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

[Richard]

Our Aus friends must wonder how Plunkett's fallen from grace so rapidly after playing a pretty big part in us winning their triangular tournament earlier in the year. Of course I know how dire he was in the tests, but we haven't excatly been tripping over guys who can do some damage with the new ball in odi's, and Plunkers could hardly be less economical that Sidebottom was yesterday.

I still don't expect Plunkett to amount to anything but there's no arguing with his recent ODI figures - he should be in the side at the present time, ahead of Sidebottom.

I'm tempted to agree with SKD about wanting to have a look at Trott, but this is where the 3 game format lets us down. What's he supposed to do in one game? How do we make any sort of judgement? Presumably there is a reason why we abandoned the triangular mid-season format, but it's beyond me.

There is, and while I think it's a shame I can see why it was done. The neutral games - when not involving India or Pakistan - were usually drawing interest that numbered slightly above ZERO. The only way to make a triangular a viable format in Britain would be to have either India or Pakistan play every year. That, clearly, is not possible. Nonetheless, I've always much preferred triangulars to bilaterals in every sense of the word in ODIs - winning it actually means something, whereas winning a bilateral is usually forgotten within a couple of months.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Want me to merge all those Richard??

 

[Richard]

We should be playing five ODIS gaainst WI and not the seven we will be against India

Indeed, but The BCCI were responsible for that.

As for getting rid of triangulars, trying to read the ECB's mind here, they probaby felt they were either "twosided" triangulars (as in 2003 and 2005) or if you had two good teams against us there would be a very big risk of no England in the Final (as in 2001 and 2004). They seem to be going out of fashion outside Australia - I know SL were meant to stage one last year before SA pulled out, but I can't remember the last triangular in a test country outside Australia. (was it in Zimbabwe in 2005?)

Indeed, South Africa haven't staged one since 2001\02 either.

The trouble with the NatWest Series is that it just never really worked-out well in England. That's not because it's a bad format, it's just because it didn't click in the 6 attempts. In 2003 and 2005, as you say, the series involved a substandard side and that was plain even despite the astonishment of said side winning a game in each year, so that left:
2000: one team was awful (WI)
2001: ditto (England)
2002: ditto (SL)
2004: rain ruined the whole thing, and England were awful

There's never been a truly competetive series, and the neutral games were awfully attended in all seasons bar 2001 and 2002 when Pakistan and India were involved - as I mention above.

 

[Richard]

Want me to merge all those Richard??

No, certainly not. I hope you're not going to turn into Towns. If I'd wanted one massive post that no-one could hope to read never mind reply to, I'd have made one.

I think each post should have it's own reply, especially when you're replying to 6 different people.

 

[PhoenixFire]

I missed out the smiley that would have implied that I was merely awestruck by the number of posts you have made in succession.

 

[Richard]

Ah, OK, sorry mate, guess I sound a bit annoyed there. That's nothing, though, I assure you - I did 14 in a row once.

 

[PhoenixFire]

No worries.

Didn't Shounaz do 30 odd once in some spam thread?

 

[Richard]

Think it was 28, TBH, but that was deliberate (and in TF) and very obviously nothing but attempting to see how many he could do before someone (in this case Jack) intervened.

As far as we're aware the record for real-deal consecutive posts was set by LA-ICE E a short while ago with 17... before that me and Marc shared it with said aforementioned 14.

 

[Pup Clarke]

Explained by his exceptional economy-rates in recent years...

I'm talking about when he's bowling at the death. Yes, he's an average new ball bowler who goes for a few but there is no one better bar Flintoff who can efficiantly and frequently bowl yorkers.

 

[Richard]

He's actually a capable new-ball bowler, and always has been. There were times when he made Jason Lewry look like a scattergun.

I've always thought, however, that his death skills are overrated. I've not seen an exact breakdown of a run-chart of his last-10\9\8-over (depending on whether it was a 50, 45 or 40-over game) spells (I'd imagine such a thing would be unattainable for anyone who didn't watch every Sussex OD game) but I'd bet it'd paint a slightly less flattering picture than most heresay does.

 

[Pup Clarke]

If you watched Sussex TV (which you probably don't) you'd soon realise what a good death bowler he is.

 

[Richard]

Nah, have heard of it loads and have meant to watch it loads, but never managed to.

What sort of thing does it show? Selected highlights showing how effective a Yorker is when he bowls them? Or full spells of consecutive games (not just those where he's done well)?

 

[Pup Clarke]

What sort of thing does it show? Selected highlights showing how effective a Yorker is when he bowls them? Or full spells of consecutive games (not just those where he's done well)?

It just shows all Championship, Friends Provident and Twenty20 games and it absolutely brilliant as I've previously hardly seen any county cricket. It usually just shows a bowler's wickets or dropped catches. I'd fully recommened that you register to it.

 

[Richard]

Just showing wickets is hardly a good way to judge a bowler's calibre, is it?

 

[Pup Clarke]

S'ppose not.

 

[FBU]

It's unfair to take-out the inadequacies of the death-bowlers on those who've done a good job in the middle. It's death-bowling that needs to be improved. I couldn't care less about getting wickets in the middle of the innings, hardly anyone routinely does that, because you don't need to if your death-bowlers are good enough.

Take Australia - Bracken (s/r 29.49) and Tait (s/r 26.46) take wickets and then you had McGrath (s/r 34.04) and Hogg (s/r 36.19) all taking wickets not including the others like Symonds, Clarke and Watson.

Take Sri Lanka - Vaas and Malinga, then Fernando and Murali with Jayasuriya as well all wicket takers.

I guess we will just have to hope to have more run outs

 

[roseboy64]

Hopefully Sunday's game is a cracker. Making me contemplate not going out Saturday night as by the time I reach home it'll be on and I won't last very long.

 

[Prince EWS]

How Shah has userped him is beyond me. This is now his fourth coming - he's in danger of becoming the next Vikram Solanki.

I hate it to say, but I'm almost certain it's due to the Twenty20 showings. From what I've heard, Trott was pretty much set to bat #3 in the ODIs with Bell at 5 or 6, but the performances of Shah and himself respectively int the Twenty20 games changed that. Ridiculous as it is, it seems like something selectors would do. And, to be fair, Shah has been good in the first two ODIs.

 

[wpdavid]

I hate it to say, but I'm almost certain it's due to the Twenty20 showings. From what I've heard, Trott was pretty much set to bat #3 in the ODIs with Bell at 5 or 6, but the performances of Shah and himself respectively int the Twenty20 games changed that. Ridiculous as it is, it seems like something selectors would do. And, to be fair, Shah has been good in the first two ODIs.

And to be equally fair, Bell at 5 or 6 would have been a complete nonsense.

I suppose the other version saw Bell opening with Prior, followed by Trott, KP, Shah & Collingwood. I can imagine the selectors looking at that before the series and thinking we could be shot out for 150 if KP fails, so we'll stick Cookie in who should provide a start, even if no-one expects him to bat like Hayden or Jaya.

 

[wpdavid]

I'm honestly not sure Bopara should be ahead of Yardy, though, TBH. Sure, Bopara actually looks like a batsman far more than Yardy will ever do, but right now Yardy is the more adept at actually scoring the runs, having been doing it for a few seasons now. Bopara, on the other hand, has always blown hot and cold to date.

Like you, though, I imagine Bopara would be ahead in the pecking-order.

I'd have thought so. He was one of the few players to enhance his reputation in the WC, and he was making vast quantities of runs this season before getting crocked. I'm not sure that he & Yardy are competing for the same place in the side though. Admittedly that's only based on one innings, but I liked Bopara's one performance at number 3 until he ran himself out, and I'd like to see him given a run there against India. Yardy, otoh, was palpably out of his depth at number 4 in the ICC and you wouldn't want to see him in the top 6 again. He's not the worst 7 or 8 though.