West Indies Test series

I've seen the Barmies in action, they're loud, but generally good natured, excessively sunburnt and often entertaining. I certainly wouldn't equate them with the worst class of footy fans. Dunno how they afford the lifestyle though.

England were far too good in 05, but we've got our chance for revenge this year, hope we can lift. Nothing like an England-Aus series, looking forward to it.

The Barmy Army ruins any cricket match.

I was at The Oval to watch unfortunately an England win over South Africa. All that could be heard all day long was the moronic chant 'Barmy Army.'

I am afraid it completely spoilt the day; the England win was a mild irritant in comparison.

Bruce, I should have clarified that by English Cricket I really meant MCC and England. I have no problems following county cricket. Indeed, I can think of few things better to do on a summer's day.

And what is the nonsense with Prior flying home simply because his wife has sprogged? Isn't there enough lack of dedication in the England team??

Sorry, but I cannot understand why he even bothered to tour if he is going to leave part way through for something so inconsequential.

I may be wrong but I have the impression 'reading between the lines' he had not intended to go home but is doing so because the situation is not straightforward. Surely if it was planned he would have returned for the actual birth in advance? This looks like a very short notice decision.

BTW Nick, are you Fred Trueman in disguise? I claim my five pounds! "When we toured we had to walk all the way to New Zealand, in full cricket kit, carrying our bags, with nowt but gravel to eat and then when we arrived I'd get up at 4am to mow the outfield, bowl 15 overs straight off (from both ends) before licking the captains bat clean with me tongue. We were away so long that our lad were 10 year old before I saw 'im. Young folk nowadays..." etc.

RIP Fred, you are missed.

Bruce

No, not FST, but I do think that cricket lost a great figure when (a) FST retired and (b) retired from life.

Somehow I don't see many of the current morons making a name for themselves as commentators and raconteurs.

Problems or not, Prior was employed to tour the WI, not go gallivanting off home because his wife can't sprog correctly.

When does the next ritual humiliation of England begin again?

Doesn't look like anyone can take wickets out there!

Another draw probably.

Well played, West Indies....hope this is a sign that you are finally on the way back.

I'm a real cricket numpty so treat me gently. I understand its place in English culture, and I normally don't take an interest. Yet, bizarrely, I found this series quite intriguing. It showed, to me at least, what can happen when you have two similarly unbalanced teams pitted against each other. Both teams seemed to have the ability to score lots, and I mean lots, of runs, implying also that neither team were very good at getting each other out. Therefore, is the only skill in winning to do with the timing of the declaration? Otherwise a draw is inevitable?
Or is it more complicated than that?
As I said, treat me gently, because cricket really did pass me by, but I'm willing to learn
Cheers
John

quote:

Originally posted by Nero:
Or is it more complicated than that?

John

A key matter in deciding this series were the wickets they were playing on. If the wicket is a batting wicket, does not give turn to the ball for the bowlers, then it is very difficult for the bowling side to take wickets. The length of the grass left on the wicket, how long it is left uncovered, if it is watered in the days before the game can all affect how the wicket plays.

England when playing at home do not tend to prepare such partisan wickets, each ground having its own character, but not made to favour the teams position in a series (not as much anyway).

The weather can affect it too, but didn't in this series. Batting on a damp pitch, or in damp/humid conditions is much harder, and more wickets are taken.

In the last match the West Indies had decided not to try and win, and stall the game out for a draw. It was negative, but sensible play.

Michael Atherton pointed out in the Sky TV commentary that over the last twenty year almost all the changes in the rules for the game have favoured the batsmen, which has also played its part in this kind of play.

I do think Strauss has been too safe in his declarations, but I am impressed that England did take 8 wickets in two sessions, but not the full 10 unfortunately.

There were some good bowlers on display in this series, but not amazing ones. Fidel Edwards is a good prospect for the West Indies. I like Stuart Broad, but don't think he is anywhere near as good as Steve Harmison, but Harmison is either not fit, or not able to concentrate much of the time. Andrew Flintoff is never fit enough to last a series, I admired his effort in his last test he played in where he was playing through great pain, but I would rather have watched a fit player play with their full ability and contribute to the whole series.

One thing written on the BBC website about England is "They have not won an opening Test since beating Bangladesh at Lord's in May 2005, losing seven of 14 since." England are not going into test series ready to play at test level, and once they have lost the opening test, they are at a disadvantage, and as happened in the West Indies, their opponent can then prepare wickets to favour the batsmen, and bat out the series.

The team need to prepare more, play together more prior to the test series, and certain members of the team need to either sort out their fitness problems, or be dropped from the team and let other develop and take a regular and reliable place in the team. A fully fit good player is of more use than an injured great player hobbling around, and playing part of the time, regardless of their courage to play.

so, a lot of variables - interesting. Who'd be an England captain?
Thanks

quote:

Originally posted by JamieL:
England when playing at home do not tend to prepare such partisan wickets, each ground having its own character, but not made to favour the teams position in a series (not as much anyway).

I didn't see this series (no cable coverage in the US) but in general I think it makes for better cricket when the pitches are evenly paced (or maybe on the slow side) with true bounce and the onus is on the bowlers to outperform in order to take wickets, than the other way around. Historically, I have lost count of the number of occasions on which WI pace attacks of the past have encountered slow wickets that were unhelpful to their cause and have risen to the occasion nevertheless (the wickets in India & Pakistan and even sometimes the turning wickets in the WI at Port of Spain in the 70s and 80s, come to mind).

If the England attack in this series was less effective than it needed to be, the fault is theirs and not that of anyone else. They need to take responsibility for their own shortcomings and work on remedying them, not look for excuses. In this game, with 74 extras being conceded in the WI first innings, they shouldn't have to look far for areas that they could improve on. That could easily have cost another hour or so for them to bowl at the WI on the fifth day.

quote:

Originally posted by jazzfan:

quote:

Originally posted by JamieL:
England when playing at home do not tend to prepare such partisan wickets, each ground having its own character, but not made to favour the teams position in a series (not as much anyway).

I didn't see this series (no cable coverage in the US) but in general I think it makes for better cricket when the pitches are evenly paced (or maybe on the slow side) with true bounce and the onus is on the bowlers to outperform in order to take wickets, than the other way around. Historically, I have lost count of the number of occasions on which WI pace attacks of the past have encountered slow wickets that were unhelpful to their cause and have risen to the occasion nevertheless (the wickets in India & Pakistan and even sometimes the turning wickets in the WI at Port of Spain in the 70s and 80s, come to mind).

If the England attack in this series was less effective than it needed to be, the fault is theirs and not that of anyone else. They need to take responsibility for their own shortcomings and work on remedying them, not look for excuses. In this game, with 74 extras being conceded in the WI first innings, they shouldn't have to look far for areas that they could improve on. That could easily have cost another hour or so for them to bowl at the WI on the fifth day.

You are quite right, Holding, Ambrose, Walsh, etc. could wipe out a side on the flattest batting wicket, and for that matter Shane Warne could spin it on any pitch, but there are probably no such great bowlers in world cricket at the moment.

But good players are limited by the conditions more, and the combination of good, players, not great players, and flat wickets did favour the batting side. 74 extras is not a forgiveable statistic.

England do need to improve, the West Indies seem to have a few players who could raise them back to their best again, if they continue to improve.

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!

West Indies lose the first one day international against England because they were negative, and thought by not playing, and taking the light that they would win the game. Well no, their management had got the figures wrong, but if they had played the last four overs to try and win, rather than hoping to be given the game, they would have had a good chance.

GOOD.

I also hope it is the last time we see Steve Harmison play for England, he was appalling. One over for 26 runs bowling is not acceptable, he almost game the game to the West Indies. Good batting, yes, but six sitters in the low eighties, with no imagination or variation was dreadful. He doesn't have either the dedication, or the imagination to continue to be an international bowler.

He then dropped a catch straight at him. Yes he caught another sitter, but frankly, the other ten men would have done better in the game without him.

Goodbye, I hope.

Agree with most of that...Not sure whether I'm glad to have missed out on a 'nail biting' finish or not...They're fine when we win!

Glad to see the WI recover from that terrible error on Friday and level the series - the remaining matches should be interesting (even though there is no cable coverage here).

Just when you think things could not get worse, England go and set foot on a cricket pitch again.

I almost feel that the whole of this team should be demoted to the B-team, the B-team promoted, and the players made to earn their way back into the first team.

I know England are not as good a 1 day team as a test team, but this set of players has no chance of beating the Australian team this summer. I also think that Strauss does not have what it takes to be captain, he was a safe choice politically, after Pietersen, but he has no aggression in the filed or leadership ability.

There are players I like in this team, but as a team they have no cohesion.

The WI appear to be returning to their form of about 15 years ago, but with the reports of tension between players and Board, I would still regard them as a fragile team whose focus and self belief could easily be disrupted. English supporters should not (even at this stage) necessarily discount their chances in the present one day series, and definitely not in the Test series this summer.

England 136-1 (18.3 overs) beat West Indies 239-9 (50 overs) by nine wickets (D/L method)

I think it has been a long series, but a great result nonetheless. I do wonder about Strauss as captain though; I think with another captain (KP) we'd had won the test series comfortably.

Duckworth and Lewis seem great guys

ATB Rotf

Strauss has played better as captain and his leadership has provided stability, now give him time to make a mark on 'his' team.

Would making KP captain have stopped him being 'homesick'? I doubt it. I actually thought he had the making of a good captain but ultimately he was sacked because he tried to lead a revolt-and failed to get enough support.

Let him show his quality and comittment to England cricket as a player again (which appears to be lacking just now). If that happens then he might be captain again sometime.

This whole series shows two poor teams really, often playing on poor wickets as well. Flashes of skill and excitement but pretty second division fare.

Bruce

Well, I will have to eat some words. They did play well in this last game, Flintoff bowled brilliantly, and was fit for a whole 58 overs of play. They won a ODI series for the first time in 20 years (?) in the West Indies.

I will wait and see in Strauss becomes a good captain. I still think he lacks a sharp edge, but there is good communication between the bowlers and players on the field. Jimmy Anderson has become a very good bowler and Stuart Broad is there too.

I still don't think that Harmison is consistent enough to be an international player, at the end of this series he was OK, but at the start of each series he is hopeless, no imagination, concentration and often unfit. He is a liability if he is picked in this summers series.