***Official*** West Indies in England

[GIMH]

He has done well at six previously and I wouldn't be dead agaisnt him playing there, as I hinted at above. However, I don't think we should assume that his previous success at six came because he was at six, as I think it could well just point to the fact that he was in form at the time and that the attacks we played against were as weak as piss.

 

[Richard]

He is more likely to have Test match success at six than three. That is all.

Thus, if there is vacancy at three, he should under no circumstance be considered. If there's one at six, he most certainly should.

 

[The Masterplan]

His 199 came when he batted at number five, so maybe he is suited slightly better to batting down the order? Who knows.

 

[Furball]

I'm sure I'm correct in saying that Bell hasn't yet scored a century in an innings where at least one other batsman has scored one.

In that case, surely England should utilise Bell's strength and bat him down the order at 5 or 6 where he's best placed to ram home an advantage?

 

[Pothas]

He has done well at six previously and I wouldn't be dead agaisnt him playing there, as I hinted at above. However, I don't think we should assume that his previous success at six came because he was at six, as I think it could well just point to the fact that he was in form at the time and that the attacks we played against were as weak as piss.

Think it is always difficult to tell really and I do happen to think that quite often batting position is overplayed epsecially in the case of someone like Michael Vaughan and I think it would be fair to say that Bell has faced tougher opposition at 3. Think it is a bit of both really and it is hard to deny that Bell has been a pretty decent test batsman at 5 or 6. Still have not quite given up on Bell as a test player, definety think his failings are been overplayed at the moment.

 

[Flem274*]

Wright, Mahmood and Plunkett are very poor selections but they should still be too strong for this Windies outfit.

The only thing Luke Wright is too strong for is.....ummm.........is........errrrrrrr

 

[Prince EWS]

The only thing Luke Wright is too strong for is.....ummm.........is........errrrrrrr

 

[Howsie]

I haven't seen him either, but I hear he's pretty quick....

I hope he gets a game against Essex. He currently plays for the Windwards, and did reasonably well, considering that the domestic competition is dominated by spinners.

He is atleast 150+ from what I've read and seen of him,the West Indies should pick him. I would love to see the damage he does to to the England batsmen.

 

[superkingdave]

Some strange comments from Strauss but it looks like we are set to play 5 bowlers and Harmison is a pretty much nailed on selection if he gets a wicket or two between now and the first test.

"I like the theory of using Flintoff as a shock bowler, not a stock bowler," Strauss said.

"The way that he bowls, he often takes his time to apply pressure and that means bowling a few overs on the trot...He doesn't swing the ball huge amounts, so that often means he has to bowl a lot of dot balls."

Don't quite know how the first part marry's up with the second

 

[Magrat Garlick]

Even when the WI had Garner, Holding etc, they never played more than four seamers....

The English obsession with having five bowlers is something I've never quite understood.

The WIndies rarely used that experiment. I can only recall the 1985 tour of England, when WI used Harper as a fifth bowler throughout the tour. That experiment was soon abandoned, and Lloyd went back to his four-man attack....

Teams were allowed to bowl 75 overs in a day back in the 1980s, though. This gives your bowlers more rest and allows four to perform more efficiently.

+ Viv bowled a fair bit.

 

[Richard]

Teams were allowed to bowl 75 overs in a day back in the 1980s, though. This gives your bowlers more rest and allows four to perform more efficiently.

+ Viv bowled a fair bit.

Well, they were in the 1970s, and the early part of the 1980s. IIRR the over-rate regulations were introduced sometime in the mid-1980s. Seem to recall reading somewhere that Harper was actually picked in the WI team in order to make meeting that requirement easier.

Even in the '70s and early-'80s, though, the likes of Fredericks, Lloyd, Richards etc. did do a decent bit of bowling.

At one point - could only have been 1984 - there must've been a min-overs-per-day rule and no over-rate ones, because apparently some days that summer they stayed on the field until gone 7PM so that they got through the day's overs.

 

[Uppercut]

Jigglypuff! I choose you!

 

[shivfan]

Well, they were in the 1970s, and the early part of the 1980s. IIRR the over-rate regulations were introduced sometime in the mid-1980s. Seem to recall reading somewhere that Harper was actually picked in the WI team in order to make meeting that requirement easier.

Even in the '70s and early-'80s, though, the likes of Fredericks, Lloyd, Richards etc. did do a decent bit of bowling.

At one point - could only have been 1984 - there must've been a min-overs-per-day rule and no over-rate ones, because apparently some days that summer they stayed on the field until gone 7PM so that they got through the day's overs.

I don't think Harper was used for that purpose....

He was used for almost all the Tests in the 1984 (correction) series, but right afterwards, when the WI went to Australia, he was on the sidelines again, until towards the end of the tour, when he came in for one of the four pacers. I believe the feeling was that seven batsmen were needed in Australia (including Dujon), while in England six would do.

Yes, Viv bowled a fair bit, but he was really a batsman who occasionally bowled. Who would be his equivalent in the England team? Colly? KP? Bopara?

Sort of like Michael Clarke in the current Australia setup, I suppose....

 

[Richard]

I don't think Harper was used for that purpose....

He was used for almost all the Tests in the 1984 (correction) series, but right afterwards, when the WI went to Australia, he was on the sidelines again, until towards the end of the tour, when he came in for one of the four pacers. I believe the feeling was that seven batsmen were needed in Australia (including Dujon), while in England six would do.

Oh yeah, Richardson was incredibly unlucky to be left-out in England in '84. Let's face it though - whether they'd picked six batsmen or seven batsmen in both or neither series, they were so far ahead of both England and Australia at that point that they'd have thrashed them hollow, as they did, regardless.

Harper, BTW, played 8 consecutive games in 1984 - the last three at home to Australia and all five in England. IIRR, only came in ITFP because Larry Gomes had gotten injured.

Yes, Viv bowled a fair bit, but he was really a batsman who occasionally bowled. Who would be his equivalent in the England team? Colly? KP? Bopara?

Sort of like Michael Clarke in the current Australia setup, I suppose....

All would be a decent rough equivalent.

 

[The Masterplan]

I'm sure I'm correct in saying that Bell hasn't yet scored a century in an innings where at least one other batsman has scored one.

In that case, surely England should utilise Bell's strength and bat him down the order at 5 or 6 where he's best placed to ram home an advantage?

When he got his 199, I think Pietersen hit 152 in the same innings.

 

[James_W]

When he got his 199, I think Pietersen hit 152 in the same innings.

I think he meant that Bell always scores centuries when others already have, just worded it wrong.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Bell 199, Pietersen 152
Bell 162*, Trescothick 151
Bell 119, Pietersen 135
Bell 115, Pietersen 100
Bell 110, Strauss 177
Bell 109*, Cook 105, Collingwood 111, Prior 126*
Bell 106*, Cook 127
Bell 100*, Cook 105, Collingwood 186

 

[Pothas]

Poor Bell, it is fast becoming one of those stats that every cricket fan knows and will be inevitably overplayed.

 

[Richard]

It's a little more irritating that a century is seen as the be-all-and-end-all. It simply isn't. Sometimes a century is more than is required; sometimes 107 isn't anywhere near a big enough score.

 

[King Pietersen]

Cricinfo - Flintoff returns home to undergo surgery

Fred's injured again. Needing surgery on his knee. Should only be out for 3 to 5 weeks so it's not that bad for England really. It's a degenerative injury, meaning he'd have broken down eventually anyway, and him needing surgery now is far better than him needing surgery 2 weeks before the start of the Ashes. People will moan about him going to the IPL to earn some extra cash and that being the reason he got injured, but it would have happened anyway. This means he can have the surgery, recover and get some practise in in time for possibly the T20 WC and definitely the Ashes. Also means we can give Bell or Bopara a go against the Windies alongside Shah to see who should have that #3 spot.