• 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

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
garage flower said:
Given the form of Vaughan and Trescothick - Antigua not withstanding - that also looks like a shaky batting line-up.

It strikes me as bizarre that Jones replaced Read for the tests because his batting was better, but then Read returns for the 1-dayers to potentially bat at 7 in a side that again seems to lack batting depth.

Read's glove skills I guess.

My team wasn't far off to be fair - I didn't expect Harmison to play over Anderson, but can see the logic, and also thought they'd play a left arm spinner, but they didn't...
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
SpaceMonkey said:
I can see why Read won it....but chanderpaul scored like 3x more than ANY other batsmen in the entire game and paced his innings perfectly

Yes, 10 off 50 balls is great pacing!
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
Tim said:
Sounds like England almost snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

Other way round I reckon.

Aside from the first 15 overs, WI were in control and needing 20 off 10 with Read and the bowlers they should never have lost it.
 

luckyeddie

Cricket Web Staff Member
Well, they pulled that one out of the fire thanks to the guy they've discarded from the test team because he can't bat.

Funny old game, isn't it?

I hate having 4 'bits and pieces' players in the middle order - absolutely screaming out for Butcher and Thorpe.
 

badgerhair

U19 Vice-Captain
All this stuff about Butcher and Thorpe: Thorpe has officially retired from one-day cricket, and do you really see Butcher as part of the 2007 World Cup team? They're only interested in picking people they see as candidates for that tournament, so there's no point in lamenting the absence of people who wouldn't be there ever.

Cheers,

Mike
 

SpaceMonkey

International Debutant
marc71178 said:
Read's glove skills I guess.

My team wasn't far off to be fair - I didn't expect Harmison to play over Anderson, but can see the logic, and also thought they'd play a left arm spinner, but they didn't...
Ian Blackwell is a left arm spinner!
 

luckyeddie

Cricket Web Staff Member
badgerhair said:
All this stuff about Butcher and Thorpe: Thorpe has officially retired from one-day cricket, and do you really see Butcher as part of the 2007 World Cup team? They're only interested in picking people they see as candidates for that tournament, so there's no point in lamenting the absence of people who wouldn't be there ever.

Cheers,

Mike
It seems we're having the same conversation in two threads, and as you chewed me out in both, I'll have a go back. (just kidding).

I am not advocating the selection of Butcher and Thorpe - just thinking that a line-up going in 4-7 of Flintoff, Collingwood, Blackwell and Clarke is utter nonsense and the situation was just crying out for an old head. Instead, we got a bunch of wafts across the line.

Those 4 together will never, I suspect, appear together in the same test team in the next year or two because it's a lineup with little experience and no sense of responsibility.

Are they likely to improve by playing together as a unit? Possibly, but it strikes me as though the players concerned have been left in a 'sink or swim' situation.

I have no objection to any or all of them being selected - just not all of them at the same time at the moment.

Look at England's line-up today, for goodness sake. Three openers because either one of England's opening pair are going to be blown away in the first couple of overs, then four all-rounders, then a wicket-keeper whom THE SELECTORS (not me) think cannot bat, then three main-line bowlers.
 

badgerhair

U19 Vice-Captain
luckyeddie said:
It seems we're having the same conversation in two threads, and as you chewed me out in both, I'll have a go back. (just kidding).
I'm arguing robustly. :p

I am not advocating the selection of Butcher and Thorpe - just thinking that a line-up going in 4-7 of Flintoff, Collingwood, Blackwell and Clarke is utter nonsense and the situation was just crying out for an old head. Instead, we got a bunch of wafts across the line.

Those 4 together will never, I suspect, appear together in the same test team in the next year or two because it's a lineup with little experience and no sense of responsibility.
No, those four won't appear in a Test team unless something odd happens with Blackwell - who is definitely a one-day specialist.

But if you think that you won't see Flintoff, Clarke and Collingwood in the same Test team, I think you're wrong. If Thorpe were to pick up an injury, you could see it before the end of the summer.

Cheers,

Mike
 

Magrat Garlick

Global Moderator
Still think England were a bit lucky. According to radio reports, anyway, that first six from Read went about a metre over Dillon's head - had it been shorter, or had Dillon jumped a bit, it could have been 19 to get off 9 balls with Goughie and Harmy in...
 

tooextracool

International Coach
PY said:
By the sounds of things, it was just very very slow with the odd ball which stayed rather low.

Plus, because of the rain, the groundstaff were unable to cut the outfield which left it a tad long according to the radio.

People watching might be able to give a more accurate description.

Though we did have a collapse at the end, just glad someone stood up and was counted, bit worrying that it took the 6th and 8th batsman to whack the ball out the ground but still.......I'm a happy Englishman tonight. (I'm easily pleased :))
it wasnt all that slow. there was plenty of movement with the new ball and it was very difficult to get runs of good length deliveries.flintoff and gough bowled superbly at the start but there were others who came in bowled wides and full length deliveries(harmison) that let chanderpaul of the hook.there was a bit of uneven bounce but for me it would have been a pretty good test wicket
 

tooextracool

International Coach
marc71178 said:
Read's glove skills I guess.

My team wasn't far off to be fair - I didn't expect Harmison to play over Anderson, but can see the logic, and also thought they'd play a left arm spinner, but they didn't...

no read was not picked for his glove skills but because of that match winning partnership with tresco against pakistan in the natwest challenge.
and what do u think blackwell bowls?
 

tooextracool

International Coach
Samuel_Vimes said:
Still think England were a bit lucky. According to radio reports, anyway, that first six from Read went about a metre over Dillon's head - had it been shorter, or had Dillon jumped a bit, it could have been 19 to get off 9 balls with Goughie and Harmy in...
and if chanderpauls bat had been half an inch closer to some of those balls that went past the edge in the first few overs WI would have been about 30/4. it all adds up
 

Lions81

U19 Cricketer
tooextracool said:
and if chanderpauls bat had been half an inch closer to some of those balls that went past the edge in the first few overs WI would have been about 30/4. it all adds up
Yeah I agree with you. If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, well whatever, you get my point. Things could have happened, but they happened as they did, so there's no real point in playing these what-if scenarios, except for fun. West Indies lost because Collymore bowled three really bad balls, plain and simple.
 

garage flower

State Vice-Captain
Tim said:
You obviously didn't spot the sarcasm.
But the way I read it Marc's sarcastic post is suggesting that Chanderpaul's pacing was poor, whereas tooextracool - noticing the sarcasm - is suggesting it was pretty good in the context of the game.

Could be wrong though.
 

luckyeddie

Cricket Web Staff Member
garage flower said:
But the way I read it Marc's sarcastic post is suggesting that Chanderpaul's pacing was poor, whereas tooextracool - noticing the sarcasm - is suggesting it was pretty good in the context of the game.

Could be wrong though.
We have to make allowances for the language barrier here

(now THAT's sarcasm)
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
SpaceMonkey said:
Ian Blackwell is a left arm spinner!
I knew someone would point that out, but it appears they decided the pitch wouldn't need a spinner (he didn't bowl!) and his batting is preferable to that of any of the other reserves!
 

Top