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

[Scaly piscine]

I would prefer having James Anderson over Liam Plunkett, but I can see how the selectors are thinking with such a long tail. Be interesting to see how Prior goes, I haven't seen much to suggest that he'll be much good but if he plays well then it will solve the wicket keeping dilemna for a little while. Pleased to hear that Flintoff wasn't made captain.

How? Plunkett has a better Test average despite playing half of his matches on complete roads. Plunkett took 8 wickets at less than 20 in the match against Kent and scored 35. Anderson took 3 relatively expensive wickets (given the conditions) and went at 5 an over.

 

[Scaly piscine]

The England merry-go-round continues.

A few problems that I do have:

1. In general, England throw caps out like confetti at a wedding, in my opinion, there is a certain element of exlusiveness lost with wearing the 3 lions of the chest now. Nothing serious, just something that I have a qualm with consdiierng that this is the highest level of cricket

2. Considering that England have had Alec Stewart in their team for such a long-period of time, its quite amazing to note how many keepers they've used since....lets say the 1990s - once again nothing serious, just the watering down of the pride of wearing the England colours. In saying that, I would of rather seen Read in the team

3. This number 8 nonsense has gone too far. Your top 7 score runs, your bowlers take wickets. You guys might know that I am an advocate for Mahmood's inclusion in the team, even in this case, I would of rather seen Anderson in the team - the better bowler

On a side note, do you guys atleast think its interesting that Mahmood/Anderson did not get picked ahead of Plunkett considering that they both bowled better than him during the World Cup.

Mahmood did not bowl better than Plunkett in the World Cup. Plunkett bowled better than both of them in the CB series. So what? It's Test cricket and Plunkett is a better bowler than either of them at the longer game.

 

[Perm]

He just seems like a better bowler to me.

 

[andyc]

Oh, and Mahmood's amazingly dire.

 

[gettingbetter]

Mahmood did not bowl better than Plunkett in the World Cup. Plunkett bowled better than both of them in the CB series. So what? It's Test cricket and Plunkett is a better bowler than either of them at the longer game.

Bollocks. Plunky boy bowled better than Mahmood at the WC, maybe if you take away the sympathy game against the Windies, it might open your eyes a bit more. Mahmood would be a better option that Plunky in the longer form of the game consdiering that he won't get the new ball and is pretty much useless with the old one.

 

[TT Boy]

Not surprising to see the selectors pick Prior for he hasn't been able to buy a run all year, England worthy credentials.

Other than that the team looks more than capable to beat the West Indies comfortably.

 

[Prince EWS]

On a side note, do you guys atleast think its interesting that Mahmood/Anderson did not get picked ahead of Plunkett considering that they both bowled better than him during the World Cup.

One must remember that the World Cup was an ODI tournament, though, so it's relevance is minimal. Anderson and Mahmood were both given chances in the Ashes and failed - Plunkett doesn't have that blight next to his name, not to mention the fact that he can also theoretically bat and has been in comparatively good form for Durham.

Personally, I'd go for Shah ahead of any of the bowlers and have Flintoff bat 7 (or even 8 below the keeper), but I can see why the selectors have gone with Plunkett ahead of Anderson and especially Mahmood.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Bollocks. Plunky boy bowled better than Mahmood at the WC, maybe if you take away the sympathy game against the Windies, it might open your eyes a bit more. Mahmood would be a better option that Plunky in the longer form of the game consdiering that he won't get the new ball and is pretty much useless with the old one.

You expect someone to just come in and bowl well on a batter's track after they got dropped for a complete donkey for a month?

Mahmood is useless with red, white, black, grey, pink polkadot balls, old or new. In fact give him an orange to eat and it'd end up slipping away for 5 wides when he goes to peel it. Mahmood is rubbish and always will be. Plunkett will get keep getting better and will get far more consistent as he gets older. Plunkett usually bowls with a perfect seam, so he tends to get a bit of movement as long as the ball stays in a decent condition - which it does in England. Remember the road Sri Lanka managed to draw on last season? Plunkett still managed to repeatedly beat the bat in the second innings and he was England's best bowler in that series against Sri Lanka.

 

[Athlai]

Mahmood is rubbish and always will be.

Not disagreeing with what your saying but talk like that almost always ends with words being eaten.

3 years from now, Mahmood cricketer of the year?

Now that would be something to see.

 

[steds]

Prior and Plunkett? Oh dear.

 

[gettingbetter]

Plunkett doesn't have that blight next to his name

Nor you or I have that against our names either, only thing stopping us is that we are both from Australia. Just remember that Mahmood is a wicket taking bowler who is extremely useful with the old ball. (Do you really think that Plunkett has the magic in him to deliver a ball after 1.5-2 long days in the field and having already bowled 15 or so overs - refer back to MCG test. Mahmood v Hayden who was on 150 odd). There is no chance that Punkett will have the new ball - so in some ways, his effectiveness is already negated.

not to mention the fact that he can also theoretically bat and has been in comparatively good form for Durham.

Did you read point 3 in my original post?

You expect someone to just come in and bowl well on a batter's track after they got dropped for a complete donkey for a month?

Similar prima facie to that of Mahmood in the Ashes don't you think? Take into his account his form in the English summer and using your theory, Mahmood should definetly be the 4th seamer.

Mahmood is useless with red, white, black, grey, pink polkadot balls, old or new. In fact give him an orange to eat and it'd end up slipping away for 5 wides when he goes to peel it.

Your attempt at comedy is noteworthy. Please next time follow such hilarious anecdotes like that with a 'c' in a circle - I think Danny Bhoy might use that in his next stand-up act.

Do you really think that Plunkett was England's best bowler that series? I'm not going to say that Mahmood was, but nor am I going to say Plunkett. Either way, Mahmood played in the Pakistan series against better batsman and performed well.

 

[Prince EWS]

Nor you or I have that against our names either, only thing stopping us is that we are both from Australia. Just remember that Mahmood is a wicket taking bowler who is extremely useful with the old ball. (Do you really think that Plunkett has the magic in him to deliver a ball after 1.5-2 long days in the field and having already bowled 15 or so overs - refer back to MCG test. Mahmood v Hayden who was on 150 odd). There is no chance that Punkett will have the new ball - so in some ways, his effectiveness is already negated.

If you have three bowlers of similar quality though, and two have just failed miserably while the other wasn't given a go, you'd logicially go for the third. Especially when he's in better form in first class cricket and can also bat better than the other two.

Personally I think Anderson is an infintely better bowler than both, but again, I can see why the selectors have gone with Plunkett - he's the logical choice out of the three unless you have personal preferences (which yourself, SP and I all seem to).

 

[Richard]

It was Devon Smith, not Dwayne. Other than that, well done though.

Haha. Oops. I think I'll correct that.

After an interruption which lasted until after midday, Gayle then dragged on the medium-pace of Mark Turner and was gone for a 19-ball 24.

Don't think a then was necessary there.

The threat of rain was rarely too far away, but the interruptions appeared not to break the concentration of either.

have an effect would have suited it better than to break IMO.

Also, I thought the report could have been a lot smoother. There was a lot more shifting of tenses than I thought was necessary in such a small report for instance.

Also, cliches and usual talk should be avoided strictly even for routine reports like this.

Thanks for those. As to the smoothness, I thought that myself, but it's only a 12-a-side tour game and I was talking to Gelman on MSN at the time. So blame him. If it'd been a Test I'd obviously have re-written certain parts far more extensively.

Usual talk?

 

[Richard]

The England merry-go-round continues.

A few problems that I do have:

1. In general, England throw caps out like confetti at a wedding, in my opinion, there is a certain element of exlusiveness lost with wearing the 3 lions of the chest now. Nothing serious, just something that I have a qualm with consdiierng that this is the highest level of cricket

Injuries have a lot to do with that, you know. You have to pick 11 - would you prefer we went back to proven failures, or picked 8 players? Just so as to keep the caps special?

2. Considering that England have had Alec Stewart in their team for such a long-period of time, its quite amazing to note how many keepers they've used since....lets say the 1990s - once again nothing serious, just the watering down of the pride of wearing the England colours. In saying that, I would of rather seen Read in the team

We may have had Stewart in the side for an extended time, but he only had a period of 7 years (1996-2003) as regular wicketkeeper, and even then he took breaks (1998 in WI, 1998\99 and 1999). Purely and simply, the reason we've used loads of wicketkeepers since then (and it's actually now about to become a massive THREE with Prior's addition) is because if you try something and it doesn't work, you try something else. You can't magic a player into a good one just by continually picking him. Stewart was good - very good. Jones and Read, despite promising credentials, have turned-out not to be.

3. This number 8 nonsense has gone too far. Your top 7 score runs, your bowlers take wickets. You guys might know that I am an advocate for Mahmood's inclusion in the team, even in this case, I would of rather seen Anderson in the team - the better bowler

That's a very simplistic way of looking at things. You want as many capable cricketers in the side as you can. Obviously, this should not preclude the selection of a vastly superior bowler (Hoggard) ahead of a clearly inferior one (Plunkett) due to a little bit of batting ability but if you've got two roughly equal bowlers with differing ability with the bat it beggars belief to pick the lesser batsman just because he might be a slightly better bowler. If you can bat down to eleven - as England briefly did in 2000, with Gough at the end - it's a huge bonus.

 

[Richard]

This is going to be one of those moments where we look back and say "tail started at six"...

Can't believe Graveney is going to give us Plunkett-Panesar-Hoggard-Harmison after saying never-again following Caddick-Mullally-Tufnell-Giddins.

 

[Pratters]

Cheers Rich. Usual talk like:

West Indies will hope to allow their remaining batsmen some time at the crease tomorrow, then give their bowlers a runout before the First Test which starts on Thursday 17th. The threat of rain remains, however.

I know it is a bit difficult to phrase the ending portion differently but you know what I mean.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

Can't believe Graveney is going to give us Plunkett-Panesar-Hoggard-Harmison after saying never-again following Caddick-Mullally-Tufnell-Giddins.

Ramprakash-Irani-Caddick-Mullally-Tufnell-Giddins, even?

 

[Richard]

Cheers Rich. Usual talk like:

West Indies will hope to allow their remaining batsmen some time at the crease tomorrow, then give their bowlers a runout before the First Test which starts on Thursday 17th. The threat of rain remains, however.

I know it is a bit difficult to phrase the ending portion differently but you know what I mean.

Think so. Will bear it in mind next time the event comes around.

 

[Richard]

Ramprakash-Irani-Caddick-Mullally-Tufnell-Giddins, even?

Well Ramprakash was fine, but yes, forgot about Irani.

Though Flintoff has been doing a viable impression of him (as a batsman) of late. And TBH, I don't believe he's as much superior (Flintoff to Irani, that is) as some probably would. And, of course, we have the wonderful Prior in the side instead of Stewart now.

 

[dcnstntn]

To be honest the squad doesn't look too bad to me. I'm disappointed that Nixon hasn't been given the chance to continue his excellent performances in the World Cup in the Test Match format. It looks as though he will never get the chance.

I'm also baffled as to why Shah has been included ahead of Ravi Bopara. Bopara has proven in the ODI format that he has what it takes to play at International level, and for me with Vaughan injured this would have been an ideal time to get him involved.

I'm not sure about Plunkett. Hopefully once S Jones has proven his fitness he will be in to replace him.

All in all the side looks quite strong and should get the better of the WINDIES. The positives we can take is that we still have two world class performers in Jones and Vaughan to return to the side too, and Bopara will be in the Test side before long. You'd have thought the fact that Bopara is a more than handy bowler too would have swung it his way. I'm not convinced by Shah.