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

[gettingbetter]

Do you blokes think that Kabir Ali could be around the fringes of the England sqaud in the near future? And this isn't just on his performance yesterday, but he's been bowling alright in so far this season.

I know a few here will tell me that he's been tried and failed at international level, but surely selectors can't keep ignoring the wicket's he's been taking.

 

[Burgey]

What's the weather forecast for the Test on Thurday?

 

[Spitfires_Fan]

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 see what you're saying, but if I had a genuine batting allrounder batting at 8, I'd want there to be someone who could at least hold a bat (a la Plunkett, but preferably not him...) at 9. With a tail of Hoggard, Harmison and Panesar, I think that more often than not, the no. 8 would be left not out in single figures. There's only so much a batsman can do to farm the strike, particularly in test matches, where a bowler can bowl a bouncer off the last ball of the over without fear of it being called a no ball etc.

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

That's fair enough, I've only really heard about him in the last year or two, and his performances since then have been really impressive, so it's just a little surprising to see him out of touch at the moment. I'm sure he'll come good though - maybe starting against Lancs today? He'll certainly have a test on his hands against Murali.

Edit: Just looked at the weather for today. Maybe he'll get the chance to come good against Lancs tomorrow!

 

[Spitfires_Fan]

Do you blokes think that Kabir Ali could be around the fringes of the England sqaud in the near future? And this isn't just on his performance yesterday, but he's been bowling alright in so far this season.

I know a few here will tell me that he's been tried and failed at international level, but surely selectors can't keep ignoring the wicket's he's been taking.

Before this game, Ali's only taken 6 wickets in 3 games at an average of 46.66, so he's not exactly been tearing it up. Yesterday he did well but conditions would have played right into his hands, being given the new ball in overcast swinging conditions against a batting lineup that, Hodge aside, is really pretty weak. And he didn't even get Hodge! I shouldn't think he's really anywhere near another call up to the England side.

 

[Goughy]

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.

Just outside your 15 year span was this game and this England team.

http://www.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/1991/WI_IN_ENG/WI_ENG_T4_25-28JUL1991.html

One of the very rare occurances of a Test team being made up of 11 guys, each with a First class hundred. Being England they still got rolled over

However, that is the deepest (if a weak middle/late order) tail I have seen with every player having a FC ton to their name and a some-time capable batsman like Chris Lewis at #10.

 

[wpdavid]

Nice read (as you'd expect).

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

True, notably in 2004/5 & 2005 - however, we did have Flintoff & Jones fit & firing in those series, so I can see where the comment's coming from.

 

[wpdavid]

Just outside your 15 year span was this game and this England team.

http://www.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/1991/WI_IN_ENG/WI_ENG_T4_25-28JUL1991.html

One of the very rare occurances of a Test team being made up of 11 guys, each with a First class hundred. Being England they still got rolled over

However, that is the deepest (if a weak middle/late order) tail I have seen with every player having a FC ton to their name and a some-time capable batsman like Chris Lewis at #10.

Given the weakness of that particular side's middle order, I wonder what would be the strongest England batting lineup you've seen.

 

[wpdavid]

OK, here's my stab at England's best batting lineup since I started watching the game. The best on paper, anyway. They only played two tests, I think - 4th & 5th vs WI in 2000.

Atherton, Trescothick, Hussain, Thorpe, Stewart, Vaughan, Hick, White, Cork, Caddick & Gough.

Anyone care to improve on it?

 

[Goughy]

OK, here's my stab at England's best batting lineup since I started watching the game. The best on paper, anyway. They only played two tests, I think - 4th & 5th vs WI in 2000.

Atherton, Trescothick, Hussain, Thorpe, Stewart, Vaughan, Hick, White, Cork, Caddick & Gough.

Anyone care to improve on it?

In terms of actual production the team from the 1990 series against India couldnt stop scoring big totals but it may not have been the strongest on paper.

It may not be better than the batting line-up in the team you list but the team from the 1st Test in 1992 against Pakistan runs it close

http://www.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/1992/PAK_IN_ENG/PAK_ENG_T1_04-08JUN1992.html

GA Gooch, AJ Stewart, GA Hick, RA Smith, MR Ramprakash, AJ Lamb, IT Botham, CC Lewis, RC Russell, DR Pringle, PAJ DeFreitas

Another one of the few examples of all players having FC tons and it includes Gooch and Smith who were world class.

 

[wpdavid]

In terms of actual production the team from the 1990 series against India couldnt stop scoring big totals but it may not have been the strongest on paper.

It may not be better than the batting line-up in the team you list but the team from the 1st Test in 1992 against Pakistan runs it close

http://www.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/1992/PAK_IN_ENG/PAK_ENG_T1_04-08JUN1992.html

GA Gooch, AJ Stewart, GA Hick, RA Smith, MR Ramprakash, AJ Lamb, IT Botham, CC Lewis, RC Russell, DR Pringle, PAJ DeFreitas

Another one of the few examples of all players having FC tons and it includes Gooch and Smith who were world class.

Good calls. My worry with the 1990 lineup is that the same players, IIRC, generally folded horribly throughout the subsequent winter ashes series. 1992 is a decent shout though. As well as Gooch & Smith, Stewart batted like a million dollars at the start of that series. I suppose Hick & Ramps were iffy - I always thought Hick should never have batted above 5 - and Lamb and especially Botham were past their best. But it's good lineup, especially with Pringle & Daffy at 10 & 11.

 

[four_or_six]

If Flintoff doesn't play tomorrow we've got a really interesting situation lined up for the second test selection with potentially Vaughan and Flintoff to come back in.

With Cook, Strauss, Bell, Pietersen and Collingwood all having been what you could call 'permanent' members of the team for a while, the longer they're there performing well the more difficult it is to see how Vaughan and Flintoff can walk straight back in.

I'm all for guaranteeing that injured players get their places back, it leads to stability, but at what point does it go too far? I think most would agree it did with Giles last winter, for example. I'm getting to the point where that's also the case for Vaughan and Flintoff. Anyone agree?

 

[Ash_A55]

What's the weather forecast for the Test on Thurday?

Terrible, rained for 2 days solid up to now.

 

[Goughy]

Terrible, rained for 2 days solid up to now.

So a prediction of no cricket tomorrow?

 

[Spitfires_Fan]

Nah, it's gonna rain overnight but dry up by the early hours, before being humid and overcast all day. Should be a few degrees warmer than it's been recently as well. Should be close to a full day's play I reckon.

 

[grecian]

Yeah, should be perfect conditions for Hoggard and Anderson(if he plays). Really think we should leave Monty out. Colly and Bell may even be mildly useful in these conditions.

 

[Richard]

Just outside your 15 year span was this game and this England team.

http://www.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/1991/WI_IN_ENG/WI_ENG_T4_25-28JUL1991.html

One of the very rare occurances of a Test team being made up of 11 guys, each with a First class hundred. Being England they still got rolled over

However, that is the deepest (if a weak middle/late order) tail I have seen with every player having a FC ton to their name and a some-time capable batsman like Chris Lewis at #10.

OK, here's my stab at England's best batting lineup since I started watching the game. The best on paper, anyway. They only played two tests, I think - 4th & 5th vs WI in 2000.

Atherton, Trescothick, Hussain, Thorpe, Stewart, Vaughan, Hick, White, Cork, Caddick & Gough.

Anyone care to improve on it?

In terms of actual production the team from the 1990 series against India couldnt stop scoring big totals but it may not have been the strongest on paper.

It may not be better than the batting line-up in the team you list but the team from the 1st Test in 1992 against Pakistan runs it close

http://www.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/1992/PAK_IN_ENG/PAK_ENG_T1_04-08JUN1992.html

GA Gooch, AJ Stewart, GA Hick, RA Smith, MR Ramprakash, AJ Lamb, IT Botham, CC Lewis, RC Russell, DR Pringle, PAJ DeFreitas

Another one of the few examples of all players having FC tons and it includes Gooch and Smith who were world class.

The order that played the Fourth and Fifth Tests in 2000 would undoubtedly be the deepest and strongest I can remember.

I was so, so sure the first Test line-up I remembered was Gooch, Atherton, Smith, Gower, Stewart, Hick, Botham, DeFreitas, Lewis, Illingworth, Malcolm (the lattermost, of course, rules it out from being the deepest ever instantly) but I had a look back around about 1999, 2000 sort of time and as far as I've been able to see that team never played together. Had it done so, though, it might be up there in the teams of my time (summer 1992 was the first cricket I have any memory of, though I probably did watch a few bits before then) as 2nd to that 2000 one.

 

[Richard]

True, notably in 2004/5 & 2005 - however, we did have Flintoff & Jones fit & firing in those series, so I can see where the comment's coming from.

I honestly don't think Jones played a massive part in the victory in 2004\05. There was that one spell on the fourth day of the First Test that knocked-over the tail, but aside from that his biggest contributions came in drawn or lost games. Flintoff and Hoggard were the big forces in that victory.

And we went 3-0 up against West Indies in 2004 (at home, of course) without any real contribution from him either. On that occasion it was Hoggard and, in the First and Second Tests, Giles.

 

[marc71178]

With Cook, Strauss, Bell, Pietersen and Collingwood all having been what you could call 'permanent' members of the team for a while, the longer they're there performing well the more difficult it is to see how Vaughan and Flintoff can walk straight back in.

Easy.

Add Flintoff and Vaughan then a keeper, Harmison, Monty and Hoggard.

 

[The Baconator]

With everything else going on, I pretty much forgot there was a Test match starting tomorrow. Should give me something to do anyway.

 

[Richard]

BTSOT, there might not be. Mind, I've had similar thoughts this evening TBH.