England v New Zealand, 1st ODI, Lords

First topic message reminder :

First of 3 ODIs start at 10:45 today, with both sides looking to get in tune for the Champions Trophy. New Zealand have won the toss and will bowl first. Worryingly for England, Dernbach has been picked. Teams:

England: Alastair Cook, Ian Bell, Jonathan Trott, Joe Root, Eoin Morgan, Jos Buttler, Chris Woakes, Tim Bresnan, Graeme Swann, James Anderson, Jade Dernbach.

New Zealand: Brendon McCullum, Luke Ronchi (wkt), Martin Guptill, Kane Williamson, Ross Taylor, Grant Elliott, James Franklin, Nathan McCullum, Tim Southee, Kyle Mills, Mitchell McClenaghan.

Both Taylor and Guptill have brought up their 50s, and the hundred partnership as well. England need a couple of quick wickets to come back into the game.

Never understood why Woakes is playing for England. Also Boyd Rankin called up madness. James Harris or Stuart Meaker would of been far better choices IMO.

England don't look good enough.

Taylor and Guptill are playing some superb cricket though. NZ do look a good side. Dark horses for the ICC Trophy. IMO.

jimbohammers wrote:Boyd Rankin called up to the squad as back up for Broad and Finn

Say whaaaaaaaaat

Giles loves his Warwickshire doesn't he? Very strange decision

Very harsh on Meaker unless he's injured.

poor Ireland getting their good players nicked.

Anderson comes back and gets the breakthrough. Taylor gone.

what will we do when Jimmy is gone?

Anderson back and bags one immediately ! Taylor gone...good move from Cook

Well played by Taylor for 54 ...A glimmer of hope for England ? Maybe but I think the backup bowling won't be good enough.
Would consider using Root as surely Woakes and Dernbach can't bowl a full quota ?

Elliott ahead of McCullum. Not sure about that.

Rankin ? Wanting to make sure he doesn't change his mind ?

Harris was called up for NZ and now seems to have disappeared...is he injured or just off form ? They usually try for more consistency in selection...

Roland Jones + Onions surely ahead of Meaker and Rankin though?

Also Rankin is Irish, why can't we pick an Englishman for a change? Does my head in

Dernbach back...guess they have to try him about now , but I would still like to see spin while Anderson is on at one end.

Wickets are the only hope for England ...in truth only NZ mistakes can save them. I just don't think they will be as likely to make mistakes against Dernbach as they might against a spinner..

been a very poor England match. really can't see how this line up can beat nz in this series at all? batting wobbly, bowling weak. not good.

can they improve? drop the utter guff that is Dernbache and probably Woakes too for a start? but what is behind them?

By picking Rankin, Ashley Gyles opens himself for some serious charges of favoritism. Never really gave him a serious chance to play consistently for England. Good bowler for Ireland, not quite good enough for England. Hopefully he doesn't get a game. He might go back to play for Ireland in that case. He makes them a better side, not sure can say the same for England.

Just the 1 run of the first 5 balls, you can't insult Jade Dernbach like that, he goes for 6 of the last to reaffirm that all's well with the world!!.

I don't know , trebs...I fancy the batting should be OK...certainly had a collective shocker today , but they're better than that.

Two of these bowlers just aren't up to it though and I don't think that will change . So until Broad and Finn come back ...fortunately they should be fine for the Champions.

so easy for the kiwis against this team.

Suppose to be fair one should blame the poor batting - 227 was nowhere near par for this pitch.
But what we are seeing here is that no matter how well Anderson bowls ...and Swann and Bresnan have been fine too ; you just cannot afford two bowlers leaking risk free runs. One you can maybe cover , but never two.

Next match I'd consider playing Tredwell as well as Swann. I'd rather four seamers , but even if you try Rankin ,I think there are two vacancies...

yeah good call Alfie. I would never pick Dern again. too many chances and too expensive and easy to pick apart time after time.

I've got to go but this is done already. Congrats NZ, thoroughly outplayed this England side and looking good for the trophy. You should do well.

alfie wrote:Rankin ? Wanting to make sure he doesn't change his mind ?

Harris was called up for NZ and now seems to have disappeared...is he injured or just off form ? They usually try for more consistency in selection...

Its a joke. The only reason he got called-up was so that he cant change his mind & represent ireland in 2015. Giles forced him to retire from Ireland by basically telling him that he would not be offered a new contract if continued to represent the land of his birth. The thing that is doing my head-in is that he wasnt even in the warwickshire limited overs side last year and has been poor this season thusfar. And england dont need him while we do.
He's gonna get a token few ODIs and never play for england again, ridiculous like.
So peeved off its not funny & I did well not to include a few F-words during this rant n'all

Just when it appears game over , Swann gets Elliot.

Still is over though , realistically . Swann is on his last over , a couple left for Jimmy ...and six wickets in hand to score at just less than five per over...

Fine spell for Swann. But finished now. 1/33

Try Root ? Bit late really...

If McCullum gets a start this will be over quickly.

So Anderson starts his ninth...one more each from him and Bresnan and then the last eight overs are left for the Others.

Need at least three wickets in the next three overs then...

alfie wrote:Fine spell for Swann. But finished now. 1/33

Try Root ? Bit late really...

If McCullum gets a start this will be over quickly.

Good from Swann - very similar figures to McCullum(N) though (he had 2/34) so they've largely cancelled each other out.

Love sacks, McCullum(b) was too casual against Dernbach. I hope Jimmy Franklin bats better than he bowled. After him there's only McCullum(N) and Southee

A wicket for Dernbach

McCullum holes out to deep cover...England still fighting it out but I think the Kiwis have enough batting left to do the job.

Belated credit to Dernbach for a much better over. Too late I fear.

And now we see Root into the attack ! Interesting...

You getting nervous , Pete ? You are pretty safe while Guptill stays in ...

Reckon it is getting close enough now Southee could probably finish the job in about ten balls if he had to

Just checked back to see jade going for six again.

Guptil didn't look much in the test but he has utterly outclassed the half baked England attack.

Root back now.

Cook and flower have serious problems with this team. NZ so far ahead they could have chased 270.

Haha and smith finally has something after weeks of blind optimism too. He's a treat to listen to though.

Seven overs left for just 20 runs...no problem.

Well done NZ , emphatic win. Congratulations Hope Guptill gets his hundred...

alfie wrote:Seven overs left for just 20 runs...no problem.

Well done NZ , emphatic win. Congratulations Hope Guptill gets his hundred...

Hope he does and I hope they nil this eng side so dernbache and woakes are gone,

God I hate watching England play with Dernbach in the side. Woeful.

And sky tried to sell their trophy coverage saying this lot could do well?

Well yes, NZ could do.

England.. Would be improved if my gran bowled and she's been dead 30 years.

NZ best player has been Dernbach. God he needs to be removed from the one day side. But at least then Boyd Rankin will play for us

Guptill gets his hundred

Well played...and there's the match as well !

Congrats NZ

And I'm off to bed...

Agree with all of the above about Dernbach. We did not need another game of his rank full tosses for us all to know he is not and never will be good enough! Really hope the selectors now see the bleeding obvious.

Night Alfie.

NickisBHAFC wrote:NZ best player has been Dernbach. God he needs to be removed from the one day side. But at least then Boyd Rankin will play for us

Woakes was worse economy-wise than Dernbach. And Guptill was the real difference - if any English batsman had applied himself like that England wouldn't have finished 50-odd runs light.

Franklin bowled badly for us, the equivalent of Woakes - luckily KW was able to bowl a few of his overs.



Actually, figures-wise, Southee/Anderson and McCullum/Swann do match up pretty well figures-wise. As do Bresnan & Mills for economy - Mills is sh*te so you missed a trick there

Is it just me or is our one day side very 'boring'.

jimbohammers wrote:Is it just me or is our one day side very 'boring'.

You're badly missing KP - bring him in, ditch either Bell or Trott, and get Broad (or a lower order hitter who can bowl a bit) & Finn back for Woakes/Dernbach and things look better.

As it stands the top 3 are a bit 1-paced, it's hard to see any of them scoring a ton at the pace Guptill managed (I just wish Guptill could bat against the red ball). NZ have a better balance at the moment ODI-wise - and that's without Vettori (granted NMac isn't a bad ODI replacement) or Boult. We could do with a better option than Franklin for 5th bowler admittedly

When England play to plan they are virtually unbeatable at home: a century from 1 of the top three, well-supported and followed by hitting from Morgan and Buttler should get us to 280 which will be a match-winning score against Anderson, Broad and Finn.

The problem is that it can be quite inflexible if the plan doesn't quite come off and, as today, leave us a way short. We are also hugely short of effective back-up bowling in one-dayers.

I'm astounded at the Rankin choice as he's been injured for the best part of 2 years and isn't noted as a one-day bowler in any case. Wright, Onions and TRJ would surely have been more logical picks.

The only thing that went right for England today other than the spells from Swann and Anderson is that Jade Dernbach was his usual self. A half-decent match for him, the agony of seeing him in international action would have continued for another 2 years!.

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:

jimbohammers wrote:Is it just me or is our one day side very 'boring'.

You're badly missing KP - bring him in, ditch either Bell or Trott, and get Broad (or a lower order hitter who can bowl a bit) & Finn back for Woakes/Dernbach and things look better.

As it stands the top 3 are a bit 1-paced, it's hard to see any of them scoring a ton at the pace Guptill managed (I just wish Guptill could bat against the red ball). NZ have a better balance at the moment ODI-wise - and that's without Vettori (granted NMac isn't a bad ODI replacement) or Boult. We could do with a better option than Franklin for 5th bowler admittedly

Pete, what exactly happened with Daniel Vettori? I heard he's injured again, is it serious?
And what do you think of Elliott in the NZ side? He didn't bowl today, without the bowling, do you think good enough to bat 5 for them? What about Munro getting an opportunity?

msp83 wrote:

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:

jimbohammers wrote:Is it just me or is our one day side very 'boring'.

You're badly missing KP - bring him in, ditch either Bell or Trott, and get Broad (or a lower order hitter who can bowl a bit) & Finn back for Woakes/Dernbach and things look better.

As it stands the top 3 are a bit 1-paced, it's hard to see any of them scoring a ton at the pace Guptill managed (I just wish Guptill could bat against the red ball). NZ have a better balance at the moment ODI-wise - and that's without Vettori (granted NMac isn't a bad ODI replacement) or Boult. We could do with a better option than Franklin for 5th bowler admittedly

Pete, what exactly happened with Daniel Vettori? I heard he's injured again, is it serious?
And what do you think of Elliott in the NZ side? He didn't bowl today, without the bowling, do you think good enough to bat 5 for them? What about Munro getting an opportunity?

Apparently Vettori's aggravated his existing achilles problem, he'll have another fitness test on Sunday to decide re. ODI 2. To be honest, in England we probably only need NMac as a spinner anyway.

Elliot doesn't bowl much at all these days - I think he's there for some Root-like solidity & strike rotation. Munro's an exciting option, and I could see him getting a chance ahead of Franklin too - on the right pitch, bringing him and Vettori in for Elliot and Franklin might be interesting.

Well batted Martin Guptill, and well played NZ; they have enough dangerous players to always be threat in these limited overs tournaments.

As for England, Dernbach is still poor and Woakes's bowling didn't look international class as some people thought it might not be. As for the batting, it wasn't overly bad but no-one went on too make the big score which is basically England's game plan and let people bat around him and when no-one gets the big score they struggle.

Woakes is certainly not made for ODIs with the ball. He's not bowling particularly badly but he doesn't do anything with the ball to threaten. He's at his best with the new nut but isn't going to get that because of Anderson and Finn.

He could be a totally different bowler in red ball cricket. But I wouldn't be persisting with him in one-dayers.

Shelsey93 wrote:Woakes is certainly not made for ODIs with the ball. He's not bowling particularly badly but he doesn't do anything with the ball to threaten. He's at his best with the new nut but isn't going to get that because of Anderson and Finn.

He could be a totally different bowler in red ball cricket. But I wouldn't be persisting with him in one-dayers.

To be fair, I don't know, really, why they do keep picking him for the limited overs stuff. He hasn't got a particularly great domestic record in that form of the game.
I just hope that it doesn't rule him out out of the reckoning for a possible future test place, because that's where his strength lies.

Let's not read too much into this from an England perspective. Missing two key bowlers today, Broad and Finn, so that was a glaring weakness. The main difference between these two sides today was Guptill, so often is the way with ODIs that you just need one man to make a big score and you're home safely. England had plenty of batsman making starts today, but never kicking on. It's a defeat but it's one England can move on quickly from.

Anderson was fantastic yet again today...not convinced by woakes in odi cricket.

Not enough credit being given to New Zealand, who are a good one-day side and played very well to their gameplan, which relies on being tight in the field, taking their chances and restricting the opposition. They could do with a better 5th bowler option particularly with the new fielding restrictions, but their side looks in good order.

England's problem was the lack of runs and that followed from too many players getting starts and not kicking on. Had one of the top 4 gone on to make a significant 50 or a 100, then the match would have had a very different outlook. I didn't see the Cook and Bell dismissals; no blame to Root who played one of his shots, but executed poorly; Trott's big slog-sweep was more of a problem, as it wasn't a percentage shot at that juncture.

I wouldn't read too much into England's bowling - they were missing 2 key players which will cripple any attack. In particular, apart from Anderson they were short of attacking options (Dernbach can be one on his day, but...). Dernbach has come in for much criticism again, some of it unfair, but he's not a new ball bowler at this level as he releases too much pressure. Better with the old ball where his variations can play a part. Woakes has always concerned me at international level - I think his natural length is too floaty.

Finally, England have a problem if McCullum is doing as well as Swann. Not that McCullum is a bad bowler, but 2-34 is a bit overkill...

Mike Selig wrote:Not enough credit being given to New Zealand, who are a good one-day side and played very well to their gameplan, which relies on being tight in the field, taking their chances and restricting the opposition. They could do with a better 5th bowler option particularly with the new fielding restrictions, but their side looks in good order.

England's problem was the lack of runs and that followed from too many players getting starts and not kicking on. Had one of the top 4 gone on to make a significant 50 or a 100, then the match would have had a very different outlook. I didn't see the Cook and Bell dismissals; no blame to Root who played one of his shots, but executed poorly; Trott's big slog-sweep was more of a problem, as it wasn't a percentage shot at that juncture.

I wouldn't read too much into England's bowling - they were missing 2 key players which will cripple any attack. In particular, apart from Anderson they were short of attacking options (Dernbach can be one on his day, but...). Dernbach has come in for much criticism again, some of it unfair, but he's not a new ball bowler at this level as he releases too much pressure. Better with the old ball where his variations can play a part. Woakes has always concerned me at international level - I think his natural length is too floaty.

Finally, England have a problem if McCullum is doing as well as Swann. Not that McCullum is a bad bowler, but 2-34 is a bit overkill...

Mike - if perfection is agreement, that's a perfect post! Lots of very good points, all of which I go along with.

Certainly agree that New Zealand haven't been given enough credit for yesterday's result. I really like their attitude and determination as particularly shown in their fielding - keep it tight and hang on to whatever comes your way. That was evident going back to the first Test. They (at least their seamers plus keeper and slips) deserved a lot better than to be crushed in the end by weak batting and a Broad masterclass.

The problem with their gameplan is that it is still dependent upon their leading opponents having a bad or badish day. I attach no blame to New Zealand for this. They have limitations and have to play within them. I actually think they are a fine example for many club sides and aspiring club cricketers. However, as you say, yesterday's match would have had a very different outlook if one of England's top four had kicked on as might have been expected.

Dernbach merits critcism but not as much as in some posts. A while back, expectations were set too high and too soon - the main problem being that he readily bought into them himself.

As for other Surrey bowlers mentioned on this thread, I'm not sure. That's a polite way of saying those posters are wrong, at least at the moment.

Meaker has genuine pace and can be a real threat but consistency is currently proving elusive as his radar too regularly goes off beam. He took 3-48 off 15 overs yesterday, the second day of Surrey's CC match against Derbys. Not bad at all. However, on day one his 10 wicketless overs went for 50. That pretty much sums up his season so far. Warm (without being really hot) or very cold. Furthermore, whilst he has featured for England in a few ODIs, he's often left on the bench for Surrey's CB 40 games. If he can improve his control, he could well have an international future although I believe it's more likely to be at Test level than in one dayers.

Tremlett took a fivefer in the same innings against Derbys. It appears he's being successfully eased back to fitness (which comes first) and form. However, it's a slow job. Tremlett was left out of Surrey's CB 40 side against Derbys on Wednesday as he couldn't be relied upon to play five successive days of cricket. We all know that he has ability but the jury - whilst now looking on things more positively than at any time in the last year - still remains out. It should also be noted - particularly by those wanting him in the ODI side - that his fielding is ordinary even on a good day and near dreadful when carrying an injury.

As for other ODI seamers to be considered, I agree with Shelsey (I'm surprisingly agreeable today!). Onions - maybe not the bride but a totally reliable bridesmaid. Wright - haven't seen a lot of him but like what I have plus his attitude of having come back so well after his difficulties at Essex; also, immensely better than his Warks team mate Rankin. Roland-Jones - very effective on the several times I've seen him although that's always been against Surrey!

I also think we could do a lot worse than bring in Tredwell as an extra slow bowler.

Guildford : good to hear even slightly encouraging news about Tremlett ! I am in no hurry with him : just would like to see him back with a chance of touring Australia later this year. Certainly wouldn't want to call him up for ODIs

I think I already acknowledged NZ earned this with some tidy bowling and very enthusiastic fielding : they are a far better outfit in the shorter forms of the game , so losing to them is neither a shock nor a disgrace. The disappointment for me was England's batting ; losing wickets in pairs , batsmen seemingly getting themselves out through over eagerness ,when a little more restraint might have seen the power hitters coming to the wicket at a more appropriate time ...the were runs to be made in the closing overs when NZ were making up a fifth bowler , but unfair to expect the tailenders to take full advantage...

Of course it may have been just one of those days...

Wouldn't mind seeing Tredwell line up tomorrow. Don't fancy Woakes as a bowling option on easy batting tracks in this format.