• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

**Official** England in The West Indies

tooextracool

International Coach
Tom Halsey said:
Do you go into hibernation whenever Murali bowls?
but trescothick has a problem against pace where he doesnt move his feet not against spin. besides murali in england is almost innocuous compared to what he is at home.

Originally posted by Tom Halsey And your point about Tres and the Oval is fruitless because he also averages 80+ at Old Trafford and Trent Bridge. [/B]
if uve never seen a flat pitch before u can pretty much go to those 3 grounds. my point abt trescothick,gayle etc is that they are flat pitch bullies who cant play when the ball does a bit. gayle is probably worse off because he is more of a hit and miss player. that being said if australia bowled on those pitches they would still get him out
 

luckyeddie

Cricket Web Staff Member
For the benefit of the many who watched the game on Cricinfo ball-by-ball, there a number of things you ought to be aware of with respect to England's performance in this match in particular, but it holds for the tour in general.

1. Trescothick is in terrible nick - although yesterday the feet started to move really well and he looked a much better player. The nonsense about 'everyone's worked him out' is just that. Like many batsmen, his weakness is also his strength. Sure he gets out flashing, but that's where he gets his runs anyway.

2. Vaughan has captained the side terrifically well, seemingly making all the decisions at the right time. These have not been three easy victories for England - they have been hard-earned and have come from the application of pressure at the right time. Needs runs but his captaincy totally justifies his place in the side.

3. Butcher, like Hussain, has at times been effectively playing as an opener, but like the former skipper has equally been part of England's triumvirate of middle-order batsmen who have formed the 'engine room' of the side this year. Like all lefties, sometimes too flashy for his own good but can be a diamond in a crisis. Shares the same middle name as Chris Gayle - 'Oops'.

4. Hussain has been the reliable one throughout. Barnacle-like at the crease, even at 36 he is still an excellent fielder. Will certainly retain his place beyond his dream of 100 tests. I've a feeling he wants another dig at the Aussies in 2005. Hell, he's a youngster compared to that geriatric Waugh who just got his bus pass.

5. Thorpe - the 90 at Port of Spain was a sign that Thorpe was on his way back - in difficult circumstances and with the game in the balance he 'went on' to convert a start. Bridgetown was that - and more. It was an innings of absolute quality and in the context of what was going on around him probably his finest-ever innings. Having trouble in the slips on occasion just like Butcher - ball keeps banging off his zimmer frame.

6. Flintoff - Oh, I wish that he could bat with some consistency. The reason his bowling has improved of late is that he has worked with excellent coaches who have ironed out some pretty basic flaws (same with Harmison) - wrist, seam position etc. The reason his batting will probably never improve is that the faults there are mental, not technique-based.

7. Chris Read - the new Bob Taylor (well, not quite, but he's showing signs). He's enjoying the best tour I've seen from an England keeper with the gloves for many a year, totally reliable, very efficient. Batting (ahem) - not good enough to go in number 7.

8. Giles got thrashed around the park at Kingston yet came back and took the vital wickets of Smith and Hinds who were thrapsing England all round the island, let alone all round the park at the time. Without those two wickets, England might actually be behind in the series, let alone 3-0 up. They were that vital. In the last two tests he's been an irrelevance with the ball but once again vital with the bat.

9. Hoggard - for me, he has been even more of a revelation than Harmison on this tour, because he does two jobs and does them both well. Bowling with the new ball he probes away, a fine, attacking bowler. Later, he comes back with the old ball and is capable of bowling long spells economically. If you go in with four seamers, it's what you need. As for the idiot who dismissed his hat-trick saying that it was due to the pitch, I really hope the same happens to you one day and your team-mates say 'No, you can't have the match ball. It was too easy. The pitch helped.'

10. Simon Jones - He is where Harmison was a year or so ago - whole-hearted, raw. Given the terrible injury, I'm surprised he ever played again. May or may not be a long-term answer, the obvious choice to make way if and when Anderson is brought into the side, but still a valuable squad player.

11. Harmison - an absolute revelation, will continue to do well. Then, some time in the summer or maybe even next year, he'll bowl one really bad spell, including a leg-side four wides. It'll probably include a couple of lucky wickets. About 100 people on CW will instantly jump on that saying 'See. I told you he was rubbish'.
 
Last edited:

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
Shane Warne said:
As i said, but will repeat for those a bit slow on the uptake, VS SA last summer Trent bridge, & vs West Indies this last test.
Is this the wickets with no balls thing?

Overstepping and a wicket being chalked off isn't what was being discussed as bad luck, try the dropped catches and the superb spells he was bowling...
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
tooextracool said:
btw was the ball seaming around all over the place when hoggard was bowling?its hard to imagine hoggard taking a hatrick unless it was.
Reminds me of Richard's comment re: Harmison pre-series - what was it - any wickets he takes will be poor batting as it's impossible for him to bowl well...
 

Arrow

U19 Vice-Captain
West indies are developing a nasty of habit of making their opposition look like world beaters.
SA looked like gods agaisnt them and now englands crappy trundlers look like stars.

The only relevation of this tour has been the windies embaressing mediocrity.
 

luckyeddie

Cricket Web Staff Member
Arrow said:
West indies are developing a nasty of habit of making their opposition look like world beaters.
SA looked like gods agaisnt them and now englands crappy trundlers look like stars.

The only relevation of this tour has been the windies embaressing mediocrity.
Ah, Arrow wants the debate brought up to his usual level. :P

How did the West Indians scrape their eight lucky centuries against South Africa's bowlers? Are they 'crappy trundlers' too?

I'm only surprised you haven't given all the credit for England's performances in the West Indies to Rod Marsh.
 

Tom Halsey

International Coach
tooextracool said:
but trescothick has a problem against pace where he doesnt move his feet not against spin. besides murali in england is almost innocuous compared to what he is at home.
OK so explain his very good average against them in 2001, in Sri Lanka.

And sorry, my mistake, Edgebaston, not Trent Bridge.
 

Tom Halsey

International Coach
luckyeddie said:
For the benefit of the many who watched the game on Cricinfo ball-by-ball, there a number of things you ought to be aware of with respect to England's performance in this match in particular, but it holds for the tour in general.

1. Trescothick is in terrible nick - although yesterday the feet started to move really well and he looked a much better player. The nonsense about 'everyone's worked him out' is just that. Like many batsmen, his weakness is also his strength. Sure he gets out flashing, but that's where he gets his runs anyway.

2. Vaughan has captained the side terrifically well, seemingly making all the decisions at the right time. These have not been three easy victories for England - they have been hard-earned and have come from the application of pressure at the right time. Needs runs but his captaincy totally justifies his place in the side.

3. Butcher, like Hussain, has at times been effectively playing as an opener, but like the former skipper has equally been part of England's triumvirate of middle-order batsmen who have formed the 'engine room' of the side this year. Like all lefties, sometimes too flashy for his own good but can be a diamond in a crisis. Shares the same middle name as Chris Gayle - 'Oops'.

4. Hussain has been the reliable one throughout. Barnacle-like at the crease, even at 36 he is still an excellent fielder. Will certainly retain his place beyond his dream of 100 tests. I've a feeling he wants another dig at the Aussies in 2005. Hell, he's a youngster compared to that geriatric Waugh who just got his bus pass.

5. Thorpe - the 90 at Port of Spain was a sign that Thorpe was on his way back - in difficult circumstances and with the game in the balance he 'went on' to convert a start. Bridgetown was that - and more. It was an innings of absolute quality and in the context of what was going on around him probably his finest-ever innings. Having trouble in the slips on occasion just like Butcher - ball keeps banging off his zimmer frame.

6. Flintoff - Oh, I wish that he could bat with some consistency. The reason his bowling has improved of late is that he has worked with excellent coaches who have ironed out some pretty basic flaws (same with Harmison) - wrist, seam position etc. The reason his batting will probably never improve is that the faults there are mental, not technique-based.

7. Chris Read - the new Bob Taylor (well, not quite, but he's showing signs). He's enjoying the best tour I've seen from an England keeper with the gloves for many a year, totally reliable, very efficient. Batting (ahem) - not good enough to go in number 7.

8. Giles got thrashed around the park at Kingston yet came back and took the vital wickets of Smith and Hinds who were thrapsing England all round the island, let alone all round the park at the time. Without those two wickets, England might actually be behind in the series, let alone 3-0 up. They were that vital. In the last two tests he's been an irrelevance with the ball but once again vital with the bat.

9. Hoggard - for me, he has been even more of a revelation than Harmison on this tour, because he does two jobs and does them both well. Bowling with the new ball he probes away, a fine, attacking bowler. Later, he comes back with the old ball and is capable of bowling long spells economically. If you go in with four seamers, it's what you need. As for the idiot who dismissed his hat-trick saying that it was due to the pitch, I really hope the same happens to you one day and your team-mates say 'No, you can't have the match ball. It was too easy. The pitch helped.'

10. Simon Jones - He is where Harmison was a year or so ago - whole-hearted, raw. Given the terrible injury, I'm surprised he ever played again. May or may not be a long-term answer, the obvious choice to make way if and when Anderson is brought into the side, but still a valuable squad player.

11. Harmison - an absolute revelation, will continue to do well. Then, some time in the summer or maybe even next year, he'll bowl one really bad spell, including a leg-side four wides. It'll probably include a couple of lucky wickets. About 100 people on CW will instantly jump on that saying 'See. I told you he was rubbish'.
Agree, apart from this bit:

5. Thorpe - the 90 at Port of Spain was a sign that Thorpe was on his way back - in difficult circumstances and with the game in the balance he 'went on' to convert a start. Bridgetown was that - and more. It was an innings of absolute quality and in the context of what was going on around him probably his finest-ever innings. Having trouble in the slips on occasion just like Butcher - ball keeps banging off his zimmer frame.

I would say that is his 2nd best innings - the hundred at The Oval was his best, what with being away for all that time, et cetera.
 

luckyeddie

Cricket Web Staff Member
Tom Halsey said:
Agree, apart from this bit:

5. Thorpe - the 90 at Port of Spain was a sign that Thorpe was on his way back - in difficult circumstances and with the game in the balance he 'went on' to convert a start. Bridgetown was that - and more. It was an innings of absolute quality and in the context of what was going on around him probably his finest-ever innings. Having trouble in the slips on occasion just like Butcher - ball keeps banging off his zimmer frame.

I would say that is his 2nd best innings - the hundred at The Oval was his best, what with being away for all that time, et cetera.
Sorry. All performances at the Oval don't count. It's the greatest batting strip in the world when Trescothick's scoring against South Africa. How did SH take those second-innings wickets? Oh yes. Bad batting.

Funnily enough, it's also the best bowling strip in the world when Devon Malcolm's rewriting the history books with the ball - also against South Africa.

Yes, people are stupid - and the older I get, the more stupid they become.
 

badgerhair

U19 Vice-Captain
luckyeddie said:
For the benefit of the many who watched the game on Cricinfo ball-by-ball, there a number of things you ought to be aware of with respect to England's performance in this match in particular, but it holds for the tour in general.
Generally agreed, but a couple of points:


1. Trescothick is in terrible nick - although yesterday the feet started to move really well and he looked a much better player. The nonsense about 'everyone's worked him out' is just that. Like many batsmen, his weakness is also his strength. Sure he gets out flashing, but that's where he gets his runs anyway.
Whether he's been "worked out" or other teams have realised that a man wearing cement boots is most likely to have difficulty with the ball going across him at pace is really a semantic argument. His innings yesterday has given him a stay of execution, but he has to be regarded as stilll under pressure for his place.

4. Hussain has been the reliable one throughout. Barnacle-like at the crease, even at 36 he is still an excellent fielder. Will certainly retain his place beyond his dream of 100 tests. I've a feeling he wants another dig at the Aussies in 2005. Hell, he's a youngster compared to that geriatric Waugh who just got his bus pass.
Where do you get this feeling he wants to carry on into 2005? It's been an open secret that he is going to retire after The Oval this year assuming he retains his place that long, and an interview I saw early in the tour in which he talked about how little he has in common with the new generation of PlayStation users in the team spoke volumes about a man very muc preparing to move on to life after Test cricket.


5. Thorpe - the 90 at Port of Spain was a sign that Thorpe was on his way back - in difficult circumstances and with the game in the balance he 'went on' to convert a start. Bridgetown was that - and more. It was an innings of absolute quality and in the context of what was going on around him probably his finest-ever innings.
Post-match, he rated it below his ton at The Oval last year. What I don't understand is why his 113* at Colombo in 2000-01 never gets a mention as his greatest innings.


6. Flintoff - Oh, I wish that he could bat with some consistency. The reason his bowling has improved of late is that he has worked with excellent coaches who have ironed out some pretty basic flaws (same with Harmison) - wrist, seam position etc. The reason his batting will probably never improve is that the faults there are mental, not technique-based.
The flaw in this argument is that his batting has improved a great deal of late. As evidence, I would cite his performances at Colombo. What is certainly the case, though, is that people will say "Another soft dismissal" after 75% of his innings. Because someone who basically gives it welly is most likely to get out caught off a shot played without 100% conviction, and that always looks like a soft dismissal. The basic question is how often he will have made a useful number of runs before it happens.


8. Giles got thrashed around the park at Kingston yet came back and took the vital wickets of Smith and Hinds who were thrapsing England all round the island, let alone all round the park at the time. Without those two wickets, England might actually be behind in the series, let alone 3-0 up. They were that vital. In the last two tests he's been an irrelevance with the ball but once again vital with the bat.
What reasons do you have for supposing that Gareth Batty (for instance) could not perform the same role? Giles may be the skipper's Best Mate, and he's engagingly honest about the fact that he's not bowled well for over a year, but I don't quite see why that honesty should keep his place for him. He's not got quite the record on dropping catches that Butcher has, but that's only because he gets taken out of the close catching area before Butcher does.

I entirely endorse the view that he tries damned hard and makes some useful contributions, but it's still not enough.


9. Hoggard - for me, he has been even more of a revelation than Harmison on this tour, because he does two jobs and does them both well. Bowling with the new ball he probes away, a fine, attacking bowler. Later, he comes back with the old ball and is capable of bowling long spells economically. If you go in with four seamers, it's what you need. As for the idiot who dismissed his hat-trick saying that it was due to the pitch, I really hope the same happens to you one day and your team-mates say 'No, you can't have the match ball. It was too easy. The pitch helped.'
Hmmm. Yes, the hat-trick was down to excellent bowling rather than a minefield of a pitch.

BUT. Hoggard had a good series in New Zealand a couple of years ago, and then got caned when he played on flat pitches where his lack of variation or devilment were exposed.

The difference between then and now is that management and bowler have both come to understand what his limitations are as well as his strengths. If he gets a hatful, great, but they're not really expecting him to be a strike bowler - and that means that he doesn't have to try and bowl wicket-taking balls with an old ball which isn't swinging.


10. Simon Jones - He is where Harmison was a year or so ago - whole-hearted, raw. Given the terrible injury, I'm surprised he ever played again. May or may not be a long-term answer, the obvious choice to make way if and when Anderson is brought into the side, but still a valuable squad player.
But Anderson doesn't bowl like Jones - he bowls like Hoggard. Unless you want two swing bowlers (which could be right in certain conditions), it's Hoggard's place that Anderson threatens. I'd have thought Jones was going to come under pressure from Sajid Mahmood.


11. Harmison - an absolute revelation, will continue to do well. Then, some time in the summer or maybe even next year, he'll bowl one really bad spell, including a leg-side four wides. It'll probably include a couple of lucky wickets. About 100 people on CW will instantly jump on that saying 'See. I told you he was rubbish'.
One really bad spell? I wouldn't be at all surprised if he had a bad match. Bowlers do, sometimes. I mean, I'll be surprised *when* it happens, but not *that* it happened.

I readily admit that I'd given up on him before the second innings at The Oval last year, but I'm very happy to have been proved wrong. It's really quite sad that there are still people who would prefer to hold on to their comfort blankets of derision despite the overwhelming evidence that he has become a superb bowler, but perhaps they enjoy wearing eggy face-masks.

Cheers,

Mike
 

Arjun

Cricketer Of The Year
Cartoons

On a side note, who are those two fans dressed as cartoons who appear regularly in England matches? I see that Sylvester/Snagglepuss pair quite often!
 

luckyeddie

Cricket Web Staff Member
Mike :

I'm not pasting anything - it's getting a bit big.

1. Trescothick - I think it's time for a break.
4. Hussain - maybe just that I'd LIKE him to go on for another year.
5. Thorpe - I agree that Colombo was a great innings. Let's all agree that he's made some wonderful contributions when the chips were down.
6. Flintoff- agree he's improved of late, just not enough to allay the 'here we go again' thoughts in my mind.
8. Giles - sure, Batty could probably do as good a job. I'm not trying to justify anyone's inclusion. They both stink anyway.
9-11. Interesting that you would look on Hoggard and Anderson as competing for the same spot on the grounds that they are so alike in style, when Jones, Flintoff and Harmison are all rib-ticklers and consequently very similar in style too. Like I said - squad.
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
Re: Cartoons

Arjun said:
On a side note, who are those two fans dressed as cartoons who appear regularly in England matches? I see that Sylvester/Snagglepuss pair quite often!
Sylvester and the Pink Panther are at every England Game I believe - think they may be police men IRL
 

badgerhair

U19 Vice-Captain

9-11. Interesting that you would look on Hoggard and Anderson as competing for the same spot on the grounds that they are so alike in style, when Jones, Flintoff and Harmison are all rib-ticklers and consequently very similar in style too. Like I said - squad.
But Harmison, Jones and Flintoff aren't that similar in style.

Harmison is becoming a genuine new ball bowler who gets some swing along with his pace. Jones's intention is to bowl a fuller length and get the old ball to reverse, although he's not reliable at either of these yet. And Flintoff is a fourth seamer.

But what they all have, and Hoggard and Anderson don't, is high pace. If you're going to have a bowler who doesn't do all that much, then assuming they're equally reliable in terms of bowling tidily, you're going to pick the faster one 95% of the time.

If the conditions suggest that the ball is going to swing all over tha place, then Anderson could play at Jones's expense, but otherwise I don't really see the point of two swing bowlers in non-swinging conditions.

And there's no cure for the "here we go again" feeling with Flintoff's batting, as there wasn't with Botham's.

Cheers,

Mike
 

Langeveldt

Soutie
tooextracool said:
:rolleyes:
personally i agree with rich drop everyone bar lara,sarwan,best and edwards and start from scratch. get in some young untested players and go at em instead of those regular failures(gayle,hinds...r and w)but knowing the WI selectors they would probably recall w.hinds for their next series against bangladesh thinking that he was the solution to the catastrophe of the england series and he would cement a place in the side with 2 doubles aka chris gayle vs kenya. to think that on their tour to england we would see the same WI side:D
It would be a nice thought, but would an eleven such as the following (to use a rather crude example) give England any more problems at all?? I doubt it..

1. X Marshall
2. Devon Smith
3. B Lara
4. I Jan
5. R Sarwan
6. G Breese
7. O Banks
8. Untried wicketkeeper?
9. R Rampaul
10. T Best
11. F Edwards

To be honest, its like going from an out of form good side to a mediocre side altogether....
 

Arjun

Cricketer Of The Year
Sylvester and the Pink Panther are at every England Game I believe - think they may be police men IRL
Police? Away from England?
Trescothick - I think it's time for a break.
What about Andy Strauss? He was one name mentioned in a CricInfo as a replacement during SA's tour of England. Incidentally, after that mention, Trescothick got his double.
 

Swervy

International Captain
i would keep Trescothick in there to be honest.....if he can get a decent score in the next test, that would be a brilliant confidence boost for him for the summer. Drop him now and you are basically saying to him, you arent good enough....I think he is good enough to open for england, he just needs that confidence.
 

Top