*Official* England in West Indies

[Scaly piscine]

how can a captain be so dishonest ?

WOW...

He just believes England must win this game no matter what.

Because all the WI captains are walkers of course.

 

[inbox24]

Another failure from Owais Shah, good job son. Hopefully the Windies can nip out a few more and send the Englishmen into panic stations.

 

[garage flower]

It's no reason to give an obvious out n\o or vice-versa. But IMO, batsmen should get the benefit of the doubt; bowlers when bowling at tailenders should get it. Simple as. I don't watch cricket to see tailenders hanging-around or slogging runs; I watch it to watch batsmen batting. Always happy to see tailenders disposed of quickly.

Surely that's your preference rather than a legitimate, logical opinion. Because it's completely illogical.

 

[shivfan]

England under a little bit of pressure now....

 

[Jamee999]

It's no reason to give an obvious out n\o or vice-versa. But IMO, batsmen should get the benefit of the doubt; bowlers when bowling at Australians should get it. Simple as. I don't watch cricket to see Australians hanging-around or slogging runs; I watch it to watch batsmen batting. Always happy to see Australians disposed of quickly.

FYP.

 

[garage flower]

All about cricket should be on what people want to see.

Just depends on who the people you're considering are - whether they're the rabble or the true conniousseur.

And yet, from memory, you were fairly supportive of West Indies' utterly negative approach to this test match despite the fact that it was obviously going to lead to the type of cricket - at least when England were batting - that nobody would want to see.

 

[wpdavid]

Wonder if England can lose this game of cricket

You'd have thought so, given that the aim appears to be to declare this innings after about 3 hours.

 

[Uppercut]

And yet, from memory, you were fairly supportive of West Indies' utterly negative approach to this test match despite the fact that it was obviously going to lead to the type of cricket - at least when England were batting - that nobody would want to see.

He was happy enough with their selection but i don't think he agreed with bowling Brendan Nash with relaxed fields from the first session.

 

[wpdavid]

England under a little bit of pressure now....

3 down?

 

[garage flower]

He was happy enough with their selection but i don't think he agreed with bowling Brendan Nash with relaxed fields from the first session.

Fair enough, but that selection was always going to lead to Nash/Gayle/Hinds bowling to defensive fields from a very early stage.

 

[sammy2]

LOL@Pietersen ...Soon

 

[Richard]

3 down?

Not yet.

 

[Richard]

And yet, from memory, you were fairly supportive of West Indies' utterly negative approach to this test match despite the fact that it was obviously going to lead to the type of cricket - at least when England were batting - that nobody would want to see.

If you can suggest a way of making some sort of rule about selection, I'd be delighted to hear it.

 

[Richard]

Surely that's your preference rather than a legitimate, logical opinion. Because it's completely illogical.

Of course parts of it are my preference. But there's legitimate, logical opinion in there as well.

 

[roseboy64]

KP out before close of play and this match is over methinks.

 

[Uppercut]

It ain't over til it's over.

 

[Richard]

Odds on KPP attempting the ol' switch-slogged-sweep before too long?

High, methinks.

 

[garage flower]

If you can suggest a way of making some sort of rule about selection, I'd be delighted to hear it.

Are you drinking tonight, Richard? It can often be difficult to spot the logic in your arguments, but tonight you don't even seem to be trying.

It's got nothing to do with rules.

If I were you I'd leave the sardonicism to people who can do it better, put down that bottle of Blue Nun, and really apply yourself to the debates at hand.

Either that or log off and get rat-a**ed.

 

[Richard]

Are you drinking tonight, Richard? It can often be difficult to spot the logic in your arguments, but tonight you don't even seem to be trying.

It's got nothing to do with rules.

If I were you I'd leave the sardonicism to people who can do it better, put down that bottle of Blue Nun, and really apply yourself to the debates at hand.

Either that or log off and get rat-a**ed.

I'd love to have been drinking for the last 3 hours, but sadly today it's a rare Monday when I'm not. I am, however, feeling a little ill, so perhaps that accounts for my relative lackadaisical-ness.

But it has everything to do with rules. "BOD to batsman"; "BOD to bowler". No similar thing can be ruled that "a team must approach every Test attempting to win".

 

[Richard]

Haha, Men At Work Down Under played at West Indies vs England. ITSTL.

Almost as interesting as David Gower's description of it as "the disco system".