Gloomy, damp and curtailed at both ends it may have been, but the
first day of the Lord's Test was cracking entertainment. We started
with the by now familiar routine of England's pace bowlers knocking
over the NZ top four for not very many, and then moved on to the main
course, a meaty 97 by McCullum which occasioned a standing ovation
from the crowd as he departed. Were today's conditions likely to
persist throughout the match, it would be evenly poised, but with the
forecast predicting much better weather for the next couple of days,
England have a distinct advantage as things now stand. 

Now that a man with the initials BJ runs London it is only to be
expected that the buses suck; I therefore missed Redmond's debut
innings, such as it was.

Anderson and Sidebottom were bowling at a decent pace, but their lines
were both a bit variable, hindered in part by some fairly lively
movement through the air. Neither How nor Marshall looked comfortable,
Marshall edging one behind off Anderson only to be reprieved by the
umpire's horizontal arm indicating the no-ball. In his next over,
though, he failed to overstep as How played at one ripe for the
leaving and Ambrose safely pouched it.

Ross Taylor was not in a mood to graft and adopted the "if you're
going to flash outside off, flash hard" strategy. This brought him a
boundary or two before Vaughan had one of his bright ideas and placed
a man on the ropes behind the slip cordon for Anderson. One of my
companions, a venerable gentleman who knows his history, informed me
that this novel positioning was actually quite common in years gone by
and rejoices in the curious name "third man". 

Sidebottom was rarely troubling the batsmen with balls too far outside
off, so he was replaced at the Nursery End by Broad. He soon got one
to lift at Taylor, who played a horrible shot which resulted in a
skier taken safely by Collingwood after he turned and got himself back
to fly slip.

McCullum arrived and seemed jittery in his new position as Marshall
grafted carefully. Fifty came up and then Anderson was relieved by
Sidebottom, who proceeded to bowl a completely harmless over of leg
side one-day wides. This occasioned plan B, Collingwood taking the
next over to allow Sidebottom to return to the Nursery and Broad to
take over from the Pavlion End.

Marshall and McCullum took the score to 76, gradually looking more
secure until I was moved to remark that Marshall seemed to be playing
quite nicely now. As my neighbour nodded his agreement, Broad moved
one away from him off the seam and Strauss took a comfortable catch to
his left at first slip. Broad is still thrilled to bits to be playing
for England; the expression on his face when he takes a wicket is that
of a child who has just fished around in the bran tub and pulled out a
mammoth bar of chocolate - long may his delight be so unaffectedly
innocent.

The other New Zealand debutant, Daniel Flynn took quite some time to
get off the mark, finally doing so with a crisp shot for four through
midwicket off Sidebottom. Collingwood replaced Sidebottom, and Flynn's
second four was an exquisitely timed lofted flick over short midwicket
- probably the most elegant shot played all day. That, however, was
just about that for Flynn, who made only one more single before moving
too far across to a ball from Anderson, now back at the Pavilion End,
which went behind his legs and clipped leg stump.

Panesar came on for the obligatory pre-interval single over from a
spinner, and that was tea with New Zealand in all sorts of trouble at
109/5, McCullum unbeaten on 36 and Oram yet to score. 

Oram played carefully and increasingly solidly after the resumption,
but entirely in support of McCullum. Against Anderson and Sidebottom,
McCullum was merely busy, but when Panesar and Broad replaced them he
turned savage. Forty runs came off five overs, both Broad and Panesar
being hit high over their heads for sixes.

The partnership reached 99 and McCullum 97 including 13 fours as well
as the sixes, so everyone was just getting ready to applaud the
milestones when Panesar spoiled the fun by pitching one full near leg
stump which turned between pad and bat and took off stump. Though his
name won't be going on the honours board in the Pavilion, the Members
rose in admiration as he passed between them into the Long Room.

Following his second innings 96 in the 2004 Test, he thus became the
first man since Frank Woolley in 1921 to be out in the 90s in
successive innings at HQ. McCullum isn't renowned for elegance as
Woolley was, but today's aggression and defiance in desperate straits
was worthy of mention alongside the Kent all-rounder's famous
resistance against the Big Ship and his crew.

It was an exhilarating counter-attack, shining brightly enough to
distract from the lowering clouds and mild rainfall, but shortly after
he had gone the umpires wisely decided to call it a day. Batting
promises to be somewhat easier tomorrow, Vettori and Oram are capable
batsmen, and Southee made hay chancing his arm against this bowling
attack on his debut, so New Zealand may yet reach a substantial score.
Let us hope that the rest of this match is as interesting as today.

Cheers,

Mike
--

> a man on the ropes behind the slip cordon for Anderson. One of my
> companions, a venerable gentleman who knows his history, informed me
> that this novel positioning was actually quite common in years gone by
> and rejoices in the curious name "third man".

I found the 'third man' stuff particularly funny as, even at my level
of cricket, it is such an important position. Yet game after game, my
captain and the opposition captain fail to place someone there. And
both teams leak runs.

"Mike Holmans"  wrote in message 
news:pfvo24dsc3v5gr0n1e8kj5q2vq3cqlfmli@4ax.com...

<snip>

> The other New Zealand debutant, Daniel Flynn took quite some time to
> get off the mark, finally doing so with a crisp shot for four through
> midwicket off Sidebottom. Collingwood replaced Sidebottom, and Flynn's
> second four was an exquisitely timed lofted flick over short midwicket
> - probably the most elegant shot played all day. That, however, was
> just about that for Flynn, who made only one more single before moving
> too far across to a ball from Anderson, now back at the Pavilion End,
> which went behind his legs and clipped leg stump.

I think perhaps that assessment is a little harsh on Flynn, who didn't make 
an elementary batting error as had seemed to be the case at first glance. He 
had the leg stump covered and the ball was missing leg, but it hit the 
bottom edge of his thigh pad, changed direction and fell on to the stumps. 
Somebody was dismissed in similar fashion during England's tour of New 
Zealand but I can't for the life of me remember who it was.  Anyway, it 
seemed a rather unfortunate ending given that I thought Flynn looked the 
most assured of all the NZ batsmen on the day.

I didn't think much of McCullum's innings, although I do applaud the 
decision to move him up the order given that Oram is better at batting with 
the tail.  If McCullum is going to rely on that many slices of luck he won't 
succeed on a high percentage of occasions.

The match would have benefited from NZ winning the toss.

<snip>

Andrew

On Fri, 16 May 2008 16:05:35 +1200, "Andrew Dunford"
 tapped the keyboard and brought forth:

>
>"Mike Holmans"  wrote in message 
>news:pfvo24dsc3v5gr0n1e8kj5q2vq3cqlfmli@4ax.com...
>
><snip>
>
>> The other New Zealand debutant, Daniel Flynn took quite some time to
>> get off the mark, finally doing so with a crisp shot for four through
>> midwicket off Sidebottom. Collingwood replaced Sidebottom, and Flynn's
>> second four was an exquisitely timed lofted flick over short midwicket
>> - probably the most elegant shot played all day. That, however, was
>> just about that for Flynn, who made only one more single before moving
>> too far across to a ball from Anderson, now back at the Pavilion End,
>> which went behind his legs and clipped leg stump.
>
>I think perhaps that assessment is a little harsh on Flynn, who didn't make 
>an elementary batting error as had seemed to be the case at first glance. He 
>had the leg stump covered and the ball was missing leg, but it hit the 
>bottom edge of his thigh pad, changed direction and fell on to the stumps. 
>Somebody was dismissed in similar fashion during England's tour of New 
>Zealand but I can't for the life of me remember who it was.  Anyway, it 
>seemed a rather unfortunate ending given that I thought Flynn looked the 
>most assured of all the NZ batsmen on the day.

The deflection was not blindingly obvious on the instant real-time
replay. 

>I didn't think much of McCullum's innings, although I do applaud the 
>decision to move him up the order given that Oram is better at batting with 
>the tail.  If McCullum is going to rely on that many slices of luck he won't 
>succeed on a high percentage of occasions.

I think perhaps that assessment is a little harsh on McCullum, who did
after all score more than half of the runs to come from the bat
yesterday. He did not seem to me to be riding his luck particularly,
though I suppose I can see how it would have been something of a
white-knuckle ride for a Kiwi supporter concerned about imminent
collapse. But from where I sat he did not appear to be offering
chances and it took a damn good ball from Monty to deceive him in the
flight and turn on a first day pitch to dismiss him.

>The match would have benefited from NZ winning the toss.

Now who's predicting the entire course of a game when not even one
whole side has batted?

One thing I forgot to mention was Ambrose's difficult afternoon behind
the stumps. He conceded a number of byes, but the ball was behaving
wickedly for him on a ground which is known to be awkward for keepers:
there was one from Anderson which swung quite a bit on its way to the
batsman and then decided to swing extravagantly the other way after
pitching, leaving Ambrose quite stranded. I'm really not sure how he
was supposed to cope with that.

Cheers,

Mike
--

On Fri, 16 May 2008 06:14:18 +0100, 
   	       Mike Holmans  wrote:
> On Fri, 16 May 2008 16:05:35 +1200, "Andrew Dunford"
> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>
>>I didn't think much of McCullum's innings, although I do applaud the 
>>decision to move him up the order given that Oram is better at batting with 
>>the tail.  If McCullum is going to rely on that many slices of luck he won't 
>>succeed on a high percentage of occasions.
>
> I think perhaps that assessment is a little harsh on McCullum, who did
> after all score more than half of the runs to come from the bat
> yesterday. He did not seem to me to be riding his luck particularly,

I agree with Andrew.  Listening to the radio it seemed that there was a
period when he could have been out multiple times if the luck had gone
the other way. 

-- 
Andy Leighton => andyl@azaal.plus.com
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials" 
   - Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_

> I agree with Andrew.  Listening to the radio it seemed that there was a
> period when he could have been out multiple times if the luck had gone
> the other way.

welcome to cricket

you take him as he is. When it comes off, it's great. When it fails,
you can feel pissed off.

He scored 97, and if he hadn't, it would be a 3 day test.

On Fri, 16 May 2008 02:54:27 -0700 (PDT), 
   	       	    jzfredricks  wrote:
>> I agree with Andrew.  Listening to the radio it seemed that there was a
>> period when he could have been out multiple times if the luck had gone
>> the other way.
>
> welcome to cricket
>
> you take him as he is. When it comes off, it's great. When it fails,
> you can feel pissed off.
>
> He scored 97, and if he hadn't, it would be a 3 day test.

Absolutely.  I could quite easily have seen NZ collapsing completely if
he had gone cheaply.   Because of that I don't think it was very
sensible batting.  OK if your top-order has got you into the game he can
go out and bat freely but with such an inexperienced (and low scoring)
top order an innings that gives less chances is probably a better way to
go.  As an Englishman I am all to aware of some of our players who have
played irresponsibly (in pretty much the same way) in the past.

-- 
Andy Leighton => andyl@azaal.plus.com
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials" 
   - Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_

> Absolutely.  I could quite easily have seen NZ collapsing completely if
> he had gone cheaply.   Because of that I don't think it was very
> sensible batting.  OK if your top-order has got you into the game he can> go out and bat freely but with such an inexperienced (and low scoring)
> top order an innings that gives less chances is probably a better way to
> go.  As an Englishman I am all to aware of some of our players who have
> played irresponsibly (in pretty much the same way) in the past.

if if if if if

he scored 97

there are, at this stage, 6 other guys you 'blame' first. Excluding
selectors, ofc.

On 15 May, 23:02, Mike Holmans  wrote:

> Were today's conditions likely to
> persist throughout the match, it would be evenly poised, but with the
> forecast predicting much better weather for the next couple of days,
> England have a distinct advantage as things now stand.

I feel our ability to get through the NZ "Tail" could be a major
factor in the game.

Good day at Lord's yesterday, we were lucky that the band of rain
fizzled in situ as there were some stronger burst on their way for the
afternoon. We were 3 seats from the back up in the debenture seats for
the first time. Splendid view, although at this distance quite hard to
see the ball travelling from hand to bat. There may have been an
alcohol factor in this, though...

Richard

'We bowled too short" said Anderson.  How many times have we read that
over the last few decades ?  Full-time English bowlers who can't put
it in the right place to swing just enough and not too much ?

I predict England bowling "too short" again today, NZ up to the late
200s and then their bowlers bowling a good line and length, getting
our over-confident batsmen onto the front foot and caught behind.

Mike Gooding
-----------------

In message 
, 
jzfredricks  writes
>> a man on the ropes behind the slip cordon for Anderson. One of my
>> companions, a venerable gentleman who knows his history, informed me
>> that this novel positioning was actually quite common in years gone by
>> and rejoices in the curious name "third man".
>
>I found the 'third man' stuff particularly funny as, even at my level
>of cricket, it is such an important position. Yet game after game, my
>captain and the opposition captain fail to place someone there. And
>both teams leak runs.

An England captain did tell me she was prepared to sacrifice 20-24 runs 
to shots played there but that was enough. I never gathered if "shots" 
included accidental edges. I felt this number rather too high.

Don
-- 
Don Miles
For Women's Cricket on the Web : www.webbsoc.demon.co.uk
Last Updated 2008 May 16

On Fri, 16 May 2008 04:13:25 -0700 (PDT), Mike Gooding
 tapped the keyboard and brought forth:

>'We bowled too short" said Anderson.  How many times have we read that
>over the last few decades ?  Full-time English bowlers who can't put
>it in the right place to swing just enough and not too much ?
>
>I predict England bowling "too short" again today, NZ up to the late
>200s and then their bowlers bowling a good line and length, getting
>our over-confident batsmen onto the front foot and caught behind.

Hmm. 

While I agree with your general premise about England bowlers bowling
silly lengths on many past occasions, I'm not sure that your comment
is entirely fair in this case. You've missed the context of Anderson's
remark, which was apparently a question about what went wrong with
their bowling to McCullum in particular. Euphemistically, bowling to
McCullum in that sort of mood is liable to be a learning experience,
and it takes a very steady nerve even to carry out your basic
intentions as he shimmies around  and advances down the wicket at you
while you are running up.

There was quite a bit of short-pitched bowling this morning, but it
was clearly planned. England obviously have a theory that Oram doesn't
like it up him, and judging by the way he turned away, ducked into or
flinched from balls rising at his chest or shoulder, they were quite
right. 

Generally, England bowled good lengths yesterday but the ball didn't
swing as much as you would have expected, whereas the new cherry they
got just before lunch today certainly did - in fact, it probably swung
more than expected. What was more generally wrong yesterday,
especially with Sidebottom, was that they weren't getting the line
right. Today, though, Sidebottom had had the radar recalibrated and
was spot on.

That NZ reached the high 200s was down to Vettori's clever and at
times enterprising batting rather than because England bowled poorly.
In terms of the "selectable-as-both" all-rounder, Vettori actually
makes the list at present because several of the alleged specialist NZ
batsmen simply aren't as good at batting as he is. Of those who have
played 20 or more innings at 8, Vettori has by far the highest average
of any player in history: he now averages 42.85 as a number eight and
his nearest challenger is Kamran Akmal who averages 37.32. If Vettori
gets 40, there's no real mark against a bowling attack despite his
lowly position in the order.

To return to the earlier discussion about McCullum, I think I'm in the
camp which would encourage him to continue playing the way he does
because he's obviously happy in his skin when he does so. I don't
think he has the sound technique which would allow him to be useful as
a grafter; I realise that Sehwag does have better technique and can
play a defensive game for a period, but generally he does the same as
McCullum and attempts to terrorise bowlers almost whatever the
situation.

For what it's worth, my guess is that McCullum is likely to improve
his success rate. From the interviews that some have given after one
of his onslaughts, the experience of bowling at him leaves wounds.
Bowlers commenting on other batsmen who score runs aginst them usually
give the impression that while they lost today's battle, they still
know that there are ways of winning the next one. Bowlers who've been
McCullumed frequently sound as if they have tried what they know and
are now completely at a loss as to what they can do when they meet him
next time.

It's all very well noting that he got out playing at a ball bowled on
a certain line and a certain length, but the trouble is that you have
to bowl that line and length relative to where he will play the ball
from - and that is highly unlikely to be where he was standing when
you started your run-up.

If the bowlers are already thinking that they have no idea how to get
him out when he first comes in, he already holds the advantage, and
the number of bowlers in that position will only increase as more of
them experience his own special brand of TLC. Opposing captains will
put more men in the deep earlier to stop him taking the game away, and
that will only serve to reduce the level of risk McCullum is taking.

Cheers,

Mike

--

On May 17, 4:12 am, Mike Holmans  wrote:
> On Fri, 16 May 2008 04:13:25 -0700 (PDT), Mike Gooding
>  tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>
> >'We bowled too short" said Anderson.  How many times have we read that
> >over the last few decades ?  Full-time English bowlers who can't put
> >it in the right place to swing just enough and not too much ?
>
> >I predict England bowling "too short" again today, NZ up to the late
> >200s and then their bowlers bowling a good line and length, getting
> >our over-confident batsmen onto the front foot and caught behind.
>
> Hmm.
>
> While I agree with your general premise about England bowlers bowling
> silly lengths on many past occasions, I'm not sure that your comment
> is entirely fair in this case. You've missed the context of Anderson's
> remark, which was apparently a question about what went wrong with
> their bowling to McCullum in particular. Euphemistically, bowling to
> McCullum in that sort of mood is liable to be a learning experience,
> and it takes a very steady nerve even to carry out your basic
> intentions as he shimmies around  and advances down the wicket at you
> while you are running up.
>
> There was quite a bit of short-pitched bowling this morning, but it
> was clearly planned. England obviously have a theory that Oram doesn't
> like it up him, and judging by the way he turned away, ducked into or
> flinched from balls rising at his chest or shoulder, they were quite
> right.
>
> Generally, England bowled good lengths yesterday but the ball didn't
> swing as much as you would have expected, whereas the new cherry they
> got just before lunch today certainly did - in fact, it probably swung
> more than expected. What was more generally wrong yesterday,
> especially with Sidebottom, was that they weren't getting the line
> right. Today, though, Sidebottom had had the radar recalibrated and
> was spot on.
>
> That NZ reached the high 200s was down to Vettori's clever and at
> times enterprising batting rather than because England bowled poorly.
> In terms of the "selectable-as-both" all-rounder, Vettori actually
> makes the list at present because several of the alleged specialist NZ
> batsmen simply aren't as good at batting as he is. Of those who have
> played 20 or more innings at 8, Vettori has by far the highest average
> of any player in history: he now averages 42.85 as a number eight and
> his nearest challenger is Kamran Akmal who averages 37.32. If Vettori
> gets 40, there's no real mark against a bowling attack despite his
> lowly position in the order.
>
> To return to the earlier discussion about McCullum, I think I'm in the
> camp which would encourage him to continue playing the way he does
> because he's obviously happy in his skin when he does so. I don't
> think he has the sound technique which would allow him to be useful as
> a grafter; I realise that Sehwag does have better technique and can
> play a defensive game for a period, but generally he does the same as
> McCullum and attempts to terrorise bowlers almost whatever the
> situation.
>
> For what it's worth, my guess is that McCullum is likely to improve
> his success rate. From the interviews that some have given after one
> of his onslaughts, the experience of bowling at him leaves wounds.
> Bowlers commenting on other batsmen who score runs aginst them usually
> give the impression that while they lost today's battle, they still
> know that there are ways of winning the next one. Bowlers who've been
> McCullumed frequently sound as if they have tried what they know and
> are now completely at a loss as to what they can do when they meet him
> next time.
>
> It's all very well noting that he got out playing at a ball bowled on
> a certain line and a certain length, but the trouble is that you have
> to bowl that line and length relative to where he will play the ball
> from - and that is highly unlikely to be where he was standing when
> you started your run-up.
>
> If the bowlers are already thinking that they have no idea how to get
> him out when he first comes in, he already holds the advantage, and
> the number of bowlers in that position will only increase as more of
> them experience his own special brand of TLC. Opposing captains will
> put more men in the deep earlier to stop him taking the game away, and
> that will only serve to reduce the level of risk McCullum is taking.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mike
>
> --

It was great to see the whites after the IPL.

On May 16, 4:05 pm, "Andrew Dunford"  wrote:
> "Mike Holmans"  wrote in message
>
> news:pfvo24dsc3v5gr0n1e8kj5q2vq3cqlfmli@4ax.com...
>
> <snip>
>
> > The other New Zealand debutant, Daniel Flynn took quite some time to
> > get off the mark, finally doing so with a crisp shot for four through
> > midwicket off Sidebottom. Collingwood replaced Sidebottom, and Flynn's
> > second four was an exquisitely timed lofted flick over short midwicket
> > - probably the most elegant shot played all day. That, however, was
> > just about that for Flynn, who made only one more single before moving
> > too far across to a ball from Anderson, now back at the Pavilion End,
> > which went behind his legs and clipped leg stump.
>
> I think perhaps that assessment is a little harsh on Flynn, who didn't make
> an elementary batting error as had seemed to be the case at first glance. He
> had the leg stump covered and the ball was missing leg, but it hit the
> bottom edge of his thigh pad, changed direction and fell on to the stumps.
> Somebody was dismissed in similar fashion during England's tour of New
> Zealand but I can't for the life of me remember who it was.  Anyway, it
> seemed a rather unfortunate ending given that I thought Flynn looked the
> most assured of all the NZ batsmen on the day.
>

That's as may be (his innings was sufficiently brief that I missed
it), but what I want to know is what he's doing in the team anyway.
Tour innings of 1, 39, 3, 16 and 6 coming on top of a career average
of 33 would hardly seem to warrant a test position, never mind one
that was apparently pre-ordained - nobody else being given a chance to
bat in the warmup games, despite at least one of them - Fulton - being
far better performed and far more experienced. All in all, about as
mystifying a selection as Aftab Habib's was for England in 1999.

After which, I hope he gets a ton in the 2nd dig...

Fair dos, then.  I think what it boils down to is that I just don't
like Anderson as a test bowler; great bowlers generally have orthodox
actions, or small variations on one (yes, I've seen Proctor.  I've
also seen Max Walker).  I'm genuinely curious though - how does a
bowler like Harmy or Anderson get to be a test bowler with such an odd
action ?  Why isn't it coached out of them ?  How the hell can
Anderson expect to get consistent accuracy when he's not looking where
he's bowling ?  Why are we here ?

I agree about McCullum.  Players like him and Pietersen should just be
encouraged to get out there and smack it.  You can sense that, when
they're going well, there's a Vivi kind of feeling of inevitable
punishment that comes over the bowlers.

So what's for Day 4 ?  I'd try for another 200 or so by tea and
declare, hoping to knock the BCs over in less than 2 sessions and then
go for a win.  It's a million-to-one chance *but it might just come
off*.

Mike Gooding
--------------------

"shineything"  wrote in message 
news:16586fb4-b929-4115-94cf-8736446ef48f@u36g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On May 16, 4:05 pm, "Andrew Dunford"  wrote:
>> "Mike Holmans"  wrote in message
>>
>> news:pfvo24dsc3v5gr0n1e8kj5q2vq3cqlfmli@4ax.com...
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> > The other New Zealand debutant, Daniel Flynn took quite some time to
>> > get off the mark, finally doing so with a crisp shot for four through
>> > midwicket off Sidebottom. Collingwood replaced Sidebottom, and Flynn's
>> > second four was an exquisitely timed lofted flick over short midwicket
>> > - probably the most elegant shot played all day. That, however, was
>> > just about that for Flynn, who made only one more single before moving
>> > too far across to a ball from Anderson, now back at the Pavilion End,
>> > which went behind his legs and clipped leg stump.
>>
>> I think perhaps that assessment is a little harsh on Flynn, who didn't 
>> make
>> an elementary batting error as had seemed to be the case at first glance. 
>> He
>> had the leg stump covered and the ball was missing leg, but it hit the
>> bottom edge of his thigh pad, changed direction and fell on to the 
>> stumps.
>> Somebody was dismissed in similar fashion during England's tour of New
>> Zealand but I can't for the life of me remember who it was.  Anyway, it
>> seemed a rather unfortunate ending given that I thought Flynn looked the
>> most assured of all the NZ batsmen on the day.
>>
>
> That's as may be (his innings was sufficiently brief that I missed
> it), but what I want to know is what he's doing in the team anyway.
> Tour innings of 1, 39, 3, 16 and 6 coming on top of a career average
> of 33 would hardly seem to warrant a test position, never mind one
> that was apparently pre-ordained - nobody else being given a chance to
> bat in the warmup games, despite at least one of them - Fulton - being
> far better performed and far more experienced. All in all, about as
> mystifying a selection as Aftab Habib's was for England in 1999.
>
> After which, I hope he gets a ton in the 2nd dig...

It's not immediately obvious to me either why Flynn was given the inside 
running to a Test middle order spot.  The reality is that both he and Fulton 
should have been given equal opportunities to press their claims in the 
warm-up matches.  The fact that Fulton didn't get a chance is a graphic 
illustration of why the entire party should have started the tour together 
rather than senior players dribbling in late from IPL duty.  Those players 
who arrived late really had to play in the final two matches, which reduced 
the chances of others making a case for inclusion.

Andrew