**Official** West Indies in England Thread

[Dick Rockett]

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

Aha, but I'm not.

I'm happy for Giles, but don't think he bowled well enough to justify a 5-for or MOTM. Harmison bowled heaps better today and got little reward.

 

[Swervy]

Aha, but I'm not.

I'm happy for Giles, but don't think he bowled well enough to justify a 5-for or MOTM. Harmison bowled heaps better today and got little reward.

how can he not have bowled well enough to justify a five wicket haul...he got it...its not as though someone awarded him with a five wicket performance.

No matter what anyone says he took the key wicket today of Lara at a time ENgland needed it,with a beauty of a ball...that started the rot today for WI

 

[Dick Rockett]

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

What does winning have to do with MOTM? Sure context can have something to do with it, and that's why I nominate Chanderpaul. You completely ignored his 1st innings contribution in your comment. Shortly after he came in his side was 139/4 chasing 568 and not much batting to come, yet he stuck it out and because of him, WI got reasonably close.

As for the 2nd innings, once again he was the rock while all around him commited hari-kiri. So what if he had the benefit of aggressive field placings? He was the one left standing at the end never looked like getting out.

While I admire the English batting in this test, they certainly weren't facing bowling of the same quality as Chanderpaul.

 

[Dick Rockett]

how can he not have bowled well enough to justify a five wicket haul...he got it...its not as though someone awarded him with a five wicket performance.

No matter what anyone says he took the key wicket today of Lara at a time ENgland needed it,with a beauty of a ball...that started the rot today for WI

Did you not read my comment about Rod Latham? Of course it's possible to get a 5-for without deserving it. If the batsmen are displaying a lemming like tendency to throw away their wickets it's simply a matter of sending each ball down and waiting. Great ball to get Lara, sure, but even that had a lot to do with the state of the pitch.

 

[superkingdave]

I'm going to go for a 1-1 draw, England to win the first test, second drawn, third Windies and draw at the Oval.

Chanderpaul to be man of the series and Harmison to have a strong (not spectacular) series.

So far my prediction is on track, though i can't see WI getting a draw anymore - 2-1 is more likely. It was a good call for Chanderpaul at a time when it looked like he couldn't buy a run - now it looks like Sarwan is the one woefully out of form.

Butchers injury - coincidence? I don't think so, i think he knew he'd be left out and thought he could save some face by being injured, Key will probably fail in the next match and Butcher can slip back in without being left out

 

[Swervy]

What does winning have to do with MOTM? Sure context can have something to do with it, and that's why I nominate Chanderpaul. You completely ignored his 1st innings contribution in your comment. Shortly after he came in his side was 139/4 chasing 568 and not much batting to come, yet he stuck it out and because of him, WI got reasonably close.

As for the 2nd innings, once again he was the rock while all around him commited hari-kiri. So what if he had the benefit of aggressive field placings? He was the one left standing at the end never looked like getting out.

While I admire the English batting in this test, they certainly weren't facing bowling of the same quality as Chanderpaul.

OK ..Vaughan scored 2 centuries in the game..ON THE WINNING TEAM
Key scored 221 in the first innings,and put on 290 odd with centurion Strauss..who were both on the winning team....out of those three definately Vaughan deserve it more than Chanderpaul (when taking into consideration the effect his 2nd innings hundred had on the game, and his captaincy)

It takes a particularly special performance that stands out above anyone else if you are to win on MOTM while on the losing team..Chanderpauls performance was outstanding in a class of many other outstanding performances.

In fact I would go far as to say that Collins' bowling on the second day had more to do with WI haveing an outside possibility of winning the game than either one of Chanderpauls innings

 

[chris.hinton]

Hey Marc it not a Silly Call? it just shows that he flighted the ball well and got Rewards none of this flat crap and Richie Benaud said it was well.

WELL DONE GILES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Keep it up

 

[Dick Rockett]

OK ..Vaughan scored 2 centuries in the game..ON THE WINNING TEAM
Key scored 221 in the first innings,and put on 290 odd with centurion Strauss..who were both on the winning team....out of those three definately Vaughan deserve it more than Chanderpaul (when taking into consideration the effect his 2nd innings hundred had on the game, and his captaincy)

It takes a particularly special performance that stands out above anyone else if you are to win on MOTM while on the losing team..Chanderpauls performance was outstanding in a class of many other outstanding performances.

In fact I would go far as to say that Collins' bowling on the second day had more to do with WI haveing an outside possibility of winning the game than either one of Chanderpauls innings

Okay, so essentially what you're saying is that a player should be penalised for playing with a bunch of no-hopers all the time, simply because his team loses? Why should Chanderpaul miss out because his teammates can't bowl or bat?

If Bangladesh ever unearth a superstar like Lara or Tendulkar, but the rest of the team is static, then how is he ever going to be MOTM? Note that it's MAN Of The Match. Not Best Guy On Winning Team or whatever.

Yes, Vaughan scored two great centuries, but his first innings started with his side 320/2 and his second started with his side leading by 256. There was never as much pressure on the man as on Chanderpaul. If anything, Vaughan might want to thank Strauss and Key for giving him an opportunity to play himself into form.

 

[Swervy]

Did you not read my comment about Rod Latham? Of course it's possible to get a 5-for without deserving it. If the batsmen are displaying a lemming like tendency to throw away their wickets it's simply a matter of sending each ball down and waiting. Great ball to get Lara, sure, but even that had a lot to do with the state of the pitch.

so what was he to do then...what you are saying is that a spinner cant deserve his wickets if the pitch is worn, or he tosses the ball up to invite rash shots from the batsman.

The fact of the matter is, in the first innings Giles broke a century first wicket stand at a time when I think many England supporters would have been worrying about what was happening, he then contributed 2 more wickets to reduce WI to 130 odd for 4 in a very short space of time, the game was effectively over then.(Dodgy umpiring doesnt come into it, if it did, I would hope you would not include Chanderpauls second inning 97*, coz he should have been given out last night)

He then took the first wicket again..and just as Lara and Chanderpaul were starting to make a bit of headway, with WI on 172 for 4, he bowls Lara with a great ball ..rough outside his off stump or not..it was still a damned good ball which got one of the greatest players of spin in the world out..he goes on to take 5 for 81 in 35 overs.

Cant see what the problem is...as I say I would have chosen Vaughan, but I certainly wouldnt begrudge Giles the MOTM award

 

[Dick Rockett]

it just shows that he flighted the ball well

Not much, he didn't. I was sitting side on (in the Mound Stand) and he looked like a medium pacer from there.

 

[Swervy]

.

Yes, Vaughan scored two great centuries, but his first innings started with his side 320/2 and his second started with his side leading by 256. There was never as much pressure on the man as on Chanderpaul. If anything, Vaughan might want to thank Strauss and Key for giving him an opportunity to play himself into form.

Or the other way to look at it is, Vaughan had a lot to lose if he failed at 320/2..if he had have made say 20 or 30, he would have looked even worse when his two junior batsman made 221 and 130 odd...he had to succeed...i would say there was plenty of pressure on Vaughan..and his hundred hammered home the advantage sufficiently to put the game out of WI's reach...but to be honest I think it was his second inning hundred that was what did it for me...he and Flintoff allowed England to be setting WI an unbeatable score and with plenty of time to get WI out....

 

[Dick Rockett]

so what was he to do then...what you are saying is that a spinner cant deserve his wickets if the pitch is worn, or he tosses the ball up to invite rash shots from the batsman.

No, I'm not saying that. What I am saying is that Ashley Giles was fortunate to get nine in this test. I reckon Harmison was a better bowler today and he only got two in the end.

I did notice that Harmo was bowling quite short spells, perhaps he's got a niggle?

 

[Swervy]

No, I'm not saying that. What I am saying is that Ashley Giles was fortunate to get nine in this test. I reckon Harmison was a better bowler today and he only got two in the end.

I did notice that Harmo was bowling quite short spells, perhaps he's got a niggle?

i think it was probably more to do with the pitch not really suiting quick bowling, and so it probably wasnt really worth flogging Harmison on such a wicket.

I agree, I though Harmo bowled really well pretty much through out the match. The one dissapointment for England i would say would be Simon Jones, but as someone has said he may well have been carrying a bit of a foot injury,and was certainly short of proper match fitness

 

[superkingdave]

I did notice that Harmo was bowling quite short spells, perhaps he's got a niggle?

Probably just common sense, with Ashley bowling all the overs at one end, there was no need for him to bowl lots of overs on the trot, given that Hoggard, Jones and FLintoff were also available to bowl. If he had a niggle you wouldn't want to bowl him in short spells thus putting stress on said niggle by warming up and down all the time

 

[Dick Rockett]

Or the other way to look at it is, Vaughan had a lot to lose if he failed at 320/2..if he had have made say 20 or 30, he would have looked even worse when his two junior batsman made 221 and 130 odd...he had to succeed...i would say there was plenty of pressure on Vaughan..and his hundred hammered home the advantage sufficiently to put the game out of WI's reach...but to be honest I think it was his second inning hundred that was what did it for me...he and Flintoff allowed England to be setting WI an unbeatable score and with plenty of time to get WI out....

Hey, I'm certainly not belittling Vaughan's efforts here, but to me more pressure would have been on Chanderpaul with the match situation, also knowing how fragile your lower order is and how erratic your bowlers are.

Vaughan had to play himself into form to keep the press at bay, but I don't think it was as intense a situation as Chanderpaul's, is all.

 

[Dick Rockett]

i think it was probably more to do with the pitch not really suiting quick bowling, and so it probably wasnt really worth flogging Harmison on such a wicket.

I dunno about that! He was bowling plenty quick - loads of bouncers flashing past the helmets, balls beating the bat. Also, the off-cutter that got Banks says there was something in the pitch for the seamers.

 

[Swervy]

I dunno about that! He was bowling plenty quick - loads of bouncers flashing past the helmets, balls beating the bat. Also, the off-cutter that got Banks says there was something in the pitch for the seamers.

yeah fair point...but I would say he would really have had to put max effort into those to get that kind of response...I just think that maybe Vaughan may well have thought that the game was basically up for WI and so maybe wanted to keep is prime weapon relatively fresh for Thursday...I might be wrong of course

 

[marc71178]

Hey Marc it not a Silly Call?

You call for a man to be dropped before he has a chance to do anything in the game.

He turns round and takes 9 wickets and the MOTM - how is that not a silly call on your behalf?

 

[chris.hinton]

I got it wrong so what?

Marc Giles has Flighted the ball and look at the results he got 9 wickets for the first time you what him to bowl flat and its wrong

 

[marc71178]

Why should Chanderpaul miss out because his teammates can't bowl or bat?

If Giles doesn't deserve it as he was lucky to get the wickets, how does Chanderpaul deserve it considering his second innings let-off?