***Official England in India***

[B.Scott4England]

Nah, need my energy for tomorrow night

What do you have planned Geraint?

 

[Jigga988]

just ask your mum!

hiyuooooooooo

 

[Jigga988]

i should probobly take that back, this dude's from liverpool

I'm sorry man, just dont hurt me.

 

[superkingdave]

If the game was a dead rubber then maybe but England could still salvage something. I dont envision Rashid being ready to play for England for at least a year. He is not that good a bowler or batsman yet, though i would be intrigued to see him have a go. I like Broad for Jimmy. I think Jimmy should play every test against the Windies because he swings it and the Windies hate swing, but in this particular test Broad is the right man. More accurate and a better batsman. It's unlikely that there will be any swing so Anderson would have been ineffective anyway. Finally, I have never ever rated Harmy. I think he is an average bowler, got a bit of pace, a bit of bounce but nothing else. Lacks accuracy and doesnt look like taking wickets unless the wicket is one that will assist him and even then your asking alot. Should be dropped with haste!

The thing is picking Broad is picking a batsman who can bowl a bit at the moment, which is not what you want when you need to win the match. If the ball does anything you'd prefer Anderson in the side, if it doesn't then it really doesn't matter if Broad can bat better because we aren't going to bowl India out twice

 

[Jigga988]

The thing is picking Broad is picking a batsman who can bowl a bit at the moment, which is not what you want when you need to win the match. If the ball does anything you'd prefer Anderson in the side, if it doesn't then it really doesn't matter if Broad can bat better because we aren't going to bowl India out twice

suppose you got a point but i just think Broad could come good. He not that bad a bowler, just had 3 or 4 lacklustre matches. I think he could be good in Indian conditions, got a good slower ball, often changes it up, can hold down an end and can obviously bat.

 

[GIMH]

What do you have planned Geraint?

Just a few beers

YOU DID NOT SEE THIS POST. I will not be sacked for ***ual harassment!

 

[FBU]

Gutted if Anderson gets dropped, had one below par test, so we are going to drop him for a bowler who's unlikely to get any wickets even when the surface is assisting him? Diabolical decision if its taken...Harmison for Broad i could take or Broad for Panesar.

Will probably be up from Lunch tomorrow to watch

I thought in the first innings Anderson was underused as he was bowling very well. The most economical of all the bowlers. Had he been given more than two overs in the second innings he would have got some control but once again the captain having no faith in him meant his confidence suffered. While KP is captain I would rather Anderson is not in the team. Hopefully we can have him all next season at Lancs.

 

[B.Scott4England]

Thing with Broad is that he will try things. Not like the robot that is Panesar.

(It's ok Jigga - I know exactly what GiMH has planned tomorrow!)

 

[GIMH]

Indeed, now fix up your location, Wirral

 

[B.Scott4England]

yes boss

 

[GIMH]

So is Shah playing this Test or what?

 

[B.Scott4England]

we can only hope

 

[Richard]

Nah, need my energy for tomorrow night

O I C.

 

[Richard]

I think Jimmy should play every test against the Windies because he swings it and the Windies hate swing, but in this particular test Broad is the right man. More accurate and a better batsman.

I don't know about that (that Broad's more accurate than Anderson). Not in Tests anyway. Anderson demonstrated quite clearly last summer that he had the skill to consistently hit better areas than Broad over long periods of time. Broad's certainly far, far better over 10 overs, but over 20-30, current evidence suggests Anderson is the better bet.

 

[Richard]

suppose you got a point but i just think Broad could come good. He not that bad a bowler, just had 3 or 4 lacklustre matches. I think he could be good in Indian conditions, got a good slower ball, often changes it up, can hold down an end and can obviously bat.

Broad's had a bad game every time he's played Test cricket. He doesn't offer anything in terms of bowling wicket-taking deliveries and will only get wickets through bad strokes.

Unless something drastic has changed in the last 2 weeks.

 

[Richard]

Well whoever said that is telling a FACT, Moin did miss a very simple catch first and then easiest of the stumping chance (on the same shot) of Tendulkar. The only thing that is not correct in the version of the story is that it was not early in Tendulkar's innings, Tendulkar was on 90.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNe2YtAXPOQ&feature=channel

(It is after 1.25 minutes).

Haha, there is absolutely no way any wicketkeeper was ever collecting that cleanly. There's a massive inside-edge there which makes a huge deflection. You'd have to have Jedi reflexes to be able to get one, never mind two, full gloves on that.

Ridiculously unfair on Moin to call that catchable or, by chain, a stumping chance. If he couldn't catch it, clearly there was no way he could've stumped Tendulkar.

 

[Langeveldt]

England entered this test series against the backgrop of horrific attacks in Mumbai. It was argued that England turning up to play would be a victory for cricket, however not only did England turn up but they actually produced some moments of good play. Peter Moores is fond of describing the positives to be taken out of games, but looking back at Chennai there were genuine positives.

Andrew Strauss' two centuries at Chennai was one such positive. In both innings Strauss embodied conservative reliability. Back in 2004 he cut and pulled his way to success. His accumulating style encountered problems in subsequent seasons principally through his pulling and driving uppishly. The Chennai spectators saw Strauss score few runs pulling or driving - but did see what England need if they are to climb once again up the rankings - a batsmen ruthlessly converting a start into three figures.

Another major positive was Paul Collingwood's innings. Collingwood did not look to be in good form - he rarely does. Surely he deserves recognition as one of the games greatest fighters. Flintoff's bowling was another unrewarded positive. Most of his spells were impressive and the spell in which he got under the brilliant Yuraj Singhs skin was fantastic.

Going into the next test I cannot believe that Bell is still being considered for selection and cannot comprehend his batting at number three. Having played 14 matches at three averaging in the low 30s this is clealy not his best position. I could at least understand his batting down at 6 where he has had some success. Owais Shah must wonder what he needs to do to get a game.

I think that Monty is a great character that needs to be left out of the next game. I do however like our balance with two spinners and cannot help wonder, why not give Rashid a game? What a potential opportunity for the young man to make an impact in helpful conditions? What a gamble!

You can stick around, top post

 

[biased indian]

why don't they toss ffs ?? is light that bad they wont see which side the coin falls ???

now will we waste 30 minutes after tossing !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ICC rules are ridiculous at the best

 

[Edged&Taken]

Cricinfo :
"........Meanwhile, Stuart Broad has just been interviewed and revealed England "are playing well in the nets" - well, isn't that just jolly fine. If cricket matches were played in the nets, this England team would be No. 1. "

 

[honestbharani]

Anderson nails Sehwag early and now, our worst nightmares are coming true again..


Gambhir and Dravid crawling along..