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

[Richard]

Collymore wasn't poor exactly - he didn't get many wickets but I've seen plenty of worse series (and some that even got better sets of figures).

 

[Prince EWS]

Ah, yes, was thinking of the latter series, when you meant the former. That attack was hardly awful, though - Edwards especially bowled well that game.

Having a poor attack for a match isn't really about having an attack that performs poorly in the match, IMO, or I'd go and dig up something from the recent Ashes series. It's about what it looks like on paper, also taking into account the quality of the bowlers around that timeframe (be it before or after) in comparison to the rest of their careers.

It's quite possible, although obviously not common, for a poor attack to bowl well in a match or even a series and vise versa.

 

[Richard]

I'd go for an attack that was poor in-general with that game inclusive.

It's better than one that was poor in-general but not in the game in question.

 

[Richard]

In any case, as I did mention along with "anything from WI of late", there were several in The Ashes from us that qualified, I'd go for Adelaide if Hoggard hadn't been so good there. AIA, Sydney was probably the worst - Saj, James, Harmison, Flintoff (the one exception) and MSP.

 

[Prince EWS]

In any case, as I did mention along with "anything from WI of late", there were several in The Ashes from us that qualified, I'd go for Adelaide if Hoggard hadn't been so good there. AIA, Sydney was probably the worst - Saj, James, Harmison, Flintoff (the one exception) and MSP.

I'd much, much rather have anything England dished up in the Ashes than Powell, Collymore, Taylor, Bravo and Gayle - Flintoff in poor form or not..

 

[Perm]

Backing Strauss for a ton here, he is looking pretty comfortable.

Just realised what a good record he has at Lords, 3 centuries in 6 games with an average of almost 70. Impressives stuff, obviously enjoys playing at home.

 

[Goughy]

Indeed. You can count the number of match-influencing spells he's bowled on one hand - if even one finger.

Though TBH, it's a bit better of late.

That record is a bit misleading though, given he's taken 37 wickets @ 32.37 in his last 20 tests. Granted, it's far from special, but you can't completely discount him - especially given the rest of the attack.

Haha, I can't believe we chose the exact same filter!

Yeah but those figures are even more misleading as the 20th test was the fifer in Birmingham. I suspect the dates were chosen to make sure that game was included.

In his last 19 Tests he has taken 32 wkts at 36.37 and in his last 10 Tests he has taken 12 wickets at 43.41.

Its hardly improving, its just that he bowls so little that 1 good performance distorts all the figures around it and for that period of time.

As I said, his record in the last 20 tests suggests improvement but that was weighted by one or 2 games, his record in the last 10 games shows little improvement.

No doubt he can bowl a bit, but if England regard him as a threat they are a) Getting uber-conservative and worrysome and b) the WI attack is even more toothless than I originally thought.

 

[Prince EWS]

Haha, commentator's curse. Really poor shot from Strauss - dire footwork.

 

[Perm]

Backing Strauss for a ton here, he is looking pretty comfortable.

Just realised what a good record he has at Lords, 3 centuries in 6 games with an average of almost 70. Impressives stuff, obviously enjoys playing at home.

Not impressed.

 

[wpdavid]

There was a really poor attack in SL a few years back - IIRC Kirtley, Flintoff (before he was good), Giles & Batty.

 

[Prince EWS]

Yeah but those figures are even more misleading as the 20th test was the fifer in Birmingham. I suspect the dates were chosen to make sure that game was included.

In his last 19 Tests he has taken 32 wkts at 36.37 and in his last 10 Tests he has taken 12 wickets at 43.41.

Its hardly improving, its just that he bowls so little that 1 good performance distorts all the figures around it and for that period of time.

As I said, his record in the last 20 tests suggests improvement but that was weighted by one or 2 games, his record in the last 10 games shows little improvement.

No doubt he can bowl a bit, but if England regard him as a threat they are a) Getting uber-conservative and worrysome and b) the WI attack is even more toothless than I originally thought.

I'd go with B, myself. Gayle's record of late is really no worse than other other West Indian bowler - in fact, it's better than most. And no, I didn't specifically select that number to get that match in - it's the first number I tried.

 

[Pup Clarke]

A loopy half volley gets the wicket..Was a nothing delivery tbh and really poor footwork from Strauss as if he wasn't expecting a really full delivery.

 

[GIMH]

you ****

Let's see how Shah gets on...

 

[wpdavid]

Haha, commentator's curse. Really poor shot from Strauss - dire footwork.

Bog standard Strauss innings nowadays, giving it away after getting a start.

 

[Richard]

There was a really poor attack in SL a few years back - IIRC Kirtley, Flintoff (before he was good), Giles & Batty.

The Third Test that'd have to be - the first 2 Tests were played on turners, which made Giles a good bowler. Though it was that series, it should be remembered, when Flintoff's figures started to make the turnaround.

 

[Perm]

The ball that got Strauss actually hit quite high up on the bat, bit more bounce that he was expecting I think.

It'll be interesting to see how Owais Shah goes, hopefully get scores a few although I wouldn't mind him going early. Is his grip really as "special" as the commentators were making it about to be, pre-match?

 

[Richard]

Yeah but those figures are even more misleading as the 20th test was the fifer in Birmingham. I suspect the dates were chosen to make sure that game was included.

They undoubtedly were, that's just the point - one period ended and another started there.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Wouldn't be England if the batsmen didn't largely hand their wickets on a plate.

 

[Prince EWS]

Does anyone else just get the feeling this might be Collymore's last test? These conditions are really tailor made for him and he's looked decidedly unthreatening. I've been a big fan of the guy really but there comes a time where being consistent and unlucky just doesn't cut it anymore if you don't take any wickets. I guess the West Indies are pretty dire anyway as has been mentioned so they'll probably keep him around.

 

[Richard]

It'll be interesting to see how Owais Shah goes, hopefully get scores a few although I wouldn't mind him going early. Is his grip really as "special" as the commentators were making it about to be, pre-match?

It's unusual, certainly. Kinda hard to describe in words, though. Are you watching?