*Official* England in West Indies

[Richard]

Oh, fo' sho' - the last 7-and-a-half years, since September 2001, have largely been a barren time for seam-bowling, due to a combination of flat pitches, non-swinging balls and pure and simple lack of quality in those trying to bowl.

And when a bowler who looks like he could be one of the best ever turns-up, what does he do? Yup, goes and virtually throws his career away barely it's started with all sorts of indiscretions. You know, of course, that I am referring to Mohammad Asif.

Australia have one though, in Stuart Clark. And Steyn isn't really the sort of bowler I'm referring to - the closest SA have to it is Ntini. Steyn is more a super-Taylor - he and Taylor are similar but Steyn is just rather better.

 

[Precambrian]

Well, they just had the third test 2 hour hghlight wrap on Foxtel.

I've recorded the last half hour - to be brought out during those times in my life when I'm feeling depressed.

Ain't it not ever not too over rubbing it in as far as you are concerned?

 

[Nate]

Ain't it not ever not

 

[Scaly piscine]

Pchah. I wasn't talking about the 6 or 7 overs at the end of that day. I was talking about giving the bowlers a morning's break the next day. Which would have made a difference to them given that they otherwise would have faced bowling for 2 1/2 days or so solidly, and with a depleted attack. This included Harmison who was reportedly suffering from heat exhaustion and could have done with spending the next morning in an ice bath, looking at photos of Ashington and dreaming wistfully of his Mam's cooking.

So it seemed (and still seems) a reasonable decision to me.

So you're basically saying it's worth the trade off of shifting that rest forward a day to give England 20-30 overs less time to bowl WI out. Hell you could just bowl part-timers in the morning and give them a rest that way and still have as much time left over to bowl them out.

Complete non-argument. Even after the decision clearly cost England the match people still can't see it.

 

[Richard]

Patt0 - he is fond of using Sm33teh's creations as if they were his own.

 

[Richard]

So you're basically saying it's worth the trade off of shifting that rest forward a day to give England 20-30 overs less time to bowl WI out. Hell you could just bowl part-timers in the morning and give them a rest that way and still have as much time left over to bowl them out.

Complete non-argument. Even after the decision clearly cost England the match people still can't see it.

What clearly cost England the match was the failure to dismiss a few tailenders despite having ample time in which to do it. That is something there is no excuse for not doing; there were viable reasons for not enforcing the follow-on. There was no viable excuse for sending Anderson in as nightwatchman if you weren't going to tell him to have a complete swing almost immediately the following morning. However, the nightwatchman error was at least a failure of planning rather than a failure of what should be very basic playing credentials.

 

[andruid]

A poor capped player > a poor uncapped player.

Wrong

a poor apped player = a poor uncapped player

The only diffrence is the cap which can be resolved anytime.

 

[roseboy64]

Flintoff out of the 4th Test.

 

[Uppercut]

Flintoff out of the 4th Test.

Expected really, there's more good news than bad in that article.

I hope they don't just recall Ian Bell. They're 1-0 down with two matches left to play, and they're not going to come back with a four-man attack with their best bowler missing.

 

[Richard]

Wrong

a poor apped player = a poor uncapped player

The only diffrence is the cap which can be resolved anytime.

Nah, it's just galling to see yet another player given a cap that doesn't deserve it. I like the maximum possible to be done to avoid giving caps to players who are obviously not Test-standard.

 

[Richard]

Expected really, there's more good news than bad in that article.

I hope they don't just recall Ian Bell. They're 1-0 down with two matches left to play, and they're not going to come back with a four-man attack with their best bowler missing.

I honestly don't see Amjad Khan helping with a victory TBH. In fact he, in playing, will be more likely to hinder, as he'll discourage overs being given to bowlers superior to he.

I'd give the gig to Bell. Especially if the pitch is an obvious "result pitch", one where 20 West Indies wickets are going to fall (if England get enough runs) regardless of whether England play four or five bowlers.

 

[Pup Clarke]

Is Tremlett with the Lions btw?

 

[GIMH]

My money is on Bopara

 

[Jigga988]

I honestly don't see Amjad Khan helping with a victory TBH. In fact he, in playing, will be more likely to hinder, as he'll discourage overs being given to bowlers superior to he.

I'd give the gig to Bell. Especially if the pitch is an obvious "result pitch", one where 20 West Indies wickets are going to fall (if England get enough runs) regardless of whether England play four or five bowlers.

Would be a bit strange if England just dropped Bell for a match though, everyone makes a big deal about how he should be dropped, then he comse back in after one test match, at least Strauss got a series out to improve... Lets say Bell makes runs in Barbados and Shah doesn't, then lets say Flintoff is back for the fifth, whoo keeps their place out of them two? Just seems a bit strange...

Don't think it will be Bopara either, the way England described why he was included was a bit suspect, they said they brought him in to the squad, as cover unless the six batsmen get injured in the two day game on sunday...

Reckon it will be a bowler and seeing as though Amjad is the only one and Barbados is supposed to be good for seemers, reckon it will be him. Btw, whats the update on Swann, is he gonna make fourth test?

 

[GIMH]

If they replace Flintoff with a bowler, it should be Sidebottom, but I really don't think the selectors would want Prior-Broad-Swann at 6-7-8, even though it''s arguably as strong as many of the 6-7-8 combos we've had in recent years, and Sidebottom is a better 9 than some

That being said I'd probably pick a batting all-rounder, which I guess some class Bopara as

 

[Uppercut]

I honestly don't see Amjad Khan helping with a victory TBH. In fact he, in playing, will be more likely to hinder, as he'll discourage overs being given to bowlers superior to he.

I'd give the gig to Bell. Especially if the pitch is an obvious "result pitch", one where 20 West Indies wickets are going to fall (if England get enough runs) regardless of whether England play four or five bowlers.

Oh no, Amjad Khan probably shouldn't play (i haven't seen him though so can't be sure). Ryan Sidebottom would come in. Prior moves up to six.

I know you hate five-man attacks, but i think it's necessary if the pitch is looking like they'll need to force the issue. If, as you say, it's a clear "result pitch", I'd grudgingly admit that Bell-end needs a recall.

 

[Richard]

I'm not a massive fan of five-man attacks at the best of times. When they're all specialists (even if some of them can bat a bit, which Broad and Swann can) it's worse still.

However, if the pitch isn't one where at least one side and possibly both are going to be bowled-out twice, then it is indeed probably a risk that needs taking when you're 0-1 down. The reality is of course that if England bat poorly it's quite conceivable West Indies will have the series.

 

[Richard]

Would be a bit strange if England just dropped Bell for a match though, everyone makes a big deal about how he should be dropped, then he comse back in after one test match, at least Strauss got a series out to improve... Lets say Bell makes runs in Barbados and Shah doesn't, then lets say Flintoff is back for the fifth, whoo keeps their place out of them two? Just seems a bit strange...

I've seen examples where it's happened. You pick the best team, simple as - AFAIC, you can't say that 1 Test has meant Bell has slipped behind Bopara. It's up to Shah to make runs and if he doesn't make them and Bell does, well then, both of them have to stay in the team and Flintoff replaces a bowler. The ideal situation, of course, would be that both of them score, and this absolutely forces England to revert to four bowlers.

 

[Jigga988]

Not quite sure why everyone is disconuting Amjad Khan without even seeing him... there must be a reason why England are so keen on him, unkown factor to the Windies could also count for something... obviously Sidebottom is the better choice but if he is injured then there's only Khan, going in with 3 fast men on a pitch that is sposed to be helpful for fast men can be v. risky, especially if one gets injured or sick.

 

[Pothas]

There was also must have been a reason why England were keen on Pattinson though....