³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

The paying fans come to watch the cricket, not the umpires. Hair got a few decisions right... so what? It's all part of his job, and he gets paid for it.

Marshall got a very marginal decision, I felt... Taufel could've given him the benefit of the doubt.

As for entertainment, it is nice to see the underdogs NZ play such attacking positive cricket. It shows their faith in the middle order and tail. Had England batted first, I guess the score would've been 102 for 6 instead.

Anderson has been frustrating me over the last couple of tests. He seems to bowl good spells for 5 to 10 overs, then towards the end he gives away 10+ runs per over and has to be taken off. He still needs to work on his concentration. It also gives a good case for Hoggard to return (fitness permitting0; Mr Consistency and Mr Workhorse in one man, it's always handy.

I bet though SwamyCricketAnanda, you'd be the first to jump all over Hair if he got decisions wrong.

As for the cricket, pretty solid performance from England today New Zealand are showing more rescilience and skill than alot of people are giving them credit for.

Hair is a decent umpire and did his job well, not much more to say about that.

An interesting day but what concerns me is Anderson as part of a 4 man attack. Sure, he bowls wicket taking balls but consistently goes for plenty of runs, will he ever put us in a winning position if his wickets cost nearly 40 a piece and he often goes at 4+ runs an over?
I think Hoggard was given a rough deal for the poor performance he gave in the first test in NZ.

Hmmm, Mr Anderson. Is he an unlucky bowler? No, i don't think so. He's quite often too hittable, and no amount of experience or tinkering will change that. He's county cricket's Brett Lee - slower and far less accurate. Both he and Harmison are of a very similar standard, and neither are really international standard - overall career stats don't lie, and neither of them are good enough to play in a 4 man attack.
Anderson should be dropped for Hoggard or Flintoff once one or more of them is fit to play.
Anderson will get carted to all parts if he's still playing next summer. Mark my words.

Panesar isn't really doing it for me either. I think his contribution should be assessed after a couple of tests into the South Africa series. Swann looks in good form at the mo.

I feel Broad will take more wickets if he's got someone down the other end keeping it tight. With Anderson and Panesar serving it up on a plate too often there's not much chance of that!

Aggers, much as I respect your opinion, I believe your judgement of James Marshall as "not much of a player" is unfair. I have seen him play well at first class level in New Zealand - although his brother is indisputably the superior batsman, James still has time to mature at the top and become solid batsman for New Zealand. I realise his domestic record isn't exactly great but I believe that this tells us he should be batting a few places lower. Dan Flynn would be better suited to bat 3 as he is a solid batsman who can build an innings. If Marshall batted at 6 he would have more chance to flout his flamboyant strokeplay and score more runs without the pressure of batting 3.

So the Swamy feels that Darrell Hair gets paid to get things right like this and it's no story when he does? Why then do certain countries want him to be banned from umpiring? Could it be that he was simply a victim of that "r" word, as many suspect?

New Zealand are, most certainly, putting up a much stronger fight than many expected. However, they also did so in the 2004 series: the difference was that then the weather allowed each match to be played to a conclusion with no time lost so, in the end, they were overpowered every time and eventually lost 3-0. So much time is being lost in this series though that we have not been able to find out if they would wilt in the end, as they did in 2004 and in the winter series.

One thing that I am beginning to fear is that, unlike in 2004, the England bowling attack is not quite strong enough to sustain sufficient pressure for long enough to make the opposition crack. If we are to beat South Africa they will need to sustain pressure for longer: I just wonder how many of the attack in this Test will still be playing by the end of the South African series.

Jonathan,
For the most part your column is enjoyable and accurate, but your comment "James Marshall (not much of a player)" is off hand, lacking respect and dismissive.
Given your own Test record (played 3 test matches 4 wickets @ 93 - James has now played in twice that)



what kind of player does that make you?
He had a fantastic domestic season in New Zealand averaging over 50 in both forms of the game and deserved the call up.

More focus on the action and less off hand comments please.

SteveHawker, you did not point out that Jon Agnew played against one of the best Test sides in history (the 1984 West Indians), producing what was generally reckoned to be the ball of the series to dismiss Gordon Greenidge; then in a major train-wreck against Sri Lanka and, finally, on a completely lifeless pitch v Australia, on which it was generally reckoned that a result may not have come in 10 days. Let's say that he did not exactly get much of a chance to show what he could do.

If you are going to tell a story, tell it all. Don't be equally dismissive, while being carefully selective with the facts.

Yes, but Aggers was a demon fast bowler at county level, as his 666 wickets attest.
I bet he was just wishing HE got to bowl at the likes of Redmond, Flynn and Marshall rather than Greenidge, Haynes and Richards when he played test cricket.
Amazing performance by a NZ side that has been widely ridiculed as being full of 20/20 specialists and village cricketers. On the basis of the 6 days play to date, they have managed to shade an English side of supposed batting superstars, whose press fantasise as being able to win back the Ashes. Get real; this is a very ordinary England lineup of flat-track bullies and 4 not-especially-penetrative bowlers. I think they'll be troubled by an average SA lineup, let alone the Aussies.

Jon Agnew,what an outrageous comment.How would you like to be told "you are not much of a player".You sound more like a spoiled prep school kid.Get with the programme for goodness sake.

One would assume that the NZ selectors see some talent in the lad (Marshall) and this is test cricket. The comment does feel a little rude.
Maybe I should stick to reading the cricinfo bulletins as they are more pragmatic.

My eyes nearly popped out when I read about Marshall being "not much of a player". Did you mean to delete that before posting this blog, Aggers? Your comment doesn't enlighten us in any way about why you may have this view.
I'm sure people have been selected for their country after scoring fewer than his average of 51.33 for the past domestic NZ season.
And yours are just the kind of words to come back and haunt you as he hits the series-winning boundary.

Aggers, I like you as a commentator and you are always an enjoyable, entertaining and usually insightful analyst of the game.

But, I have to agree with others here and object to your harsh and off-hand dismissal of James Marshall. Really, give the guy a chance. There are ways of saying things you know. You can be honest without being rude.

Keep up the good work!

Although Ryan Sidebottom looked rather ungainly coming around the wicket, it was very effective. Congratulations to him, Peter Moores and the coaching team, he looks like a top bowler a year on. With the inconsistency of Jimmy Anderson and the others, he's our main man now.
I agree with other comments Aggers. What has James Marshall done to you?

Astonishing to note that Ross Taylor's assault on Anderson doesn't figure in Aggers' report! Not only that, his scintillating innings isn't mentioned in the first 15 comments..... lacking perspective, are we?

Swamy, are you attacking your own lack of perspective for not mentioning it? That's very magnanimous of you.

"Jonathan,
For the most part your column is enjoyable and accurate, but your comment "James Marshall (not much of a player)" is off hand, lacking respect and dismissive.
Given your own Test record (played 3 test matches 4 wickets @ 93 - James has now played in twice that)"

royalSteveHawker

Are only successful former test match players allowed to have opinions on the ability of current players?

Being a sports fan would be become pretty boring if that is the the case.

NZ fans have come to expect the these sort of one eyed coments from English cricket writers and why think Mr.J.Agnew will be any different. As you say Am0105 lacking respect .A fine innings so far from NZ and with a bit of luck it would have been a lot better..400 runs on the way after lunch..

While it's undeniable that NZ are making a ruddy good fist of this match so far it's becoming equally undeniable that England are a vastly overrated side. If 9 out of 11 players carry on producing lackluster performances every innings England will be eaten for breakfast not just by the Aussies but by the Saffers too I reckon.

Also, does anyone else wish Simon Mann would keep his distaste at anything and anyone vaguely working class under his hat? His constant running down of anyone cheering/drinking a pint and patronising grammar correction of the emails is becoming too much to bare.

Ok lets forget about Hair serverd his sentence now he is back> what about England`s snail pace batting again? New Zealand rattled along at over 4 an over and here we are barely making 2 1/2 an over thats why England will not win they are snails!

Special mention for Hair who umpired exceptionally well on his return, I hope all Test nations will put THAT incident where it belongs - in the past.

oh and bad luck janderamy1, England did win after all. Tortoise, Hare and all that, it's who crosses the line that wins not the first to get close to it. Yes England could do with being a bit more positive with their batting, however there are five days in a Test match and you have to wonder if the Kiwis don't perhaps play too much one day cricket.