*Official* England in West Indies

[pskov]

England will bat again. ITSTL.

I can only think that is due to injury concerns over Flintoff and Harmison.

I guess the plan will be to bat the rest of the evening and then get Freddie and Harmy a good nights rest so they'll be ready to go after a declaration at or just after lunchtime.

 

[Uppercut]

Don't agree with this one. We will have to be very, very positive tonight and tomorrow morning to set it up appropriately: would like to see 450 in 5 sessions - so 170 tonight and tomorrow.

I'd go for 500. Just because it's a fourth/fifth day wicket doesn't mean it won't be flat.

 

[Neil Pickup]

I wonder how easy it will be to dismiss settled players who aren't chasing anything - sticking in there may still be pretty easy come day five.

 

[Richard]

Don't agree with this one. We will have to be very, very positive tonight and tomorrow morning to set it up appropriately: would like to see 450 in 5 sessions - so 170 tonight and tomorrow.

170 in a session and a bit? Not a cat in hell's.

Either way, Edwards to bowl the first over, wonder if Taylor's unfit as well?

 

[Uppercut]

I wonder how easy it will be to dismiss settled players who aren't chasing anything - sticking in there may still be pretty easy come day five.

My thoughts exactly.

I think they may be thinking back to the match at Lord's against South Africa during the summer. Where they had a first innings lead of about 400, stuck South Africa in again and they batted out the whole two days to save the game, with the bowling attack seeming to have lost its nip. The theory could be that it's better to give it a red hot go for four and a half/five sessions than a half-hearted six and a half.

It's not what I'd do though.

 

[Woodster]

It's understandable for Strauss to opt for us to have a bat, with two of the attack struggling quite badly. It's vital that we do not allow periods of play where there is nothing happening. England must keep with the momentum and keep the game going our way, positive running, positive strokeplay. Dull periods will lift WI, Strauss and Cook must look to score runs tonight, not just survive.

 

[Richard]

I wonder how easy it will be to dismiss settled players who aren't chasing anything - sticking in there may still be pretty easy come day five.

West Indies would've had zero chance of victory if England had enforced the follow-on. I didn't call that blokey who said "there are only two results possible: an England win and a draw" before the start of today's play Captain Obvious for nothing.

West Indies were batting for survival follow-on or no follow-on. The only question is will it be easier or harder on the fifth day than the fourth. Either are perfectly possible and Strauss is gambling on the answer being fifth.

 

[Richard]

My thoughts exactly.

I think they may be thinking back to the match at Lord's against South Africa during the summer. Where they had a first innings lead of about 400, stuck South Africa in again and they batted out the whole two days to save the game, with the bowling attack seeming to have lost its nip. The theory could be that it's better to give it a red hot go for four and a half/five sessions than a half-hearted six and a half.

It's not what I'd do though.

I disagreed with that and would disagree with this if it weren't for the fact that Harmison and Flintoff are far less than 100% fit. The follow-on was a bad idea there IMO as it was the First Test and the scoreline was (obviously) 0-0 and the game was the first of back-to-back ones. However, this is the second of back-to-back ones and we're 0-1 down. If Flintoff hadn't had that hip-flexor problem and Harmison that illness, we should've enforced, no question.

Can only hope that it works this way.

 

[Richard]

No third-man under almost all circumstances with a new ball beggars belief; here, it's just beyond nonsensical. Get one in FFS, I want to win this match against good play not woeful stuff.

 

[Neil Pickup]

170 in a session and a bit? Not a cat in hell's.

Either way, Edwards to bowl the first over, wonder if Taylor's unfit as well?

If we keep checking out the edges and go hell for leather tomorrow, why not? It's only 4-4.5 per over.

 

[Richard]

"Only"? Even against Powells and Benns, you know how rarely 4.5-an-over gets scored over 45 overs or so?

This pitch has already proven more and more difficult to force the pace on and it's only going to get harder after a night's sleep.

 

[Uppercut]

170 from 30 overs is pretty standard for the last 30 of an ODI.

Anyway, it looks like Strauss is cashing in on some luck to make up for that hilarious run of prank-decisions and unfortunate incidents in 2006/07.

 

[Uppercut]

91.4 mph bouncer from Edwards, wow. Trying to assassinate the England captain on time for the fourth innings.

 

[pskov]

"Only"? Even against Powells and Benns, you know how rarely 4.5-an-over gets scored over 45 overs or so?

This pitch has already proven more and more difficult to force the pace on and it's only going to get harder after a night's sleep.

It's a relatively small ground and if Shah and KP get going tomorrow morning they could rack up runs pretty quickly. I'm not saying it's necessarily likely, but if England really wanted to and were willing to throw caution to the wind they could score quickly enough to have a 450 lead at lunch, though they would probably be a fair few wickets down. You just need batsman to play for the team and not for their own career stats.

 

[Richard]

170 from 30 overs is pretty standard for the last 30 of an ODI.

ODIs and Tests have vastly different rule sets about wides, field-settings and other stuff.

Anyway, Strauss gone to the sound of Culture Club, no let-offs this innings. Can Shah solidify his first-innings performance? A good 73* or so here'd do him The World of good. No, it's a nightwatchman. Unusual to see a nightwatchman twice in the same game.

 

[ozone]

The fact that they've sent in a night-watchman just about takes the biscuit here.

 

[Richard]

It's a relatively small ground and if Shah and KP get going tomorrow morning they could rack up runs pretty quickly. I'm not saying it's necessarily likely, but if England really wanted to and were willing to throw caution to the wind they could score quickly enough to have a 450 lead at lunch, though they would probably be a fair few wickets down. You just need batsman to play for the team and not for their own career stats.

Not neccessarily. As I say, this pitch isn't easy to force the pace on and it's not as simple as try to score quickly, get 170 for 8 off 45 overs.

Anyway, still no duck for Anderson.

 

[Goughy]

Got to be honest. I hate the idea of not enforcing the follow on. Its now a guessing game. You dont know how long to bat to make the game safe and dont know how long you need to bowl the WI out.

 

[Richard]

Dropped... again.

TBH, that's a disappointment for both Edwards and England. Anderson out there would've been perfect - he'd have done his job and it'd be guaranteed Shah in first thing next day.

 

[sammy2]

Very interesting day of play, I can't wait to see what happens tomorrow.