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

[pasag]

Finally. Good innings from Ramdin though.

 

[stumpski]

Lovely catch, from the man who wouldn't have been at 2nd slip if Flintoff were playing.

 

[PY]

Wicket for Plunkles, TMS are singing his praises at the moment saying he's bowled OK this spell. Think they have short memories in their old age.

 

[stumpski]

West Indies not safe yet - a lead of 160 or so could be distinctly handy for England.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Chanderpaul in super-defensive mode today.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Wicket for Plunkles, TMS are singing his praises at the moment saying he's bowled OK this spell. Think they have short memories in their old age.

He's bowled OK overall, he's had a lot of edges not and other things not go his way. Just people who as usual don't have a clue remember the odd wide as if that automatically means all of his bowling was crap, which is not the case. Still if he bowled at around 55-60mph I'm sure the WI would manage to hand some lbws and bowleds on a plate...


12.5 Plunkett to Ganga, FOUR, a huge edge wide of the diving gully Kevin Pietersen, who full-stretches in vain to his left

14.5 Plunkett to Smith, 2 runs, now then, now then, as Jimmy Saville may say; nearly inside-edged right on, but got away with the trickle down through fine

16.3 Plunkett to Smith, no run, ooh and a huge shout from Plunkett - in fact, from everyone, including us three in the office, as Plunkett swings this into the left-hander who, stuck in the crease, is rapped on the pads. Inside edge perhaps? The umpire doesn't strike back, and replays suggest that, yes, it was pad first.

39.2 Plunkett to Ganga, FOUR, and even better, finding the edge but the batsman gets away with it, and four to his name, as the ball flies through the vacant third slip at would-be catchable height

45.1 Plunkett to Morton, 1 run, ooh it's a vicious lifted fended off his neck high to Collingwood at second slip, who jumped up but could only parry it; Strauss at first slip tried to turn round but couldn't make the ground. A chance goes begging

51.3 Plunkett to Morton, FOUR, excellent bowling, calling Morton's bluff with a fuller delivery which Morton falls hook, line and sinker for. A swing and a swish, he gets a thick outside edge which flies down to third man

84.5 Plunkett to Chanderpaul, 1 run, very good ball this time, just outside off and Chanderpaul gets a thick inside edge to third-man

 

[steds]

I'd almost forgotten how dire the theme tune for Five's highlights is.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Oh and today showed how silly it often is to declare at a score of 500, 550 etc.

 

[TT Boy]

Oh and today showed how silly it often is to declare at a score of 500, 550 etc.

It is when your best bowler gets injured and all you have is The Chuckle Brothers and the faint hope that the West Indies will gift all ten wickets to Monty.

If England had bowled well then 500, 550 or even 600 would be insignificant. The declaration was the right decision, the bowlers however failed to back up captain Strauss.

 

[Goughy]

I actually do see the point made by Scaly though. It would be far easier and quicker to score the runs in the 1st innings rather than have to have the tricky time in the 2nd innings and the awkwardness of knowing how long to bat and what total to set.

350 isnt a massive score to avoid the follow on and it means England have to bat again. I think there is a mental barrier to having to score 400 to avoid following on that WI didnt have to face.

By putting the runs up in the 1st Innings you decrease the liklihood of batting again and rather than costing you time it saves time.

So like I said, I understand where he is coming from and its a fair point. On the other hand, I would have declared overnight as England did and backed my bowlers.

 

[Scaly piscine]

It is when your best bowler gets injured and all you have is The Chuckle Brothers and the faint hope that the West Indies will gift all ten wickets to Monty.

If England had bowled well then 500, 550 or even 600 would be insignificant. The declaration was the right decision, the bowlers however failed to back up captain Strauss.

If and buts, meaningless. Hoggard wouldn't have been any more effective than Plunkett has been. If WI had batted competently against someone who's barely spinning the ball they'd be what, 4 down? Hell on another day Monty wouldn't have been given any of his 3 lbws (they were out, but still).

As soon as you get to a point where you wouldn't enforce the follow-on and there's 2 days left it makes your decision to declare a bad one - England batting a second time would have happened more often than not. How many times would declaring a bit later cost England a win? That's a one in hundreds shot, an event that is less likely than England declaring at 553 and losing.

England lose two overs through change of innings, it was a no-brainer if you play to your percentages - which unfortunately doesn't seem to happen very often in English sport. They don't miss out on the slightest edge in America in American sports.

 

[grecian]

Monty had about 6 decent LBW shouts. You seem obsessed about "could of beens" for Plunkers, but ignore the ones for Monty. Funny that.

 

[TT Boy]

If and buts, meaningless. Hoggard wouldn't have been any more effective than Plunkett has been. If WI had batted competently against someone who's barely spinning the ball they'd be what, 4 down? Hell on another day Monty wouldn't have been given any of his 3 lbws (they were out, but still).

As soon as you get to a point where you wouldn't enforce the follow-on and there's 2 days left it makes your decision to declare a bad one - England batting a second time would have happened more often than not. How many times would declaring a bit later cost England a win? That's a one in hundreds shot, an event that is less likely than England declaring at 553 and losing.

England lose two overs through change of innings, it was a no-brainer if you play to your percentages - which unfortunately doesn't seem to happen very often in English sport. They don't miss out on the slightest edge in America in American sports.

So is your defence of Plunkett. Plenty of if and buts... If only that edge had carried, if only that cover drive hit through the vacant covers had a fielder there he would have stopped it, if only there was two sets of stumps, Plunkett's leg side trite would possibly be on 'target'.

And how can you suggest Hoggard would have gone no better than Plunkett for what's Liam done in Test cricket so far to suggest his comparably the same or indeed better, other than playing for Durham and swinging the ball?

Lets not forget Hoggard last winter on concrete got seven wickets. Plunkett is more akin to your track conditioned bully stereotype you used earlier to describe Hoggard.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Monty had about 6 decent LBW shouts. You seem obsessed about "could of beens" for Plunkers, but ignore the ones for Monty. Funny that.

Monty got more decisions in his favour than you'd expect given the 3 that were given you see given not out regularly. Plunkett has a catch dropped and had 15-20 runs come off edges, but as usual morons on here imply he was rubbish while Monty was godlike...

I like to try and point people in the direction of being accurate if I can help it.

 

[Scaly piscine]

So is your defence of Plunkett. Plenty of if and buts... If only that edge had carried, if only that cover drive hit through the vacant covers had a fielder there he would have stopped it, if only there was two sets of stumps, Plunkett's leg side trite would possibly be on 'target'.

And how can you suggest Hoggard would have gone no better than Plunkett for what's Liam done in Test cricket so far to suggest his comparably the same or indeed better, other than playing for Durham and swinging the ball?

Lets not forget Hoggard last winter on concrete got seven wickets. Plunkett is more akin to your track conditioned bully stereotype you used earlier to describe Hoggard.

Hoggard's first ten overs were unthreatening and easy pickings, so it's unlikely he'd have gotten much better when the ball is older.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I like to try and point people in the direction of being accurate if I can help it.

You might wanna have a word with this fella then...

 

[Richard]

but you have to expect some stick given you track record of bringing up times when others have maybe got things a bit wrong. You tend to make judgements based not on watching, but what has tended to happen in the past to other players (an example is this discussion about the comparison between Prior and Jones, when in fact there is NO comparison). You did it a couple of years back about Alastair Cook as well.

Just forget about it and dont get so worked up about it

Eh? What was the Cook comment you were referring to?

 

[Bob Bamber]

Oh and today showed how silly it often is to declare at a score of 500, 550 etc.

I actually do see the point made by Scaly though. It would be far easier and quicker to score the runs in the 1st innings rather than have to have the tricky time in the 2nd innings and the awkwardness of knowing how long to bat and what total to set.

350 isnt a massive score to avoid the follow on and it means England have to bat again. I think there is a mental barrier to having to score 400 to avoid following on that WI didnt have to face.

By putting the runs up in the 1st Innings you decrease the liklihood of batting again and rather than costing you time it saves time.

So like I said, I understand where he is coming from and its a fair point. On the other hand, I would have declared overnight as England did and backed my bowlers.

550 was about right , England could have batted this morning and added 150 to their total. On such a inactive surface , and conditions that haven't helped swing terribly (well the bowlers haven't helped themselves either) , a 700 total wouldn't have helped much. I would have meant less time for bowling the West Indies out. And what if England have had been rolled over for 40 - 50 , wouldn't England have been wondering what could have been have they have been in those conditions.

Hoggard's first ten overs were unthreatening and easy pickings, so it's unlikely he'd have gotten much better when the ball is older.

You can't really say that , just because he didn't bowl well in the morning doesn't mean he wouldn't have bowled better in the afternoon. And it would have taken some of the pressure off Plunkett and Harmison , leaving them fresher and more confident.

Atleast England are into the bowlers , but I'm not really confident of an England win. Even if we get them over early in the morning , which they could easily not , then they've got the job of setting a total which they can defend with three bowlers on the 5th day. They will be batting with probably a 120 + lead. Make 250 tommorow. And bowl at that. With 3 bowlers for England , draw the most likely result , but you never know...

 

[Beleg]

England should feel quite comfortable at the moment, really. All they need to do is get Chanderpaul during the first session - the way he is playing at the moment, it is unlikely he will go after the bowlers and score a lot of runs...A target of 350+ for the WI in the 3.5 sessions would give England plenty of leg room to try and get the WI out and at the same time give the windies a whiff at a win which will ensure that they dont turn the fourth innings into a block-fest.

 

[Richard]

It defies logic though to actually hold the similarities against Prior, merely because Jones failed. Unless the fact that Jones was an instant success and scored a quickfire hundred against a poor attack was actually part of the reason for his demise, then it really makes no sense to say "Don't get excited - look what happened to Jones." Jones's demise was caused by his dire shot selection - something we've yet to see from Prior, so to draw comparisons negatively would be completely unfair and unnecessarily pessimistic (and yes, I know you hold the opinion that pessimism is usually a good idea - but it comes a time where it's OTT and unnecessary). First class statistics tell us that Prior is a significantly better batsman than Jones to begin with, which is reason enough to wipe the Jones case from our heads - not to mention the fact that Prior has better footwork and better shot selection than Jones anyway.

Tell me - have you seen Prior bat before? I certainly have, and I was prepared to say his shot-selection was poor on those occasions. Even though I've seen him score runs several times - even in the short game.

Yes, Prior's First-Class career pre-Test-debut was longer than Jones', but TBH I don't find it especially inconceivable that Jones would have continued to score runs had he been left at Kent. Anyway, all such matters are nought but conjecture. We simply have to wait and see how Prior goes. I am never keen on getting too excited about someone because of one Test innings, whoever that may be. I've learnt my lesson by doing so many times, not just in the Jones case.