**Official** England in The West Indies

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

12-odd! Hmm, that's impressive. :saint:
For me, someone needs a FC average of about 15 for their batting to be considered worthy of mention.

You've seen the man bat. You obviously don't know what the term rabbit refers to in relation to cricket.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Just because his countrymen aren't flash at it doesn't mean he has no right to point-out the inadequecies of others.
And the over-rate has been abysmal in this match.

Very much so. Eight seamers, lots of boundaries and short bowling...

 

[Richard]

Funny that, but the radio and every report I read of the first session said that it was good bowling from the English...

I know who I'd believe out of the 2.

Again, I'll prefer to respect the views of the experts instead of the most negative man in the World.

Prefer what you like, you'll not change the fact that my eyesight is no inferior to any expert of renown.
Nor the fact that most cricket viewers are over-given to praise. The fact that I am the reverse makes my angle, if anything, more accurate.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

And when do you guys see Lawson coming back?? He is impressive....

I wouldn't be surprised at all if Lawson were to return in this series.

 

[Richard]

Hmm, not what the majority have said about the England bowlers.

Nope, it's not - because they all made the batsmen look uncomfortable at times, and three of them bowled very quickly, and these are mistakenly taken by most people to construe "bowling well".
Hoggard (Edwards) and Jones (Lara) were the only ones who bowled a single wicket-taking delivery in the innings. Gayle, Sarwan, Chanderpaul, Smith, Hinds and Jacobs could all have averted their dismissals easily. Sanford played a stroke you'd expect of a tail-ender. Best got a poor decision, not that it matters that much.
Fortunately, no bowlers got good figures except Hoggard, who was comforably the best bowler.

 

[marc71178]

Prefer what you like, you'll not change the fact that my eyesight is no inferior to any expert of renown.

But your views are, or you'd be on the radio.

 

[Richard]

You definitely under-rate Hoggard.

He does a very effective job of staying in when required.

Yes, he certainly does - work with Duncan has made him realise he's a far better player than he ever realised.
Still, a half-decent swinging delivery will do for him every time. A rabbit for me, still.

 

[marc71178]

Nope, it's not - because they all made the batsmen look uncomfortable at times, and three of them bowled very quickly, and these are mistakenly taken by most people to construe "bowling well".

An expected 400+ wicket and the Windies make 311.

Looks like they must have done something well.

Uncomfortable batsmen leads to false shots leads to wickets.

 

[Richard]

Originally posted by marc71178 (twice)
I suppose he'll have to console himself with the wickets of the 2 top batsmen.

Yes, he will, and not, of course, admit to himself that both dismissals held no credit for him and were exclusively down to the fact that no-one can avert wicket-causing strokes for ever.

 

[marc71178]

Like I've said before, he's had times when he's bowled well, and had no success, and at the end of the day, he's got the 2 main men in the innings out.

 

[Richard]

All stats aside I don't think all of those are bunnies.

Hoggard: As Marc has said Hoggard has improved alot over the last 2 years and while he might not score runs himself as such he can certianly hold a end up and let the batsman at the other end do the job.

Yeah, I still rate him in the "bunny" category, though.

Best: Best is far from a bunny IMO he showed great promise with the bat every time I have seen him play 20* vs Aus and today's knock and he isn't scared to get behind the ball and played a couple of fantastic shots that the top order would have been proud of.

Sadly I arrived back from nets just in time to see the Edwards walk to the crease. So in short I didn't see a ball of his innings. His FC average isn't terribly impressive and while two seasons can't always sum-up a tail-ender's ability, I don't think he's got the ability of a Cork or Caddick.

Jones: A bit early to tell, but if he bats anything like his debut (and only inngs I blieve) when he hit 42 (I think) you certianly can't call him a bunny either.

44, it was. But you can't call him not a bunny on the evidence of it either, and I've seen him bat in the nets plenty of times (and once or twice in games, too) and he's certainly not demonstrated any more ability than Fraser of Mullally. The Test-debut innings was a brilliantly-timed fluke.

The Rest I agree with though

Thanks.

 

[Richard]

The irony is there's been times he's bowled quite well and not got wickets.

2 from him (and the 2 he got) is good enough for me.

No, there are times he's been perceived to have bowled well and in fact has simply made the batsmen look uncomfortable while not looking like bowling deliveries that will get them out. Whenever he's had the chance to bowl well, he's rarely failed to take it.

 

[Richard]

I will wait a little bit more before judging him. Do you rate him as a bowler?

I agree entirely with your assessment of him - could be pretty good in seaming conditions, no use in conditions that don't seam (like so many around today).

 

[Richard]

Like I've said before, he's had times when he's bowled well, and had no success, and at the end of the day, he's got the 2 main men in the innings out.

And I've answered that before - he hasn't bowled well, he's just been perceived to have done so.
And the fact that the wickets of the top-scorers have gone against his name means nothing - they were poor strokes. Hence they might as well have been poor strokes played by anyone.

 

[Richard]

An expected 400+ wicket and the Windies make 311.

Looks like they must have done something well.

Uncomfortable batsmen leads to false shots leads to wickets.

Fortunately none of the poor strokes have resulted in bowlers who've bowled poorly getting decent figures.

 

[Richard]

But your views are, or you'd be on the radio.

Complete bull - there are millions, yourself and myself included, whose views are every bit as valid and based as those on the radio.
Selection for commentary and journalism is just luck of the draw, and some dedication to persistance in going for the job.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Fortunately none of the poor strokes have resulted in bowlers who've bowled poorly getting decent figures.

Giles' figures are a lot better looking than they should have been.

 

[Richard]

You've seen the man bat. You obviously don't know what the term rabbit refers to in relation to cricket.

"Rabbit caught in the headlights" ...
It refers to somoene whose batting is not worthy of consideration.
It doesn't mean you have to be as hopeless as Mark Robinson and all the hundred or so others who were named in that pointless thread a while back.

 

[Richard]

Fidel Edwards bowled brilliantly, as did Best.

Apart from that, they lack firepower.

Butcher and Hussain now more settled (before the rain had other ideas) because of the Collymore and Sanford spells.

Best bowled better than he normally seems to, but he certainly was not brilliant. He might have made Butcher and Hussain look uncomfortable, but he was innocuous enough really. He didn't move the ball that much.
Edwards' ball to Vaughan was a beauty, a typical Vaughan dismissal. Happened time and again since he's opened the batting in Tests. Not always have the chances been taken, and Lara made a mess of this one, but at least he kept it off the ground.

 

[Richard]

Adam Sanford... well he really wasn't shocking was he. Why is he in the team again?

For exactly the same reason Harmison has played 6 ODIs, Dawson and Batty have played 10 Tests between them and Eric Upashantha got anywhere near international-cricket.
Because selectors make errors, it's fact of life. In fact, they make them quite often. Because selectors, like players and Umpires, are human.