Think Cook's decision was spot on to be honest. Batsmen got more time in the middle, Bowlers (especially Swann) got some confidence boosting wickets, and under a bit of pressure today. Can only be a good thing as we gear up for the Aussies.
I think the four bowlers in the side is more than enough. If they feel they need an extra (unlikely IMO, we're more than strong enough), Compton is the man to be dropped and you'd bring in Bresnan at seven while moving Root to open and Prior to six.
Four bowlers should be enough though. Then it's a case of whether Pietersen can prove his fitness. If he can, he takes Compton's place and again Root moves up to open with a middle order reshuffle. Another potential candidate would be Eoin Morgan if he has a good ODI series & Champions Trophy.
Think describing the NZ series as "flattering to deceive" is a bit disrespectful. We won the first test by 170 runs and the second test by 247.
I thought Andy Flowers interview with Aggers after the game was extremely defensive.He didnt like the questions that he was being asked.The way he reacted to the groundsman was of someone who is under pressure.
I think the four bowlers in the side is more than enough. If they feel they need an extra (unlikely IMO, we're more than strong enough), Compton is the man to be dropped and you'd bring in Bresnan at seven while moving Root to open and Prior to six.
Four bowlers should be enough though. Then it's a case of whether Pietersen can prove his fitness. If he can, he takes Compton's place and again Root moves up to open with a middle order reshuffle. Another potential candidate would be Eoin Morgan if he has a good ODI series & Champions Trophy.
Think describing the NZ series as "flattering to deceive" is a bit disrespectful. We won the first test by 170 runs and the second test by 247.
Compton is my concern and id move root up and bring in a fit pietersen ..if pietersen doesnt make it then id stay as is
dont forget we are played the 8th ranked nation who nearly beat us in NZ and but for an inspired bit of bowling by broad could have beaten us at Lords so i ll stick with remarks ...maybe its my my pre ashes nerves showing !
or do we have unsolved issues? eg Nick Compton at the top of the order ,playing only 4 bowlers and flattering to deceive against weak NZ opposition
England have played four bowlers for the last few years - and have tended to load the batting. But they are four good bowlers who offer something different. Swann looks fully recovered from his elbow op and was giving the ball as much rip as he did before, Finn's shorter run-up seems to work, he generated a lot of pace and a couple of the bouncers he sent down were vicious and opening the bowling Broad and Anderson looked good. Unfortunately England lack a batsman who can be a front-line bowler such as Jacques Kallis.
Playing four bowlers was perhaps the reason why England didn't enforce the follow on - NZ batted for nearly 80 overs in their second dig, add that to the 40 they faced in the first innings and you are asking a lot of four bowlers. There was no especial reason to enforce the follow on and it gave the batsmen an opportunity to get some more practice in.
The batsmen, Root apart, struggled, but then the conditions in both Tests were not ideal for batting.
Assuming that KP returns then one batsman has to make way - and sadly that has to be Nick Compton. He's worked hard to change his game but at Test level your defence has to be well organised and he plays with his bat too far from the front foot. Although an opener by profession Root was brought in down the order to introduce him to Test cricket but he offers a few more shots than Compton plus better feet movement after several good innings it's time to move him up to open with Cook. I'd bat Trott at three, KP at four, Bell at five and then Bairstow at six. England bat long these days and Prior, Broad and Swann are no mugs so England can afford to carry a batsman in Bairstow who has a few technical flaws but will score runs reasonably quickly if he stays in.
If you take the attitude that the ends justifies the means then fair enough. I'd prefer to have seen England display a killer instinct by scoring quickly on the Sunday evening and Monday morning, declaring before lunch and then setting attacking fields. The fields set to Swann for example were defensive and more in keeping with a team defending a much smaller target. Given that the pitch was taking a lot of spin I'd have had a couple more fielders close in and not defending the cover/mid-wicket boundaries.
Most important thing in the last test was not to lose and win the series hence the "big target" and then to win the test, job done If there had been a more aggressive declaration the miniscule chance of a loss could have come in to play
Comments
or do we have unsolved issues? eg Nick Compton at the top of the order ,playing only 4 bowlers and flattering to deceive against weak NZ opposition
I think the four bowlers in the side is more than enough. If they feel they need an extra (unlikely IMO, we're more than strong enough), Compton is the man to be dropped and you'd bring in Bresnan at seven while moving Root to open and Prior to six.
Four bowlers should be enough though. Then it's a case of whether Pietersen can prove his fitness. If he can, he takes Compton's place and again Root moves up to open with a middle order reshuffle. Another potential candidate would be Eoin Morgan if he has a good ODI series & Champions Trophy.
Think describing the NZ series as "flattering to deceive" is a bit disrespectful. We won the first test by 170 runs and the second test by 247.
If NZ had scraped a draw yesterday due to the rain, then the questioning Flowers faced yesterday would have been much more hostile!
dont forget we are played the 8th ranked nation who nearly beat us in NZ and but for an inspired bit of bowling by broad could have beaten us at Lords so i ll stick with remarks ...maybe its my my pre ashes nerves showing !
Playing four bowlers was perhaps the reason why England didn't enforce the follow on - NZ batted for nearly 80 overs in their second dig, add that to the 40 they faced in the first innings and you are asking a lot of four bowlers. There was no especial reason to enforce the follow on and it gave the batsmen an opportunity to get some more practice in.
The batsmen, Root apart, struggled, but then the conditions in both Tests were not ideal for batting.
Assuming that KP returns then one batsman has to make way - and sadly that has to be Nick Compton. He's worked hard to change his game but at Test level your defence has to be well organised and he plays with his bat too far from the front foot. Although an opener by profession Root was brought in down the order to introduce him to Test cricket but he offers a few more shots than Compton plus better feet movement after several good innings it's time to move him up to open with Cook. I'd bat Trott at three, KP at four, Bell at five and then Bairstow at six. England bat long these days and Prior, Broad and Swann are no mugs so England can afford to carry a batsman in Bairstow who has a few technical flaws but will score runs reasonably quickly if he stays in.
If there had been a more aggressive declaration the miniscule chance of a loss could have come in to play