***Official** West Indies in England***

[Burgey]

With Flintoff and his dodgy ankle they think he might play as a batsman only which I don't think is a good idea.

We should go with the following which is almost identical to the team that won the series against Pakistan last year except Read/Jones have been replaced with Prior.

1 Strauss
2 Cook
3 Shah
4 Pietersen
5 Collingwood
6 Bell
7 Prior
8 Plunkett
9 Harmison
10 Hoggard
11 Panesar

Suspect I'm now going mad (many may already think that), but I was actually hoping they would pick Nixon - not because of my antipodiean hatred for England, but because I've actually come to enjoy watching him - he has a real go every time he plays and adds a bit of much-needed verbal.
I suppose to me he's become a bit like a stray canine which looks a bit untidy and not very appealing when you first lay eyes on it, but which grows on you with a kind of eccentric charm.

 

[Perm]

Is Flintoff fit to play? Last I read he was feeling some discomfort in his ankle.

 

[Richard]

Only if Flintoff is able to bowl, I hope...

Oh, of course. Four bowlers, please yes. Three? NOOOOOOO!!!!

 

[Richard]

Suspect I'm now going mad (many may already think that), but I was actually hoping they would pick Nixon - not because of my antipodiean hatred for England, but because I've actually come to enjoy watching him - he has a real go every time he plays and adds a bit of much-needed verbal.
I suppose to me he's become a bit like a stray canine which looks a bit untidy and not very appealing when you first lay eyes on it, but which grows on you with a kind of eccentric charm.

TBH, though, there are more important things - like the propensity for making runs. And while he certainly doesn't lack completely there, there are 3 or 4 better-qualified candidates. One of them, even though he is the lest-qualified of himself, Pothas and Foster, has won the day.

 

[Ash_A55]

I'd personally prefer to see Bell at three than Shah. Plunkett.

I agree

 

[Spitfires_Fan]

If you're going to pick Flintoff as a specialist bat, well... you might as well pick Paul Nixon as one.

In such a team, though, I'd personally prefer to see Bell at three than Shah. Not that either are especially more suited to the role, just that Bell is a more established player.

Personally, of course, I'd be happy enough to see that team with Flintoff instead of Plunkett.

Looks like a decent side to me. I reckon there could be quite an interesting battle between Prior and Flintoff as to who comes in first. I suppose Prior would come in at 7 as opposed to 8 at the moment (going by that lineup), but I don't think Flintoff would be too happy being considered as a no.8 batsman.

Reminds me a bit of Boucher standing up to Kemp in the WC. Kemp looked properly insulted and bowled a bouncer that went for 4 byes. Boucher glared at him, but was standing back for the next ball

 

[Richard]

I know - mad that a bowler would ever regard the 'keeper standing-up as a bad thing. It's a huge advantage.

Craig White batted at eight for England when seven batsmen were picked - it's no disgrace to an all-rounder if you've got a really good batsman-wicketkeeper. In Prior, though, we haven't at the mo. In Davies in a couple of years' time, however...

 

[Pup Clarke]

I know - mad that a bowler would ever regard the 'keeper standing-up as a bad thing. It's a huge advantage.

I imagine the reason most bowlers would say is that they are embarassed when the wicket keeper stands up. Like it shows a frailty in their bowling when in actual fact it doesn't. It just shows a lack of pace.

 

[Richard]

And lack of pace in the form of the game where wicketkeepers standing-up is generally most used is often more of an advantage than a disadvantage, too.

 

[Pup Clarke]

Exactly, Paul Collingwood is a prime example of how a wicketkeeper standing up to the stumps can make his bowling very good and difficult to get away. If the keeper was standing back the batsmen would use his feat and look to hit Collingwood down the ground which is a very safe shot. With the keeper stood up batsmen can't do this with as much confidence and seeing as how Collingwood bowls very much wicket to wicket his bowling can be very,very effective in one day cricket.

 

[Spitfires_Fan]

I know - mad that a bowler would ever regard the 'keeper standing-up as a bad thing. It's a huge advantage.

Craig White batted at eight for England when seven batsmen were picked - it's no disgrace to an all-rounder if you've got a really good batsman-wicketkeeper. In Prior, though, we haven't at the mo. In Davies in a couple of years' time, however...

Good point about Craig White, but it's also worth considering that he had a decent enough 9, 10, 11 to follow behind. Looking at the 2000 test series with West Indies, he had Cork, Caddick and Gough to bat with, as opposed to now, where Flintoff would have Hoggard, Harmison and Panesar.

I really hope Davies can step up and become a genuine batsman-wicketkeeper and just achieve that bit more than all the recent pretenders to the throne such as Read, Jones and Prior. He's not made a very good start to this season though, so I'm hoping it's just a dip in form and that he's not just another flash in the pan. Never seen him play though - either live or on tv, so I'm basing my opinion of him purely on stats.

 

[Richard]

Good point about Craig White, but it's also worth considering that he had a decent enough 9, 10, 11 to follow behind. Looking at the 2000 test series with West Indies, he had Cork, Caddick and Gough to bat with, as opposed to now, where Flintoff would have Hoggard, Harmison and Panesar.

I honestly am not sure whether that's all the more or all the less reason to have an all-rounder lower down. Does it mean he's wasted - or does it mean the fact that the last 3 are by-and-large rabbits is covered for better?

I mean, ideally, of course, you have a last-three of Cork-Caddick-Gough - that was the deepest batting-line-up I've seen us put out in 15 years of watching. But given that we don't at present - it's obviously ideal to have as much batting higher up as poss... but it does, as you mention, mean that there will be times when not all that batting can be put to use.

Having said that, surely it's better to have a genuine batter at eight followed by three rabbits than a decent tailender like Plunkett there followed by three rabbits?

I really hope Davies can step up and become a genuine batsman-wicketkeeper and just achieve that bit more than all the recent pretenders to the throne such as Read, Jones and Prior. He's not made a very good start to this season though, so I'm hoping it's just a dip in form and that he's not just another flash in the pan. Never seen him play though - either live or on tv, so I'm basing my opinion of him purely on stats.

TBH, he's seemed the real deal since before he even played a First-Class game, people were apparently talking big things about him as a 16-year-old. Not that talking big things about a 16-year-old is incredibly unusual - just that it's more evidence that hopefully the poor start to this season is a blip.

 

[Goughy]

Reminds me a bit of Boucher standing up to Kemp in the WC. Kemp looked properly insulted and bowled a bouncer that went for 4 byes. Boucher glared at him, but was standing back for the next ball

It probably looked that way, but Kemp knows he isn't quick enough to mind Boucher standing up.

I know - mad that a bowler would ever regard the 'keeper standing-up as a bad thing. It's a huge advantage

Im interested to know what those advantages are. Its something I coach against as 9 times out of 10 (less so at the Pro level but it is still a factor) the ego of the wicketkeeper is the prime reason for standing up.

There needs to be a very good reason for a keeper to stand up to a seamer of medium/quick or above as the tactic carries massive problems. Firstly it can costs lots of runs, ie byes, leg byes etc that can really mount up and also regulation catches to a keeper standing back are nearly impossible for a keeper standing up.

Basically a keeper standing up to the seamers costs wickets and runs so the benefits of standing up to a particular batsman must outweigh those issues. In most cases it doesn't.

 

[Richard]

How many catches behind come in a 10-over spell? Not that many. Yes, you'll miss-out on the odd few things here and there. Having the 'keeper up can cost leg-byes but it can also prevent them (with things which deflect close to the batsman). And there's negligable increase in byes in my experience - if anything's errant enough to evade the wicketkeeper it'll be called as wides.

For a good accurate bowler, there's no telling how many runs can potentially be saved by the wicketkeeper standing up to the stumps, stopping the batsman using his feet. Plenty of batsmen will use the tactic near enough every ball if they've got the chance. The trouble with this is, there's no accurate way of having a clue how many runs it's saved - there is very much one of having a pretty decent guess about how many runs (and leg-byes, and wickets) it's cost.

For me, when I'm playing I'm sorely tempted to refuse to bowl if a wicketkeeper doesn't stand up to me unless the pitch is really horrible. If it's inconsistent enough not only are they risking runs but they're also putting themselves in danger. Added to the fact that on an inconsistent pitch I've got more weapons at my disposal.

On a pitch of any reasonable consistency, though, I'll have the wicketkeeper up. And hey - being the selfish type I am, if I've the choice between a batsman waltzing down the pitch and smacking me back over my head for four or something errant scuttling along the turf and going for four byes - I'll take the latter.

 

[Goughy]

On a pitch of any reasonable consistency, though, I'll have the wicketkeeper up. And hey - being the selfish type I am, if I've the choice between a batsman waltzing down the pitch and smacking me back over my head for four or something errant scuttling along the turf and going for four byes - I'll take the latter.

What type of seam bowler is so concerned that a batsman will regularly 'waltz' down the pitch to them that they have to game plan for it ahead of trying to get catches behind?

Like anything there is a time and a place for the tactic. If you are that afraid of the batsman sauntering down the track regularly and you getting hit back over your head, take up spin

 

[Richard]

But spinners get it even more and even despite the wicketkeeper standing-up.

(Or have I just failed to get a joke?)

Many seamers - me included - have no way to answer the batsman coming down the pitch. Having the wicketkeeper stand up and stop it is much the best solution.

How many batsmen have come down the pitch to you in a serious match, out of interest?

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Series Preview

Ironically I managed four mentions of Lara in a series not involving him.

 

[Goughy]

How many batsmen have come down the pitch to you in a serious match, out of interest?

Ive seen it once or twice in 15 years.

 

[Richard]

I guessed as much. I wonder to what extent that colours your reaction to wicketkeepers standing-up. For you, batsmen advancing down the pitch is not a common problem. For the likes of me, it is.

I'm not saying you're being elitist or failing to understand the problem completely - but I'm saying that facing the problem yourself gives you a different angle than not doing does.

 

[Richard]

Series Preview

Ironically I managed four mentions of Lara in a series not involving him.

Nice read (as you'd expect). One thing - obviously - that I disagree with is the "Giles defensive, Panesar attacking" thing but given the results last time I commented on an article mentioning that I'll leave it there this time.

I'd also contend the "we need a firing Harmison". We've won series without much contribution from him before.