*Official* England in West Indies

[wpdavid]

Sidebottom's selection is the worst of the lot. Theres absolutely no logic behind selecting a player that has bowled in one game in over 6 months. All this chopping and changing to the side every game has just got on my nerves. The best bowling performance we have seen from England in the last year or so involved the attack of Harmison, Anderson, and Flintoff, we saw this against SA in the summer and we saw this in the first test against India. Yet Harmison was dropped after one poor game and now Anderson has been dropped after another when people like Monty and Bell have been playing like clowns for over a year now and are still retained in the side.

Yes on all points. Sidebottom's as rusty as you'd expect in his circumstances, and it's criminal that Anderson was dropped for him at this point in time.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I swear I just heard Cozier say, "Steered away by Gayle. It won't go all the way to the boundary. [ball crosses ropes] That's the first boundary of the day." What a guy!

 

[wpdavid]

Sounds like fine bowling by Flintoff

 

[Scaly piscine]

Strauss should have opened with a spinner.

It's a slow pitch so you're not going to knock one or two over with pace & bounce. Gayle's an opening batsman so used to facing pace early anyway.

Strauss has captained by numbers, just as England have been selecting by numbers and ignored the pitch and context of the situation.

 

[zaremba]

Strauss should have opened with a spinner.

You keen for Monty to bowl, Scaly?

 

[Scaly piscine]

If they're going to pick the donkey then he may as well bowl.

Now if he comes on there'll be an excuse if he does badly - wasn't allowed to settle, batsmen both set etc.

 

[Nate]

I swear I just heard Cozier say, "Steered away by Gayle. It won't go all the way to the boundary. [ball crosses ropes] That's the first boundary of the day." What a guy!

Deadset, you hear that exact line every few minutes on C9.

 

[Nate]

This is a great Test Match already imo. Loving it. The English Commentary is fantastic and there's some great battles in the middle.

Sidebottom bowling well imo, I understand he's a bit undercooked and down on pace, but he's certainly nagging away with his line and movement.

 

[Nate]

Pitching outside leg, surely.

EDIT: Yep, replay and Hawkeye confirms.

 

[Nate]

Haha England. Surely he's missed that.

EDIT: Again, the replay confirms the Poms are wrong. Is it meant to be this obvious from the longue room?

 

[Jono]

Seeing Sarwan among the runs in test cricket is so good. Carn WI.

 

[andruid]

points and

 

[Penguinissimo]

This referral system is getting ridiculous. The current interpretation seems to be that if a decision is referred, it will be given not out unless the replays conclusively prove it to be out - ie what currently happens with disputed catches.

It seems to me that both Sarwan and Gayle have had their dismissals overturned because the replays don't show that they are definitely out.

It should be that the decision of the on-field umpire should stand unless the replays conclusively show it to be wrong.

I feel pretty sorry for Tony Hill, he's had something like 7 decisions referred so far. I've never seen him umpire, and for all I know he could be the next Russell Tiffin, but it can't be good for his confidence.

 

[Evermind]

Hey, how come the umpires are not allowed to look at the hotspot? WTF? What good is the whole referral system then, if hotspot, hawkeye are not allowed? I still don't get it.

 

[Evermind]

It should be that the decision of the on-field umpire should stand unless the replays conclusively show it to be wrong.

I thought this was always the case! No wonder it's looking senseless to me. It's completely illogical to NOT CONSIDER the opinion of the on-field umpire at all, in a referral. If the on-field umpire decides, and the the referral is inconclusive, why isn't the on-field umpire's decision reverted to? This is as good as a batsman using referral just to keep himself in play, because 90% of the time it's gonna be inconclusive without hotspot and hawkeye.

 

[Penguinissimo]

Hey, how come the umpires are not allowed to look at the hotspot? WTF? What good is the whole referral system then, if hotspot, hawkeye are not allowed? I still don't get it.

And snicko. Not so fussed about Hawkeye, but the other two are pretty scientific technology and two of the most helpful gadgets. If you're going to use technology, go the whole hog.

 

[Penguinissimo]

I thought this was always the case! No wonder it's looking senseless to me. It's completely illogical to NOT CONSIDER the opinion of the on-field umpire at all, in a referral. If the on-field umpire decides, and the the referral is inconclusive, why isn't the on-field umpire's decision reverted to? This is as good as a batsman using referral just to keep himself in play, because 90% of the time it's gonna be inconclusive without hotspot and hawkeye.

That was my point. I don't know what the exact terms of the referral system say - it's just that's how it seems to be working in practice atm.

 

[Uppercut]

Here comes Stuart B***d.

 

[pasag]

Road?

Anyways Sarwan's and Gayle's career stats are eerily similar.

 

[Uppercut]

I thought this was always the case! No wonder it's looking senseless to me. It's completely illogical to NOT CONSIDER the opinion of the on-field umpire at all, in a referral. If the on-field umpire decides, and the the referral is inconclusive, why isn't the on-field umpire's decision reverted to? This is as good as a batsman using referral just to keep himself in play, because 90% of the time it's gonna be inconclusive without hotspot and hawkeye.

I don't mind whether it's a policy of keep with the umpire unless it's conclusive, or judge it impartially as if the umpire had made no decision. The important thing is that it's always the same one. We can't have Brendon McCullum being given out because the third umpire was only 99.999% sure he didn't hit it while Sarwan stays in lbw to a ball that was probably hitting the stumps.