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

[Richard]

Top 4 - anything below that is the middle or lower order.

I'd just accept taking the wickets of those with genuine pretensions with the bat, TBH - and only if there was an excessive number of non-batsmen would I start to take a record with a pinch of salt.

 

[Richard]

Strauss last summer I thought used Pietersen and Bell very well as the fifth bowler (there was no Flintoff at that point).

Kidding right? Pietersen bowled 12 overs against Pakistan (at 5.33-an-over) and Bell did not bowl at all in the series.

 

[TT Boy]

Breaking news on the wireless that Freddy is out of the second test.

 

[Richard]

It's tempting to say "good", TBH - but I probably haven't the time as CW needs the story posted.

 

[marc71178]

I'd just accept taking the wickets of those with genuine pretensions with the bat, TBH - and only if there was an excessive number of non-batsmen would I start to take a record with a pinch of salt.

An opening bowler's job is to get the top men out with the new ball, not the middle order...

But it's 7 of the top 7 in 4 games in 2007...

 

[Richard]

It's tempting to say "good", TBH - but I probably haven't the time as CW needs the story posted.

Even beat CricInfo, not bad...

Anyway - I'd never have believed he was in a state to play, that ankle of his just isn't right. Now we don't need to worry about dropping a century-maker, either, and hopefully Vaughan's return will be less contentuous this way, too.

 

[Richard]

An opening bowler's job is to get the top men out with the new ball, not the middle order...

But it's 7 of the top 7 in 4 games in 2007...

A bowler's job is to get batsmen out. Simple as.

 

[four_or_six]

Even beat CricInfo, not bad...

Anyway - I'd never have believed he was in a state to play, that ankle of his just isn't right. Now we don't need to worry about dropping a century-maker, either, and hopefully Vaughan's return will be less contentuous this way, too.

Cricinfo suggests that Strauss will make way for Sidebottom...

 

[Richard]

Haha, WTF?

Now that really is plain madness. Sidebottom has done more to merit selection than Strauss, has he?

And it also angers me greatly, really, that Vaughan, after opening in his last Test before that long break will open in his first Test after it. The very last thing he needs.

 

[FBU]

Haha, WTF?

Now that really is plain madness. Sidebottom has done more to merit selection than Strauss, has he?

And it also angers me greatly, really, that Vaughan, after opening in his last Test before that long break will open in his first Test after it. The very last thing he needs.

I sometimes wonder where they get these ridiculous ideas from. Last time they were guessing that England would play Anderson instead of Panesar. I'm sure England had no intention of doing that.

With Matthew Hoggard also ruled out through injury and with England's lack of firepower at Lord's so evident, it seems likely that Ryan Sidebottom and James Anderson will be recalled for the match with a batsman - probably Andrew Strauss - missing out to make way for Michael Vaughan.

The team would then look like this -
Cook, Vaughan, Pietersen, Collingwood, Bell, Prior, Plunkett, Harmison, Sidebottom, Anderson and Panesar.

 

[Spitfires_Fan]

I sometimes wonder where they get these ridiculous ideas from. Last time they were guessing that England would play Anderson instead of Panesar. I'm sure England had no intention of doing that.

With Matthew Hoggard also ruled out through injury and with England's lack of firepower at Lord's so evident, it seems likely that Ryan Sidebottom and James Anderson will be recalled for the match with a batsman - probably Andrew Strauss - missing out to make way for Michael Vaughan.

The team would then look like this -
Cook, Vaughan, Pietersen, Collingwood, Bell, Prior, Plunkett, Harmison, Sidebottom, Anderson and Panesar.

Ahh, surely there is no way that can happen! Plunkett a test 7?

 

[pskov]

Sounds to me like some bored journo decided to make his day a bit more interesting. I think the only debate will be whether Sidebottom of Plunket play. I was also oddly pleased that Flintoff failed his fitness test, as even if he had passed I wouldn't want him to go straight back into Test cricket with no preparation. Of course, that just displays my lack of faith in 'fitness tests' really more than anything else.

 

[Richard]

I sometimes wonder where they get these ridiculous ideas from. Last time they were guessing that England would play Anderson instead of Panesar. I'm sure England had no intention of doing that.

With Matthew Hoggard also ruled out through injury and with England's lack of firepower at Lord's so evident, it seems likely that Ryan Sidebottom and James Anderson will be recalled for the match with a batsman - probably Andrew Strauss - missing out to make way for Michael Vaughan.

The team would then look like this -
Cook, Vaughan, Pietersen, Collingwood, Bell, Prior, Plunkett, Harmison, Sidebottom, Anderson and Panesar.

That... really... (double shudder) would put the D in define a tail-between-the-legs tail.

Four non-batsmen, and a number-seven with a Test average of less than 10... and a six with a single game to his name.

 

[Richard]

Sounds to me like some bored journo decided to make his day a bit more interesting. I think the only debate will be whether Sidebottom of Plunket play.

This guy obviously had a far better grasp of reality.

(Hope you can spot the jest here...)

 

[FBU]

I wonder what Fletcher is making of all this back in South Africa. I'm sure he keeps a close eye on what is going on and maybe some loyal backroom staff keep him updated on the gossip.

 

[Richard]

I don't know whether I'd laugh or cry if, come the end of the summer, people were longing for the Days Of Duncan.

 

[social]

I was going to nominate Sidebottom for the "Incompetent X1" on another thread but thought it a tad unfair on a guy who'd only played one test.

At least the English selectors could give me a reason to boost my thread count and TBH that's probably the only justification for his inclusion

 

[social]

Even beat CricInfo, not bad...

Anyway - I'd never have believed he was in a state to play, that ankle of his just isn't right. Now we don't need to worry about dropping a century-maker, either, and hopefully Vaughan's return will be less contentuous this way, too.[/QUOTE]

Sure, all-rounder unfit so let's replace him with a walking wicket who is a passenger in the field AND make him captain

English selectors really are a spineless bunch

 

[four_or_six]

English selectors really are a spineless bunch

Yup.

 

[Richard]

Watch and learn how to stop bad quoting resulting in more bad quoting, f_o_s...

Sure, all-rounder unfit so let's replace him with a walking wicket who is a passenger in the field AND make him captain

English selectors really are a spineless bunch

It's not a case of Vaughan replacing Flintoff, it's a case of Vaughan would have played and someone else's non-selection would have been contentious with Flintoff replacing whoever it was he replaced. Now, instead, there will be less of an issue.

And you never know, Vaughan might actually score a few runs. This is not, after all, a masterful attack, and whatever some people might think, Vaughan is actually a very fine batsman in the longer game.