**Official** West Indies in England Thread

[tooextracool]

Are you not watching the game? Lara and Bravo gone to Giles and Jacobs gone to Hoggard. It's not exactly easy sailing atm.

lara decided to go after giles, which IMO was a big mistake. hes the best player of spin yes we all know that but the fact is that he came down the track,didnt get to the pitch of the ball and it ended up knocking middle stump out.
obviously england have had the better of the conditions, but if you apply yourself like hussain and strauss did at lords last time it isnt very easy to pick up wickets either.

 

[Craig]

Then you have no reason to criticise Banks' bowling. Figures wise it isn't brilliant, but if you flight it, drift it, spin it, and bowl with reasonable accuracy as he did in the second innings, you're not doing badly.

But I never once said how much or how little I have seen of this Test?

And besides the highlights/full replay is on the next day at a more godly hour if I miss anything.

 

[Tom Halsey]

2-131 off 22 overs, and 0-92 off 26 overs is not great bowling. Saying otherwise is nonsense.

Bowling is not all about figures. You are clearly blinkered.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Like I say the only thing that will make sure he is in the team for the second Test will be of his batting.

2-131 off 22 overs, and 0-92 off 26 overs is not great bowling. Saying otherwise is nonsense.

When you're not getting help and bowling to good in-form batsmen, I think you're being far too harsh. England is not a spinner's paradise by any means.

And before you coment on Banks flighting the ball etc. then I think bowlers should show some more variation by bowling a little flatter if it would work and there is nothing wrong with trying, or an arm-ball etc

Now I know you didn't watch the cricket. Banks bowled his arm a few times in the second innings and beat the bat a couple of times with it. By flighting the ball he looked like potentially breaking through at times.

 

[Craig]

So if a bowler conceded 67 off ten overs, but was moving the ball but wasn't that accurate would you still have an excuse for him?

 

[tooextracool]

is simon jones is injured? i dont really understand why he hasnt been given the ball yet.....

 

[Tom Halsey]

It was not a beast of a ball for the simple reason that if Lara had stayed where he was it is extremely unlikely he would not have been dismissed or even troubled. A 'beast of a ball' is one that is so good that it would have gotten the batsman out if he had played at least reasonable shot, not a horrible shot through the covers. As I said, you have a lot to learn.

In that case, a beast of a ball hardly exists. Even Jones' wicket on the third day could easily have been left outside off.

It was, however, undeniably a very very good ball. I assume you aren't denying that?

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

obviously england have had the better of the conditions, but if you apply yourself like hussain and strauss did at lords last time it isnt very easy to pick up wickets either.

I'd disagree with that. It's especially different for the right-handers facing Giles on this pitch. You can apply yourself yes, but eventually you'll get a spitter and likely will fall at that point.

 

[Craig]

Now I know you didn't watch the cricket. Banks bowled his arm a few times in the second innings and beat the bat a couple of times with it. By flighting the ball he looked like potentially breaking through at times.

Caught some of it when Flintoff and Vauhan wee ushing the score along for a declaration.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

In that case, a beast of a ball hardly exists. Even Jones' wicket on the third day could easily have been left outside off.

It was, however, undeniably a very very good ball. I assume you aren't denying that?

It was very good bowling and a good ball, not a very very good ball.

Yes, the reason why it's called a 'beast of a ball' is because it isn't an everyday commodity.

 

[Tom Halsey]

So if a bowler conceded 67 off ten overs, but was moving the ball but wasn't that accurate would you still have an excuse for him?

The problem with that is that Banks was at least showing some kind of accuracy. He was actually bowling very accurately in the second innings.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

So if a bowler conceded 67 off ten overs, but was moving the ball but wasn't that accurate would you still have an excuse for him?

Yes, ok, we agree he bowled poorly in the first innings! Get off it! The discussion is that he came back very well in the 2nd, when he bowled accurately and well. Statistics don't say everything.

 

[Craig]

is simon jones is injured? i dont really understand why he hasnt been given the ball yet.....

Maybe because Giles, Harmison, and Hoggard in Vaughans eyeshat they ar bowling well?

 

[Tom Halsey]

It was very good bowling and a good ball, not a very very good ball.

I still think you're being harsh there. That is the kind of wicket that all finger spinners strive for.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Caught some of it when Flintoff and Vauhan wee ushing the score along for a declaration.

Oh well that's clearly the best time to judge a bowler...

Craig, common sense would dictate that a bowler would be expensive when batsmen like Flintoff and Vaughan look to play aggressively. No one is claiming Banks to be Murali or even Saqlain, but he bowled well enough IMO to get a second Test place.

 

[Craig]

Yes, ok, we agree he bowled poorly in the first innings! Get off it! The discussion is that he came back very well in the 2nd, when he bowled accurately and well. Statistics don't say everything.

3.53 an over.

Define wha you call accurate?

 

[Tom Halsey]

Caught some of it when Flintoff and Vauhan wee ushing the score along for a declaration.

?!?!

Of course he's going to be expensive at a time like that!

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I still think you're being harsh there. That is the kind of wicket that all finger spinners strive for.

It was good tactics and bowling by Giles to get it there and tempt Lara. However, you're exaggerating the brilliance of the ball itself. Had Lara stayed where he was, 99.9% of the time he'd have had no difficulties defending it.

The fact that Giles persisted with that line and length is testament to very good bowling. The ball itself was good, but not extraordinary. When a ball pitches in such significant rough, it's going to spin a fair way if the bowler gives it any significant tweak.

 

[Tom Halsey]

3.53 an over.

Define wha you call accurate?

Bowling in the right place 6 times an over. Not going for 2 an over!

You are going to take some convincing aren't you? Bowling isn't all about statistics.

 

[Craig]

Oh well that's clearly the best time to judge a bowler...

Craig, common sense would dictate that a bowler would be expensive when batsmen like Flintoff and Vaughan look to play aggressively. No one is claiming Banks to be Murali or even Saqlain, but he bowled well enough IMO to get a second Test place.

Well IMO it would be a joke if Collymore didn't play in the second Test in place of Fidel Edwards, and it will depend if Best will be fit or not which would allow Banks to play.