One of the buzz words (among many) in cricket is momentum. England would now appear to have it and New Zealand don't. England would therefore appear to start favourites in Napier on Saturday with, I guess, an unchanged side. Given that they were unpredictably ruthless in axeing two bowlers after the First Test, is there any chance that Owais Shah could play, do you suppose?

I would happily see Shah get another go in the team but if he does he's on a hiding to nothing, imagine if he gets one game, gets a couple of low scores. They'll never pick him again.
I find it laughable that on Sky's coverage they comment that un-named England players are happy and feel more reassured with Strauss at 1st slip. I'd be happier if he had deserved his recall the hard way and was being picked to score runs not catch some of the chances offered.

England do have the 'momentum' now and it should help them in Napier. But the pitch at McLean park is supposed to be an absolute shirt-front, offering very little assistance to any bowler. Even so New Zealand's batting looks fragile. England will try to get the ball to reverse swing - by legitimate methods of course - and if the do they could easily cause New Zealand problems. I struggle to see New Zealand bowling England out twice if the pitch is as flat as people say.

As for Broad, he played it down last night. He is a confident young man but it should concern him. He needs to get closer to the wicket but he cannot. He thinks it is only a problem against left handers and that is true. As a bowler you change your shape slightly to a left hander because you are aiming the ball more to the leg side and this can mean you run in to th wrong area.

I think it might have something to do with the pace he is trying to bowl. Bowlers feel they have to bowl quicker in international cricket and most bowlers fall away doing that. But rather than take your legs away it makes you stay on the pitch because you are trying to generate pace through your shoulders rather than your action. Broad should attempt to saty upright and tall at the crease and follow through then his natural action should take hi off the pitch. I think that makes sense.

Why do the think the England top order haven't converted starts into more hundreds? and do you think we'll see another situation in the final test where on a flat pitch people cash in.
I'd be interested to see how many of the top 6's hundreds have come in 'dead' tests or towards the end of a series rather than early when you can affect the outcome better

If that happens, it'll be interesting to see who the selectors go for. I don't think their form at present is anything to write home about.
Gus, the regulars were understandably getting annoyed yesterday about these plans for world cricket and Twenty20's part in it. Part of the reason for the administrators' actions is that fear that if they don't act then rebel leagues will start up. I think it's about time the administrators got the players more involved in the running of the game. That way maybe the future could be mapped and secured.

Stephen, I hear what you are saying as far as administrators and the Indian Leagues go but England is a slightly less volatile place than India. That isn't to say things might happen but the ECB are less likely to act as the BCCI are, basically undermining first-class cricket in the country.

I agree with players being more involved as long as their views are not of a selfish nature. Players unions don't tend to think of the future of the game, just the views of the players and what is right for them. I have sat in meetings with players representatives and they would have players walking out like formula one drivers, with advertising everywhere, if they could. As with all things it needs a balance.

Players have to believe they are getting a fair deal. Most of us could go out and get a better paid job in the short term for 6- 12 months but when that goes where do you go. If the future is to planed out everyone has to give a little but that does not seem to be the current climate on that front.

Ed makes an interesting point. Arsenal were happy to play Dennis Bergamp (wrong spelling i know) when he could not play in Europe. I don't know whether I want Trescothick to play for England again. He has had an outstanding career and he does not owe anyone anything. The main thing is he is happy doing what he is doing. Despite what many people think there are more important things in lfe than playing sport for your country.

Strauss gets picked as much for what he does off the field. With Giles and Trescothick England lost two players who set the perfect example in the dressing room and Vaughan and Moores want as many of them around as possible. That is why they went for him after he had a rest. they may be doubting Strauss now but I don't think they did at the end of the summer. they just thought he was knackered, which he was.

Of course, they wanted Strauss back for the reasons you state. But plain logic should have told the selectors that he should have been given the entire winter off and found form at the beginning of the summer. As it is, they are now in danger of having no choice but to jettison a prized asset because of their own ineptitude. The new selection panel has a lot to do and not very much time to do it.

A fair point regarding Tres however I feel that things have got a little too "comfortable" for the batsmen in possession. Mixing up the order doesn't quite cut it for me.
I don't think Shah convinces the England insiders enough to be given an extended chance and there doesn't appear to be anyone else knocking on the door. I followed the Lions tour as much as I could but the impressing names that come to mind are Rashid and Onions. Are there any batsmen out there who are worth a punt in the summer?

Do you think this test has been a breakthrough for Anderson, or is there a slight sense that it might be another false dawn? We've been here before - he came into the side because of injuries in India in 06, then again at home last summer, and each time there seemed to be real optimism that he had seized the chance to properly establish himself at test level. But for one reason and another, he didn't quite manage to kick on from there..

Anderson has never had a run in the side and has usually been an injury replacement. His run in Tests has been 7,1,3,1,1,2,1,4,1 over 6 years. He has been drinks waiter for 28 Tests which must be mind numbing. Harmison is complaining after 1 Test.

Also as an opening swing bowler he has been brought on as the third bowler in half the Tests he has played hoping there will be some reverse swing later. Hoggard and Harmison were established bowlers and if they didn't get wickets or had a bad game or two they still kept their places but with Anderson it's one bad game and dropped.

Of the 11 Tests that he has opened the bowling, 48 wickets at 33.35 and as first change 21 wickets at 45.71. I would want the selectors to give him a run of 10 Tests and judge the results. It's a bit like the Chris Read story. Geraint Jones did get a long run but like Anderson, Read was in and out.