• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

***Official England in India***

Richard

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Uppercut said:
Hmm, the problem (i think) with Monty on the subcontinent is that he can't get adequate bounce because he doesn't toss it up. But it's obviously not just the pitches, Monty's had other things going for him- the weakness of the NZ and WI batting lineups, the surprise factor as a fairly unique kind of bowler when he played in Australia, and a lot of luck in England outside OT. Somehow he finished with 13 wickets at 31 from the SA series where he was so ineffective it was ridiculous.
Click to expand...
Yup, what luck he's had (and he's had a good bit with tailenders and declaration wickets, hence Beevs fuming every time it happens and boring the crap out of everyone on CC) has mostly come over here, though safe to say he had a bit in NZ as well.

The weakness of NZ didn't actually come much to the fore over here though. WI did, at Lord's especially and to a lesser extent at The Riverside.
 
Richard

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
SpaceMonkey said:
If England had won the 1st Test i think they'd be pretty happy with how this test was going. The problem is England will find it very very hard to win from this position unless India totally collapse in the 2nd innings.
Click to expand...
Yeah, situations in a two-Test series where the First Test has a result and the Second is severely truncated is wholly unfair. I really hate to see it, and I'd hate it every bit as much if we'd have won the opening game.

The consolation is that our chances of victory would've been extremely slim if we'd got 450 overs or even more in this game.
 
Uppercut

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Richard said:
Yup, what luck he's had (and he's had a good bit with tailenders and declaration wickets, hence Beevs fuming every time it happens and boring the crap out of everyone on CC) has mostly come over here, though safe to say he had a bit in NZ as well.

The weakness of NZ didn't actually come much to the fore over here though. WI did, at Lord's especially and to a lesser extent at The Riverside.
Click to expand...
But I think we tend to forget that being lucky is actually a really, really good trait for a bowler to have. Possible the best trait. Was it Napoleon who used to say, "Give me lucky generals"?
 
Scaly piscine

Scaly piscine

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Uppercut said:
But I think we tend to forget that being lucky is actually a really, really good trait for a bowler to have. Possible the best trait. Was it Napoleon who used to say, "Give me lucky generals"?
Click to expand...

Well if he keeps bowling so badly that teams go on a declaration charge then yes he might get to keep his flattering average below 35. Won't alter the fact he's contributed less than anyone else you could have realistically picked in his place.
 
Uppercut

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Scaly piscine said:
Well if he keeps bowling so badly that teams go on a declaration charge then yes he might get to keep his flattering average below 35. Won't alter the fact he's contributed less than anyone else you could have realistically picked in his place.
Click to expand...
Don't look at me, i'd drop him.
 
Richard

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Uppercut said:
But I think we tend to forget that being lucky is actually a really, really good trait for a bowler to have. Possible the best trait. Was it Napoleon who used to say, "Give me lucky generals"?
Click to expand...
Thing is, though, his luck (ie, bowling very moderately and still getting semi-decent figures) has precious few times actually helped England's position in games.

The fact that MSP rather than a much more deserving bowler (Flintoff, say) picked-up the last couple of wickets isn't really here or there as to whether England win. They win whoever picks them up. Likewise, say he (or Simon Jones, or Harmison - this happened with infuriating regularity in SA in 2004/05) gets gifted a couple of wickets just before a declaration - it's neither here nor there. 250\6dec is the same, for the purposes of the team, as 250\3dec.

If he was being constantly gifted 3 or 4 top-order wickets at crucial times, then yeah, sure, but that's happened on precious few occasions.

Also, being lucky is by definition random. A lucky bowler is a bowler who you expect to stop being lucky at any given time.
 
Last edited:
wpdavid

wpdavid

Hall of Fame Member
We may have seen the answer to Kev's question in another thread about how much better Swann would have to be than Panesar to replace him WI next Spring. Judging by how many overs each bowled in this innings, KP seems to be leaning that way.

The next question, I suppose, is how many runs does Bell have to make in this game to stay in the side instead of Shah?

Leaving all that aside, from what I can gather this was an impressive effort from our boys after India reached 320 for 1. Helluva shame we couldn't make more use of conditions on the first morning though.
 
Last edited:
Lillian Thomson

Lillian Thomson

Hall of Fame Member
wpdavid said:
OK. Then I'll abreviate the question to how many runs does Bell need to make to stay in the side?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what the schedule is for the West Indies tour but I doubt there's much cricket before the First Test so the batting line-up probably won't change.
 
aussie

aussie

Hall of Fame Member
Good god, England too. This is why i am up 5 in the da morning, gezzzzzzz

This is the worst winter of cricket ever.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top