*Official* England in West Indies

[Manee]

Bopara and Khan called up.

 

[Jigga988]

I wouldn't. Bopara ahead of Bell right now would make absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Don't really see why it would make no sense, Bell has had a chance, and needs time off, one test isn't enough for time off, also, Bopara's bowling could come in handy to give the fast men a rest with conditions in the carribean being as hot as they are...

 

[zaremba]

I never like strategems being defined on "it might rain".

If it might rain - and they have weather forecasts - it would be perverse to ignore that when considering how to judge a declaration. The captain who acts like Canute or Lear, raging against the elements in utter futility, is the captain who draws a match he ought to win.

 

[ozone]

I wouldn't. Bopara ahead of Bell right now would make absolutely no sense whatsoever. And how on Earth Amjad Khan is anywhere near the England side continues to baffle me, and it's nothing to do with the fact he's Danish.

I know next to nothing about him TBH, but his record looks distinctly average compared to, say, Chris Tremlett.

 

[Richard]

It would in a way, in that Bell has been dropped due to poor performance. There is nothing yet to suggest he would perform any better, much in the same way as Vaughan hasn't been drafted in.

You'd essentially be saying that Bell has been demoted 2 or 3 places in the pecking-order for a single bad game.

Can see Bell batting six against West Indies working well TBH.

 

[four_or_six]

At least an hour lost this morning...

 

[Jigga988]

I know next to nothing about him TBH, but his record looks distinctly average compared to, say, Chris Tremlett.

He has a questoinable action, just saw highlights package and it's definitely not the greatest action, does swing it though, and has good pace.

 

[Jungle Jumbo]

Haha, quality Willis rant here on Sky.

 

[ozone]

He has a questoinable action, just saw highlights package and it's definitely not the greatest action, does swing it though, and has good pace.

Yea, assuming this is the highlights package from Sky, thats the first time I've watched him bowl and really taken note of it. Didn't think he looked too bad TBH, but honestly think there are probably better options.

BTW, loving Bob's rant.

 

[Richard]

If it might rain - and they have weather forecasts - it would be perverse to ignore that when considering how to judge a declaration. The captain who acts like Canute or Lear, raging against the elements in utter futility, is the captain who draws a match he ought to win.

I've seen captains lose matches they could win by relying on weather forecasts, and not just once or twice either. Weather forecasts aren't 100% accurate, and it's very dangerous to act on "it might rain \ the cloud cover might lift quickly \ lightning might strike the pitch and crack it up" (all right, the latter is obviously in jest). I'm happier to act on the present than a prediction of the future. That doesn't mean England's batting yesterday was forgiveable, because it was poor. But it does mean that you can't be setting targets \ making decisions at the toss based on a perfectly possibly faulty prediction.

One for instance is Nasser Hussain electing to bat at Lord's in 1999 when it was the most patent bowling day you'll see, just because the Met Office had forecasted that the cloud would quickly lift. England were hammered and well on the way to losing the series they'd started so well.

 

[Richard]

Yea, assuming this is the highlights package from Sky, thats the first time I've watched him bowl and really taken note of it. Didn't think he looked too bad TBH, but honestly think there are probably better options.

People generally look good on highlights packages that are assembled to show the times they've done well. If you're showing a highlights package of a player, you obviously show the times he does well.

 

[grecian]

Serves us right, because of the stupid declaration, not gonna bemoan our luck, all self-inflicted imho......

 

[Goughy]

Bopara and Khan called up.

**** and ****er

 

[ozone]

People generally look good on highlights packages that are assembled to show the times they've done well. If you're showing a highlights package of a player, you obviously show the times he does well.

Obviously, but given thats all I've really seen of him, thats all I've got to base my opinions on. And in the highlights package (i.e. at the peak of his abilities), I liked the look of him.

 

[GIMH]

You'd essentially be saying that Bell has been demoted 2 or 3 places in the pecking-order for a single bad game.

Can see Bell batting six against West Indies working well TBH.

Not really. I'm not talking pecking orders - an out-of-form player is just that. I wouldn't keep Bopara ahead of Bell if Bell goes to his county and scores and scores and scores - but for the time being, Bell has failed for his last six (not one) Tests and doesn't deserve to be in the side.

 

[Jungle Jumbo]

Interested as to who exactly those who have criticised the Bopara call-up would have preferred to have seen replace Flintoff?

 

[Prince EWS]

Interested as to who exactly those who have criticised the Bopara call-up would have preferred to have seen replace Flintoff?

Samit Patel.

 

[Jungle Jumbo]

Fair call actually, I was struggling for names.

 

[zaremba]

I've seen captains lose matches they could win by relying on weather forecasts, and not just once or twice either. Weather forecasts aren't 100% accurate, and it's very dangerous to act on "it might rain \ the cloud cover might lift quickly \ lightning might strike the pitch and crack it up" (all right, the latter is obviously in jest). I'm happier to act on the present than a prediction of the future. That doesn't mean England's batting yesterday was forgiveable, because it was poor. But it does mean that you can't be setting targets \ making decisions at the toss based on a perfectly possibly faulty prediction.

One for instance is Nasser Hussain electing to bat at Lord's in 1999 when it was the most patent bowling day you'll see, just because the Met Office had forecasted that the cloud would quickly lift. England were hammered and well on the way to losing the series they'd started so well.

Richard, I'n afraid that your reasoning is shot through with fallacies.

No-one suggests that weather forecasts are 100% accurate, although they are certainly much more accurate than they are generally reputed to be.

Any prediction about the future is, to a greater or lesser degree, risky and uncertain. Captains might, for instance, set a declaration target in a particular way because of the risk that the opposition's strong batting line-up might get a lot of runs quickly (or might bat solidly but slowly for a long time), or because one of their own bowlers has a niggle and his ability to bowl might be impaired, or because the pitch looks as though it might (or might not) deteriorate. These are the factors you weigh up.

You can't guarantee you'll get it right but you can - and should - rely on the information available to you. Yes captains will occasionally end up with egg on their faces. If there's a 75% chance of rain, it will stay dry 25% of the time. If that 25% chance materialises, was the captain wrong to take account of the 75% chance? Of course not.

 

[Goughy]

richard, i'n afraid that your reasoning is shot through with fallacies.

Never