*Official* England in West Indies

[BoyBrumby]

So just like all the other English pace bowlers then bar Freddy...

Ha, not far off. TBF he was probably quicker on average than Broad or Sid at least, but control an obvious issue.

If we were going to bring in a fast bowler who can take wickets but has a tendancy to spray it around I'd honestly have preferred Saj Mahmood, who's younger and has at least played tests before.

Neither strike me as ready for tests tho, lest I be accused of advocating a recall for Saj.

 

[Jigga988]

Ha, not far off. TBF he was probably quicker on average than Broad or Sid at least, but control an obvious issue.

If we were going to bring in a fast bowler who can take wickets but has a tendancy to spray it around I'd honestly have preferred Saj Mahmood, who's younger and has at least played tests before.

Neither strike me as ready for tests tho, lest I be accused of advocating a recall for Saj.

I wouldn't dream of the thought...

Doubt he's even capable of bowling wicket balls tbh, just think it surprised the batsmen when it was straight... much like it was the last time Windies went to England and had Harmison and Plunkett bowling wide for about 19 deliveries then that twentieth would be straight and trap whoever it was batting lbw or bowled or whatever...

Either way England's pace attack isn't looking all that menacing when you got Broad leading the attack...

 

[alw1971]

If Amjad ain't the answer, Harmison ain't gonna do it, Flintoff is injury prone, then who in English Cricket can bowl the ball at 90+ mph? I like Jones but as with most English fast bowlers he is not going to be a long term solution as he is also injury prone!

 

[Uppercut]

Whatever Amjad's usefulness to the side, I don't think the West Indian tail would have hung around like turds that won't flush for so long at the end of that test if he was in the attack. Unfortunately, that means he might play, as England selectors have that infuriating habit of picking players that would have been useful in the last test but probably won't be in the next.

 

[Goughy]

Whatever Amjad's usefulness to the side, I don't think the West Indian tail would have hung around like turds that won't flush for so long at the end of that test if he was in the attack. Unfortunately, that means he might play, as England selectors have that infuriating habit of picking players that would have been useful in the last test but probably won't be in the next.

What is that based on?

 

[Uppercut]

What is that based on?

Throwaway comment- i didn't mean "i think", rather i meant "it could be construed as such" because he bowls "fast".

 

[Goughy]

Throwaway comment- i didn't mean "i think", rather i meant "it could be construed as such" because he bowls "fast".

Fair enough.

As for the fast bowling. Its been a while since I last saw him bowl, but he didnt appear overly quick then.

 

[Flem274*]

Charlie Shreck might be worth a shout, bowled well when he played for Wellington last season.

 

[wpdavid]

Throwaway comment- i didn't mean "i think", rather i meant "it could be construed as such" because he bowls "fast".

Having the ability to bowl straight would have made him a likelier bet than one of the guys who played last time and bowled far to many of the closing overs.

 

[TT Boy]

Fair enough.

As for the fast bowling. Its been a while since I last saw him bowl, but he didnt appear overly quick then.

His not. Kabir Ali is quicker. I don't think he will play, conservative approach will probably see Sidebottom get a gig.

 

[Richard]

If we were going to bring in a fast bowler who can take wickets but has a tendancy to spray it around I'd honestly have preferred Saj Mahmood, who's younger and has at least played tests before.

Mahmood is not an expensive wicket-taker, he's an expensive non-wicket-taker.

 

[Richard]

Throwaway comment- i didn't mean "i think", rather i meant "it could be construed as such" because he bowls "fast".

Harmison bowls fast as well - he still couldn't knock-over said tail.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Prior's gone home... seems like the baby didn't have a great sense of timing!

Just hope the mid-wife doesn't drop as many deliveries as Prior.

 

[FBU]

We were wondering why Harmison was bowling in the low 80s and now it seems that his back is giving him trouble. Went for a scan but says he will be fit for the next Test despite some discomfort.

What is the point of playing someone who is not fit. Sidebottom in the 1st Test and Flintoff and Harmison in the 3rd Test. It puts a lot of pressure on the other bowlers.

 

[Jigga988]

Whatever Amjad's usefulness to the side, I don't think the West Indian tail would have hung around like turds that won't flush for so long at the end of that test if he was in the attack. Unfortunately, that means he might play, as England selectors have that infuriating habit of picking players that would have been useful in the last test but probably won't be in the next.

Not sure Amjad would have dislodged the tail, probobly would get a wicket with a no ball knowing him... don't see the point in playing a Harmy that can't bowl full pace, the pace was the reason why he was so effective against SA last summer, tbh, I'd go as far to say that I'd rather see a fully fit Amjad in the team than a 80mph Harmy from an English POV... it's sort of like having an 80 mph Edwards, which is btw not very good... didn't appreciate the turd comments btw...

 

[Uppercut]

didn't appreciate the turd comments btw...

It's just an expression to mean something very frustrating. There's nothing meant against anyone when I use it.

 

[Richard]

don't see the point in playing a Harmy that can't bowl full pace, the pace was the reason why he was so effective against SA last summer

He wasn't "so effective" though. He took 4 for 135.

 

[Uppercut]

In a dead rubber. Harmy bowled very well in that match, but effective is not the word.

 

[Jigga988]

He wasn't "so effective" though. He took 4 for 135.

As well as the shocker Cook dropped, might as well have been fifer, anyway, I thought he bowled well and looked pretty threatening, as he did when he was at the top pf his game, rigth now he's just a remnants of his former self and dead weight...

 

[Uppercut]

As well as the shocker Cook dropped, might as well have been fifer, anyway, I thought he bowled well and looked pretty threatening, as he did when he was at the top pf his game, rigth now he's just a remnants of his former self and dead weight...

Nah he picked up Smith later in the game. And five wickets in a match isn't a fifer anyway. "Looking threatening" is not the same thing as being effective. His yorker to Hashim Amla was so, soo good though.