*Official* England in West Indies

[Manee]

Windies should be penalised or at least warned for the surfaces in this series.

 

[Richard]

Dunno why on Earth Ramdin ever stands back to Nash really. He's a rare out-and-out medium-pacer and plenty of medium-fast seamers have the wicketkeeper stand up to them.

 

[Manee]

Dunno why on Earth Ramdin ever stands back to Nash really. He's a rare out-and-out medium-pacer and plenty of medium-fast seamers have the wicketkeeper stand up to them.

I'm not sure I agree with the policy of keepers standing up to medium pace bowlers in Test cricket as it all but eliminates the caught behind dismissal.

 

[garage flower]

Why is Gayle so deep at slip to Nash? Is it to avoid the ignominy of dropping more sitters or just a plain lack of cricketing intelligence?

OR is it part of a cunning plan to avoid taking wickets at all costs in the hope that England forget to declare? That would explain the team selection.

 

[Richard]

I'm not sure I agree with the policy of keepers standing up to medium pace bowlers in Test cricket as it all but eliminates the caught behind dismissal.

Perhaps. In a defensive situation like this, though, he should be up to the stumps from ball 1.

Haha, no-ball from Gayle, absolutely bloody ridiculous.

 

[pskov]

Did one of the fielders around the bat shout 'boo' just as Shah was about to play his shot just then?

 

[Richard]

Really interesting novelty stuff this. Can't think that I've ever seen a Test where one team has so patently been trying to draw it from the very start of the match.

This pitch is of course playing into the hands of the stymieying approach.

 

[garage flower]

If you're happy that Taylor and Benn weren't to play, your only grumble can be that sufficient cover was not arranged.

As for the negative selection, well, I've always had no time whatsoever for this line of thinking employed by so many that negative is always bad. There are times when thinking negatively, in terms of aiming to draw rather than win, is the right approach. A draw in this Test is series victory for West Indies. If they think they can draw the game by picking this team, then well played to them. The danger in said approach - the only danger - is that the pitch you're playing on will not allow a draw, and in that case the fact you've an extraordinarily weak bowling-attack will mostly likely mean you lose rather than win.

Whether the selection is good or bad depends entirely on the pitch. If they've judged the pitch well, it's a good selection. If they've misjudged it, it's a bad one.

No, I think it's poor selection compounded by further administrative bungling and whether the negative approach is good or bad certainly doesn't depend entirely on the nature of a pitch, though that is a factor.

There is, in my view, no point in picking a team that - to all intents and purposes - is aiming only to secure a draw. Beyond the simple-minded naivety of such an approach, I think there's a duty to the home fans to tackle things more positively.

As I rather flippantly suggested earlier, there is also little logic, if the limit of your ambition is to grind out a draw, in picking any specialist bowlers. Simply pick 11 batsmen, with sufficient part-time bowling to get you through, and bowl negative lines to negative fields throughout.

 

[Richard]

No, I think it's poor selection compounded by further administrative bungling

So how was picking the only 11 players available poor selection? It's either one or it's the other, it cannot be both.

and whether the negative approach is good or bad certainly doesn't depend entirely on the nature of a pitch, though that is a factor.

If the pitch allows it to work, it's fair enough to try. If it doesn't, it's a wholly stupid approach. Of course, there are other things which impact on whether it'll work, but it is not a bad idea automatically, regardless of all circumstances.

There is, in my view, no point in picking a team that - to all intents and purposes - is aiming only to secure a draw. Beyond the simple-minded naivety of such an approach, I think there's a duty to the home fans to tackle things more positively.

That's a different matter. However, one has to ask - which is more important to fans? Victory, or interesting cricket? The former usually seems to be the answer to me.

As I rather flippantly suggested earlier, there is also little logic, if the limit of your ambition is to grind out a draw, in picking any specialist bowlers. Simply pick 11 batsmen, with sufficient part-time bowling to get you through, and bowl negative lines to negative fields throughout.

I have thought that, truth be told. I often wonder whether anyone would truly dare to employ such a strategy.

 

[Richard]

Bloody hell, a third mix-up which yet again could've resulted in a run-out (not the first time we've seen multiple mix-ups in this series) and then one of the worst deliveries you'll ever see from Nash. ITSTL.

 

[pskov]

Pretty shocking that Nash has bowled 13 overs in a day, let alone after only halfway through day 1. The guy only has 7 first-class wickets ffs.

 

[garage flower]

Christ, between being at work, posting on here and one or two other bits and bobs, I've hardly seen a ball bowled yet (following it on Cricinfo mostly), but the bits I have seen - including the potential run out a second ago - remind me of playing in the park with my mates, with a dustbin at one end, jumper at the other, and one comically ill-fitting pad between us.

At least we tried to win though.

Lendl's clearly in on the cunning plan to avoid any such result for the West Indies.

 

[Richard]

Shah cramping-up already. Not eye-deel at all.

Wonder if Pietersen can up the pace? Doubt it.

 

[superkingdave]

Shah cramping-up already. Not eye-deel at all.

Could be better for England really, unless Pietersen decides he wants a nightwatchman.

He's going off anyway.

 

[aussie]

Dammmm, i know what shaw is going through i experience that a few years back when i left here in Easter for Trinidad. Thats thing pains baddddddd...

 

[superkingdave]

At least ill get to watch a bit of decent test cricket tomorrow in the SA-Aus match with it being a weekend. This is just a big pile of steaming turd

 

[Uppercut]

Seriously, sometimes I think people only take notice of some of the stuff Boycott says and completely ignore others in order to get the impression of him that they want to get.

That's not true, i know fine right he talks a lot of sense to go with all the bull****.

 

[pskov]

Was scepitcal at first when he called for the physio, but Shah's hand actually looked pretty bad once he took his gloves off. I'm sure that after half an hour or so physio work on them he will be ready to come back in next though.

 

[Jamee999]

Outside leg.

 

[superkingdave]

Looked well outside leg in the first instance to be honest. Decent referral but really poor umpiring itfp