re: England tour of New Zealand 2019/20

NT50

Re: England tour of New Zealand 2019/20

JTtaylor145

Re: England tour of New Zealand 2019/20

jonny77

Re: England tour of New Zealand 2019/20

six and out

Re: England tour of New Zealand 2019/20

jonny77

Re: England tour of New Zealand 2019/20

Manormanic

Re: England tour of New Zealand 2019/20

jonny77

Re: England tour of New Zealand 2019/20

csnew

Re: England tour of New Zealand 2019/20

Mister Le Chiffre

Re: England tour of New Zealand 2019/20