**Official** West Indies in England Thread

[roseboy64]

Chanderpaul missed out on a hundred.Once again WI batting wilts in the second innings.

 

[Arjun]

With Robert Key's first innings double, the selectors have another option for the top six now, don't they? I have seen the whole innings and he has batted like a professional. Not much to complain about, but what if Mark Butcher returns?

Michael Vaughan's two centuries in this Test have also played a role in taking England close to victory. One cannot forget Strauss, whose hundred, along with a significant role in the partnership with Key had put England in command on Day 1. Flintoff missed out first, but made up in the second innings, with that blistering 58 in 42. The selection of the top 6 for the next match will need some thinking, though 4 batsmen are more or less automatic choices.

The bowling was decent, dominated by a bowler whom nobody wanted in the side for a long time- one just has to remember the question, "What is the point in Ashley Giles?" He deserved those 5 wickets in the second innings. The seamers were unlucky, but they had little help from a bad pitch. Flintoff is struggling to stay fit, but he can clean the tail quite well. Definitely one to use in short spells.

The biggest disappintments have been Jones and Harmison, the fastest bowlers in this team. Jones has not had a decent series for a long time and may find it tough staying in the side, though at his best, he is a very dangerous bowler, as shown in his debut Test and the Trinidad Test where he took 5. Will he return to top form? Will he even stay in the side?

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

News is that Mark Butcher will miss the 2nd Test with housework-related injury.

Brilliance from Chanderpaul. Pity he didn't get his hundred. Still, 328 runs unbeaten on the trot...

 

[SpaceMonkey]

News is that Mark Butcher will miss the 2nd Test with housework-related injury.

Brilliance from Chanderpaul. Pity he didn't get his hundred. Still, 328 runs unbeaten on the trot...

If you dont count the first ball of his 2nd innings

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Must say, nice sledging from Freddy.

"Mind the windows Tino"

Hook. Line. Sinker.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

If you dont count the first ball of his 2nd innings

I don't think it was his first ball. Besides, he wasn't given out, so by the rules of the game he wasn't out. It works the other way too.

 

[Richard Jenkins]

Ashley Giles MOTM.

 

[Adamc]

Great performance from Giles, important that he (and England) don't get too carried away on the basis of one match though. Lesser bowlers have done better against the West Indies - think Michael Bevan. Giles certainly looks more comfortable against a predominately left-handed lineup.
Great knock from Chanderpaul, he really has been the West Indies' quiet achiever in the last two or three years or so. Since April 2002 he has scored 2,147 runs at 55.05, with more centuries than Lara. Three more runs would have taken him to his third consecutive unbeaten century - 326 runs since he was last dismissed (101*, 128*, 97*).
West Indies bowling wasn't the best, certainly wasn't suited to this pitch with the exception of Collins, and the inexperience was manifest. Nonetheless there were some good spells, but they were let down by terrible fielding, especially in the second innings. A lot to work on.

 

[Swervy]

With Robert Key's first innings double, the selectors have another option for the top six now, don't they? I have seen the whole innings and he has batted like a professional. Not much to complain about, but what if Mark Butcher returns?

Michael Vaughan's two centuries in this Test have also played a role in taking England close to victory. One cannot forget Strauss, whose hundred, along with a significant role in the partnership with Key had put England in command on Day 1. Flintoff missed out first, but made up in the second innings, with that blistering 58 in 42. The selection of the top 6 for the next match will need some thinking, though 4 batsmen are more or less automatic choices.

The bowling was decent, dominated by a bowler whom nobody wanted in the side for a long time- one just has to remember the question, "What is the point in Ashley Giles?" He deserved those 5 wickets in the second innings. The seamers were unlucky, but they had little help from a bad pitch. Flintoff is struggling to stay fit, but he can clean the tail quite well. Definitely one to use in short spells.

The biggest disappintments have been Jones and Harmison, the fastest bowlers in this team. Jones has not had a decent series for a long time and may find it tough staying in the side, though at his best, he is a very dangerous bowler, as shown in his debut Test and the Trinidad Test where he took 5. Will he return to top form? Will he even stay in the side?

Ok..Jones wasnt at peak performance, he was generally bowling at 82mph when he can easily bowl in the low 90's, his rhythm wasnt there, but he should still play on Thursday.

harmison bowled well...just because he didnt he didnt take his usual haul of wickets doesnt mean he didnt bowl well, the wicket was placid.

I would say the team will be unchanged for the 2nd test.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Chanderpaul stands tall as Windies wilts

 

[Adamc]

Somewhat heartening that Collins and Edwards were able to stay with Chanderpaul so long, survived 62 balls between them. I don't see why they don't attempt that more often: they are not going to make any significant runs anyway, so it makes sense to stay in as long as possible and allow the experienced batsman to score runs, however slowly.

 

[Revelation]

Adamc, i don't know where you get your stats from but since the beginning of 2002 (WI vs NZ, Jun 21 2002)[before this match]:

Chanderpaul: 1259 runs @ 40.61 with 5 100s and 4 50s
Lara: 2407 runs @ 72.93 with 8 100s and 8 50s.

 

[badgerhair]

Ok..Jones wasnt at peak performance, he was generally bowling at 82mph when he can easily bowl in the low 90's, his rhythm wasnt there, but he should still play on Thursday.

harmison bowled well...just because he didnt he didnt take his usual haul of wickets doesnt mean he didnt bowl well, the wicket was placid.

I would say the team will be unchanged for the 2nd test.

It turns out that Collins hit Jones the Ball on the toe when he was batting, so he has been bowling and fielding with a swollen toe all match. This probably accounts for some of the low quality of his bowling in this game, and probably also means that the door will open for Anderson at Edgbaston.

Jones the Glove has also been dreadful behind the stumps, although he has not admitted to any explicatory injury, and it may well be that he's just the worst keeper England have picked since Geoff Humpage.

Cheers,

Mike

 

[badgerhair]

That sums up the ridiculous nature of your argument. Statistics do not equate accuracy. Accuracy can not be quantified as such. It's not quite so simple. There have been many times in the history of the game when accurate bowlers have been expensive. Many many times. For example, Collins bowled pretty accurately in his second to last spell of the England 2nd innings. He was hit by Vaughan for 4 fours in his only over of the spell, despite getting the ball on a decent length and middle and offstump line.

Besides, the England run rate was 4.23, so Banks' economy of 3.53 wasn't that bad ey?

There is an almost infallible rule that when someone counters a value judgment with "How can you possibly say that? Just look at these stats!", the value judgment is absolutely spot on.

Banks did bowl well in the second innings, without reward, just as on another day Harmison will bowl a lot worse than he did in this match and will take ten wickets. Over a long period of time, the days when you bowl badly but take wickets tend to balance out the days when you bowl superbly but take no wickets and concede a lot of fours off inside edges to fine leg.

"Oh, Mary!", as Agnew called him in one commentary stint, is a very good prospect for WI in my opinion. I think you're being a tad over-complimentary to him, but given the silliness of the comments you're arguing with, it's entirely understandable.

Cheers,

Mike

 

[Dick Rockett]

Disappointed with the MOTM. Given the circumstances that he had to bat in, I reckon Chanderpaul should have got the nod.

Can't say Giles deserved it - two 1st innings wickets were to dodgy decisions and the fourth was the #11. As for the second innings, all he had to do was aim at the rough. The ball that got Lara looked like it kept lower than he expected, Bravo played a terrible shot and the less said about Tino Best the better.

Just in case you're wondering, no I don't rate Giles - even Rod Latham managed a 5-for once! ;-)

 

[marc71178]

News is that Mark Butcher will miss the 2nd Test with housework-related injury.

Picking up a box I believe.

 

[marc71178]

I don't think it was his first ball. Besides, he wasn't given out, so by the rules of the game he wasn't out. It works the other way too.

But you won't hear so many mumblings from the West Indians about it!

 

[Swervy]

Disappointed with the MOTM. Given the circumstances that he had to bat in, I reckon Chanderpaul should have got the nod.

Can't say Giles deserved it - two 1st innings wickets were to dodgy decisions and the fourth was the #11. As for the second innings, all he had to do was aim at the rough. The ball that got Lara looked like it kept lower than he expected, Bravo played a terrible shot and the less said about Tino Best the better.

Just in case you're wondering, no I don't rate Giles - even Rod Latham managed a 5-for once! ;-)

get out of it mate..Chanderpaul , yeah he played well, but didnt contribute to his team winning....and to be honest a lot of his runs towards the end were gifted thanks to very agressive field placings (in fact, on a couple of shots you could hear the fielders say 'leave it' and so just letting it go for 4.

I too am a bit funny about Giles getting it, because I think Key, Strauss and Vaughan (and for that matter maybe even Flintoff) did more for Englands victory than GIles did....although I was very impressed with Giles.

My choice would have been Vaughan as MOTM

 

[marc71178]

Disappointed with the MOTM. Given the circumstances that he had to bat in, I reckon Chanderpaul should have got the nod.

Can't say Giles deserved it - two 1st innings wickets were to dodgy decisions and the fourth was the #11. As for the second innings, all he had to do was aim at the rough. The ball that got Lara looked like it kept lower than he expected, Bravo played a terrible shot and the less said about Tino Best the better.

Just in case you're wondering, no I don't rate Giles - even Rod Latham managed a 5-for once! ;-)

If you were West Indian there'd be a picture of Sour Grapes here.

It seems that no matter what Giles does, someone complains.

Usually it's Chris Hinton, who was calling for his head after Day 1 of this game (even though he hadn't had a chance to do anything in the game by then!)

Looks a little silly that call now, doesn't it Chris?

 

[Dick Rockett]

Picking up a box I believe.

Recepticle or groin protector?