*Official* England in West Indies

[Kweek]

At this stage, everything better then Rudi ?

 

[Uppercut]

Sorry, you're suggesting if you want more correct decisons, you should bowl at Daryl Harper's end?

We're doomed.

 

[Richard]

They're not really. It's the same pitch Suillemann Benn got no change from, and he was turning it square at Sabina Park. Swann's getting good turn, but nothing massive, and it's down to good bowling. But what's really been good about his bowling in this spell is the drift. It's got him two wickets and three wickets that weren't.

The tendency to dismiss quality spin bowling as all down to the pitch is kinda annoying, tbh. I don't mean at you, just in general.

Benn actually did get some turn from this surface, just not as much as the one at Sabina. Swann does spin the ball about as much as a fingerspinner can, really, and always has - Benn doesn't, quite, I don't think.

I can't see this pitch ever turning enormously, but you never know. Underprepared often = more turn than usual, and especially more turn as the game goes on.

 

[Kweek]

Your opinion of him would be improving quite a bit if you were watching him here I feel

wish I could, stuck at work, and no sky or whatsoever

 

[Uppercut]

Benn actually did get some turn from this surface, just not as much as the one at Sabina. Swann does spin the ball about as much as a fingerspinner can, really, and always has - Benn doesn't, quite, I don't think.

Mmm. Well there's certainly no problem with Swann's accuracy, he has good variation in pace and flight and a good arm-ball. If he spins the ball as much as a fingerspinner can, doesn't that mean he's a few million times better than Monty, on bowling alone?

 

[Richard]

I've been saying at least since the India tour that Swann is currently a comfortably superior spinner to MSP, in the longer format. It's a shame we haven't had the chance to realise this before now, because Swann generally bowls at Trent Bridge which rarely produces many spin-friendly surfaces.

Had Swann stayed at Northants, I reckon he could easily have been in the England team before MSP.

Swann's ability to bowl with flight and control (at the same time) are better than MSP's. I think they both spin the ball about as much as possible for fingerspinners. The one thing MSP has over Swann is his pace - he can spin the ball at 55-56-57mph, Swann has to bowl slower. This means that, when he's got things right, there are some surfaces on which he'll be much more effective than Swann.

Essentially, the situation currently is that on pitches with a decent bit of pace and bounce (not extraordinary - just "normal"), Swann is the best bowler. On slow, low ones with uneven bounce, MSP is easily the better. On surfaces that don't turn at all, neither offer all that much but MSP is harder to go after.

MSP is also, clearly, trying to experiment and change currently and this, inevitably, means that some of what he normally has right will go wrong from time to time. Currently, MSP is making little improvement and a fair few deprovements, as it were. MSP should benefit from time out of the side right now. Swann, meanwhile, offers acceptable-quality fielding and the possibility of some lower-order runs from time to time.

He's much older than MSP so MSP is likely to outlast him, but I don't ever see MSP being as good a OD bowler as Swann has been for 5-6 years now.

 

[wpdavid]

Sarwan's going to take some shifting, isn't he.

 

[Richard]

Sarwan very often looks like he'll take some shifting, then out-of-the-blue just gives his wicket away.

England need to hope something of that ilk happens here.

 

[Durham_CCC]

Sarwan's going to take some shifting, isn't he.

KP will get him.

 

[pskov]

is there any reason why Hinds is coming in before Chanderpaul? I know Shiv has had a lot of success over the last two years or so at no. 5, but at some point you surely just want you best batsman in asap, especially in a situation like this. Very odd that a still unproven all-rounder is coming in ahead of him.

 

[Goughy]

is there any reason why Hinds is coming in before Chanderpaul? I know Shiv has had a lot of success over the last two years or so at no. 5, but at some point you surely just want you best batsman in asap, especially in a situation like this. Very odd that a still unproven all-rounder is coming in ahead of him.

Yeah, Im not convinced of the logic. I assume they think they have a good reason.

 

[Richard]

is there any reason why Hinds is coming in before Chanderpaul? I know Shiv has had a lot of success over the last two years or so at no. 5, but at some point you surely just want you best batsman in asap, especially in a situation like this. Very odd that a still unproven all-rounder is coming in ahead of him.

Ryan Hinds isn't an all-rounder. He's a batsman whose bowling is a 100% bonus. I don't neccessarily think him coming in ahead of Chanderpaul is that good an idea, but Chanderpaul isn't getting any younger and might prefer to drop down and get bowlers as tired as possible before he comes in.

Almost all West Indian batsmen have. Sobers, Kanhai, Kallicharran, Richards, Richardson, Lara. Starting at three or sometimes four and moving down to five and six.

But there's no way Ryan Hinds is akin to a Flintoff coming in ahead of, say, Pietersen or even a Dwayne Bravo doing as per Hinds.

 

[Prince EWS]

is there any reason why Hinds is coming in before Chanderpaul? I know Shiv has had a lot of success over the last two years or so at no. 5, but at some point you surely just want you best batsman in asap, especially in a situation like this. Very odd that a still unproven all-rounder is coming in ahead of him.

Yeah, I'm a pretty big fan of Ryan Hinds as a batsman but there's no way he should be be coming in before Chanderpaul, particularly when they've used a night-watchman.

 

[Prince EWS]

Ryan Hinds isn't an all-rounder. He's a batsman whose bowling is a 100% bonus.

Yeah, eventually you just get sick of repeating it though. I'm starting to think he'd be rated more highly as a cricketer if he couldn't bowl, strange as that sounds.

 

[Richard]

Not particularly strange. There's several bowlers I've thought their bowling would be rated far higher - somewhere near where it deserved to be - if they couldn't bat.

Mark Ealham is the best example of this. Constantly his bowling is underrated because of the fact he could also bat, though not (at international level) terribly well.

 

[ozone]

If its as big as it looks this is going to need a thread of its own, but Cricinfo are reporting that Sir Allen Stanford has been arrested for fraud of 'shocking magnitude'.

 

[Richard]

Bloody hell. Dig another Stanford thread methinks.

Anyway, back at The ARG, I think it's time to take Swann out of the attack for now.

 

[wpdavid]

is there any reason why Hinds is coming in before Chanderpaul? I know Shiv has had a lot of success over the last two years or so at no. 5, but at some point you surely just want you best batsman in asap, especially in a situation like this. Very odd that a still unproven all-rounder is coming in ahead of him.

I suppose it's some version of not fixing what isn't broken or superstition or both. That being said, not the least surprising aspect of Chanderpaul's average over the last two years is that the WI lower order has stuck around long enough for him to achieve what he has done. They certainly weren't doing that when we played them 5 years ago.

 

[andruid]

If its as big as it looks this is going to need a thread of its own, but Cricinfo are reporting that Sir Allen Stanford has been arrested for fraud of 'shocking magnitude'.

They found out he hates cricket

 

[pskov]

Ryan Hinds isn't an all-rounder. He's a batsman whose bowling is a 100% bonus. I don't neccessarily think him coming in ahead of Chanderpaul is that good an idea, but Chanderpaul isn't getting any younger and might prefer to drop down and get bowlers as tired as possible before he comes in.

Almost all West Indian batsmen have. Sobers, Kanhai, Kallicharran, Richards, Richardson, Lara. Starting at three or sometimes four and moving down to five and six.

But there's no way Ryan Hinds is akin to a Flintoff coming in ahead of, say, Pietersen or even a Dwayne Bravo doing as per Hinds.

Well, he's taken 173 wickets in 97 first-class matches, bowling an average of 18 overs a game. He's even bowled an average of 16 overs per test, not including this match currently taking place. I think that classes him as an all-rounder to be honest, regardless of which discipline is superior.