*Official* England in West Indies

[Richard]

It's not just that, you want the extra runs to play with so you can set whatever field you like. The difference between 440 and 500 could be whether you can leave third man open to Ramnaresh Sarwan and say- hey, you know that cut shot you love so much? Play it all you want, it'll be a boundary every time.

Meh. I'm never, ever a fan of encouraging runs to be scored, especially through third-man. Batsmen are always going to be feeling better about life if runs are flowing. Some, yes, are more likely to make a mistake if they are than if they aren't, but no bowler ever enjoys going for regular runs, especially through third-man.

I don't think anyone wants to be worrying about runs chased when the target is 400+. If someone gets that, it's a miracle and you shake their hand and say well played. You cannot afford to compromise your own strengths in attempt to blunt your opposition's strengths, IMO.

 

[Richard]

Yeah i think he got that right before most of us did. He finally sold me the stop-picking-him-every-time idea towards the end of the series against South Africa. So obviously the selectors caught on six months later.

TBH, I've been saying "don't pick fingerspinners - any fingerspinners - every game" since I started on CW. And in fact before that as well. I first noticed how little use fingerspinners generally are in England (and plenty of places besides) in 2000, when England's all-seam attack of high quality knocked West Indies over time and again.

There's no point acting as if it's all about one fingerspinner - it's the brand of bowling, not those who purvey it.

 

[Prince EWS]

you should tell that to James, i'm the only one who got a warning.

I wonder if it has anything to do with me talking bad about England the "better " team instead of talking bad about WI who deserve the harsh critique.

I wonder if I start posting WI should be ranked at number one in the rankings it would be considered trolling aswell ? I bet it would be. There you go, i'm not allowed to have my own fuking opinion.

Don't evade the swear filter; it's there for a reason. Last warning.

Just shut up dickhead.

I know he annoys you, but those sort of posts are uncalled for. Use the report function to report his posts if you think he's breaking the rules, otherwise just show some self-control and ignore him.

Tarique, I don't believe you are familiar with sammy2. I'd suggest this - read a few more posts. Such silly and deliberately obnoxious comments are very common.

Apart from the fact it's you're not your, you're () bang on the money. Here's a tip - don't bother with old sammy2's posts, they're a waste of your time. Hopefully s\he won't last that long.

You seem to make lots of posts like this when you take a set against someone. The sheer volume of them makes them a bit trollish AFAIC - the members concerned are going to react to them but you can conveniently hide behind the fact that you weren't actually directing your posts at them. TBH, I've been guilty of the same thing myself at times but I'm trying to get it out of my posting while you seem to be going out of your way to advise as many members as you can not to take various members seriously while throwing in a few sly insults along the way. It's not acceptable; try to tone it down a bit. Use the PM system instead if you must.

 

[Kweek]

Meh. I'm never, ever a fan of encouraging runs to be scored,

You do realise that looks a bit sily ?

 

[Richard]

No.

 

[Richard]

You seem to make lots of posts like this when you take a set against someone. The sheer volume of them makes them a bit trollish AFAIC - the members concerned are going to react to them but you can conveniently hide behind the fact that you weren't actually directing your posts at them. TBH, I've been guilty of the same thing myself at times but I'm trying to get it out of my posting while you seem to be going out of your way to advise as many members as you can not to take various members seriously while throwing in a few sly insults along the way. It's not acceptable; try to tone it down a bit. Use the PM system instead if you must.

Right y'are. The only reason I try to do such a thing is to attempt to avoid new members being suckered into taking seriously stuff that established members know well to just skip past - whether the poster making the know-not-to-take-seriously comments is new or established.

 

[Kweek]

No.

not even when you are batting Ritchart ?

 

[Prince EWS]

Right y'are. The only reason I try to do such a thing is to attempt to avoid new members being suckered into taking seriously stuff that established members know well to just skip past - whether the poster making the know-not-to-take-seriously comments is new or established.

Yeah, I'm the same. The problem is, though, that said problem-members still see the posts and, as they're generally not the most refined forumers, tend to bite back anyway. Such strong negative opinions about members should be confined to private conversations.

 

[Richard]

not even when you are batting Ritchart ?

I thought, Tarique, that you were familiar with my batting (or not). I don't bat. I bowl, but I don't bat.

Well, actually, I do bat - but rarely for more than 3-4 deliveries at a time. My 70-year-old captain is a better batsman than me.

 

[Kweek]

I thought, Tarique, that you were familiar with my batting (or not). I don't bat. I bowl, but I don't bat.

Well, actually, I do bat - but rarely for more than 3-4 deliveries at a time. My 70-year-old captain is a better batsman than me.

I am familiar with your batting(haha)
but still, surely you hope/encourage a batsman in your side will score runs ?

 

[Richard]

Funnily enough, that comment was aimed at "from a fielding side POV".

If my side is in the field or the side I have interest in is in the field, I always look to keep runs dried-up. Never will I do something that actually looks to allow a batsman to score.

 

[Durham_CCC]

Botham just said he hopes England are bowling after lunch.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Botham just said he hopes England are bowling after lunch.

He's just repeating what I said on here last night. I am concerned that he agrees with me, though.

 

[GIMH]

If Botham knew of this forum, he'd surely have posted in one of the rant threads last night

 

[four_or_six]

I'm really worried what'll happen if we lose a couple of quick wickets this morning. We could panic and collapse, or we could go into our shell and score really slowly, delaying the declaration.

 

[Woodster]

I can see England batting after lunch, and having a few overs (around 10/12) at WI prior to the tea break. Roughly calculated that means England will leave WI around 500 runs to win (I am guessing we will bat for a further 40 overs, adding around 200 runs), with a possible 135 overs (ish) to get them in, or to survive.

That's if all goes to plan today, there are possibilities we may collapse to 150 all out, leaving WI around 430 to chase in plenty of time.

 

[Jigga988]

Hope England declare by lunch tbh, makes more of a game of it, gives the Windies the slightest chance of taking something from a match where we've regressed badly. If you guys bat us out the game we'll lose any sort of exuberence or confidence we took from that first match - having to say this too often tbh, but it's 1 step forward 2 steps backwards...

 

[Athlai]

You are 300 runs up.
Even if England collapses like a stack of cards they have runs on the board.

 

[Jigga988]

I can see England batting after lunch, and having a few overs (around 10/12) at WI prior to the tea break. Roughly calculated that means England will leave WI around 500 runs to win (I am guessing we will bat for a further 40 overs, adding around 200 runs), with a possible 135 overs (ish) to get them in, or to survive.

That is definitely the most likely result, especially with England's innefectual captaincy and after what happened in India and what the Windies did to the Aussies here four or five years back

 

[Woodster]

Yes this track, while it does have indifferent bounce, is far from impossible to bat on. Think Strauss will like to be out of sight, in the sense of the target set, but allow enough time to take the wickets. A declaration between lunch and tea, which amounts to around 130 overs, will hopefully be enough.