England v New Zealand, 1st Test, Lord's, 15th-19th May

Not harping back.
Agree - it's long gawn and booked historicALLY.

What I'm putting forward are reasons why I believe this England team have "lost it".... regardless of how they've performed over the past 3 series!

ie., They really are a boring bunch of twats to watch now ... even KP let's the side down.
Yawn turned it on against the pop gunattack - great ... so how come the rest (bar the openers) struggled and then failed?

England need a cutting edge ... and we ain't got that with the "buddy" side that currently take the field.

Augustus wrote:

We were good then but to say England have ever had killer instinct would be rubbish. England have always dallied about, drawing games first and winning them after.

Fair point, we were never clinical in 2005.

Augustus wrote:England hardly had a killer instinct in 2005. They limped to two victories against the Aussies, lost to Pakistan when chasing f.a. and were promptly thrashed by an innings later on in the series. Other Fletcher victories include a tight series win against South Africa, a comfortable thrashing of a poor West Indies side alongside excellent wins in Sri Lanka and Pakistan.

We were good then but to say England have ever had killer instinct would be rubbish. England have always dallied about, drawing games first and winning them after.

By "killer" insinct - I mean crowding the bat ... making things happen ... field placings to certain batsmen ... basically
out-thinking the oppos and using their nous to grab an inititiative when the opportunity presented itself.
yes .. I believe we were clinical back in '05 ... certainly a shed load more than we are right now - at the moment "going through the motions" seems to be the norm for players who are comfortable in the knowledge that their positions in the team are safe... or else, bat or bowl to ensure they are made safe!

It's a lot easier to crowd the bat when Flintoff's at one end bowling 90mph grenades, keeping an economy of around 2, and nearly always under three, than it is when Harmison's (or Anderson/Broad for that matter) at the other end going at 6 an over, with a man at long-stop just to prevent his bouncers from reaching the boundary.

I know what you're saying though and I can agree to an extent, but if you haven't got the tools to be aggressive, you develop a blunt mindset, and from there the fall into peril is inevitable. Even our most incisive bowler currently, Sidebottom, has been average (at best) on flat pitches against good sides. I think we agree that after him there's virtually nobody, expect Monty who has regressed somewhat, to make a great impact. If your best bowler's average, you can't really expect an awful lot.

We're not actually much better than New Zealand at the minute anyway, and the extra 10% that their players are giving is making up for the shortfall. I know that many not so talented players are being criticised in England - but the talented ones; Pietersen, Vaughan, Bell and Panesar - probably deserve more scrutiny given how insubstantial their contributions have been under Moores. They're supposed to be setting the way, yet they're all getting steadily worse whilst those who aren't so good are trying and finding out that their best isn't quite good enough.

Augustus wrote:It's a lot easier to crowd the bat when Flintoff's at one end bowling 90mph grenades, keeping an economy of around 2, and nearly always under three, than it is when Harmison's (or Anderson/Broad for that matter) at the other end going at 6 an over, with a man at long-stop just to prevent his bouncers from reaching the boundary.

I know what you're saying though and I can agree to an extent, but if you haven't got the tools to be aggressive, you develop a blunt mindset, and from there the fall into peril is inevitable. Even our most incisive bowler currently, Sidebottom, has been average (at best) on flat pitches against good sides. I think we agree that after him there's virtually nobody, expect Monty who has regressed somewhat, to make a great impact. If your best bowler's average, you can't really expect an awful lot.

We're not actually much better than New Zealand at the minute anyway, and the extra 10% that their players are giving is making up for the shortfall. I know that many not so talented players are being criticised in England - but the talented ones; Pietersen, Vaughan, Bell and Panesar - probably deserve more scrutiny given how insubstantial their contributions have been under Moores. They're supposed to be setting the way, yet they're all getting steadily worse whilst those who aren't so good are trying and finding out that their best isn't quite good enough.

Panesar and Vaughan have actually done better under Moores and Pietersen and Bell have only done slightly worse.

Were the grounds a bit empty in this match?

doremi wrote:Were the grounds a bit empty in this match?

At Lord's?

First three days all sold out.
Sun and Mon sparse ... but the weather did it's worst to ensure that.

I caught the game in the last day. Thought it was a bit empty for the first match of the 'summer'.

doremi wrote:I caught the game in the last day. Thought it was a bit empty for the first match of the 'summer'.

Headed for a draw ... weather unsettled ... basic loss of interest.
The NZudders have that affect on people!!
I believe in excess of 150 overs were lost over the 5 days.

Lara Lara Laughs wrote:English fans must be the harshest in the world. 'Tis difficult to win a Test in 3 and a bit days you know.

Oh, I don't know. I seem to recall it happening all too easily during the last Ashes, for instance . . .