*Official* England in West Indies

[steds]

Depends who they have playing for them. In the days of Hoggy and Jones and Trescothick, cheering for England was the natural response. In this dark era of Ian Bell and Jimmy Anderson, I'd probably have them behind South Africa and Sri Lanka.

It appears you're slightly confused as to which one is the heroic Lancastrian and which is the good for nothing frog.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

ICL.

He was way out of contention well before that. That's why he joined the ICL.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Read's problem was that people thought (and some still think) that he's some sort of super hero behind the stumps, when he's decent-good.

He wasn't in the 2004 XI btw. It was Geraint.

Bit of both. Read played in the first three tests & was then dumped for Geraint to fill his boots (comparitively speaking) on the Antiguan road.

 

[steds]

Bit of both. Read played in the first three tests & was then dumped for Geraint to fill his boots (comparitively speaking) on the Antiguan road.

Oh crap yeah. The home series in the same year brainwashed me.

 

[Pothas]

Bit of both. Read played in the first three tests & was then dumped for Geraint to fill his boots (comparitively speaking) on the Antiguan road.

Then went on to make a home century and never looked back.....

 

[Jamee999]

Pfft. I reckon only KP of the newbies would get in ahead of the 2004 XI.

Strauss ahead of Butcher, surely.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Strauss ahead of Butcher, surely.

As like-for-like, yeah, but was comparing Strauss to the '04 openers. Strauss for Butcher with Mick to 3 I'd have no issue with tho.

Would take Butch ahead of Bell in a flash.

 

[Uppercut]

It appears you're slightly confused as to which one is the heroic Lancastrian and which is the good for nothing frog.

I'm comfortable enough with my hatred of Leeds to admit i like Hoggy better.

 

[Jigga988]

Chattergoon is a better opener than he has looked recently. He had a really rough year in general with injuries.

My point regarding Bravo is because he's a genuine building block for the future. The other two aren't as secure in the future of West Indies cricket. With that in mind, and building (hopefully) toward a proper Test outfit, Bravo isn't a worthy top 6 player. In the context of Test cricket, not West Indies cricket. If we focus on making Bravo into a top 6 player at this stage, we will be missing the point as to the real gaps in the batting lineup. West Indies needs to uncover batsmen worthy of batting in the top and middle order of a Test lineup. We can't settle for nextbestthing or else we'll be forever doomed to sub-mediocrity.

Besides, the way Xavier Marshall batted against Australia, he was more than worthy of a top 3 spot. I know, I know, he hasn't done it since...

I can understand where you are coming from but the floor in the argument comes from the fact that if Bravo were to bat at 6 that wouldn't be settling for 'sub-mediocrity.' Bravo is a talented guy with the bat and i would probobly ATM rate his batting ahead of Chatergoon and Marshall. I dont see why batting an all-rounder at 6 prohibits the growth of a side, England do it with Freddy and Australia do it with Watson and Roy. If it is what is currently best for the team then why not let it happen.

Besides Bravo has been unlucky a hell of a lot in his last couple test series. I remember when he was going well on 70 odd against Sri Lanka and was given out wrongfully, (at least I think) and against the Aussies there was a catalogue of poor decisions, also; it's worth noting that he looked to have found some much needed maturity in that series as well.

I think putting Bravo at 6 is a move forward, if Chatergoon perfoms in FC cricket this year then maybe there is a case to bring him in and drop Bravo down, but barath is also in contention of that too. I wouldn't mind seeing a batting order consisting of:

Gayle
Marshall
Sarwan
Chanders
Nash
Bravo
Ramdin (hopefully and in form Ramdin)

It might leave us a little short if Ramdin plays like he did against NZ but there's enough talent and batting there to pose a threat to most sides.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I dont see why batting an all-rounder at 6 prohibits the growth of a side, England do it with Freddy and Australia do it with Watson and Roy.

There has long been debate as to whether Flintoff is good enough to bat at 6. Many don't believe he is. And as for Symonds, he's hardly an allrounder in my eyes. Just a batsman who bowls a bit, and until recently he'd be picked for his batting alone. That's a very different situation. Watson doesn't really help your argument either, given his paltry Test performances to date.

Besides Bravo has been unlucky a hell of a lot in his last couple test series. I remember when he was going well on 70 odd against Sri Lanka and was given out wrongfully, (at least I think) and against the Aussies there was a catalogue of poor decisions, also; it's worth noting that he looked to have found some much needed maturity in that series as well.

All batsmen get poor decisions. The problem with Bravo is that he too often gets starts and then plays ambitious or poor shots to give his hand away.

I think putting Bravo at 6 is a move forward, if Chatergoon perfoms in FC cricket this year then maybe there is a case to bring him in and drop Bravo down, but barath is also in contention of that too. I wouldn't mind seeing a batting order consisting of:

And I think putting Bravo at 6 presents a very long tail.

 

[roseboy64]

Kallis much? Theoretically an allrounder of Bravo's ability should be able to bat at 3 in future.

Should but I wouldn't want him at 3. Think it's too much ask of an allrounder or wicketkeeper to bat so early in the innings.

The point being that he's high on confidence and bowling well in general now. As such, given the limited resources of West Indies cricket, he has to play ODI cricket. I'd also expect him to make to a bigger impact than Darren Sammy in almost any given set of conditions.
In the right conditions Sammy can keep things tight, but given his lack of pace he's also likely to be targeted for aggressive play. He does nothing significant with the ball either. Edwards, on the other hand, has a good yorker, good pace, can swing the ball. Both are likely to go for runs more often than not, but Edwards is infinitely more likely to take wickets.

You're right about Edwards doing more potentially but against Australia, Sammy was our most economical bowler. Edwards' ODI form hasn't matched his Test form in recent so I don't think he should be in for ODIs unless his OD form picks up. Saying that though, sammy wasn't too flash in the WICB Cup.

I feel the same about Pollard as I felt about Ganga, Xavier Marshall, Dw Smith and Powell. They're risking ruining him by playing him at this stage in his career.

Considering how he got out last night I might just agree with you. Marshall definitely picked too young though.

Well you did say that like Findlay Pollard should be given a chance because he appears tohave the qualities needed. It seems a straightforward implication. My apologies for misunderstanding you.

No I meant that like Pollard he should be given a run of games.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

On the whole I'd rather Morton in the team while these young players learn their trade at a lower level. Morton is more likely to contribute to West Indies, so he's a fitting placeholder for better talents to mature and replace.

 

[wpdavid]

Pfft. I reckon only KP of the newbies would get in ahead of the 2004 XI.

I reckon that:
Strauss > Trescothick during winter of 2003/04
Vaughan > Cook (not that Vaughan did a thing in the live tests in the WI)
Butcher > Bell
KP > Hussain
Thorpe > Collingwood
Fred (2008) > Fred (2004)
Prior > Read (in terms of batting, obv)
Hoggard > Anderson
Harmison (2004) > Harmison (2008)
Sidebottom > Jones (at that stage) > Broad
Not sure how I'd call the spinner, tbh. IIRC Giles was an irrelevance, apart from a couple of handy wickets of the 1st day of the 1st test.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Just felt bored and like proving him wrong about the ability bowl out teams..

Except you didn't, WI could pick any attack and they'd struggle to bowl teams out just as much as the attack that was being rubbished.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

The man speaks the truth, with his in-depth knowledge of West Indies domestic cricket.

 

[Athlai]

Edwards + Taylor = better than Anderson + Harmison

The only English seamers better than those two are Flintoff and Sidebottom.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Edwards + Taylor = better than Anderson + Harmison

The only English seamers better than those two are Flintoff and Sidebottom.

Because a guy who's just gotten his average below 40 and a guy who averages 35 are great. You don't get bonus points for being fast unfortunately, someone should tell the WI selectors that.

WI's bowling attack of the past few years basically consists of Taylor + ****e. And Taylor's not that good in the first place.

 

[Athlai]

Because a guy who's just gotten his average below 40 and a guy who averages 35 are great. You don't get bonus points for being fast unfortunately, someone should tell the WI selectors that.

WI's bowling attack of the past few years basically consists of Taylor + ****e. And Taylor's not that good in the first place.

No denying that Taylor and Edwards were **** to begin in a country that let them play when they weren't ready but both now are very good bowlers.

Past year bowling stats for England and WI

Out of English bowlers only Sidebottom averages better than Edwards, and only Anderson and Sidebottom average better than Taylor.

 

[aussie]

Looking at West Indies pace bowling fragilty behind Taylor & Edwards, with Collins likely not to play again.

My memory immediately comes back to Antiguan & Bajan born players catching the eyes of many over here last summer in Robbie Joseph & Chris Jordan. Potentially massive losses no doubt.

 

[GIMH]

I reckon that:
Strauss > Trescothick during winter of 2003/04
Vaughan > Cook (not that Vaughan did a thing in the live tests in the WI)
Butcher > Bell
KP > Hussain
Thorpe > Collingwood
Fred (2008) > Fred (2004)
Prior > Read (in terms of batting, obv)
Hoggard > Anderson
Harmison (2004) > Harmison (2008)
Sidebottom > Jones (at that stage) > Broad
Not sure how I'd call the spinner, tbh. IIRC Giles was an irrelevance, apart from a couple of handy wickets of the 1st day of the 1st test.

Hmm, can't see how Freddie is better now, as he hasn't had much chance to show where he's at since his return, and certainly hasn't scored many runs