***Official** West Indies in England***

[Prince EWS]

I honestly don't think Jones played a massive part in the victory in 2004\05. There was that one spell on the fourth day of the First Test that knocked-over the tail, but aside from that his biggest contributions came in drawn or lost games. Flintoff and Hoggard were the big forces in that victory.

And we went 3-0 up against West Indies in 2004 (at home, of course) without any real contribution from him either. On that occasion it was Hoggard and, in the First and Second Tests, Giles.

Given how well the Australian tail performed with the bat during the series, knocking them over was a lot more significant than it sounds, though.

 

[pasag]

Been nearly 4 months since the last Test, I'm pretty excited itbt.

 

[Perm]

If it rains during the first day's play then I will pull my hair out. I have been looking forward to this series for so long.

 

[The Baconator]

Probably better for me if it does rain tbh, actually get some revision done, but meh.

 

[Burgey]

Mancester Guardian reporting Flintoff definitely out of the test and probably the series.

 

[four_or_six]

If Flintoff doesn't play tomorrow we've got a really interesting situation lined up for the second test selection with potentially Vaughan and Flintoff to come back in.

With Cook, Strauss, Bell, Pietersen and Collingwood all having been what you could call 'permanent' members of the team for a while, the longer they're there performing well the more difficult it is to see how Vaughan and Flintoff can walk straight back in.

I'm all for guaranteeing that injured players get their places back, it leads to stability, but at what point does it go too far? I think most would agree it did with Giles last winter, for example. I'm getting to the point where that's also the case for Vaughan and Flintoff. Anyone agree?

Easy.

Add Flintoff and Vaughan then a keeper, Harmison, Monty and Hoggard.

You just can't do that though. Flintoff is then one of four bowlers and there's absolutely no way in hell he should be. He won't hold up to it fitness wise... he broke down after only 9 overs the last game.

 

[Prince EWS]

If it rains during the first day's play then I will pull my hair out. I have been looking forward to this series for so long.

Seconded.

 

[Prince EWS]

You just can't do that though. Flintoff is then one of four bowlers and there's absolutely no way in hell he should be. He won't hold up to it fitness wise... he broke down after only 9 overs the last game.

If Flintoff isn't good enough (or fit enough, as it is) to be one of four bowlers, one would question whether he should be in the side at all, given his batting clearly isn't good enough for #6 and neither is Prior's.

 

[marc71178]

You just can't do that though. Flintoff is then one of four bowlers and there's absolutely no way in hell he should be. He won't hold up to it fitness wise... he broke down after only 9 overs the last game.

If he's fit enough to play, then he must be fit enough to hold down a spot as one of 4 bowlers, because he's not justifying selection at 6.

 

[four_or_six]

You just can't do that though. Flintoff is then one of four bowlers and there's absolutely no way in hell he should be. He won't hold up to it fitness wise... he broke down after only 9 overs the last game.

If he's fit enough to play, then he must be fit enough to hold down a spot as one of 4 bowlers, because he's not justifying selection at 6.

Which was kind of my original point. That it will be interesting to see what happens if Flintoff and Vaughan are to come back in in the second test, as there are five front-line batsmen who imo deserve to be there.

I just don't see them playing Flintoff as one of four bowlers at the moment, but will they actually drop him/Vaughan? That would be a big decision to make.

 

[marc71178]

There's no way either will be left out - my guess would actually be that Collingwood would be the one to miss out, but it could be any of about 3 who falls out of the 11.

 

[Prince EWS]

Which was kind of my original point. That it will be interesting to see what happens if Flintoff and Vaughan are to come back in in the second test, as there are five front-line batsmen who imo deserve to be there.

I just don't see them playing Flintoff as one of four bowlers at the moment, but will they actually drop him/Vaughan? That would be a big decision to make.

If Flintoff isn't fit enough to bowl his full quota of overs, then he won't be picked, IMO. If Vaughan plays, Shah won't - that's a given unless he has a particularly good test here. If Flintoff plays too, one of the bowlers will drop out, IMO.

 

[wpdavid]

Yeah, should be perfect conditions for Hoggard and Anderson(if he plays). Really think we should leave Monty out. Colly and Bell may even be mildly useful in these conditions.

It's tempting, although we'd look silly if we had 4 days of blazing sunshine after today. But yes, in today's conditions, you'd quite fancy Hoggard, Anderson & Plunkett to swing it all over Lord's.

 

[wpdavid]

Given how well the Australian tail performed with the bat during the series, knocking them over was a lot more significant than it sounds, though.

Richard was talking about the first test in SA, not the ashes.

I still thought that was a useful contribution from Jones though. The SA lower order was quite capable of adding a fair few runs and leaving us a far from easy target to chase in the 4th innings.

 

[Prince EWS]

Richard was talking about the first test in SA, not the ashes.

I still thought that was a useful contribution from Jones though. The SA lower order was quite capable of adding a fair few runs and leaving us a far from easy target to chase in the 4th innings.

Yeah, don't know how I thought otherwise given he said 2004/05. I'm going out of my mind it seems. Agreed though anyway - the South African lower order is not something that can be taken lightly.

 

[GIMH]

Anyone in London?

In Liverpool it's greay, dismal Octoberish weather. Dire.

 

[wpdavid]

And we went 3-0 up against West Indies in 2004 (at home, of course) without any real contribution from him either. On that occasion it was Hoggard and, in the First and Second Tests, Giles.

Yes, you're right, and I'd forgotten that series. Which is odd, because now you mention it I well remember thinking how badly Harmison was handled by Vaughan in that series. IIRC he didn't bowl much because he wasn't performing brilliantly and conditions weren't obviously in his favour. That sounds fair enough when put like that, but they didn't obviously suit Hoggard & Flintoff either, but those guys got on with it and did fine. In the short term it didn't matter, but may be it helped develop the sort of attitude that we've seen over the last couple of years. Or at least, it didn't help change a lousy attitude that was there in the first place.

 

[wpdavid]

Anyone in London?

In Liverpool it's greay, dismal Octoberish weather. Dire.

Much the same down here, although it's supposed to improve later.

 

[PY]

We have fog here in Yorks, worst weather ever...guess it means I won't get distracted from rev by the park.

I'm a bit nervous at the moment, I'm not even sure what I want us to do (bat or bowl) due to the weather forecast. Bowl first and if we don't make breakthroughs then could have a long day in the field if it brightens up later on, but if we bat first then we could lose early wickets which would suck as our batting lineup doesn't look at its best to me.

 

[pasag]

FFS England. Get yourself together, you're a mess.