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

[Perm]

Yeah, would be him, considering he was called in to the squad for this game as cover for Flintoff. Could even be Flintoff himself if he was confident enough (or Collingwood/Bell bowled well in this game, even..).

It wouldn't surprise me if the selectors did go for Mahmood though, that's how little faith I have in them. I'd rather Flintoff playing a bit of County Cricket TBH, get himself into a bit of a groove. Who knows how long his ankle will last.

Sarwan scoring a few runs here, not looking particularly pretty.

 

[Perm]

The West Indies would be happy with that session, although Devon Smith should really still have been out there.

 

[Prince EWS]

Smith - plumb, not given, then plays a mistimed square drive for four. I rate this guy for some reason - don't really know why. Sometimes he looks okay for 20 odd before getting out and sometimes he looks dire and gets out cheaply. I may need to reconsider my evaluation if it keeps up, but I'll stay strong for now.

Was the former today it seems.

 

[GIMH]

Attack looks so much poorer without Hoggy

 

[Perm]

Was the former today it seems.

Unfortunately it should be added. He was looking in very good touch, those cover drives were things of beauty.

 

[TT Boy]

Fred's playing in the FPT tomorrow but purely as a batsman. The chances of him featuring or indeed carrying the bowling workload at Leeds are pretty slim. Anderson would be the logical replacement considering again his a new ball bowler who swings it back into the left handers.

 

[Pratters]

On Smith: He played some good shots off the fuller balls pitched outside the off stump but was equally dire at times missing and mis hitting balls which he shouldn't have. It was inevitable that he would get out for me - sooner rather than later.

 

[Scaly piscine]

How did he miss that

Monty strikes, and Scaly mourns

WI are hopeless against left arm spin - remember Giles took 18 wickets in the first two Tests last time WI visited.

Both dismissals have been a bit rubbish from WI's point of view.

 

[Perm]

WI are hopeless against left arm spin - remember Giles took 18 wickets in the first two Tests last time WI visited.

Both dismissals have been a bit rubbish from WI's point of view.

Indeed, Daniel Vettori has had a bit of sucess against them to.

They were both pretty soft, which would be the main dissapointment. It's okay getting out to a good ball, but neither of them (particularly the Smith wicket) should have been out, from the batsmans point of view anyway.

 

[Prince EWS]

WI are hopeless against left arm spin - remember Giles took 18 wickets in the first two Tests last time WI visited.

Both dismissals have been a bit rubbish from WI's point of view.

You do realise Plunkett took the first wicket, don't you?

 

[Scaly piscine]

Attack looks so much poorer without Flintoff

Corrected. Hoggard is over-rated, the way people go on you'd think he was England's leading bowler. He's well behind Flintoff, Harmison and Simon Jones (no particular order). He gets the best conditions to bowl in and bowls often when they come along.

In comparison Flintoff bowls the difficult overs when batsmen are in and the ball is worn.

 

[pasag]

Corrected. Hoggard is over-rated, the way people go on you'd think he was England's leading bowler. He's well behind Flintoff, Harmison and Simon Jones (no particular order). He gets the best conditions to bowl in and bowls often when they come along.

In comparison Flintoff bowls the difficult overs when batsmen are in and the ball is worn.

Forgotten Australia already?

 

[Perm]

Corrected. Hoggard is over-rated, the way people go on you'd think he was England's leading bowler. He's well behind Flintoff, Harmison and Simon Jones (no particular order). He gets the best conditions to bowl in and bowls often when they come along.

In comparison Flintoff bowls the difficult overs when batsmen are in and the ball is worn.

Haha, nice one. Hoggard is under-rated. He has been one of England's best bowlers (behind Flintoff, and the occasional spurt from Harmison) for quite a while now. Absolutely workhorse, puts in the hard yards so others can benefit.

 

[GIMH]

Corrected. Hoggard is over-rated, the way people go on you'd think he was England's leading bowler. He's well behind Flintoff, Harmison and Simon Jones (no particular order). He gets the best conditions to bowl in and bowls often when they come along.

In comparison Flintoff bowls the difficult overs when batsmen are in and the ball is worn.

Agree that we're weaker without Flintoff, but we also look weaker without Hoggard

We look weaker without any of our top 4 quicks IMO - that's why they're our top 4 quicks

 

[Prince EWS]

puts in the hard yards so others can benefit.

I'd argue that, given he gets the new ball every time. You make him sound like Craig White - he's not.

 

[Bob Bamber]

Personally I'd be very inclined to not pick Flintoff or Vaughan for the next Test. I agree with Boycott about how Vaughan should be playing some County Cricket and getting back to form there before he comes back into the Test side.

I seem to remember one of the things England did a lot under Fletcher was that if a player got injured he'd have to play in a county game or whatever before they'd be considered.

Well I think were all inclined not to play Flintoff and Vaughan in the next test. Although the injury to Hoggard may well change things for Flintoff. Vaughan will walk back into the side becuase he is captain. But I think Strauss is doing a very good job so far (and that includes the tests last year against Pakistan.

 

[Perm]

I'd argue that, given he gets the new ball every time. You make him sound like Craig White - he's not.

I don't see any of the other fast bowlers (Flintoff excluded) willing to come back late in the day and just keep bowling, over after over. That was what I meant, he gets through a lot of work and that allows the other bowlers to bowl short, sharp spells.

 

[marc71178]

Nice work Liam Plunkett. If he does well here and manages to get a few wickets, then he'll be a very strong contender for the #8 spot for a few years to come, given that he can bat a fair bit more than any of the other bowlers.

I think that depends on the make up of the side - if we go to 6 batsmen then he'll be the one to miss out when all are fit IMO.

 

[Perm]

I think that depends on the make up of the side - if we go to 6 batsmen then he'll be the one to miss out when all are fit IMO.

I'd imagine so. With Panesar and Hoggard basically assured of a spot, then Harmison is likely to take up the other seamers position.

Sarwan hits a couple of boundaries against Harmison, scoring pretty freely but not looking particularly attractive.

 

[Prince EWS]

Sarwan is so obviously a #6 batsman at test level IMO. Would shine there in a decent side.