*Official* England in West Indies

[Kweek]

Definitely one of the best.

how is a bowler with an average of 33 (since 2007!) one of the best fast bowlers in the world?

 

[ozone]

how is a bowler with an average of 33 (since 2007!) one of the best fast bowlers in the world?

D'oh.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Well Flintoff's arguably a better Test fielder because he's so good in the slips.

 

[Uppercut]

how is a bowler with an average of 33 (since 2007!) one of the best fast bowlers in the world?

Haha, noone thinks Jimmy's the best fast bowler in the world, they mean that out of the people who bowl fast, he's one of the best fielders.

I'd agree with Scaly above though, the slips is where it matters. But in terms of the whole picture, Jimmy's a great fielder.

 

[Kweek]

All fans in fact, is probably more accurate.

But what i meant was- who's the best fast-bowling fielder in the world if it's not Jimmy?

Dale Steyn? Jerome Taylor?

 

[four_or_six]

how is a bowler with an average of 33 (since 2007!) one of the best fast bowlers in the world?

The comment you posted from Cricinfo is talking about his fielding ability.

 

[Kweek]

forgot to read the word...fielder...shame on me! lol

 

[four_or_six]

tgin

 

[Kweek]

On the Stanford revelations, here's an email from Shawn that sheds light on the real issue. "This is another attempt by US and baseball lobby groups to prevent the "threat" of Cricket coming to USA or nearby countries," he froths. "They are doing everything at grass root levels to stop any Cricket organization in US coming up." Yes Shawn, that'd be it

haha

 

[four_or_six]

forgot to read the word...fielder...shame on me! lol

I see why you thought it was a bit mad then.

 

[Kweek]

lets just put it on, not enough sleep and long work day :')

 

[Neil Pickup]

forgot to read the word...fielder...shame on me! lol

Yes, that was why they used it in context along with "unusual" to describe his schoolboy misfield. Even Jimmy's mum wouldn't call him the best fast bowler in the world.

 

[Woodster]

No, i don't agree. There's a few things you clearly think have been odd, but I'll try to address them. Firstly, not bowling Stuart Broad immediately after lunch. Broad had bowled a spell immediately before lunch, and Strauss wanted him to be fully fresh before bowling him- seemed strange, but Broad took the big wicket when he did come on, justifying the decision- and almost took the other big wicket too. Secondly, bowling Paul Collingwood immediately after tea. Clearly he felt none of his fast bowlers were currently in good enough condition for a go, especially considering England are set to spend the rest of the match in the field. Colly didn't manage to keep it as tight as was expected, but the concept of getting slow bowlers on and hoping the batsmen take unnecessary chances while waiting for the new ball did. In fact, it came off absolutely perfectly.

The only really poor decision was regarding the field placings early in the day- especially to Powell. The big decisions, which I presume you were referring to, were questionable but certainly not "diabolical". And in both cases, they brought results. You can argue with results, as you often do, but it's a lot harder to. Strauss has had a bit of a golden arm this innings in that what he's tried has come off, but there was a lot of bad luck for the team early on too. And had all this happened with Vaughan captain, we'd all currently be singing his praises.

I would agree that Strauss has been far from diabolical. Perhaps an attempt at gaining a response from folk with a relatively outrageous statement from Richard. There are certain mitigating factors for why certain bowling changes were made, and that's just from what we know, there are probably other factors that we are unaware of. So very difficult to make such a statement on Strauss' captaincy performance based on that.

 

[Uppercut]

See virtually every dismissal this innings. On pitches this flat, wickets need to be gifted not taken.

And Gayle, Devon Smith, Chanderpaul, Sarwan and Ramdin have all done so. Taylor wasn't a million miles from doing there. All five played diabolical strokes and paid for it.

That said, all could have been out to good balls. There were quite a few that just missed the edge of pretty much every batsman.

 

[Kweek]

Yes, that was why they used it in context along with "unusual" to describe his schoolboy misfield. Even Jimmy's mum wouldn't call him the best fast bowler in the world.

fair point...fair point...


enjoyed your cricket drill video's btw :')

 

[Furball]

WTF did Harper see with Broad's lbw shout to Nash?

 

[Uppercut]

WTF did Harper see with Broad's lbw shout to Nash?

Pink elephants IMO.

 

[Richard]

It's funny, my first thought was missing leg with that one. Clearly wasn't any bat on it, but I did wonder at first whether it was missing leg. HawkEye obviously suggested not.

 

[Uppercut]

It's funny, my first thought was missing leg with that one. Clearly wasn't any bat on it, but I did wonder at first whether it was missing leg. HawkEye obviously suggested not.

He gave a run though. Because when the batsman pull away his right foot immediately and starts hopping around with pain, it's quite obvious that it hit his bat.

 

[Richard]

No, i don't agree. There's a few things you clearly think have been odd, but I'll try to address them. Firstly, not bowling Stuart Broad immediately after lunch. Broad had bowled a spell immediately before lunch, and Strauss wanted him to be fully fresh before bowling him- seemed strange, but Broad took the big wicket when he did come on, justifying the decision- and almost took the other big wicket too. Secondly, bowling Paul Collingwood immediately after tea. Clearly he felt none of his fast bowlers were currently in good enough condition for a go, especially considering England are set to spend the rest of the match in the field. Colly didn't manage to keep it as tight as was expected, but the concept of getting slow bowlers on and hoping the batsmen take unnecessary chances while waiting for the new ball did. In fact, it came off absolutely perfectly.

The only really poor decision was regarding the field placings early in the day- especially to Powell. The big decisions, which I presume you were referring to, were questionable but certainly not "diabolical". And in both cases, they brought results. You can argue with results, as you often do, but it's a lot harder to. Strauss has had a bit of a golden arm this innings in that what he's tried has come off, but there was a lot of bad luck for the team early on too. And had all this happened with Vaughan captain, we'd all currently be singing his praises.

You could argue each of those things, but I'm really not sure I would. Perhaps diabolical is too strong a word, but I still think Strauss' captaincy has been poor and if West Indies' batsmen hadn't made so many errors I think people'd be criticising his captaincy come the end of the day, and now won't be because West Indies' batsmen's errors have let him and the team off the hook.