The Cricket Thread

[btb]

It is, but in this case, and in the 10 ball test, the pitches were not up to standard for international cricket. If there's anything in the next pitch at all, Harmison will get recalled and probably do a decent job.

How can you compare the abandoned Test with the Barbados one where a West Indies victory was a distinct possibility at the begining of Day 5 even if a couple of declarations had been required to get to this position?

[btb]

Terrible news from Lahore.No cricket in Pakistan for the foreseeable.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7920260.stm

Bad news indeed.

[kullibino]

For A,B&S I should have been more specific and said hot countries - if you take New Zealand out of the equation you'll see the difference.

For Anderson

in Australia Av 82.60

in England Av 29.80

in India Av 29.30

in New Zealand Av 35.37

in South Africa Av 74.50

in Sri Lanka Av 126.00

in West Indies Av 49.60

For Broad

in England Av 46.46

in India Av 67.00

in New Zealand Av 31.25

in Sri Lanka Av 95.00

in West Indies Av 32.33

For Sidebottom

in England Av 26.04

in New Zealand Av 17.08

in Sri Lanka Av 63.60

in West Indies Av 181

That was a poor England attack everybody knew this before the game yet somehow the fact they lived up to their dismal "hot country" form is being used for pet theories about "result" pitches.

You say you don't think many teams would have taken 20 wickets on this pitch yet in your previous post you said if the Windies had held onto their catches they could have bowled England out for less than 300.

I think it's a bit sweeping to cover 'hot countries' under one banner, very differernt bowlers will succeed in the Windies compared to in India. It's not surprising that seam bowlers have ropey averages in India, or against the 2 strongest sides in SA and Aus.

I'd agree it was a fairly poor Englanbd attack, but I still don't think that disguises the fact that 17 wickets fell in 5 full days play, poor bowling attacks they may have been but not that poor.

It does worry my how many lifeless pitches seem to be produced for test matches these days, perhaps it's boards looking to ensure games go the full 5 days to maximise income.

One look at the now tragically ended Sri Lanka tour of Pakistan show's it's not just this one pitch.

You say you don't think many teams would have taken 20 wickets on this pitch yet in your previous post you said if the Windies had held onto their catches they could have bowled England out for less than 300.

You implied that Englands(or WI) bowling attacks wouldn't have taken 20 wickets on any sort of pitch, I used that to point out that this didn't appear to be the case here.

If you're implying that suddenly the WI attack is vastly superior to Englands then why did only 2 (yes, that's right TWO!) wickets fall on the last day of a test match.

If a game goes to a 5th day only in some sort of exceptional circumstances should less than 7-8 wickst fall on a final day pitch, if only through variable bounce.

I severely doubt it's the case that both teams happen to have absolutly gun batting sides and no bowling whatsoever.

Anyway this is getting totally sidetracked from the main point, that is, that this pitch produced for this test was pretty much a disgrace, and one never likely to produce any sort of a positive result.

[btb]

I think it's a bit sweeping to cover 'hot countries' under one banner, very differernt bowlers will succeed in the Windies compared to in India. It's not surprising that seam bowlers have ropey averages in India, or against the 2 strongest sides in SA and Aus.

I disagree you say "It's not surprising that seam bowlers have ropey averages in India" but offer no explanation why it should be only India - I've been following England tours abroad since Illingworth's team won The Ashes in 70/71 and English bowlers who do well in the sort of countries I mentioned, like John Snow on that tour, are the exception and not the rule.

I'd agree it was a fairly poor Englanbd attack, but I still don't think that disguises the fact that 17 wickets fell in 5 full days play, poor bowling attacks they may have been but not that poor.

I think the England attack without Flintoff & Harmison was never likely to take 20 wickets - everyone knew this before the game so why get your knickers in a twist now. Look at the West Indies attack - 4 front line bowlers & only one with an average under 35 - it makes England's collapse at Sabina Park even more mystifying.

It does worry my how many lifeless pitches seem to be produced for test matches these days, perhaps it's boards looking to ensure games go the full 5 days to maximise income.

One look at the now tragically ended Sri Lanka tour of Pakistan show's it's not just this one pitch.

Again I'm sorry to sound like Old Father Time but it's always been that way in the subcontinent. Look at this series a result in the First, one ball away from a result in the Second/Third and a tame draw in the Fourth and to be honest I hope & expect a tame pitch for the Fifth as West Indies go for a Series win.

You implied that Englands(or WI) bowling attacks wouldn't have taken 20 wickets on any sort of pitch, I used that to point out that this didn't appear to be the case here.

Well the current West Indies attack hasn't done it too often in the recent past (although you're the one who pointed out with better fielding they may just have done so), the one England just put out was very, very unlikely to outside of Engand (or NZ ).

If you're implying that suddenly the WI attack is vastly superior to Englands then why did only 2 (yes, that's right TWO!) wickets fall on the last day of a test match.

No I'm not implying that the West Indies have a vastly superior attack but they did take their one genuine chance - which has got to be worrying for England especially if Australia have reached their nadir and are on the way back up.

If a game goes to a 5th day only in some sort of exceptional circumstances should less than 7-8 wickst fall on a final day pitch, if only through variable bounce.

It was an exceptional pitch in terms of this series as I've explained above.

Anyway this is getting totally sidetracked from the main point, that is, that this pitch produced for this test was pretty much a disgrace, and one never likely to produce any sort of a positive result.

To an extent I agree with you but too often on a "result pitch" the determining factor is winning the toss - which IMO really takes the excitement out of the game. Let's compromise, if England square the series I'll start a campaign to have a Sixth and deciding Test played at Fir Park!

Edited March 3, 2009 by btb

[btb]

In a situation like the current Windies v England series you'd expect the team in the lead to play conservatively. Take the 2005 Ashes at 2-1 up England replaced the injured Simon Jones with Collingwood and played conservatively asking Australia to do the work if they wanted to square the series.

Test 1763

It's up to England to make a game of it. I'd expect West Indies to drop Hinds - 48 runs with a highest score of 27 and an average of 16 is........ well Bellish. Powell should go too, although his batting form may save him!

[capybara]

I know it is difficult to get a wicket that will please everybody,and obviously in different countries you get very different strips,that's the fun of the game.

Like other have said though you don't want the toss deciding the outcome and you don't really want wickets as flat as the last one. Well i don't.

Watched a bit of the Aussies last night, Those new guys have grabbed their chance.Some fiery bowling.The summer could be more interesting than i thought.

[btb]

I know it is difficult to get a wicket that will please everybody,and obviously in different countries you get very different strips,that's the fun of the game.

Like other have said though you don't want the toss deciding the outcome and you don't really want wickets as flat as the last one. Well i don't.

Watched a bit of the Aussies last night, Those new guys have grabbed their chance.Some fiery bowling.The summer could be more interesting than i thought.

One more would do just fine!

***********************************

SA vs Australia was a great Test - the Aussies coming back from a poor start in the First Innings to win.

[kullibino]

I don't have a problem with the decks in the 1st 2 tests, though they were both a bit on the slow side. It's just this one that was stinking, and made for terrible viewing.

If the rains stops I'm guessing the wicket for the final test will be one that'll provide a result as it's likely to be under prepared.

[kullibino]

To an extent I agree with you but too often on a "result pitch" the determining factor is winning the toss - which IMO really takes the excitement out of the game. Let's compromise, if England square the series I'll start a campaign to have a Sixth and deciding Test played at Fir Park!

I don't want 'results wickets' per say, just good test match pitches, which is after all what groundsmen are paid to produce.

[Yoss]

There's some rightness in both sides of the argument here - if England had better bowlers then the flat pitch wouldn't matter. But given that most sides are generally pretty evenly matched most of the time and we can't often have Walsh and Ambrose, say, or Shane Warne, it's going to make Test cricket a much less appealing proposition if we have many more pitches like that one.

But, that's not cricket's biggest concern right at the moment.

[Yoss]

so, for tomorrow.

cricinfo reckons:

Team newsDespite the toothlessness of England's Barbados attack, there will be no immediate reprieve for Harmison, who has pitched his tent in the dog-house for the remainder of this trip. Sidebottom must also surely sit this one out, having struggled visibly with an Achilles problem that left his pace below 80mph for long periods of the fourth Test. Do England therefore opt for a second spinner in Monty Panesar, who has himself struggled for penetration in recent months, or does the young thruster Amjad Khan come into the equation instead. He's rapid and can swing the ball, and might yet be the best option in a must-win contest. One other change will be the return of Matt Prior, safely back in the fold after his paternity leave, for Tim Ambrose.

England (probable) 1 Andrew Strauss (capt), 2 Alastair Cook, 3 Owais Shah, 4 Kevin Pietersen, 5 Paul Collingwood, 6 Ravi Bopara, 7 Matt Prior (wk), 8 Stuart Broad, 9 James Anderson, 10 Graeme Swann, 11 Amjad Khan.

I'd rather see five bowlers myself; Bopara out and probably Panesar in. They might think about Rashid instead but there's only so much point in dropping a batsman and then choosing the replacement bowler on his batting ability, they need to win so might as well take the bull by the horns.

[btb]

Four bowlers seems to be the buzz coming from the England camp. Port of Spain is generally regarded as a fast bowlers pitch and England don't have 4 fit seamers/fast bowlers!

Interesting to note that in 2004 England's bowling line-up (in a 7 wicket victory) was Hoggard, Harmison, Flintoff, Giles & Jones. Giles ended up with match figures of 10-1-49-0.

Cricinfo suggest the following West Indies line-up

West Indies (probable) 1 Chris Gayle (capt), 2 Devon Smith, 3 Ramnaresh Sarwan, 4 Ryan Hinds, 5 Shivnarine Chanderpaul, 6 Brendan Nash, 7 Denesh Ramdin (wk), 8 Jerome Taylor, 9 Lionel Baker, 10 Sulieman Benn, 11 Fidel Edwards.

I'd be tempted to keep Powell and drop Benn - Gayle could handle the spinner's duties if required.

Normally get a positive (from one PoV) result at this ground so providing the weather stays fair I'm looking forward to a 2-0 series win for the Windies!

Edited March 5, 2009 by btb

[Yoss]

Not confirmed yet but sounds like they've gone for it.

Bopara, Ambrose, Sidebottom all dropped; Harmison still out; Prior, Khan and Panesar in.

(Strauss, Cook, Shah, Pietersen, Collingwood, Prior, Broad, Swann, Anderson, Panesar, Khan)

Good stuff.

[Savage Henry]

Not confirmed yet but sounds like they've gone for it.

Bopara, Ambrose, Sidebottom all dropped; Harmison still out; Prior, Khan and Panesar in.

(Strauss, Cook, Shah, Pietersen, Collingwood, Prior, Broad, Swann, Anderson, Panesar, Khan)

Good stuff.

Is Kahn a worse batsman than Panesar?

[capybara]

Is Kahn a worse batsman than Panesar?

According to the Telegraph he his a number 7. England have won the toss and will bat.

[btb]

No Benn - West Indies are playing the extra batsman in Lendl Simmons, the highly rated youngster. No Jerome Taylor who's injured so Lionel Baker comes in. Two contrasting team selections.

Chris Gayle, Devon Smith, Ramnaresh Sarwan, Lendl Simmons, Shivnarine Chanderpaul, Brendan Nash, Ryan Hinds, Denesh Ramdin, Daren Powell, Fidel Edwards, Lionel Baker

Chris Gayle tosses, Strauss calls heads and it is a head. England will have a bat.

9.30am Here's the England team, chaps. Two spinners (hurrah) and a five-man attack

1 Andrew Strauss, 2 Alastair Cook, 3 Owais Shah, 4 Kevin Pietersen, 5 Paul Collingwood, 6 Matt Prior (wk), 7 Stuart Broad, 8 Graeme Swann, 9 James Anderson, 10 Amjad Khan, 11 Monty Panesar

Very weak bowling line-up for West Indies!

Unlucky for Bopara, but probably the right selection with England chasing a win.

[Shengus Khan]

Very weak bowling line-up for West Indies!

They don't need to take 20 wickets so they've added an extra batsman to their line up. They'll just be looking to get their batsmen in and keep them in. It's a bit of a dull, safe ploy but it's ultimately the right choice. England done the same in the Oval test in 2005 when they drafted in Collingwood for the injured S Jones.

[Savage Henry]

They don't need to take 20 wickets so they've added an extra batsman to their line up. They'll just be looking to get their batsmen in and keep them in. It's a bit of a dull, safe ploy but it's ultimately the right choice. England done the same in the Oval test in 2005 when they drafted in Collingwood for the injured S Jones.

Well, another nothing wicket. It's going to be a case of the English spinners trying to outfox the West Indian batsmen.

The ICC are going to have to haul the West Indian board over the coals or whatever that phrase is. Of the five tests, one and possibly two, was appropriate for test cricket.

[btb]

They don't need to take 20 wickets so they've added an extra batsman to their line up. They'll just be looking to get their batsmen in and keep them in. It's a bit of a dull, safe ploy but it's ultimately the right choice. England done the same in the Oval test in 2005 when they drafted in Collingwood for the injured S Jones.

The difference is England were going from 5 front line bowlers to 4, not 4 to 3. West Indies might not need to win this match - but three front line bowlers! Nash, a man who's bowled less than 90 overs (and taken just 7 wickets) in first class cricket on in the 20th over. There's only so many times you can get away with giving away the initiative and I fear Port of Spain might be less of a featherbed than the last two pitches.

It looks like they've (the West Indies) have gone to all out defence before lunch on the first day.

Gayle on at the other end!

Edited March 6, 2009 by btb

[btb]

Well, another nothing wicket. It's going to be a case of the English spinners trying to outfox the West Indian batsmen.

The ICC are going to have to haul the West Indian board over the coals or whatever that phrase is. Of the five tests, one and possibly two, was appropriate for test cricket.

A bit premature - not even Lunch on Day 1. Remember it's Powell & Baker bowling not Patterson & Bishop.