Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú

Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú BLOGS - Test Match Special
« Previous | Main | Next »

Ambrose shows top order how to bat

Jonathan Agnew | 07:16 UK time, Thursday, 13 March 2008

Wellington: day one of second Test - There was an awful moment mid-afternoon when it seemed that all of England’s frailties from Hamilton had come back to haunt them.

Kevin Pietersen had just been bowled attempting an expansive drive which gated him, and England were 136-5.

From 79-0 at lunch, they had lost 5-57 in a manic period of uncertainty and poor cricket.

The ball seamed about ever so slightly for the honest hard-working paceman that bowled in the right place, but this was essentially a good pitch.

might be one of the shortest men currently playing Test cricket, but this man can bat.

Ambrose closed the day 97 not out

It is extremely hard bowling to a small batsman who can cut and drive – two shots which Ambrose plays particularly well, and batting with great freedom, he took the New Zealanders to the cleaners.

It looked a completely different game when he was facing, and the whole ground was willing him on score the three runs he needed from the final over to record his first century.

In the final session of 37 overs, England scored 135 runs without losing a wicket so: 70-0 in the morning, 77-5 in the afternoon and 135-0 in the final session: I can’t work it out!

I do feel that England’s top order was trying too hard to shrug off the criticism of Hamilton and bat eagerly when consolidation and hard work were the most important ingredients.

I am afraid to report that looks so desperately out of his depth that his return to the team will end quickly unless he somehow manages to produce something in the second innings.

The technical issues that dogged him throughout last year still remain – he is planting his right foot in front of his stumps and playing around it, so is vulnerable to lbw and catches behind.

In his anxiety to bat positively, he spooned a catch to point for eight – and desperate dismissal, and one which will probably cost him his place for the final Test.

The value of England’s first innings won’t be known until their attack has had a go, but if Ambrose and Paul Collingwood can steer the team to 400, the youngsters will have something to bowl at.

°ä´Ç³¾³¾±ð²Ô³Ù²õÌýÌýPost your comment

  • 1.
  • At 08:00 AM on 13 Mar 2008,
  • Roger wrote:

Ramps

  • 2.
  • At 08:02 AM on 13 Mar 2008,
  • ahantsfan wrote:

Well done Ambrose and Colly! But the top order look like they can't buy a hundred at the moment. The batting hasn't really improved from Sri Lanka, same story again today a few of them get starts and don't go on to deliver big scores. Unless we start making big scores when we get the chance we'll always be under pressure.

  • 3.
  • At 08:03 AM on 13 Mar 2008,
  • Luke wrote:

I think it is definitely time fpr Shah to come in for Strauss, how many tests has it been since his last century?

  • 4.
  • At 08:04 AM on 13 Mar 2008,
  • Phil H wrote:

Full justification that Vaughn's decision to drop Hoggard as the price of England's failure was totally unfair. Three four and five fail again and three and four don't look to be in good enough form to justify a place. Sacrilegious to suggest dropping Pieterson? Maybe, but he's had a lot more failures recently than Hoggard! None of those bastmen (and arguably the openers too) would be playing in the Australian side on current form and that's the standard we have to set if we want to win anything.
Full credit to Ambrose and I hope unlike Prior, that a good start continues into a good career. I'm also delighted that the English cricket establishment have been shown that the men they insisted were journeymen (Collingwood and Sidebottom) are in fact the backbone fo the side!

  • 5.
  • At 08:05 AM on 13 Mar 2008,
  • Matty wrote:

I agree with Jonathan, Strauss needs to produce something very special indeed in the second innings.

As a Middlesex supporter it saddens me to see the demise of Strauss but I believe that someone else should get their chance in the batting line-up.

Recently England can never seem to find a suitable balance in their approach to batting and it is becoming unacceptable.

  • 6.
  • At 08:05 AM on 13 Mar 2008,
  • sam shackell wrote:

ambrose played with a lot of freedom and with no fear. strauss is a great player but he is so out of form. shah will come in next match.

  • 7.
  • At 08:10 AM on 13 Mar 2008,
  • Garry Pearce wrote:

In dropping Hoggard and Harmison but keeping the same batting line up the selectors clearly seem to be blaming the bowlers for the Hamilton debacle when it was the batsmen who really let the side down. If England go on to post 400+ in this innings lets hope they don't bury their heads in the sand again!

  • 8.
  • At 08:11 AM on 13 Mar 2008,
  • David wrote:

Ambrose is an Aussie, that's why he can play.
Maybe England will now accept that their top order batsmen need changing completely..

ENGLAND NOW HAVE THE UPPER HAND AND WILL SCORE OVER 500.

  • 10.
  • At 08:19 AM on 13 Mar 2008,
  • Ryan Webb wrote:

When will Tres, Freddie and Simon Jones be back? We need these three big performers.
If Flintoff does return, will he play Number Seven in touring matches?

  • 11.
  • At 08:21 AM on 13 Mar 2008,
  • Tom wrote:

Dropping Strauss for the 3rd test is not such a good idea. He is a fine slip fielder and can offer sound advice to the captain whilst in the field. Given some perseverance by the selectors I am sure his form will return. The middle order needs stability at the moment, not chopping and changing.
Well done Ambrose! lets hope he can go on to 3 figures tomorrow.

  • 12.
  • At 08:23 AM on 13 Mar 2008,
  • Justin wrote:

If England can get 400+ then that should give Broad and Anderson something to bowl at and a little bit of a comfort blanket as well. Fingers crossed this should enable them to display their pedigree!!!! Well Broad anyway.

  • 13.
  • At 08:24 AM on 13 Mar 2008,
  • mheeaad wrote:

am chuffed for Ambrose, let's hope he get's the 3 runs needed tomorrow am. 1st Prior now Ambrose - the sussex up bringing is v healty at the mo......Great to see Colly play yet another great innings too

  • 14.
  • At 08:25 AM on 13 Mar 2008,
  • Greg Twomey wrote:

Well done Tim Ambrose. He played a fine innings and deserves to get three more runs tomorrow. Poor old Strauss. (Poor old shot too!!!) I agree with you Aggers that only a big score in the second innings can save him from the chop. You said that the ball seamed about "ever so slightly" but I thought the NZ and especially Oram were able to make it wobble about quite considerbly and make all the batsman play and miss throughout the day. I'm hoping Sidebottom could do very well here and I'm also looking foward to watching young Broad. I feel like it has been a while since England have finished the day without being in a too calamitous position.

  • 15.
  • At 08:27 AM on 13 Mar 2008,
  • The Beekeeper wrote:

Well said Aggers, it is shaping up nicely, if Colly & Ambrose can go out there tomorrow in the same frame of mind I think we'll get the 400 and more.
Despite all the furore of the first test I think its worth saying that this has been very enjoyable cricket. The two teams are well matched and it is making for a good series. I'd rather see this than a test similar to what is going on between SA and Bangladesh.
For me there has been plenty of excitement and tension and lots to talk about. Result.

  • 16.
  • At 08:33 AM on 13 Mar 2008,
  • weds wrote:

Could it be possible that the pitch just flattend out a little in the afternoon and the ball got old. I heard someone say that this pitch plays better on days 2 & 3

  • 17.
  • At 08:37 AM on 13 Mar 2008,
  • Chris wrote:

A fairly balanced days play with England perhaps taking the honours. Ambrose and Collingwood to the Kiwis fighting spirit of the middle session with some of their own.

A finely poise match. One wich could see momentum switch back to the Kiwis with a couple of quick wickets and the possibility of finishing England off for less than 370 or.....if the partnership keeps going and guides England to 420+ the match will be Englands to lose and will take the pressure off Sidebottom, Broad and Anderson...What would be interesting would be how the Kiwis approach batting against a total in excess of 420......A circumspect start with a swashbuckling innings by McCullum somewhere in the middle to wrestle the initiative back.....You can't trust those Kiwis

Very pleased for Ambrose and hope he can get those extra three runs...and then some, to take England to a formidable first-innings score. That'll ease the pressure on the new-look pace attack. Ambrose is batting with the panache Prior did early on, let's hope Tim Ambrose beds down into the team.

  • 19.
  • At 08:38 AM on 13 Mar 2008,
  • derw wrote:

Why is it extremely hard bowling to a small batsman who can cut and drive? I can't see how lack of height matters, if anything I'd have thought it would be a hindrance for the batsman, but will have to take Agger's word for it... and tune in sharpish for tomorrow's morning session!

  • 20.
  • At 08:40 AM on 13 Mar 2008,
  • Justin Talbot wrote:

Spot on Aggers.

Would love to see Ambrose stamp his authority on a position which has blighted England since Stewart departed.

It does seem that Strauss’ days are numbered. But, the England team should forget any sentiment for the fallen ones and concentrate and re-building a solid test side.

I’m glad to see that Vaughan had the guts to drop both Harmison and Hoggard.

"70 for 0 in the morning, 77 for 5 in the afternoon and 135 for 0 in the final session: I can’t work it out!" ..... who can? Somebody explain why they do it... is it technical, mental, do they fear failure too much or are they too secure in the team set up?

NZ are not the also rans that the UK press are making them out to be and they should take full credit for a very well deserved victory in the 1st test. They are quite simply playing better as a team than we are. DV is looking a more imaginative skipper and is also playing well as an individual. MV looks out of ideas and out of sorts.

We keep hearing that the English players are trying.. I just wonder what they are trying.... other than the supporters patience. With a few notable exceptions, trying to do what they are paid for would be a good start....

Best of luck to Ambrose tomorrow.... I hope he manages more games than the last few poor souls handed the England gloves.

  • 22.
  • At 08:44 AM on 13 Mar 2008,
  • Steven Havers wrote:

Ok, another very poor batting performance from people who are supposed to be the best at what they do so now lets see Vaughns ruthless streak applied to where it needs to be applied and axe some of these consistent under performers. Goodbye Pieterson and bring back Hoggard.

  • 23.
  • At 08:45 AM on 13 Mar 2008,
  • John Harrison wrote:

I was disappointed with Vaughn talking about 'a new era' when Harmison and Hoggard were dropped, it implied they were out for good or at least a long time and Matthew Hoggard still has a good chance of re-finding his 'nip.'

New eras also have to affect the batting and while we know that Pietersen, Bell, Cook, Collingwood and Vaughn himself are all ecxtremely good, just not nailing the big scores at the moment, poor Andrew Strauss looks woeful. The 'new era' should have included the replacement of Strauss, who, I fear, is going to be another Ramprakash. He'll score loads of runs in the county championship, but always struggle to get back to the Test arena.

His feelings aside, though, Owais Shah deserves a run in the team.

It seems our few current successes are always dependent on a single player coming to the party. If 8 out of eleven could perform at their best we'd be a force in world cricket.

Tim Ambrose is a start for now - I hope that the rest of the team catches his example.

My fear is that the reverse will happen and he will be dragged down to the lowest common denominator.

  • 25.
  • At 08:51 AM on 13 Mar 2008,
  • g wrote:

Strauss is making it pretty hard for those of us who think he should be in the team!

the fact remains that he is an exceptional batsman and exactly the kind of character the team needs. here's me hoping that they make him captain.

free those arms, Andrew! i can't remember the last time i saw you slap it through wide mid-on off your hip.

  • 26.
  • At 08:51 AM on 13 Mar 2008,
  • Bob wrote:

Some pressure needs to be put on pietersons position in the side. At the moment he knows hes untouchable and that the selectors wouldnt dare drop him. Hes done a lot worst in batting terms than hoggard has bowling. Maybe he should be the next senior player to be dropped.

  • 27.
  • At 08:54 AM on 13 Mar 2008,
  • HunKs wrote:

I caught the last hour or so this morning and was more than a little surprised at the slant taken by the commentary team - from each sentence they seemed to be saying that the pitch was either perfect for batting and next we were listening to how the ball was shooting through etc..

I have no idea if this was going on all night, from the start of the commentary it seemed that it was really a dead wicket, but Oram's performance certainly seemed to question the validity of this assessment!!

Pleased to see that Broad has been given a chance (should also help to strengthen the batting - especially in the present position where the pressure shouldn't be as much as it could well have been (i.e. 160 for 6)!

Also nice to see Collingwood receiving acclaim, I have always thought that he gives 110% - always seems to me be in the Illingworth mode!

HunKs

  • 28.
  • At 09:03 AM on 13 Mar 2008,
  • John Forrest wrote:

Yet another Strauss failure just how many more chances does he get its time to shelf him just another case of the old pals act which wont do anymore collect all the failures suitcases and put them on the first plane back

  • 29.
  • At 09:05 AM on 13 Mar 2008,
  • Jordan Reed wrote:

I agree with Tom on post 11, we need to keep Strauss in the side, not only for his knowledge (he clearly should have been skipper for the thrashing down in oz last year) but because we need stability, you don't see sides like Australia chopping and changing their line up after 1 poor performance. I know Straussy has had a bad run for a while now, but he's a world class player, they've put him back in the side and now he needs a run to find his feet again, not to feel like every innings could be his last, as he's sure to implode under that pressure, wouldn't anyone?

  • 30.
  • At 09:07 AM on 13 Mar 2008,
  • Andy wrote:

One wonders what exactly Strauss did to warrant a recall in the first place? Shah must be wondering whether a chance will come.

As usual with England some players seem bombproof and others are removed at the drop of a hat.

If we lose this series we will hear the usual platitudes trotted out about the "positives" and "moving forwards". It is one of the few times England really embrace spin.

  • 31.
  • At 09:10 AM on 13 Mar 2008,
  • Hoggy wrote:

O.k. then so the new rules are that anyone who has a bad match is dropped.
So mssrs Vaughan,Bell,Strauss and Pieterson you`ll have to perform in the 2nd innings or you`ll be out...right?
Its a good job England had that last big stand or Vaughan would have looked a real fool.

  • 32.
  • At 09:11 AM on 13 Mar 2008,
  • sambo wrote:

For everyone who scoffed at the A- I gave Ambrose in the last test AMBROSE = A

  • 33.
  • At 09:16 AM on 13 Mar 2008,
  • Tim wrote:

Looks like we've got a fantastic new talent behind the stumps then - I assume after a good start with the bat he'll soon start to struggle for runs, and quickly fall out of favour. It just wouldn't be fair on the other post-Stewart keepers if he had a continued run of good form for, say, a decent portion of his career...

  • 34.
  • At 09:22 AM on 13 Mar 2008,
  • Richard Baker wrote:

Well done Ambrose! Only needs another 103 for his landmark!

  • 35.
  • At 09:34 AM on 13 Mar 2008,
  • Harry wrote:

Easy to lump everything together and criticise again but I think its fair to point out that both Vaughan and Bell were got out by good bowling (Vaughan by an absolute beauty and Bell by a fine set-up and kill)

I feel a little sorry for Strauss. Given his problems over the last two years you'd have thought that his return to the team should have been on the back of good solid form in county cricket, yet he has been brought back without any real time in the middle. Continued failure in this series and I do worry that he could end up being prematurely discarded and written off when in actual fact he should just be told to go away and not worry about England.

I'm not in the least bit worried about Cook, Pietersen, or Bell... poor runs of form that result in scores in the 30s 40s and 50s aren't the end of the world. It's unfortunate that they are happening simultaneously that's all.

291-5 on a seaming wicket.. not bad.

  • 36.
  • At 09:35 AM on 13 Mar 2008,
  • ken chilton wrote:

"The technical issues that dogged him throughout last year still remain – he is planting his right foot in front of his stumps and playing around it, so is vulnerable to lbw and catches behind"
Some technical issue that is Aggers,considering Strauss bats left handed
But i agree with your comments..
best wishes kjc

  • 37.
  • At 09:40 AM on 13 Mar 2008,
  • andy wrote:

great knocks from ambrose and colly and a decent start but the middle order looked nervy and pieterson and lost the aura that he had when he first got into the team.hopefully the two lads can press on tonight and then i rate broad as out best number 8 in years.
as for bowling, dont let our middle order fool you, this is a good pitch with a fast outfield. our bowling attack looks one paced and if panesar doesnt perform we could be looking at another first innings deficeit.

  • 38.
  • At 09:43 AM on 13 Mar 2008,
  • Joost wrote:

I agree - Ramps. He may be old, but its no coincidence that his average has skyrocketed since his stricly-come-dancing lessons(with the footwork and the self-belief that has given him).
He would be a solid post for the rest to cling to while they sort out their "confidence" issues.

  • 39.
  • At 09:43 AM on 13 Mar 2008,
  • Realist from PR wrote:

Well batted Ambrose and Colly, but this is a flat track and 350 is not a great first innings score. NZ could be 50/4 and still pass that quite easily with McCullum, Oram and Vettori batting so low. Batting on the 5th day will have no great perils either. The test is very much in the balance. Friday could be the deciding day - if England get over 400 and get a couple of early wickets its their's for the taking. If they get under 360 and NZ get a start England will be staring down 2-0. A lot will depend on Broad and Anderson I suppose, and not just for their bowling.

  • 40.
  • At 09:45 AM on 13 Mar 2008,
  • Adrian Kent wrote:

Which bowlers are we going to drop to make sure that one of your top five batsmen goes on to make a big score in teh first innings? Monty should be very worried.

p.s. Bob Key.

Aggers

Ambrose was excellent. I enjoyed his innings from the top of the Museum stand - great view! But he did have his luck - perhaps a dozen plays and misses that Bell or Strauss might have nicked! Fortune favours the brave and Ambrose was certainly brave - run a ball for a while. Colly looked good in a supporting role - what a battler he is.

I may be wrong (not for the first time) but 350 looks a potentially winning score if they can get there.

  • 42.
  • At 09:52 AM on 13 Mar 2008,
  • Alex wrote:

Justin:

"If England can get 400+ then that should give Broad and Anderson something to bowl at and a little bit of a comfort blanket as well. Fingers crossed this should enable them to display their pedigree!!!! Well Broad anyway."

It's that kind of comment that typifies English support at the moment. Positive, positive... but can't resist a snipe. Why? By all means constructively criticise, but what's the point in demeaning Anderson in such a fashion?

It is frustrating that the top order can't find the application to succeed at the moment, many of them, as Aggers points out, seem to be labouring under a weight of expectation and playing with fear. Unfortunately I can't see this going away until success arrives. Catch 22.

  • 43.
  • At 09:59 AM on 13 Mar 2008,
  • Sophie wrote:

I know it's a long time since Andrew Strauss scored a Test century, but it's also getting to be a good long while since Bell and Vaughan scored one.

Why has there been so little written about that? The press seem to have largely ignored that, whereas last summer everyone was calling for Strauss's head.

  • 44.
  • At 10:00 AM on 13 Mar 2008,
  • MonkeysInc wrote:

Why drop the bowlers when again it is and has been the batsmen that fail - ok ok harmison needed to go but the batsmen got bowled out for low scores and stale batting - the bowlers all told got their job done -20 wkts in the match - If the management are trying to send out a message about form and staying in the team then why are the batsmen bulletproof and the bowlers expendable when at the end of the day it was the batsmen that lost England the game last week and in previous matches recently - they are not posting high enough 1st innings totals and that is their job not the bowlers!

  • 45.
  • At 10:05 AM on 13 Mar 2008,
  • jim wrote:

what does 'gated him' mean?

'Kevin Pietersen had just been bowled attempting an expansive drive which gated him'

I would be grateful for an explination/ assessment of KP throwing away his wicket

I never see the action as I have no time or access to watch highlights...

  • 46.
  • At 10:06 AM on 13 Mar 2008,
  • g wrote:

someone organise a confidence-building tour to bangladesh quick-sharp please

  • 47.
  • At 10:06 AM on 13 Mar 2008,
  • Andy wrote:

What has happened to Strauss? For so long he was the first name on the team sheet - and not just because he was opening. Century on debut at Lords, then 1,000 runs in ten tests - he used to look assured at the crease, he was someone we could rely on.

The technical difficulties which Aggers mentions - were they there when he was scoring bagfuls of runs? If not - how can a batsman at that level develop flaws in his technique, serious flaws, that he and the coaches then seem powerless to resolve. And let's face it they've been trying to for some time.

Really glad to see Ambrose scoring freely. It was harsh on Prior (dropping him) but let's face it - he couldn't catch a cold. Looks like we've got ourselves a keeper - in more ways than one.

  • 48.
  • At 10:07 AM on 13 Mar 2008,
  • Trevor wrote:

To all those who said Ambrose was a bad choice - ha ha ha. As for Strauss, his days are over. And as the Aussies have demonstrated, dropping your star players works if they are really any good. On this basis, I would also drop Bell and Petierson. If they are world class players, they will work on the deficiencies in their game which are mostly mental. It never hurt Ponting, Waugh, Hayden or Clarke to get dropped when they werent performing.

  • 49.
  • At 10:15 AM on 13 Mar 2008,
  • Warney wrote:

Let's fly Keysy over from Kent and pop him in at three. A proper batsman for test and one day matches.
Remember that double hundred at Lords!

  • 50.
  • At 10:18 AM on 13 Mar 2008,
  • John wrote:

I wonder if the tide was in during the afternoon session? Or out? Can't remember which way it works, but the Basin pitch is affected by the tides, or so local legend goes...

  • 51.
  • At 10:19 AM on 13 Mar 2008,
  • Nigel280167 wrote:

Looks like Ambrose is booking his berth in the England team for the next few years. He should have plenty to do behind the stumps on this wicket too...just hope he doesn't drop any.

Time is up on Strauss. He shouldn't have got back in without finding his touch on the County circuit. Shah's been waiting too long and deserves a run not just the odd match. I still think Strauss can get back in, but he's just too out of form at the moment and he puts too much pressure on Pietersen by expiring early without scoring enough. If he does go, I think Bell will go to 3 as Pietesen clearly wants to stay at 4 (where I think he should stay as he likes to play fluently when there are runs on the board).

I hope England can get up to 400 as this will put pressure on NZ, but I think it more likely that 2 wickets will fall early on and they'll be into the tail, so 350 more likely and NZ batting before lunch (hope I'm wrong), but new ball, fresh bowlers and cold middle-order batsmen usually mean wickets.

If the wicket plays the same tomorrow I think it'll be ideal for Sidebottom, Anderson and Broad as there was plenty of movement and bounce today. But if the sun comes out and the pitch dries and/or if England bowl 2 foot outside off or short, then Hoggy may well be sitting comfortably for the next match.

We'll see...

  • 52.
  • At 10:22 AM on 13 Mar 2008,
  • Alex wrote:

Sorry Phil H, but you are a complete idiot to suggest such a thing!!

On the contrary, it is a damn sight harder to get into the Australian team than out of it.

Part of the reasons the Aussies pride themselves on being the best and wotnot is that once a player hs proved his class, they stick with him, also giving him the requisite time to get through the patchy form.

As for Hoggard, there is not a cat in hells chance that the Aussies would have dropped him either.

  • 53.
  • At 10:26 AM on 13 Mar 2008,
  • Alan wrote:

What on earth is Tom talking about?? - since when did we pick International batsmen because "he is a fine slip fielder and can offer sound advice to the captain in the field"

  • 54.
  • At 10:26 AM on 13 Mar 2008,
  • Paul wrote:

Don't delude yourselves, it will be all out for under 350 again. With a couple of notable exceptions (at the crease) this team has no spine.

  • 55.
  • At 10:31 AM on 13 Mar 2008,
  • Alan wrote:

What on earth is Tom talking about?? - since when did we pick International batsmen because "he is a fine slip fielder and can offer sound advice to the captain in the field"

  • 56.
  • At 10:38 AM on 13 Mar 2008,
  • belgianfreddie wrote:

Good blog aggers as usual, very pleasant reading!
I aggree with you on the Strauss issue, and I question the logic of bringing him back so soon in the first place...England should pick batsmen on form and not past achievments...Where are Ramps and Shah?
Well played Ambrose, he showed everyone up here, as Jeff Boycott kept pointing out, this wicket has no deamons and should be a 400 + wicket...I doubt England will reach that though, with only inexperienced Broad to come...New Zealand will know that one wicket opens up England's tail...250-300 would be a good effort after 136 for 5.

  • 57.
  • At 10:39 AM on 13 Mar 2008,
  • Duncan wrote:

congrats to Tim fine knock and i think we can now start discussing who really should be being axed.

So who will be the next skipper of England i suppose Collingwood,as i believe there should only be one team playing 50 overs and tests for England.
Even if we were to somehow come out of this series with a win Michael is a shadow of the player he was.

I have never had any confidence in this present line up since Vaughan came back,and he looks half the skipper he was.The selectors should drop both him and Strauss let them go back to their respective counties and get some batting under their belt,and perhaps they could return for the second half of the summer if they have scored well.Thats IF

In my opinion the selectors have to have a long hard look at their role and be using the A side purely and simply as a feeder team for the full side not as a separate competitive unit and for heavens sake Dont bring flintoff back too early this is his last chance...

  • 58.
  • At 10:50 AM on 13 Mar 2008,
  • Neil Cross wrote:

Strauss has to be dropped for the next match unless he performs out of his skin in the second innings.Hoggard was unfairly dropped & I think it will rebound on us when the Kiwis bat.Hoggard is a proven wicket taker, maybe slightly out of sorts at the moment, but I've more faith in him taking a vital wicket when it really matters.He needs time on the cricket pitch so why needlessly drop him so prematurely.Harmison should have been dropped ages ago! Go England! I'm a proud Pom living in New Zealand at the moment but will be back soon.Make me proud again tomorrow England!

  • 59.
  • At 10:55 AM on 13 Mar 2008,
  • Andrew Yeandle wrote:

So, confirmation that the batting which was given a vote of confidence by the selectors after the First Test is still suspect. Technically they are good enough but seem to lack confidence in their own ability. Something for the coaching staff here then.

Well done Ambrose anyway

We shall now see whether the dropping of Matthew Hoggard was a good decision. He has always given his best for England and to drop him after one mediocre performance was harsh. It smacks of reacting to press criticism.

Compare this decision with the one taken by Brian Ashton on Tuesday in the rugby. England Rugby lost because of Jonny Wilkinson and England lost because of the opening bowlers ??

Did anyone read the article in The Times yesterday morning by Simon Barnes?

Andrew Yeandle

  • 60.
  • At 10:56 AM on 13 Mar 2008,
  • Patrick wrote:

Ryan Webb,

Jones has lost all form since his injury, a handful of wickets for Glamorgan last year.

Trescothick has mental issues but I am convinced he would be a much better bet than Strauss currently.

Flintoff is of course injued.

As for this game, England look well on top but an early wicket on day 2 could change everything, just need to get through the first hour relatively incident free then press on from there.

  • 61.
  • At 11:01 AM on 13 Mar 2008,
  • Anonymous wrote:

Saw Ambrose score 200+ last season agianst Worcs (ok - a second rate attack) but he showed excellent technique and longevity.
I think Shah should now be in but it's difficult to know who to drop for him - Vaughan, Pietersen or Strauss ?!?
The way those 3 are batting is it worth brining in Mustard just as a batsman as well ?!!?

  • 62.
  • At 11:04 AM on 13 Mar 2008,
  • vikrant wrote:

Collingwood and Amborse played well, hope Amborse gets his century tomorrow - and as one person above (Phil H) remarks, why has never any noise been made for sidelining or dropping a 'reputed' non-performer (like peiterson => for quite some time, have'nt seen a good innings from Peiterson) from a test match, while the management decides to drop Hoggard after just one bad match !!

  • 63.
  • At 11:08 AM on 13 Mar 2008,
  • Guy Stevenson wrote:

I think that Bell should open or play at number three. I think this change in the batting order would be of great benefit to the top order. Strauss is a worry and does not look like a man that should be playing for England, I believe however if he is to continue to play, he should play at number six, as this is a far better position to find test match form; just ask Bell.

  • 64.
  • At 11:13 AM on 13 Mar 2008,
  • Cricketfan wrote:

Aggers, stop using such hyperbole! Ambrose batted well but he didn't exactly "take NZ to the cleaners".

  • 65.
  • At 11:14 AM on 13 Mar 2008,
  • Matt wrote:

this performance justifies the decision to drop hoggard and leave the top 6 in there. maybe vaughn dropped hoggard because hes one of those under performing batsmen getting starts getting out keep the pressure off him blame the bowlers. just a thought.

  • 66.
  • At 11:16 AM on 13 Mar 2008,
  • Ryan Ellis wrote:

I have to say that I feel really quite sorry for Strauss. He seems to have completely lost the plot ever since losing the captaincy for the Ashes in Australia, that seems to have been the pivotal point in his career as he was in superb form before that. I just hope that he can get back to the sort of form he was showing prior to the Ashes and prove that he is still worthy of a place in the line-up on batting merits, as his presence is of most importance in the slips.

  • 67.
  • At 11:16 AM on 13 Mar 2008,
  • James Arthur wrote:

Puzzled. Oh so puzzled.

Hoggard has probably been England's best (consistent) player for years. One bad game and he's dropped for someone (Anderson) who has been inconsistent and has not earned a place.

Broad in for Harmison though, spot on.

As for the batting, why do England insist on knocking the confidence of players? Shah deserved a place at the start of the tour, unlike Strauss, now if he comes in for one test his confidence will be far lower than it would have been.

We need to get back on home soil, look at who's performing for their county and pick them. If KP isn't performing, drop him. I'm quite sure he'd be determined enough to fight back and be one of the best. Perhaps there's a fear of losing players to the IPL if they're dropped?

  • 68.
  • At 11:19 AM on 13 Mar 2008,
  • Anonymous wrote:

Its all very well blaming the batsmen for the debacle in the first test, but it was the failure of the bowlers in the first innings that put the whole side uder pressure by allowing the Kiwis to score probably 100 runs over par on that surface. In England's first innings New Zealand bowled well and restricted England's run-rate and frustrated players out; why couldn't our bowlers do the same??
The batters lost us the game in the 2nd innings, but it was the poor performance of the bowlers in the 1st that put them under pressure in the first place.

I think that the bottom line is that if this England team is picked around players based on form then the rewards will be there to see. Ambrose was Warwickshire's top run scorer last year so to see him get a score like this in the style that he did isnt suprising. Whilst picking players like Strauss is good for the team in terms of the experience that he brings it is no good sticking with a player who has no confidence. Confidence is the cornerstone to any successful team in my opinion. Shah should come in for Strauss in the 3rd test which would leave Peter Moores in the embarassing situation of having three Ashes 05 heroes as bench warmers.

  • 70.
  • At 11:45 AM on 13 Mar 2008,
  • JOHN wrote:

AMBROSE PLAY WELL ACCEPTED ALL THE TEAM NNED TO IMPORVE ON THEIR BATTING.

  • 71.
  • At 11:46 AM on 13 Mar 2008,
  • Jackie Litherland wrote:

The success of Ambrose and Colly will be of benefit to Ian Bell as well.
It's not been much remarked on but an all but total batting collapse is tough on the one surviving player.
Everyone concentrated on the fraility of the top order and their problems. But Bell took the brunt of the pressure.
Perhaps coming in after the fall of three quick wickets convinced him that another collapse was imminent? He looked out of his usual form. He's prone to be a bit of a worrier about team prospects.
Fortunately it doesn't have to fall all on Bell's shoulders. Broad in the tail should take the pressure off as well we hope.

  • 72.
  • At 11:48 AM on 13 Mar 2008,
  • Henry wrote:

Ramps and Shah for Strauss and Bell. Sounds good to me!

  • 73.
  • At 11:50 AM on 13 Mar 2008,
  • Richard Davis wrote:

Amazing coincidence but the minute they drop Hoggard we get a pitch he probably dreams about after the sub continent.

  • 74.
  • At 11:50 AM on 13 Mar 2008,
  • Sam wrote:

What a pity that the finest batsman in England is sitting on his backside in London rather than coming in at first wicket down. I refer, of course, to the incomparable Mark Ramprakash.

  • 75.
  • At 11:57 AM on 13 Mar 2008,
  • stuart wrote:

jim - gated means the batsmen left a gap between bat and pad that the ball went through, in this case to bowl him out (you can be gated and get lucky, like the ball rises over the stumps).

It is nice to see Ambrose score some runs, but it is more critical for me if he is to keep being selected that he keeps well. Even if he continues to average 75 for the rest of his career, but if he starts regularly dropping catches behind the stumps then he would need to be replaced (or moved to become a specialist batsman in the England setup).

  • 76.
  • At 12:14 PM on 13 Mar 2008,
  • Matthewiain wrote:

""The technical issues that dogged him throughout last year still remain – he is planting his right foot in front of his stumps and playing around it, so is vulnerable to lbw and catches behind"
Some technical issue that is Aggers,considering Strauss bats left handed
But i agree with your comments..
best wishes kjc"

Well, yes, as a left-hander you would put your right leg forwards, no?

I'm confused...

  • 77.
  • At 12:14 PM on 13 Mar 2008,
  • Keith Tracy wrote:

Isn't it about time that Strauss was given a run back in county cricket, given time to find form and confidence and that Rob Key was brought back into the top order?

  • 78.
  • At 12:29 PM on 13 Mar 2008,
  • Lee Baker wrote:

Ken Chilton (post 36) - what are you talking about? Do you even understand cricket? Strauss is indeed left handed, meaning that his front foot is his right foot, which he is planting and playing around.

Jim (post 45), to be bowled "through the gate" means to be bowled between bat and pad. Hence "gated".

Nice column from Aggers. Here's hoping that Ambrose can maintain the standard he's setting with the bat and (most importantly) the gloves as his career progresses.

  • 79.
  • At 12:32 PM on 13 Mar 2008,
  • Tom Collinson wrote:

just out of curiosity, if a bowler bowls a ball worthy of a wicket and gets one, is it the batsman being poor or the bowler being class?

I doubt many could of defending the ball Vaughan fell too.

  • 80.
  • At 12:39 PM on 13 Mar 2008,
  • Dr. Cajetan Coelho wrote:

England batsmen demonstrated their desire to remain at the crease but not for long. They need to convert their good starts into solid innings. Fine effort by Ambrose and Collingwood.

  • 81.
  • At 12:42 PM on 13 Mar 2008,
  • Liam wrote:

Ken - post 36: You were right in saying that strauss bats left handed so aggers is also right to say that he plants his right foot because that´s his front foot!!! If your going to try and make a point, at least get it right.
Personally, stick with Strauss for the rest of this series then out!! Pietersen will find form, as will Vaughan. And anyone who says drop bell.. whyyy??

  • 82.
  • At 12:50 PM on 13 Mar 2008,
  • Markus Trescothickash wrote:

Add Trescothick, Rashid, Flintoff and Ramprakash to this batting line up and we're suddenly a force to be reckoned with.

Trescothick
Vaughan(c)
Cook
Pietersen
Bell
Collingwood
Ambrose(wk)
Flintoff
Rashid
Broad
Sidebottom

  • 83.
  • At 12:51 PM on 13 Mar 2008,
  • Markus Trescothickash wrote:

Add Trescothick, Rashid, Flintoff and Ramprakash to this batting line up and we're suddenly a force to be reckoned with.

Trescothick
Vaughan(c)
Ramprakash
Pietersen
Bell
Collingwood
Ambrose(wk)
Flintoff
Rashid
Broad
Sidebottom

  • 84.
  • At 12:51 PM on 13 Mar 2008,
  • Steven Bennett wrote:

So after Strauss fails to score big in the 2nd innings he may actually be dropped? Everyone knows that he shouldn't have been there in the first place - his average over the last 2-3 is in the 20s for pete's sake. There are bowlers out there with a better averages! Why can anyone who knows the basics of cricket see that the selections are so wrong, except for those running the team. I mean, how stupid are they to make the changes weeks, sometimes months, after they should have? What a joke our national cricket team is. Only we have the 'jobs for the boys' mentality.
A report on the 1st day on ceefax made me laugh, and sums it up. It said at 291-5, we were on top. You're never really on top in cricket. You either win, lose, or draw. Perceiving that you are on top shows how ridiculous our approach is to cricket is in England. We were on top in the last ashes when Colly scored a double ton, and what exactly did all that being on top amount to at the end of that test match? I fear we just don't get it, and we never really will, even when we have success we don't realise how we arrived at it.

  • 85.
  • At 12:53 PM on 13 Mar 2008,
  • stuart gordon wrote:

Short players no good at cutting? no one better through the off side than Alan Lamb!!!

  • 86.
  • At 12:55 PM on 13 Mar 2008,
  • Michael wrote:

Can we stop the Vaughan bashing? As I pointed out yesterday, only Pietersen has scored more runs since he got back into the team last summer! To prove a point, England's last centuries:

Vaughan: 2nd test vs India (July 07)
Cook: 3rd test vs Sri Lanka (December 07)
Strauss: 3rd test vs Pakistan (August 06)
Pieteren: 3rd test vs India (August 07)
Bell: 1st test vs West Indies (May 07)
Collingwood: 4th vs West Indies (June 07)

Therefore there are players who have gone longer without a 100 than Vaughan! I also pointed out that these players have also scored fewer runs generally, yet their places in the teams aren't being questioned as much as Vaughan's!

  • 87.
  • At 12:57 PM on 13 Mar 2008,
  • Jon R wrote:

Phil H made a good point that perhaps has some merit in investigating. The so called "journeymen" Collingwood and Sidebottom had to work really hard to get into the England team and to be respsected.

They did not know the right people and nor were they the naturally gifted. They actually work hard and understand that commitment, determination and a never say die attitude is what it takes. There are plenty of natually gifted players, there are plenty that have the right connections but there are few who possess the required personal determination and toughness.

I think that Pietersen has both but is just having a bad patch. Strauss has neither, Cook works hard and deserves a chance but generally plays well when others around him play well - he needs to take a leading role and stand-up to the pressure.

If these players cannot show a season by season improvement then they should be replaced with those who really want to try and are determined to succeed. Remove central contracts - remove the lifeline and let's see who needs to run home to their mum for comfort and who comes through.

  • 88.
  • At 01:04 PM on 13 Mar 2008,
  • Mark wrote:

Henry:
What a ridiculous comment, Bell is one of (if not the) best batsmen in the england squad at the moment, to suggest that Ramps should come in for him is absurd! Not saying he shouldnt come in, but for someone else, like KP...or perhaps Cook, no-one has mentioned him yet, and he hasnt exactly done england any favours with his opening recently.

  • 89.
  • At 01:05 PM on 13 Mar 2008,
  • g wrote:

post 79, TOM COLLINSON - that seems like a slightly inane observation to me. that's cricket!


  • 90.
  • At 01:07 PM on 13 Mar 2008,
  • Warney wrote:

The Shermanator never converts his rare 50's into tons.

Any 100's in Ashes 05 - no!
Any 100's in Ashes 07 - no!

When the spotlight is on him - he doesn't convert.

  • 91.
  • At 01:07 PM on 13 Mar 2008,
  • Dave Buxton wrote:

To the members of the Ramps love in - how old is he now, 45? (only joking). Is he older than Brucie on Strictly Come Dancing?

Seriously, if we are building for the next ashes series, is this a credible selection policy?

As for Strauss, he should have as much job security as Alistair Darling at the moment after yesterday - Both performances left me feeling extremely short changed.

  • 92.
  • At 01:09 PM on 13 Mar 2008,
  • Bill Gregory wrote:

Tom (No 11) said Strauss can offer sound advice? During the sledging discussions he said that it had been prevalent since Dennis Lillee and Denis Compton.

  • 93.
  • At 01:16 PM on 13 Mar 2008,
  • John wrote:

Once again Stauss fails ,and being in the crucial No.3 position triggers a collapse.
He should never have been selected ahead of Owais Shah ( who should not have been left out following a good score in the warm up game).It seems they want Strauss in at all costs,maybe they see him as a future captain,but his batting does not justify this -he keeps getting out in the same way.
Drop Stauss and let Bell go back to No.3 and get some stability in the batting order.Then Peterson can come in with a decent score on the board

  • 94.
  • At 01:33 PM on 13 Mar 2008,
  • Martin wrote:

Anyone suggesting dropping Pietersen or Bell is just embarrasing themselves really.

Hoggard was dropped as he now looks like an average county bowler. His only weapon is swing with the new ball and once the shine wears off he is basically cannon fodder.

  • 95.
  • At 01:36 PM on 13 Mar 2008,
  • Dan wrote:

Mark Ramprakash where are you? yes hes 38 but where is the backward step in winning test matches? Its all well an good building for the future but today is last years future and we aint doing so well!

Bring in ramps 4000 runs in two years at an average over 100...

Must say I was relieved and surprised after to watch the highlights of the evening session having gone to bed at tea. Ambrose looked very good but had success because he played his natural game, which, on the whole I thought the players did today.

Was much more impressed with KP's attitude, at least he got out looking to dominate and not in a turgid and obdurate fashion. The runs for him, I'm sure will come, however, I fear for Strauss.

Unfortunately, the selectors boxed themselves into a corner by picking him. This was fundamentally flawed as he did nothing to warrant a place back in he side. But, since he has been recalled, it would have been more destroying to drop him after one test. I'm a huge advocat of Shah and feel he deserves a chance at 5 with Bell at 3, which, to me is a far stronger top six.

Nonetheless, I can envisage the possibility whereby Freddie comes back this summer to bat at six, and who will again be the fall guy? Shah.

  • 97.
  • At 01:46 PM on 13 Mar 2008,
  • AndyD wrote:

Surely Ramprakash .....?

  • 98.
  • At 01:50 PM on 13 Mar 2008,
  • Mickey Pearce wrote:

Re: post 19 - The shorter in height the batsman, the easier it is for them to turn a decent length ball into a short one.

To a batsman who's, say, 6 ft 5 - the ball would have to pitch reasonably short to be 'on a good length'.

Exactly the same length to a 5 ft 5 man would be a nice short ball to tuck into.

So it could be said that the margin for error in bowling to a relatively short batsman is far smaller.

See DG Bradman, BC Lara, SR Tendulkar, etc etc...

  • 99.
  • At 02:10 PM on 13 Mar 2008,
  • Brian Crowe wrote:

The spirit and guts of a team should emanate from the top, as of course should the leadership. I regret to say that I think Vaughan lacks these qualities and should be replaced. A strong captain will bring out the best in his players, and this at present, is not happening. Also, is Vaughan really worth his place as a batsman??

  • 100.
  • At 02:40 PM on 13 Mar 2008,
  • tim wrote:

Strauss having difficulties doesnt suprise me. Even at the height of his performances he always struck me as a fairly limited batsman that just got his own game completely in order.. once he started to err from his solid technique then he wouldnt have the eye and speed of hands to get through it. Should have been captain in australia though!

  • 101.
  • At 02:56 PM on 13 Mar 2008,
  • James Davey wrote:

"Also, is Vaughan really worth his place as a batsman??"

Based on excellent batting performances against the Windies, India and Sri Lanka, yes.

  • 102.
  • At 02:56 PM on 13 Mar 2008,
  • paul wrote:

I think the person who asked about Trescothick, Flintoff and Jones is right.

These three are talisman. If they are in the game something is happening. None of the current side, with the exception of Peterson, who is in dreadful touch by his standards, are in this category. After this series England need to take a long look at the composition of this side not just trundle on.

If these three are not to return, which seems likely then we need to find players who can replace them.

Well done Colly for doing what he does best and good luck to Ambrose, but please dont get out early tomorrow. at least let me go to bed at lunch with some hope.

  • 103.
  • At 03:03 PM on 13 Mar 2008,
  • Dave wrote:

Here we go again, building up Ambrose up into the usual 'new rising star', and then preparing to knock him down when he fails. An excellent knock, and once more we have relied on one or two people's efforts to disguise the fact that most of the previous batting had failed miserably again. Strauss is on Planet Zog, and should be 'rested'. We are not consistent enough. I know people who contribute to thsi don't seem to like comparisons to Australia, but shouldn't we aspire to their high standards? i.e. consistency itself. Each player always gets runs, or wickets, and they regularly take catches as a matter of course. We will go on tonight to reach 350 max, then struggle in the field - I can see it coming. 1 good day = 2 bad ones usually.

  • 104.
  • At 03:04 PM on 13 Mar 2008,
  • Dave wrote:

Here we go again, building up Ambrose up into the usual 'new rising star', and then preparing to knock him down when he fails. An excellent knock, and once more we have relied on one or two people's efforts to disguise the fact that most of the previous batting had failed miserably again. Strauss is on Planet Zog, and should be 'rested'. We are not consistent enough. I know people who contribute to this don't seem to like comparisons to Australia, but shouldn't we aspire to their high standards? i.e. consistency itself. Each player always gets runs, or wickets, and they regularly take catches as a matter of course. We will go on tonight to reach 350 max, then struggle in the field - I can see it coming. 1 good day = 2 bad ones usually.

  • 105.
  • At 03:14 PM on 13 Mar 2008,
  • apek wrote:

Mark (comment 88), yes Henry's comment was ridiculous - but then so is yours about Cook......."and he hasnt exactly done england any favours with his opening recently".
Since he has been paired with Vaughan at the top of the order, (ie since the beginning of the Sri Lanka series) they have averaged over 50 for the first wicket - admittedly this is over a short period of time, but this stands comparison with plenty of successful opening partnerships, and not least with one startlingly unsuccessful one: Cook/Strauss. (AC & MV have passed 100 twice in 9 attempts; AC & AS failed to do it once in 27)
Cook does have a well-known weakness outside the off stump, especially when the ball is slanted across him by right-arm bowlers coming over the wicket, but he is also very young, and has continued to succeed even while trying to iron this out (remember his 100 at Perth?) He is also the youngest English batsman ever to get to 2000 runs. Of course we would all love it if his 30s and 40s became 100s and 150s, but lawks-a-mercy give the lad a chance!
I feel for Strauss - he seems so far to have failed to come to terms with the fact that bowlers refuse to bowl to his strengths nowadays........the captaincy may also have been an issue. But I also think he desperately misses Trescothick. When they were together, Tres was the trailblazer, and Strauss could play at his own pace - with Cook, he seemed to cast himself as the stroke-maker, a role that didn't sit comfortably. Whatever the causes, though, it does seem to be time for him to be given a prolonged break - like many other posters, I was rather surprised to see him return so soon.
Shah in for Strauss, Bell at no.3.

  • 106.
  • At 03:19 PM on 13 Mar 2008,
  • Stuart wrote:

Re post 96: I seriously doubt Freddie will come back into the top 6 now, I think those days are over. More likely as a 7 or 8 I hope, playing more of a Gilchrist role.

The selectors will rightly be slaughtered unless Strauss scores a few in the second innings, as unless he does he has to go. Before the squads for the winter tours were announced I suggested Carberry to open and I'll stick with that. I still think that Vaughan has enough to offer to side as a batsmen to remain as captain for now. Cook is too young to do it, Pietersen to self obsessed, Colly only just sneaks in the side and no other candidates for the job really.

  • 107.
  • At 03:26 PM on 13 Mar 2008,
  • Bemused wrote:

"Everyone knows that..." Do we now? Are the fans who don't necessarily agree not worthy of holding an opinion then?

An interesting day. At lunch I posted that for all the good start I would not believe that a collapse was not around the corner until we were around 150-0. Sadly, I was right. Hopefully though Tim Ambrose will have a happier career than GO Jones, Chris Read and Matt Prior. It's been a recent tradition for a 'keeper to start well (Read in his 3rd incarnation) and fade away before the echoes of the chorus of "haleluyas" have dimmed. It's a bit early to say that Ambrose is the answer to all England's problems, although he has looked the part with both bat and gloves and made the critics who said that he shouldn't even be on the tour, let alone in the side, look pretty silly.

The Strauss-bashing club is back. In the fun of criticising his lack of centuries people forget that he did make a 96 against India just before getting dropped, made a century in the warm-up game and another for his State side in New Zealand. Suddenly he is a "limited player", which puts those who ulogised his class and technique from 2004-2006 in their place! If only he had gone to Australia as captain: we wouldn't have lost 5-0 and quite probably we would still be ulogising about his technique and class.

  • 108.
  • At 04:04 PM on 13 Mar 2008,
  • Henry wrote:

Mark (88): Bell looks good on paper and in the nets, but most of his runs have come vs a weakened Pakistan/West Indies, a big not out score vs Bangladesh, and several other innings in dead rubbers. He's a pretty good one-day batsman, but the jury is still out on his value as a test batsman - he doesn't score runs when it matters most and put pressure on the opponents.

He has the ability to develop into a good test batsman, but he has yet made the progress expected of him in test matches. I think Ramps has a better sense of the state of the game, and may (now) be the kind of tough, counter-attacking batsman that England need right now.

  • 109.
  • At 04:05 PM on 13 Mar 2008,
  • Mike wrote:

Just feel that this England set up lack courage - courage to play a good inning - courage to drop a player - now they drop two and that is a panic button rather then sensible thinking. The sensible thinking would have always been to continue with Shah untill Straus knocks on the door again and also not to bring back Harmie untill he has had bags of wickets at Durham. Then we realise the wrongs and hit the panic button - and hoggie suffers. Should have dropped harmie and straus and play broad and shah from the fisrt match. Anyway Hoggie should not have been dropped for having ONE bad game for a long long time

  • 110.
  • At 04:10 PM on 13 Mar 2008,
  • Rachel wrote:

Great stuff from Ambrose today but our last few keepers have started promisingly and well, look how they turned out. But being positive, he looked a natural number 7 and rescued another shoddy performance from the top 5. Strauss is in desperate need of some runs but what about Pietersen? hmm, it's all gone strangely quiet on that front. Well played Colly and Ambrose. Just how small is he?

  • 111.
  • At 04:12 PM on 13 Mar 2008,
  • Corin wrote:

Pick in form players and forget about age - I don't give a hoot how old Ramprakash is as he's the best player for the spot. Send Harmy home as he must be a distraction on the team. Finally lets see attacking field placings from Vaughn which is backed by the great fielding we know the team are capable of. A draw is no good - we need a series win.

  • 112.
  • At 04:12 PM on 13 Mar 2008,
  • Raju wrote:

Its amazing how quickly public and pundit opinions change! One innings of substance and Ambrose is the next best thing. He may well be but dont put pressure on the guy. Its worth remembering that for the first 3-4 tests Prior was phenomenal too and had a debut century at Lords.
Aggers, "Ambrose took the NZ bowlers to the cleaners" is a bit too dramatic for a strike rate of 70, dont you think?
Also its only day 1 and the other team hasn't batted yet and their big hitter Oram hasn't played a substantial innings yet in this series. I would be a touch cautious and not start talking about 500+ score.

  • 113.
  • At 04:13 PM on 13 Mar 2008,
  • Mark Kidger wrote:

There is no point in obsessing about Andrew Flintoff, Simon Jones and Marcus Trescothick. They are not available and may never again be available. Since 2002 Andrew Flintoff has had, I believe, 5 operations. He may genuinely be fit to bowl now, but we have heard that before. You would have to be either mad, or the most supreme of optimists to plan around him for the future.

Simon Jones? Maybe the Worcester air will revive him. Certainly Worcester greentops may, but the chances of him coming into the England reckoning again are slim indeed. This coming season may well be his last in cricket unless he really can get fully fit again.

And Marcus Trescothick? He's tried to come back and realised that he couldn't. It's a shame, but his health comes before anything else. His chances of playing again must be the remotest of the three.

You don't do the players any favours by saying (or implying) that they are only stand-ins. Let them get on with the job. And let's have a bit less flip-flopping about the merits of individuals. All of England's top 6 have proven in the past that they have class; a little bit of consistency now will help breed some confidence. Stating that England will lose if "x" is selected is not going to do much for the side's collective confidence: whoever the XI is, let's wish it well and just pray that the selectors who are with the side and know the players do know better than we do.

  • 114.
  • At 04:14 PM on 13 Mar 2008,
  • Matt wrote:

Everyone moans about strauss. However think back to when he was captain. He had as average of around 80 and was playing incredibly. The selectors ruined him by not making him captain in oz. Its clearly ruined his confidence and flintoff didnt need captaincy with all the other pressures he had.

  • 115.
  • At 04:15 PM on 13 Mar 2008,
  • wrote:

Ambrose has delivered in his 2nd test match. Prior delivered in his first, and hasn't toured this time around. Prior was built as the new Englnad keeper, had that pressure on him, and in true English media style, he buckled.It happened to 'Tiger' Tim Henman,is beginning to happen to Andy Murray. Flintoff dealt with the pressure, Harmison buckled under it. I think that Ambrose should be removed from the spot light, left to do his job as players like Bell, and Cook are left to do their job. After all one good innings doesn't make a player. Harmison had a good 18 months, and now can land the ball on the pitch......

  • 116.
  • At 04:20 PM on 13 Mar 2008,
  • russel wrote:

Jonathan,

Read your piece in the Evening standard blaming Duncan Fletcher for the continued woes of the England bowling attack,and in particular Steve Harmison. Whilst I may agree with the view that these guys are not bowling enough in county cricket and are being looked after too much, I cannot believe this can still be Duncan Fletchers fault! When is this obsession with how bad a coach Fletcher was going to fade and the current coaching set up going to take some of the blame. If you compare Moore's record with that of Fletcher I think you find it wanting. Move on!

  • 117.
  • At 04:23 PM on 13 Mar 2008,
  • Mark Kidger wrote:

There is no point in obsessing about Andrew Flintoff, Simon Jones and Marcus Trescothick. They are not available and may never again be available. Since 2002 Andrew Flintoff has had, I believe, 5 operations. He may genuinely be fit to bowl now, but we have heard that before. You would have to be either mad, or the most supreme of optimists to plan around him for the future.

Simon Jones? Maybe the Worcester air will revive him. Certainly Worcester green-tops may, but the chances of him coming into the England reckoning again are slim indeed. This coming season may well be his last in cricket unless he really can get fully fit again.

And Marcus Trescothick? He's tried to come back and realised that he couldn't. It's a shame, but his health comes before anything else. His chances of playing again must be the remotest of the three.

You don't do the players any favours by saying (or implying) that they are only stand-ins. Let them get on with the job. And let's have a bit less flip-flopping about the merits of individuals. All of England's top 6 have proven in the past that they have class; a little bit of consistency now will help breed some confidence. Stating that England will lose if "x" is selected is not going to do much for the side's collective confidence: whoever the XI is, let's wish it well and just pray that the selectors who are with the side and know the players do know better than we do.

  • 118.
  • At 04:24 PM on 13 Mar 2008,
  • Henry wrote:

Mark (88): Bell looks good on paper and in the nets, but most of his runs have come vs a weakened Pakistan/West Indies, a big not out score vs Bangladesh, and several other innings in dead rubbers. He's a pretty good one-day batsman, but the jury is still out on his value as a test batsman - he doesn't score runs when it matters most and put pressure on the opponents.

He has the ability to develop into a good test batsman, but he has yet made the progress expected of him in test matches. I think Ramps has a better sense of the state of the game, and may (now) be the kind of tough, counter-attacking batsman that England need right now.

  • 119.
  • At 04:49 PM on 13 Mar 2008,
  • Chris wrote:

Ramps to back into the Test side to bat at number 3, he could say there until next summer for the ashes.

  • 120.
  • At 04:54 PM on 13 Mar 2008,
  • James Davey wrote:

"The Strauss-bashing club is back."

Indeed. Because he's WOEFULLY OUT OF FORM at Test level.

I, as much as anyone, want him to succeed. On form he's possible the best opener (bar Hayden) in world cricket.

Anyone watching him over the last THREE YEARS can see there are marked flaws in his techique, as highlighted by agggers.

Fans seize on any good innings as evidence that he's back. Each of these good innings is proceeded by many poor ones. Sure, he scored 104 for Aukland. Prior to that he hadn't passed 30 in 5 or more goes.

Sure, he scored a ton in the warm-up. But he hasn't scored a FIRST CLASS 100 since 2006.

If he can't score runs at Middlsex, why is he in the England side.

He needs time out. Shah, Key or Carberry can replace him

  • 121.
  • At 05:04 PM on 13 Mar 2008,
  • davodiablo wrote:

Kiwis take English top order to the cleaners.....just balancing !

  • 122.
  • At 05:20 PM on 13 Mar 2008,
  • stev666 wrote:

I see alot of posts questioning why Strauss was brought back before he was ready. But one cant help thinking that Strauss has engineered his inclusion in a similar manner to when Harmison went out to SA to get himself selected for Sri Lanka.

Strauss has brought this on himself really, he seems to be the only one not willing to admit he is not up to the job. And the selectors should be looking to county performers, not players who go out and play a few extra games in the close season, to enhance there selection chances. Sure he is willing but unfortunately he is not able. His career stats suggest he is a one trick pony, he played well in the beginning while he was still a unknown quantity, but he has been "found out" and for quite some time now hasnt looked anything like world class. A world class player wouldnt have such glaring weaknesses, give him nothing to cut and he stops scoring.

To give Strauss a run in the team now would be to weaken the batting further, he doesnt have the mental strength to come through and tough it out when people dont have the confidence in him. At least Shah or another batsman would have the luxury of playing in their honeymoon period.

And well done Ambrose, keep playing like that son and dont forget to do the business behind the stumps mate.

  • 123.
  • At 05:21 PM on 13 Mar 2008,
  • wrote:

Ambrose has delivered in his 2nd test match. Prior delivered in his first, and hasn't toured this time around. Prior was built as the new Englnad keeper, had that pressure on him, and in true English media style, he buckled.It happened to 'Tiger' Tim Henman,is beginning to happen to Andy Murray. Flintoff dealt with the pressure, Harmison buckled under it. I think that Ambrose should be removed from the spot light, left to do his job as players like Bell, and Cook are left to do their job. After all one good innings doesn't make a player. Harmison had a good 18 months, and now can land the ball on the pitch......

  • 124.
  • At 05:29 PM on 13 Mar 2008,
  • NewRover wrote:

Why does everyone seem to give Bell so much grief?

He has been a consistant player for a few seasons now.

So he doesn't go on to get hundreds. Would you rather someone consistantly scoring 50 at least once in every game or scores one hundred every series and not many more?

You have to feel for Shah though. Strauss should be building his confidence back up on the county circuit away from the media spotlight!

Anyway come on England show the fight we all know you have in you somewhere ;)

  • 125.
  • At 06:04 PM on 13 Mar 2008,
  • Mark Kidger wrote:

Mark Ramprakash played 52 Tests and averaged 27.3. Not really a great success over a long career.

In his last 10 Tests he scored:

14, 40, 14, 26, 40, 32, 133, 19, 17, 28, 37, 19, 58, 31, 11, 24, 9, 2

That's an average of 30.8, despite the big hundred.

Why? In 16 of his 18 innings he got in, but he still only passed 40 twice. It was symptomatic of his career as a whole: plenty of nice cameos, but few innings that really counted.

  • 126.
  • At 06:12 PM on 13 Mar 2008,
  • Dom O'Reilly wrote:

'Tim Ambrose might be one of the shortest men currently playing Test cricket but he can bat'.
What's height got to do with it? Did anyone make that remark about Gavaskar, Tendulkar, Hanif Mohammad, Kallicharan or Aravinda de Silva?
Aggers, what was the relevance? Talk about non-sequiturs...

  • 127.
  • At 06:52 PM on 13 Mar 2008,
  • Andy wrote:

What does Shah have to do to get a chance, he's been one of the best county batsman for years. He can get hundreds in the top order and build partnerships. Give him a chance!

  • 128.
  • At 06:59 PM on 13 Mar 2008,
  • Kumar wrote:

What about dropping Vaughn? Such a over rated cricketer.

  • 129.
  • At 07:15 PM on 13 Mar 2008,
  • Wiggum wrote:

England proved again they are a journeyman side at best. One man the difference between an ok day and capitulation. They've had their glory year.

  • 130.
  • At 07:23 PM on 13 Mar 2008,
  • Paul Sandles wrote:

I enjoyed watching such a topsy turvy day. It was especially gratifying to see some of England's batsmen showing that they can be resilient when the pressure is on. Most of them showed a bit of fight and NZs wickets came from some good bowling so we cannot be overly critical this time.

I feel quite sorry for Strauss because he is out of form and in the wrong position. You need your number 3 to be able to either cement a good start and push on, or else be strong enough to grind it out if a wicket has fallen early. Either way, you need them to be in good touch and above all, adaptable. I think Ian Bell should be there. He seems to bat well with Pieterson and KP may also be more secure in his own game if he knows that the man at the other end is confident in his own game. Having Strauss at 3 puts KP under more pressure and negative vibes travel to those around.

Well bowled Jacob Oram; well batted Ambrose and Collingwood. Bring on the Test. Keep it on these lines and it will be a good contest and above all, entertaining to watch. That is what all fans of cricket want regardless of who wins!

  • 131.
  • At 07:25 PM on 13 Mar 2008,
  • apek wrote:

Mark Kidger (120). Fair enough - but the rest of the team weren't exactly pulling up trees against Australia were they? (with the obvious exception of Butcher at Leeds). Yes he had a very disappointing end in New Zealand. But the point is that he's matured a lot and become a much more dominant batsman as well as a much more mature individual. It's easy to look at his test record 7-10 years ago and dismiss him, but we're not comparing like with like: yes, based on those performances he shouldn't be picked, but he is by far and away the best batsman playing county cricket and has been for several years now. Give him three tests at home against New Zealand - I'm pretty sure he would do significantly better than Strauss has recently...........

  • 132.
  • At 08:21 PM on 13 Mar 2008,
  • Glynne Williams wrote:

To those who are complaining about the senior batsmen, it's worth bearing in mind that KP's average is about 49 and Vaughan's 48, so I don't see how you can consider dropping them.

Congratulations to Cook by the way for beating David Gower to the youngest 2000 record. A captain of the future, I feel.

  • 133.
  • At 08:58 PM on 13 Mar 2008,
  • Mark wrote:

First test, first Day NZ 270 odd for 6, and "England ..have the upper hand", Second Test, first day England 290 for 5 and have "taken NZ to the cleaners"..Come on Aggers...I know you are playing to the home audience, but a lttle bit more balance in the reporting please!!

  • 134.
  • At 11:56 PM on 13 Mar 2008,
  • NS wrote:

Dear Johnny Ags,

I stated last week that England needed new blood. Poor Harmison, one has to feel for him. Ambrose and Anderson have provided breakthoughs for England - please keep it up. As an Indian immigrant to the US in the late 70's the England/India clashes (which we eventually lost most) were things of beauty. England needs to take risks to suceed, just like India has starte to do - thanks to my advice to which they are finally listening. Pakistan has been the most talented team with youngsters with little guidance. Can you imagine what they could with the right management? And oh, the Aussies, such bullies, who can't stand being .....'sledged'? England, take the high road, include them youngens, sledge them Aussies, and you could be on top again.!!!!

  • 135.
  • At 12:15 AM on 14 Mar 2008,
  • Nick t wrote:

Robert Key. A class batsmen who should come in for Strauss. No argument.

  • 136.
  • At 12:25 AM on 14 Mar 2008,
  • bingathechucker wrote:

Of course Tim Ambrose is the goods. He's yet another gift from the Queensland production line of high-quality keepers who can also bat.

Having learned his cricket in the Bulls' system, it's hardly a coincidence that Ambrose reminds one of Ian Healy, another relatively short man whose favourite strokes were the cut and the drive.

For England's sake, here's hoping that Ambrose ends up at least half as good as Heals!

  • 137.
  • At 12:26 AM on 14 Mar 2008,
  • alfie wrote:

Well done Ambrose !
A great start with the bat (as in fact M Prior and G Jones also had - the difference here is he appears to be a competent wicketkeeper. Hope he continues to thrive)

Sad to see Strauss struggling. Let us not be too quick to chuck him out , but I agree his place is in great peril if he doesn't find his form in the second innings.

And to all these people hollering for the recall of Ramps : Did you ever actually watch him bat?(in a Test match I mean). He slaughters county attacks I know, but he did that years ago , and he never transferred that form to the international game. To think he would do so now sounds like the triumph of hope over experience....

By the way at lunch on day 2 some of the Jimmy bashing is looking a mite overdone....

  • 138.
  • At 03:39 AM on 14 Mar 2008,
  • Peter wrote:

I think your wicket keeping problems are over........There's something about him that spells good news.He might just guarantee himself first player picked at selection time because you always need a keeper in a game of cricket.

  • 139.
  • At 05:54 AM on 14 Mar 2008,
  • Scotty wrote:

Well done Timmy boy. As the old adege goes. If you can't beat 'em. Pick 'em.

  • 140.
  • At 06:14 AM on 14 Mar 2008,
  • Roy Bagshaw wrote:

The consternation of tne England captain having to face the last 20 odd minutes of the NZ attack without Hoggard.What on earth will he(Vaughan) do in the future when The English team is is required to bat out an hour or so?. surely not send out a batsman.

  • 141.
  • At 06:48 AM on 14 Mar 2008,
  • Rob Whittle wrote:

Strauss: I also question the strategy of having 3 opening batsmen at 1-3 against a competant, but not Australian like pace attack. With Bell, Pieterson, Shah able to fill the No3 spot.

Also the tail is looking stronger at 7,8,9

Strauss is still technically flawed and this is stopping him being prolific, limiting him as an opener/No 3 who either loses his wicket or adds the odd 20, 30 or occasion half century.

Last test

Cooke
Vaughan
Shah
Pieterson
Collingwood
Bell
Ambrose
Broad
Sidebottom
Monty
Anderson

I've put Shah at No3, but am tempted to promote Pieterson (Best Batsman) up to No3, Collingwood No4 with Shah/Bell operating strongly and more freely at 5/6 to built/recover an innings, and bat with the tail.

  • 142.
  • At 07:30 AM on 14 Mar 2008,
  • Dave wrote:

Well, I was 50% right (Dave, 104)yesterday. We didn't quite make 350 - although with five wickets left, we should've maybe added another 100 runs if we'd batted carefully, which would've put even more pressure on NZ.But I got the bowling part wrong, and well done to Jimmy for staking his claim. We should win from here, especially if we can post 2-300. One intersting question for everyone; If Strauss makes a ton in the second innings, what should Englands selectors do, given that everyone on this site has said he should be dropped?

  • 143.
  • At 07:33 AM on 14 Mar 2008,
  • Dave wrote:

Well, I was 50% right (Dave, 104)yesterday. We didn't quite make 350 - although with five wickets left, we should've maybe added another 100 runs if we'd batted carefully, which would've put even more pressure on NZ.But I got the bowling part wrong, and well done to Jimmy for staking his claim. We should win from here, especially if we can post 2-300. One intersting question for everyone; If Strauss makes a ton in the second innings, what should Englands selectors do, given that everyone on this site has said he should be dropped?

  • 144.
  • At 02:50 PM on 14 Mar 2008,
  • adrian wrote:

Thank goodness for Ambrose, otherwise England would be deep in it! It seems strange that Hoggy & Harmy should pay the price for failure in the last test, bowlers more often than note, dig England out of trouble, what about the lack of centuries from the top order! I'm sure H & H will return to their best soon!

  • 145.
  • At 12:26 AM on 15 Mar 2008,
  • barney hatch wrote:

Hopefully it's very unlikely the administrators would be so silly as to take the short term view. They'd be sure to see that big moolah from Pay TV (SKY) in the short term would lead to audience reduction in the long term.

Can't everyone see that in the long run the audience would shrink if starved of its dose of cricket. Surely no one has nightmares about the day when UK cricket followers dwindle to a trumpeter and a skinny Frindell with no friendels and TV no longer pays and kids no longer play.

Personally I could make do with TMS and some highlights. What are the chances??

This post is closed to new comments.

Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú iD

Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú navigation

Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú © 2014 The Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.