**Official** England in The West Indies

[Lions81]

hahaha..no way..WI played too well to lose the match???...as far as I can tell,England probably played that bit better, well better by a margin of a few balls. The better team won.

Yeah, when you start 24/3 or 29/3, whatever it was, you don't deserve to win. And after I said all those good things about Gayle, he makes me look like an idiot.

 

[roseboy64]

I agree that he really only bowled one bad over, but cricket is a harsh game, and he will be dropped for the next match.

Noting the WI selection policy recently he won't be dropped.Only like a 5% chance that he will be at best.

 

[Swervy]

Yeah, when you start 24/3 or 29/3, whatever it was, you don't deserve to win. And after I said all those good things about Gayle, he makes me look like an idiot.

the game was close enough to say that if WI had have won, they would have deserved to win...but England did what they had to do, and yeah they had to rely on Read..but then again WI had to rely on Chanderpaul in a lot bigger way

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Yeah, when you start 24/3 or 29/3, whatever it was, you don't deserve to win. And after I said all those good things about Gayle, he makes me look like an idiot.

When you fight back from 25/3 in 10 to get to 156/5 in 30, then bowl well enough to restrict your opposition to 136/7 in 28 overs, you've played very well and well enough to win barring that one over.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

hahaha..no way..WI played too well to lose the match???...as far as I can tell,England probably played that bit better, well better by a margin of a few balls. The better team won.

State where my statement was false.

The West Indies batted well to recover from early loss on a pitch that was not easy to time the ball on. They then bowled well and fielded very well to keep themselves on top for a fair while.

 

[Swervy]

State where my statement was false.

The West Indies batted well to recover from early loss on a pitch that was not easy to time the ball on. They then bowled well and fielded very well to keep themselves on top for a fair while.

the game is played by two teams....one team plays too well to lose (WI)and do lose,and the other team playes too well to lose (England).....and they dont lose they win.

My point is England played better on the day. By saying WI played too well to lose (despite them losing) then that suggests that they actually played as well as they could possible do so, coz England certainly didnt (batting wise anyway)

WI relied a hell of a lot on a 13 over blast by Chanderpaul....England were probably steadier whilst batting(although a couple of rash shots put them in trouble)..and Englands batting depth paid off.WI were probably teetering on the edge of getting wiped out for 110 or so.

I think the batting depth will probably decide this series

 

[roseboy64]

I think the batting depth will probably decide this series

If that's so then the WI have an equal chance of winning the series with the return of BCL and some better umpiring( Sarwan).Oh yeah someone said that WI are in the lower half of the ODI table well, so are England. England=7/ WI=8

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

the game is played by two teams....one team plays too well to lose (WI)and do lose,and the other team playes too well to lose (England).....and they dont lose they win.

My point is England played better on the day. By saying WI played too well to lose (despite them losing) then that suggests that they actually played as well as they could possible do so, coz England certainly didnt (batting wise anyway)

WI relied a hell of a lot on a 13 over blast by Chanderpaul....England were probably steadier whilst batting(although a couple of rash shots put them in trouble)..and Englands batting depth paid off.WI were probably teetering on the edge of getting wiped out for 110 or so.

I think the batting depth will probably decide this series

It's highly debateable as to what the other batsmen would have done had Chanderpaul continued to score slowly. Dwayne Bravo is a good aggressive batsman and Ridley Jacobs and Sylvester Joseph aren't the worst.

Regarding the better team on the day, I once again say that Collymore's horrible over allowed England to win. Granted he bowled well earlier, he still bowled a rubbish length in that over.

 

[Swervy]

If that's so then the WI have an equal chance of winning the series with the return of BCL and some better umpiring( Sarwan).Oh yeah someone said that WI are in the lower half of the ODI table well, so are England. England=7/ WI=8

erm...England are 5th in the ICC rankings..and if they do win this series 7-0 (which I dont think they will), I think England would jump to second

 

[Swervy]

It's highly debateable as to what the other batsmen would have done had Chanderpaul continued to score slowly. Dwayne Bravo is a good aggressive batsman and Ridley Jacobs and Sylvester Joseph aren't the worst.

Regarding the better team on the day, I once again say that Collymore's horrible over allowed England to win. Granted he bowled well earlier, he still bowled a rubbish length in that over.

well if we got rid of the one really bad over each team had then Collingwoods over would go as well and England would still have won.

But of course, even the bad overs do determine the results of the game,and the WI's had one too many bad overs to win the game

 

[roseboy64]

erm...England are 5th in the ICC rankings..and if they do win this series 7-0 (which I dont think they will), I think England would jump to second

Sorry about that I meant before the start of the series.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

well if we got rid of the one really bad over each team had then Collingwoods over would go as well and England would still have won.

But of course, even the bad overs do determine the results of the game,and the WI's had one too many bad overs to win the game

Collingwood's over was not whist chasing 21 runs from 2 overs with 3 wickets in hand. Big big difference.

Also, I don't know how you have the impression that England bowled so much better than the West Indies, or that the West Indies bowled poorly.

 

[Swervy]

Collingwood's over was not whist chasing 21 runs from 2 overs with 3 wickets in hand. Big big difference.

Also, I don't know how you have the impression that England bowled so much better than the West Indies, or that the West Indies bowled poorly.

i dont think WI's did bowl poorly,apart from Collymore..but I think England did bowl slightly better...its just that Chanderpaul played brilliantly.

So what do you think is the reason why England won the game????

Will anyone give England some credit for the win????

 

[a massive zebra]

Will anyone give England some credit for the win????

You

 

[roseboy64]

Sorry can't be done.The WI bowled poorly in one over which gave England the "win".

 

[Swervy]

You

yeah and I am Australian

 

[Swervy]

Sorry can't be done.The WI bowled poorly in one over which gave England the "win".

so you think one over in 60 in the game lost it for WI...not a culmination of events in several other overs...like Flintoff taking two wickets for no runs in the 10th over,or 5 wides in 2 overs by Collymore,or Read's six against Collymore a bit earlier which put some pressure on WI when it looked like they would win,etc.

England deserved the win,WI were restricted brilliantly in the first 15 overs and they obviuosly left it too late to accelerate..and the reason for that is good bowling putting pressure on WI batters, if they hit out earlier they could well have lost quick wickets.

Everything in a game counts towards the result, not just some great hitting vs average bowling in the second last over

 

[Neil Pickup]

Quick reminder.

ODI Cricket = team game over a limited number of overs. Team with most runs wins.

England won. Period.

 

[Lions81]

Sorry can't be done.The WI bowled poorly in one over which gave England the "win".

Okay, that may be the case, but the West Indies lost. That is to say, they did not win. You can't say a team played "too well to lose" if they lost. Then they by definition did not play too well to lose. They played just well enough to lose but to make some feel like they could have won. But they didn't win. That's the key element here.

 

[luckyeddie]

Sorry can't be done.The WI bowled poorly in one over which gave England the "win".

er, what?

Did the West Indies outplay England for 29/30?

I bet you want a recount in the test matches too.