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

[Bob Bamber]

England played very well today. I thought the Windies kept our openers down and frustrated them. I thought Ian Bell made some important runs. Along with Shah.

I'm still not convinced with the idea about Prior batting at the top (We'll Im not really convinced with Prior at international level at all), He doesn't seem to be able to work good bowlers. I can pull any number of players who can hit bad bowling , but he doesn't seem to be able to deal with it when its in the right areas. Sure he hung around today but he will continue to struggle at the top of the order. And his wicket keeping , don't get me started on that (two relatively easy edges off Panesar and he shelled them both). People critised Geriant Jones about his keeping ability , but he took most of them.

As for Mascerenhas. He can be a really good bowler , but I don't think hes a good enough bat to survive at this level.

The seamers bowled superbly today. Broad , Anderson and to my surprise Plunkett were all on the money. All this proves was that Fletcher was wrong to get rid of Cooley , and how good an acquistion Donald could very well be.

As for the Windies. Poor , they bowled very well , particularly Edwards at the end did a fantastic job in restricting England to what everyone seemed to say wouldn't be enough. But in truth it was a very good total. International matches at this ground don't historically produce many one day runs. 225 , if England would have bowled badly , would have given the West Indies alot of help but even then I would have backed England. But they way they capitulated , really doesn't hold stead for the future.

 

[Poker Boy]

The most encouraging thing about this match is that England bowled well with hardly any wides and no balls (unlike this time last year). The West indies batting was poor though - they wasted the chance Edwards gave them. Chanderpaul, sooner or later, must get fed up trying to bail them out. Yesterday btw, showed why England bat as we did in the WC, In the conditions as they were yesterday, an agressive opener (sorry I do NOT use the phrse "pinch hitter") is a waste of time. If we get these conditions on Wednesday, put Bell to open, Shah at 3 and Prior at 6/7. Still a win, but we beat this lot twice in the winter when we were CRAP at ODIs so what should we have expected?

 

[pup11]

Gayle is saying that the West Indian team management are thinking about promoting Chanderpaul in the batting order, i mean enough is enough whats wrong with this West Indian side they can't just expect Chanderpaul to solve their each and every problem. Its about time that someone else also supports Chanderpaul. I was also pretty impressed with Edwards but its just a pity that he had be on the losing side. Young English bowlers really bowled well and they were obviously too hot to handle for the clueless West Indian batsmen. Its just a shame that West Indies were once again completly outclassed, destroyed and humiliated by England.

 

[GIMH]

It is indeed a sad state of affairs for the Windies when I expect a whitewash in this ODI series (weather permitting). There have been a couple of positives on this tour, but on the most part it's been a disaster. We'll see where England are at, in both Tests and ODIs when we play India I guess.

 

[Perm]

Gayle is saying that the West Indian team management are thinking about promoting Chanderpaul in the batting order, i mean enough is enough whats wrong with this West Indian side they can't just expect Chanderpaul to solve their each and every problem.

He was batting too low at #5 given the circumstances in the team so it is only logical that they try to get the most out of him. He's hardly a poor opener either, as an average of 43 and six centuries in that spot indicated he is quite accomplished.

 

[Richard]

Interestingly, though, Chanderpaul has always said he prefers batting in the middle to opening. It's no good, IMO, promoting him to open (against his wishes) and hoping that'll solve all the problems. Gayle and co. have to take some responsibility, you can't just expect Chanderpaul to do everything. If the top three do their job well Chanderpaul is probably best at four.

 

[Richard]

I only saw the highlights, but Mascarenhas didn't look anything special. He bowled at medium pace, got little movement, and didn't even lok very accurate. Not to mention his batting was poor.

It's his ODI debut... can hardly expect completely nerveless performance.

We'll know more after the next couple of games.

 

[Richard]

Outrageous action for his quicker ball. Looks an absolutely blatant throw to me. Should be reported.



See above. He chucks it.

He quite clearly has been. Bucknor signalled to the TV Umpire in a game a couple of years ago after a Samuels quicker-ball, and all the commentators muttered a bit. Nothing seems to have been done about it to date, though.

 

[Richard]

That's not what I meant.

Everything we've seen wrong with English one-day cricket for, oh, the last eleven years was available for all to see there today. Granted, there was something in the conditions for the quicker bowlers - so maybe a more cautious start was in order: so why pick a pinch-hitter to play like a proper batsman? If you are going to pick Prior at the top of the order and then ask him to play the role of a traditional opener then you will get neither the durability and likelihood of building an innings that a genuine number one/two can offer, nor Prior's strokeplaying capacities.

Then we get the middle overs: Bell doing what he's always done and showing exactly why Warwickshire didn't pick him for the FP Trophy semi finals. Using up balls, never once starting to take the initiative away from the West Indies, happily playing into Gayle's game plan and then running himself out. You would have thought that someone with his experience could competently run between the wickets - but seemingly every comedy run out that we suffer is directly or indirectly his fault. We had fourteen overs without a boundary from 30 to 44: Gayle set his stall out and we never once challenged the West Indies to think of a Plan B.

Once we were four down with next to no overs remaining, and with Edwards bowling well (not brilliantly, well) at the death, Collingwood was on a hiding to nothing - though with the ineptitude of seven downwards to consider, I don't think that playing that shot at that moment was the right decision. It seems indicative of our confused thinking in one-dayers at the moment that we pick utterly the wrong moment to go for a shot (the same accusation could possibly be levelled at Pietersen as well - you'd tried that the ball before, and it didn't work then, wait for it: and perhaps take on someone like Marlon Samuels rather than letting him get through four innocuously tidy overs).

Mascarenhas was in a position where he then had to look to go for it, and Edwards was simply too quick for him. The same applies to Plunkett, who in fairness has usually done a job with the bat from 8 for England recently, but Stuart Broad was embarrassing. If you get done for pace, and line, and movement, and look completely out of your depth, you do not attempt to have words with the bowler. It makes you look foolish and immature. This effect is then further exacerbated when you back away several steps to the next ball and then poke your bat tamely towards it. If you're going to go in for a bit of verbals, back it up with some action. That looked like a spoiled schoolboy unable to cope with the fact that things weren't going all his own way.

Credit to Owais Shah, though - I've been critical of him before - he seems a nervy starter and I've not seen him make runs for England before. Today, I thought he showed a really good temperament today to hang on to the strike where he could and pick shots - both singles and boundaries - that were appropriate to both the match situation and the deliveries. It's a shame that he got run out as it will affect his average and people will keep using that as a stick to beat him with. 225 feels significantly under par and we're going to have to bowl very well - and Broad, Anderson and Plunkett will have to make sure they don't serve up four-ball on four-ball - to defend this.

Thought the days had gone...

 

[Perm]

Interestingly, though, Chanderpaul has always said he prefers batting in the middle to opening. It's no good, IMO, promoting him to open (against his wishes) and hoping that'll solve all the problems. Gayle and co. have to take some responsibility, you can't just expect Chanderpaul to do everything. If the top three do their job well Chanderpaul is probably best at four.

I can't actually remember him making comments like that, hence I assumed that it wouldn't be much of a problem for him to open. In reality he has to do what is best for the team and I think by opening the innings he will be doing that, even though it does take the onus off Chris Gayle and Devon Smith a fair bit.

 

[Perm]

It's his ODI debut... can hardly expect completely nerveless performance.

We'll know more after the next couple of games.

Is he batting one spot too high do you think? I know this was his ODI debut, but I wouldn't have him at #7.

 

[Richard]

I can't actually remember him making comments like that, hence I assumed that it wouldn't be much of a problem for him to open. In reality he has to do what is best for the team and I think by opening the innings he will be doing that, even though it does take the onus off Chris Gayle and Devon Smith a fair bit.

I'm honestly not sure. It might be what'd be best to give them a chance to win games in this series - and only might - but ITE that's not the important matter, what is is building a team for WC2011. I'd presume Chanderpaul will still be around for that tournament, playing the Lara of 2007, so IMO they have to try and get something more out of Gayle and someone else. I've never been much of a Devon Smith fan in the shorter game but I can't see any other specialist openers bashing down the door at present.

Wonder what Wavell Hinds is up to at the moment (Xavier could probably tell us), not that I was ever in favour of him opening but he surely has to be a better bet than some of the nonsense of late if he's still playing at a decent level?

 

[Richard]

Is he batting one spot too high do you think? I know this was his ODI debut, but I wouldn't have him at #7.

Nah, me neither - yet again we've not got enough batting. Plunkett and Mascarenhas are nothing close to front-line international batsmen, and Broad, Anderson and MSP, well... we all know.

It's bowling rather than batting I've always looked at Mascarenhas for and I hope, like Ealham, that his ability to bat a bit doesn't do him more harm than good which it clearly did with Ealham.

 

[GIMH]

Plunkett's a capable 8 in ODIs IMO

edit - you said frontline

 

[Perm]

I'm honestly not sure. It might be what'd be best to give them a chance to win games in this series - and only might - but ITE that's not the important matter, what is is building a team for WC2011. I'd presume Chanderpaul will still be around for that tournament, playing the Lara of 2007, so IMO they have to try and get something more out of Gayle and someone else. I've never been much of a Devon Smith fan in the shorter game but I can't see any other specialist openers bashing down the door at present.

You need to keep the balance between winning games and developing a squad for the 2011 World Cup though, there is no point chucking out anybody who isn't likely to make the next tournament even though they may still have a lot to offer for the next year or two. Shiv Chanderpaul doesn't strike me as a selfish cricketer so I don't think he would mind too much being bumped up the order to help out the team, especially since there are no other openers pushing for selection.

 

[Perm]

Nah, me neither - yet again we've not got enough batting. Plunkett and Mascarenhas are nothing close to front-line international batsmen, and Broad, Anderson and MSP, well... we all know.

It's bowling rather than batting I've always looked at Mascarenhas for and I hope, like Ealham, that his ability to bat a bit doesn't do him more harm than good which it clearly did with Ealham.

He is a bowling all rounder at county level though, so I can see why the England selectors are keen to have him in that #7 spot as it is ideally suited for somebody who can both bat and bowl to the necessary level. I'd have Mascarenhas at #8, Plunkett at #9 and maybe chuck in Trott at #7 and have him bowl a couple of overs here and there with Collingwood. Maybe in the future Mascarenhas or even Plunkett could be a #7 but definately not at the moment.

 

[Richard]

You need to keep the balance between winning games and developing a squad for the 2011 World Cup though, there is no point chucking out anybody who isn't likely to make the next tournament even though they may still have a lot to offer for the next year or two. Shiv Chanderpaul doesn't strike me as a selfish cricketer so I don't think he would mind too much being bumped up the order to help out the team, especially since there are no other openers pushing for selection.

The thing is, though, the next year or so shouldn't be prioritised ahead of looking towards WC2011, and for me the Chanderpaul situation is both similar to and also total opposite of the Tendulkar one for India. Both batsmen, IMO, are best served in the middle-order as they're the most complete batsmen in their teams and the best equipped to play the variety of roles required of a number-four batsman. Tendulkar, of course, prefers to open; Chanderpaul prefers the middle-order.

I think West Indies would be best-served, especially once Sarwan gets back into the team (and presumably will bat three when he does) with picking a specialist opener to open the batting and not putting all the eggs in one basket.

 

[Richard]

He is a bowling all rounder at county level though, so I can see why the England selectors are keen to have him in that #7 spot as it is ideally suited for somebody who can both bat and bowl to the necessary level. I'd have Mascarenhas at #8, Plunkett at #9 and maybe chuck in Trott at #7 and have him bowl a couple of overs here and there with Collingwood. Maybe in the future Mascarenhas or even Plunkett could be a #7 but definately not at the moment.

TBH I have confidence in neither (and naturally I have no confidence in Plunkett with the ball) so I'd prefer have seven proper, front-line batsmen (Prior, in theory, being one of them, but I've always had my doubts there as he's never been that good a one-day batsman) followed by Mascarenhas at eight (or ideally nine if you had someone else).

Right now, though, with Flintoff and Trescothick out things aren't exactly ideal and there inevitably has to be a fair bit of makeshift work.

 

[silentstriker]

I dont think Freddie should bat higher than #7 TBH. The English keeper of the day can go in at eight, and you have three other specialist bowlers. Freddie gives you immense opportunity to play six frontline batsman (and if one of them can send a few overs down, all the better).

England can have the deepest lineup in the world if they do that.

 

[Richard]

I dont think Freddie should bat higher than #7 TBH. The English keeper of the day can go in at eight, and you have three other specialist bowlers.

No, me neither. I'd be quite happy to have him at seven, Read (ideally) at eight (Kev not around at present ), then three other bowlers.

Trouble, of course, is finding enough batsmen worthy of top-order berths. Right now we've got...
Trescothick (when available again)
Cook (hopefully)
Pietersen
Collingwood (if we must...)
Trott (maybe - and this isn't just because he's the latest cab-off-the-rank, he's far more promising than the Vaughans and Strausses)
Bopara (I suppose... possibly...)
But that doesn't convince me, not by a long-shot.