**Official** West Indies in England 2012

[Howe_zat]

He's been a test-standard player for the maost part of a decade, (excepting a period in 2007 when he really wasn't pulling his weight), and I really don't think that's to be sneezed at. Right now he's probably the 5th best bat in the team but there have been sizeable chunks of his career when he's been the best. "Really quite crap" ought to be reserved for someone who genuinely struggled to be considered Test standard, and Strauss has been standard, no more, no less.

 

[Furball]

Players like Shane Watson are 'relatively mediocre', 'quite crap' or whatever other way you wish to describe them. Strauss is several levels above that.

 

[Jacknife]

Meh, 'relatively mediocre' is just a politer way of saying 'quite crap'.

But he isn't.

 

[Viscount Tom]

One of the photos of the day.

 

[Uppercut]

He's been a test-standard player for the maost part of a decade, (excepting a period in 2007 when he really wasn't pulling his weight), and I really don't think that's to be sneezed at. Right now he's probably the 5th best bat in the team but there have been sizeable chunks of his career when he's been the best. "Really quite crap" ought to be reserved for someone who genuinely struggled to be considered Test standard, and Strauss has been standard, no more, no less.

What does 'test-standard' even mean? He's been better than any other openers England could have played, no doubt about that. Clearly the 6th best bat in this team, fwiw.

He has a bunch of glaring weaknesses against good bowling and against bad bowling he usually gets out in the 40s. That's quite crap, to me, or 'not terrible' is probably what I'd call him if he was rated lower than he should be.

 

[Uppercut]

Players like Shane Watson are 'relatively mediocre', 'quite crap' or whatever other way you wish to describe them. Strauss is several levels above that.

Watto's loads better than Strauss surely? Or do you mean as a specialist batsman? Even then I reckon they're about the same. Similar enough records.

 

[Furball]

Watto's loads better than Strauss surely? Or do you mean as a specialist batsman? Even then I reckon they're about the same. Similar enough records.

Strauss is a much better batsman than Watson.

 

[Ferraz]

Is it true that if WI's over rate is below par (for want of a better word), Sammy would get suspended for a match?

 

[Uppercut]

Strauss is a much better batsman than Watson.

Meh, they're both quite crap. Do you think I'm underrating Strauss or overrating Watson?

 

[Furball]

Meh, they're both quite crap. Do you think I'm underrating Strauss or overrating Watson?

Vastly over-rating Watson if you think he's as good as Strauss.

 

[indiaholic]

Meh, they're both quite crap. Do you think I'm underrating Strauss or overrating Watson?

Over rating Watson wrt Strauss.

 

[Howe_zat]

KP's wicket brings no comment. Game's incomparable to how interesting it was this time yesterday.

 

[Uppercut]

Don't think I particularly do overrate Watto. Don't they average about the same opening?

 

[roseboy64]

Don't entirely agree that England are known to have a weakness against bowlers of a similar ilk as Shillingford. Conventional Off-spin has rarely ever caused any damage against England, and this is decidedly the case for almost any non-mystery finger spinner (include SLA) on English soil. Shillingford is actually a fairly average spinner anyways, and I'd be shocked if he caused any problems for England especially in the month of May.

That being said however, I do agree that Gabriel was a poor choice as he is a bowler that is not likely to cause problems anywhere in the world and has never played a test match before. I would have played Shillingford, but I think WI threw away their chance of any sort of fight this series when they didn't pick Narine for this tour.

And Gayle and Sarwan.

Gayle
Barath
Sarwan
Bravo
Chanderpaul
Deonarine/Samuels/Pollard
Ramdin
Sammy/Edwards
Narine
Rampaul
Roach

 

[Valer]

Don't think I particularly do overrate Watto. Don't they average about the same opening?

Watson averages ~2.5 more. I'd take a can't bowl watson over strauss.
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...filter=advanced;template=results;type=batting

 

[weeman27bob]

Strauss is probably much better at tonning up than Watson though?

 

[GIMH]

Yes, by a long long way, the importance of which should not be understated. Hundreds set your side on to victory, unfathomable IMO that Watson is as good as Strauss as an opener

 

[Valer]

Strauss is probably much better at tonning up than Watson though?

2.5x better. Obviously the flipside is that Watson gets more starts and exposes the #3/ middle order to the new ball less often.

 

[Viscount Tom]

Factor in the runs lost when Watto runs out his partner.

The new ball doesn't have to been off with runs alone, see through enough balls and its ok.

 

[Uppercut]

Strauss is probably much better at tonning up than Watson though?

Yeah, but recently not by all that much. And even if he was, that would only imply that he's less good at seeing off the new ball. Also, he's faced the England attack in games where Strauss has faced the Aussie attack. Huge advantage for Strauss there.

Now we're into semantics. To me that says that they're pretty comparable.