*Official* England in West Indies

[GIMH]

Richard does deem Zimbabwe 2000 as worthy of Test status, given the way you stalk him I'd have thought you'd know that

 

[wpdavid]

Perhaps he didn't put the word "away" in front of test debut. (Considering he starts the para with "Gayle's first tour was to England......)

Perhaps he is Richard Mk II and deems Zimbabwe as not worthy of test status.

Perhaps he is just too old to retire.

Cozier's exact words were "first test tour", which is fair enough if the Zim game was in the caribbean. Not a sacking offence after all.

 

[pasag]

Uppercut, how's your credibility holding up?

 

[pasag]

I'm sorry this is just too good:

Gambling Industry controversially decides to sell money
In an unprecedented manoeuvre, top betting agencies have decided to give away free money to cricket punters for seemingly no reason at all, offering England at 4/6 for a series win in the West Indies tests. Yes, I'm not joking. Soon, odds on Thursday following Wednesday next week will be available. Never since the first day my Dad taught me to fill in a betting slip (bad habits run in the family it seems) has a nailed-on certainty been available at such an appealing price.

The West Indies are woeful. Flat pitches and rain bailed them out of abject failure in New Zealand (where England, incidentally, won reasonably comfortably this time last year). Their selectorial policies are a joke, not that it overly matters. Then again, when the choice is between Darren Ganga and Devon Smith it's pretty easy to go wrong. Hell, even Runako M****n continues to get picked occasionally. The World's Greatest Batsman comes in at 5 and is inevitably either stranded or last-man-out for about fifty. Dwayne Bravo, a test-quality all-rounder, has been left out of the squad for the first test due to lack of fitness. Chris Gayle finds it notoriously difficult to face medium-fast swingers and dobblers. The entire England attack, then. Is anyone else worth a mention in the side? Fidel Edwards?

The probable XI for the first test looks like this:

Chris Gayle (c)
Devon Smith
Ramnaresh Sarwan
Xavier Marshall
Shivnarine Chanderpaul
Brendan Nash
Denesh Ramdin (wk)
Jerome Taylor
Fidel Edwards
Darren Powell
Suliemann Benn

The batting has all the strength of a stream of piss, so I'll ignore that. The bowling is almost ridiculously weak. Fidel Edwards has recently gotten his average below Chris Gayle's, so that's something. The star of the show is of course Jerome Taylor, who is somehow made to look quite good in comparison.

England's lineup, in contrast, looks like this:

Strauss (c)
Cook
Bell
Pietersen
Collingwood
Flintoff
Prior (wk)
Two from Broad/Sidebottom/Harmison
Anderson
Panesar

The batting is a lot better, to begin with. Strauss, Cook, KP, Flintoff, Prior and Broad are all a league above their West Indian counterparts. Wicket keeping is still a problem area, but they're nowhere near the stage of wishing they had Dinesh Ramdin. Should England go with Sidebottom and Harmison, they'll be in the unusual position of having a five-man attack where not a single bowler has a worse record than any West Indian bowler. If not, four out of five isn't bad. The closest they come is Jerome Taylor and Jimmy Anderson's similar records. Monty may have lost some form, but he's a master at destroying weak lineups. Ask the West Indies. They'd know.

It's not like there's much recent history against England either. Last time the teams played, there were three comprehensive England wins and a rain-out. The time before that, the weather wasn't so kind- England won 4-0. Last time they were in the Caribbean, Brian Lara pulled one out of the bag to reclaim the highest test score ever. It's just as well he did, because otherwise they'd have been whitewashed at home for the first time- the series finished 3-0 to England. BCL won't be around to bail them out this time round. Of the 12 tests played between the teams since the turn of the century, England have won ten and two have been drawn.

So everyone knows the Windies are bad- no need to rub it in. But surely they can punch above their weight, put in a few inspired performances, get a bit of luck and scrape a series draw? Err, not in test cricket. Maybe in a one-off football match lasting ninety minutes, but not in a four-match test series. Each test lasts up to five days, and each day has six and a half hours play. That's 130 hours of cricket they need to drastically overperform and/or get lucky for. Computer says no. Test cricket is one sport where the best team generally wins.

4/6 is an absolute steal. I'd put my entire student loan on it, if i was stupid. As it is, I'm content with staking my dignity on it with brash statements. And whatever money i can spare. This is as close to a dead-cert as you'll ever see.

 

[aussie]

Its a shame that Ian Bell was prefered over him in 2005 Ashes over someone like Thrope imo.

A though in hindsight. Since ATT. Bell seemed test quality. While KP was deemed the audacious/stupid selection by many.

 

[Prince EWS]

I'm sorry this is just too good:

Haha yeah I read that before the first Test. TBH I actually agreed with most of it; it didn't turn out as expected though.

To be fair, England can still win the series, and that's what he claimed was a "dead-cert".

 

[tooextracool]

A though in hindsight. Since ATT. Bell seemed test quality. While KP was deemed the audacious/stupid selection by many.

They were both stupid selections with foresight and hindsight and England got lucky that neither of them cost them the Ashes. If Bell was going to play that summer, he should have been picked to tour SA in 2004/05 which he wasnt. He was thrown to the wolves in 2005 and was set up for failure.

Going in with a middle order of Vaughan (inconsistent), Bell(who had played 1 full test match), Pietersen (debut), Flintoff ( not a specialist batsman) and Jones (a very poor player), England really set themselves up for disaster when they dropped their most experienced and best batsman at the time. That it all worked out well, is conveniently used by many as the selectors making the right move at the time.

 

[Uppercut]

Haha, screw you pasag.

If there's one thing I didn't account for that made my prediction so horribly dick, it's Suillemann Benn. Everyone knew Edwards and Taylor (and Powell with **** deliveries) could pick up a few, but Benn taking eight wickets and outbowling Monty by a country mile isn't something I saw coming AT ALL. You look at the first-innings wickets he got- Bell for 30~, Pietersen for 97, Prior for 50~- and just how match-shaping his contribution was becomes clear.

That said, I still think England will come back and take the series. They played like ****e in Jamaica, but they're better than that, and West Indies aren't quite there yet. It's probably a point that's going to made too often, but it's exactly what happened when they toured New Zealand this time last year and they hit back hard there.

But it doesn't seem quite the dead-cert it did two weeks ago

 

[aussie]

They were both stupid selections with foresight and hindsight and England got lucky that neither of them cost them the Ashes. If Bell was going to play that summer, he should have been picked to tour SA in 2004/05 which he wasnt. He was thrown to the wolves in 2005 and was set up for failure.

Going in with a middle order of Vaughan (inconsistent), Bell(who had played 1 full test match), Pietersen (debut), Flintoff ( not a specialist batsman) and Jones (a very poor player), England really set themselves up for disaster when they dropped their most experienced and best batsman at the time. That it all worked out well, is conveniently used by many as the selectors making the right move at the time.

Word i was scratching my hair out when Thorpe was dropped ATT.

But on Bell. He had only debut in the last home test of 04. Butcher was still very much in the calculations during SA & Key had a good home summer. Butcher had injury woes & Key was beginning to look out of his depth to a degree.

So vs Bangladesh Bell got his chance & he staked his claim the best way he could.

Thorpe should have DEFINATELY started the 1st test with Bell. But i wonder if they would have dropped Bell during that series for KP given how his form regressed???

 

[Scaly piscine]

Form regressed?

He has always been useless against decent bowling in any situation that matters. Not a form thing.

 

[sammy2]

I'm sorry this is just too good:

He is an idiot.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Haha, screw you pasag.

If there's one thing I didn't account for that made my prediction so horribly dick, it's Suillemann Benn. Everyone knew Edwards and Taylor (and Powell with **** deliveries) could pick up a few, but Benn taking eight wickets and outbowling Monty by a country mile isn't something I saw coming AT ALL. You look at the first-innings wickets he got- Bell for 30~, Pietersen for 97, Prior for 50~- and just how match-shaping his contribution was becomes clear.

That said, I still think England will come back and take the series. They played like ****e in Jamaica, but they're better than that, and West Indies aren't quite there yet. It's probably a point that's going to made too often, but it's exactly what happened when they toured New Zealand this time last year and they hit back hard there.

But it doesn't seem quite the dead-cert it did two weeks ago

First Windies spinner to so do since Lance Gibbs, apparently. Kudos to the big fella.

 

[Precambrian]

First Windies spinner to so do since Lance Gibbs, apparently. Kudos to the big fella.

Good on him. Also shows how ridiculously non-reliant the Windies were on a spinner since Gibbs.

 

[Flem274*]

He is an idiot.

Ouch, being called an idiot by the idiot.

WI have a good side, a few holes in it but its pretty good and its not as though the England side has a terrifying bowling attack or a world class batting line up the whole way through. I do subscribe to the opinion that any of the sides below Aussie, India and SA are fairly even though.

And we should have beaten you UC! ****ing Ambrose and Collingwood in Wellington (and that second test in England, arghhhh)

 

[Uppercut]

Ouch, being called an idiot by the idiot.

WI have a good side, a few holes in it but its pretty good and its not as though the England side has a terrifying bowling attack or a world class batting line up the whole way through. I do subscribe to the opinion that any of the sides below Aussie, India and SA are fairly even though.

And we should have beaten you UC! ****ing Ambrose and Collingwood in Wellington (and that second test in England, arghhhh)

You should have beaten me?? You're the third person (after SS and T_C) to mistake me for an England fan/Englishman in the space of a couple of weeks. Shocking. I'll need to say something in my sig. I know my pre-series bullishness resembled a stereotypical over-confident Englishman, but I just really thought they'd win!

Ftr, I was actually supporting NZ in that series. Underdogs, and I felt particularly sorry for them in the immediate wake of the Shane Bond incident.

 

[Jigga988]

Haha, screw you pasag.

If there's one thing I didn't account for that made my prediction so horribly dick, it's Suillemann Benn. Everyone knew Edwards and Taylor (and Powell with **** deliveries) could pick up a few, but Benn taking eight wickets and outbowling Monty by a country mile isn't something I saw coming AT ALL. You look at the first-innings wickets he got- Bell for 30~, Pietersen for 97, Prior for 50~- and just how match-shaping his contribution was becomes clear.

But it doesn't seem quite the dead-cert it did two weeks ago

Perfectly fine to assume Benn would do nothing, apparently Antigua is said to be a slow turner so hopefully Benn could bowl similarly to the way he did in the first test. Benn has had a lot more crap games than he has good, tbh, every game Benn played before this England one was crap, and I'm still sceptical. I'm hoping he can take this form with him for the whole series but I don't think that's all that likely.

England are still favourites for the series, I think the key lies with Gayle and if Sidebottom can bowl a lot straighter with the new ball, same goes to Anderson as well if he plays; then Gayle's in trouble, thus the Windies in trouble.

Really happy with the reinforcements being brought in though, the Windies selectors are finally getting it right, firstly with picking Benn, every West Indian on this forum was calling for his head but he pulled a brilliant performance out the hat, and now with either Hinds or Simmons being brought in, the batting line up will be strengthened either way. Looking forward to this second test, hoping to see Edwards bowl a bit better... oh and btw I'm loving the bluntness from Sammy on Ucut, that was sweet!

 

[Uppercut]

He is an idiot.

This idiot fulfills his avatar bets.

 

[andruid]

Haha, screw you pasag.

If there's one thing I didn't account for that made my prediction so horribly dick, it's Suillemann Benn. Everyone knew Edwards and Taylor (and Powell with **** deliveries) could pick up a few, but Benn taking eight wickets and outbowling Monty by a country mile isn't something I saw coming AT ALL. You look at the first-innings wickets he got- Bell for 30~, Pietersen for 97, Prior for 50~- and just how match-shaping his contribution was becomes clear.

That said, I still think England will come back and take the series. They played like ****e in Jamaica, but they're better than that, and West Indies aren't quite there yet. It's probably a point that's going to made too often, but it's exactly what happened when they toured New Zealand this time last year and they hit back hard there.

But it doesn't seem quite the dead-cert it did two weeks ago

AHEM its was Gayle that got Bell out in the first innings

 

[Uppercut]

AHEM its was Gayle that got Bell out in the first innings

Yeah, sorry, my bad.

 

[Jigga988]

This idiot fulfills his avatar bets.

Yup, lets hope you do, as you'll be fulfillling one just as soon as Windies win the second test