England v West Indies, 2nd Test - Trent Bridge

First topic message reminder :

England unchanged. Rampaul and Shillingford in for the Windies.

Windies win the toss and will bat. A great toss to win - runs galore today.

Well done Windies, passed 300 twice in 3 innings...more than India did in 8 innings! Still England's game what with the pitch as it is.

That is two tests in a row now that England's bowlers looked to have the West Indies batting fully on the ropes only for the middle and lower West Indian batting to suddenly flourish and give England's bowlers all kind of problems. It just shows that once the ball stops swinging the England bowlers are nothing special and distinctly average at best. Apart from Jimmy and to an extent Graeme Swann, England's bowling attack is very overrated and does lack a bit of penetration.

Well if ours lacks penetration- it doesnt say much for the rest of the sides bowling attacks.

i think this is only the 4th time england have conceaded 300 plus in 22 innings. It is more of a blip than the norm- All teams have the odd lax session

I've been at work all day. peed off that Bresnan continues to be picked over Finn who is a far superior bowler. Windies did brilliantly (well Samuels and Sammy anyway). Looks like it'll go into a 4th day at least which is good for me as I'm off Monday/Tuesday!

mystiroakey wrote:Well if ours lacks penetration- it doesnt say much for the rest of the sides bowling attacks.

i think this is only the 4th time england have conceaded 300 plus in 22 innings. It is more of a blip than the norm- All teams have the odd lax session

If it had been the Australians or the South Africans that the West Indies had played today, they would have bowled the West Indies out easily.

really boycott??

Teams fluctuate with performance levels- a good england would have bolwed them out as well, and a slightly off SA or Aus wouldnt have bolwed them out today

mystiroakey wrote:really boycott??

Teams fluctuate with performance levels- a good england would have bolwed them out as well, and a slightly off SA or Aus wouldnt have bolwed them out today

Ahh but this isn't that good an England team is it.

no its not that good - only no.1 in the world with 3 of the top 5 bolwers

gboycottnut wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:Well if ours lacks penetration- it doesnt say much for the rest of the sides bowling attacks.

i think this is only the 4th time england have conceaded 300 plus in 22 innings. It is more of a blip than the norm- All teams have the odd lax session

If it had been the Australians or the South Africans that the West Indies had played today, they would have bowled the West Indies out easily.

\

I disagree. All teams have poor sessions from time to time, and Samuels and Sammy applied themselves well. England and SA are by far and away the best two bowling attacks around (and I can't split them). Australia have done well as a bowling unit either side of the 2010/11 Ashes, but I await their home series v SA and next tour of England to make further judgment.

mystiroakey wrote:no its not that good - only no.1 in the world with 3 of the top 5 bolwers

You have got to be kidding! England have 3 of the top 5 bowlers in the world - I just can't believe it. Bowling around the world must be in a poor state at present for this bunch of overated English bowlers to have 3 players currently as part of the world's top 5 bowlers.

belive it its fact

gboycottnut wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:no its not that good - only no.1 in the world with 3 of the top 5 bolwers

You have got to be kidding! England have 3 of the top 5 bowlers in the world - I just can't believe it. Bowling around the world must be in a poor state at present for this bunch of overated English bowlers to have 3 players currently as part of the world's top 5 bowlers.

Dont watch much cricket or just here to wind up posters?

gboycottnut wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:really boycott??

Teams fluctuate with performance levels- a good england would have bolwed them out as well, and a slightly off SA or Aus wouldnt have bolwed them out today

Ahh but this isn't that good an England team is it.

Ahh this isn't a good England team despite being number 1 in the world. Would really like to see what a good England team is then

ollyrules wrote:

gboycottnut wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:really boycott??

Teams fluctuate with performance levels- a good england would have bolwed them out as well, and a slightly off SA or Aus wouldnt have bolwed them out today

Ahh but this isn't that good an England team is it.

Ahh this isn't a good England team despite being number 1 in the world. Would really like to see what a good England team is then

For a great England team how about this lot from the 1950's:-

1 Len Hutton
2 Colin Cowdrey
3 Peter May
4 Ken Barrington
5 Denis Compton
6 Trevor Bailey
7 Godfrey Evans
8 Jim Laker
9 Tony Lock
10 Fred Trueman
11 Brian Statham

or what about this great England team from 1985:-

1 Graham Gooch
2 Tim Robinson
3 David Gower
4 Mike Gatting
5 Allan Lamb
6 Ian Botham
7 Paul Downton
8 John Emburey
9 Phil Edmonds
10 Paul Allott
11 Jonathan Agnew

dude cant we just enjoy the fact we have the bestteam in the world and the best england one for almost 20 years

gboycottnut wrote:

ollyrules wrote:

gboycottnut wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:really boycott??

Teams fluctuate with performance levels- a good england would have bolwed them out as well, and a slightly off SA or Aus wouldnt have bolwed them out today

Ahh but this isn't that good an England team is it.

Ahh this isn't a good England team despite being number 1 in the world. Would really like to see what a good England team is then

For a great England team how about this lot from the 1950's:-

1 Len Hutton
2 Colin Cowdrey
3 Peter May
4 Ken Barrington
5 Denis Compton
6 Trevor Bailey
7 Godfrey Evans
8 Jim Laker
9 Tony Lock
10 Fred Trueman
11 Brian Statham

or what about this great England team from 1985:-

1 Graham Gooch
2 Tim Robinson
3 David Gower
4 Mike Gatting
5 Allan Lamb
6 Ian Botham
7 Paul Downton
8 John Emburey
9 Phil Edmonds
10 Paul Allott
11 Jonathan Agnew

I'm not denying that they aren't great England teams, but you must admit the team we have now is pretty darn good! A couple of bad sessions doesn't change that!

mystiroakey wrote:dude cant we just enjoy the fact we have the bestteam in the world and the best england one for almost 20 years

England are only the best team in the world based on a ranking system. However South Africa on paper just now look like a stronger team than we do. And I don't agree that this is the best England team for almost 20 years, as we have had many a fine side down the years.

ok mr boycott- thats your opinion- We won the ashes back to back(and AWAY!!!!!)- no.1 in tests.

Anyway we will be playing SA soon that may swing it for you when we win ..

ollyrules wrote:

gboycottnut wrote:

ollyrules wrote:

gboycottnut wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:really boycott??

Teams fluctuate with performance levels- a good england would have bolwed them out as well, and a slightly off SA or Aus wouldnt have bolwed them out today

Ahh but this isn't that good an England team is it.

Ahh this isn't a good England team despite being number 1 in the world. Would really like to see what a good England team is then

For a great England team how about this lot from the 1950's:-

1 Len Hutton
2 Colin Cowdrey
3 Peter May
4 Ken Barrington
5 Denis Compton
6 Trevor Bailey
7 Godfrey Evans
8 Jim Laker
9 Tony Lock
10 Fred Trueman
11 Brian Statham

or what about this great England team from 1985:-

1 Graham Gooch
2 Tim Robinson
3 David Gower
4 Mike Gatting
5 Allan Lamb
6 Ian Botham
7 Paul Downton
8 John Emburey
9 Phil Edmonds
10 Paul Allott
11 Jonathan Agnew

I'm not denying that they aren't great England teams, but you must admit the team we have now is pretty darn good! A couple of bad sessions doesn't change that!

They aren't all that darn as good as many people like to believe it really is. Darn good teams don't get bowled out for humiliating totals of a total of 70 odd runs V an average Pakistan team.

drop me out boycott.. your standards are way to high- when was the last time england were no.1 and we are deserved no.1 an all!

mystiroakey wrote:ok mr boycott- thats your opinion- We won the ashes back to back(and AWAY!!!!!)- no.1 in tests.

Anyway we will be playing SA soon that may swing it for you when we win ..

On the basis of how England have played in these first two test matches V West Indies this summer, England aren't going to beat South Africa as they bowling attack looks worryingly lacking in penetration and backup after the ball loses its shine. The fact that England had to use a bits and pieces part-time bowler in Jonathan Trott this afternoon just sums up a huge problem England have by playing just 4 frontline bowlers.

gboycottnut wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:dude cant we just enjoy the fact we have the bestteam in the world and the best england one for almost 20 years

England are only the best team in the world based on a ranking system. However South Africa on paper just now look like a stronger team than we do. And I don't agree that this is the best England team for almost 20 years, as we have had many a fine side down the years.

You can't believe that someone is the best because they have the best side on paper. It's what you produce and this England team has won back to back Ashes series.

we have won the first and its day 1 in the second- do you usually jump to conclusions dude?

mystiroakey wrote:drop me out boycott.. your standards are way to high- when was the last time england were no.1 and we are deserved no.1 an all!

England do deserve to get the number 1 ranking, but that is only just that a number or a quantity value. This means absolutely nothing in the heat of a tough test match V a hard team to beat like South Africa or Australia.

gboycottnut wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:drop me out boycott.. your standards are way to high- when was the last time england were no.1 and we are deserved no.1 an all!

England do deserve to get the number 1 ranking, but that is only just that a number or a quantity value. This means absolutely nothing in the heat of a tough test match V a hard team to beat like South Africa or Australia.

Umm last time we played Australia we beat them 3-1 in there own backyard and last time we played SA we beat them in there backyard also

ollyrules wrote:

gboycottnut wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:dude cant we just enjoy the fact we have the bestteam in the world and the best england one for almost 20 years

England are only the best team in the world based on a ranking system. However South Africa on paper just now look like a stronger team than we do. And I don't agree that this is the best England team for almost 20 years, as we have had many a fine side down the years.

You can't believe that someone is the best because they have the best side on paper. It's what you produce and this England team has won back to back Ashes series.

Winning back to back ashes series doesn't mean anything in terms of being seen of as the best team in the world. In the glorious summer of 1985, Lord Gower led England to a convincing 3-1 ashes series win V a weak Australian team missing some of their star players. Then Mike Gatting led England when we retained the ashes 2-1 in the 1986/87 ashes series, yet weren't the best team in the world at that time because we just couldn't beat the West Indies then who on paper back then had the best team ever seen the game's history.

im happy dude - and i fully expect us to win the next to series!

playing SA is perfect timing because i admit the team has had a few weak sessions recently and we will need to be on our game- but i fully expect us to be on our game

ollyrules wrote:

gboycottnut wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:drop me out boycott.. your standards are way to high- when was the last time england were no.1 and we are deserved no.1 an all!

England do deserve to get the number 1 ranking, but that is only just that a number or a quantity value. This means absolutely nothing in the heat of a tough test match V a hard team to beat like South Africa or Australia.

Umm last time we played Australia we beat them 3-1 in there own backyard and last time we played SA we beat them in there backyard also

We played well to beat Australia, but Australia just didn't play that well in that test series with many of their players out of form. And whilst we may have beaten SA in their own backyard, SA are now are much more complete team with strong bowling depth to backup Dale Steyn whilst their batting looks much stronger on paper than it was back then.

ifs and buts then. england won becasue the other teams gifted us - yeah?

Odd comment. The core of South Africa's batting is the same as it was when England toured down there. Smith, Amla, Kallis and ABDV were all playing at the other opening slot and number 6 position was a problem just as it is now. Philander has emerged as a good 3rd seamer in the attack but Friedel de Wet was making a storming start to his Test career when England were down there and was probably the best of bowlers for SA. And Imran Tahir is no doubt a more attacking spinner than Paul Harris, but he has yet to prove he is a better spinner. SA have got better but not to the extent you are making out, and you are forgetting England have also improved from then.

And I hate this 5th bowler argument. No side needs a genuine 5th bowler unless he is an all rounder. He'll never bowl enough over to make himself useful to the side unless the opposition is compiling 450/500 and then he obviously isn't winning your side games anyway.

And did you watch the WI-Aus test series? The Windies pushed the Aussies a lot harder in all 3 of the Tests than they did in the first test match at Lords I would wager. The fact is England won it, and won comfortably. And they are on top in this Test match. They are a good side. As good as the 2005 side, already with better longevity and better than any England side of the 1990's.

On paper England have had one of the best football teams in the world for the last 10 years. Which is about as relevant as saying we don't have the best cricket team 'on paper' now.

well we do have the best team on paper anyway

Well, here is something interesting in the context of the 5th bowler debate.
cricinfo's George Dobell mentions that Jonny Bairstow, despite being impressive may find himself in a bit of a dificult spot as he doesn't offer a 5th bowling option that someone like Ravi Bopara would do. Then he mentions that in due course of time, either Ben Stokes or Chris Woakes might just take up that spot.
Then there is a casual mention of Rikki Clarke as the most improved all-round cricket in the domestic seen. When I watched him a long time ago, Clarke was nowhere close to a propper international material. Ha he really improved as George seems to be suggesting?
More importantly, do you guys see Stokes or Woakes developing into a propper all-rounder. The former for me is a batting all-rounder who's batting wasn't quited developed for international cricket when I saw him playing in the India ODIs, and the latter is more of a bowling all-rounder, but he averages 34 in FC cricket with the bat. Is he due a chance at the highest level playing test matches? His limited opportunities in ODIs and T-20s suggested sound potential.

I am hoping on woakes tbh

msp83 wrote:Well, here is something interesting in the context of the 5th bowler debate.
cricinfo's George Dobell mentions that Jonny Bairstow, despite being impressive may find himself in a bit of a dificult spot as he doesn't offer a 5th bowling option that someone like Ravi Bopara would do. Then he mentions that in due course of time, either Ben Stokes or Chris Woakes might just take up that spot.
Then there is a casual mention of Rikki Clarke as the most improved all-round cricket in the domestic seen. When I watched him a long time ago, Clarke was nowhere close to a propper international material. Ha he really improved as George seems to be suggesting?
More importantly, do you guys see Stokes or Woakes developing into a propper all-rounder. The former for me is a batting all-rounder who's batting wasn't quited developed for international cricket when I saw him playing in the India ODIs, and the latter is more of a bowling all-rounder, but he averages 34 in FC cricket with the bat. Is he due a chance at the highest level playing test matches? His limited opportunities in ODIs and T-20s suggested sound potential.

Everyone seems to have forgotten about Rikki Clarke who back in 2003-2004 was seen of as the next big star of English cricket at that time. Sadly he never quite fullfilled that promise. However perhaps he can do a Graeme Swann by starting to show on a more consistent basis the same form he did when he first burst onto the international scene and who knows even play for England again as at the moment England need a specialist batsman who can perform the same bowling support role as what Paul Collingwood did when he played for England.

I think Ben Stokes can become one of the best English all rounders of his generation. However I also think Woakes will be a star as well, so maybe when Andersen retires we might see them both in the side

Id rather see a player who can justify a place in the side on one discipline or the other than the sorts of players you see sides who dont trust their 4 bowlers stacked with.

I agree that Bairstow is an issue (as was Morgan) due the lack of a bowler of at least Collingwoods ability elsewhere in the top 7. But is Woakes ever going to be noticebley a better batsman that a Broad or even Bresnan...well we will see. Stokes is a limited over player at this point, a lot to prove with the bat and the ball before hes touted as the "new Samit Pate"l. There was of course Rashid a couple of years ago, his stock has sank as rapidly as Rikki Clarkes did.
Bopara would have been in the side had he not been injured for exactly these reasons. A genuine batsman who offers a support bowling option. Englands success has come with a batting heavy balance. trouble is theyve had a succession of failures come in at 6, but does that mean the want a player whos bowling is only really needed once a series or would they be better picking a genuinely good bowler and moving Bresnan and Broad up.

Against all that is that the England side wins more games and series with this kind of set up than it has done in decades. If they are going to mess with it it has to be because theres players truly worthy of a spot, not just because of a preconceived notion that a side has to have 5 bowlers.

our bowling is working- our batting isnt, its that simple. You are correct Pete

Why did we loose v pakistain- 100% batting..

people jump on a bad session and its all doom and gloom again lol. typical england fans.

our bowling system is working at present and untill it doesnt - why change anything!!

Stokes has had trouble with injuries already. He has to be well managed, and I think his bowling has to pick up a bit more.

We could have done with Rashid fulfilling his potential. He would have been at great option at number 7, another spinner with Swann would have been great to offer some variety. Plus he can bat a bit as well

OK some work for England's bowlers today after that last session. They were a bit down on their usual standard late in the day and I've been considering why...

Possibly : early on a warm day Anderson bowled a couple of longish spells , may just have taken the edge off him ? Broad also did a lot of bowling early - understandable as with the early wickets Strauss wanted to try and finish West Indies off quickly.
Also note that the tactics for the day included a lot of short pitched bowling on this flat wicket to force the batsmen on to the back foot and set them up for the full moving delivery : sound idea , and got results , but a side effect is it takes more out of your bowlers...
Add in that Bresnan overall had a poor day : good enough first spell but didn't come back well later - and not a lot there on day one for Swann , so a lot up to the two main strike men.
Of course , Anderson was very unlucky late in the day - could have had Sammy several times with the second new ball , just goes that way sometimes.

One thing Strauss might have done is use his "fill in" bowler , Trott a little earlier: by the time he did bowl the ball was very old , batsmen were well set , and the damage was arguably done in the sense that the main attack bowlers had perhaps already been over bowled...not wishing to be too critical , these are fine margin judgements and one could argue about any conclusions anyway...I am inclined to just say the last session was one that didn't go England's way , gove credit to the two batsmen , and see what happens today...

mystiroakey wrote:well we do have the best team on paper anyway

I'd say we have the best team based on our results and the world rankings.

As they say, you can only beat the opposition around you at the time and on that basis, England have mostly performed very well...the odd blip aside (although the Pakistan series in Abu Dhabi was admittedly quite a big blip). Its a stupid and pointless exercise trying to compare current sides from any nation against those of past eras. Mr Boycott Nut can rant all he likes but his arguments are null and void.

JERUSILUM IS PLAYING.

Yeah gotta love that song..

should be our anthem

dyrewolfe wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:well we do have the best team on paper anyway

I'd say we have the best team based on our results and the world rankings.

As they say, you can only beat the opposition around you at the time and on that basis, England have mostly performed very well...the odd blip aside. Its a stupid and pointless exercise trying to compare current sides from any nation against those of past eras. Mr Boycott Nut can rant all he likes but his arguments are null and void.

IMO the rankings/results is the paper dude.

and also rankings and results should correllate - otherwise the ranking system is flawed.

but yes i agree with ya

mystiroakey wrote:JERUSILUM IS PLAYING.

Yeah gotta love that song..

should be our anthem

Agree wholeheartedly. Its far more appropriate than God Save the Queen.

gboycottnut wrote:

ollyrules wrote:

gboycottnut wrote:

ollyrules wrote:

gboycottnut wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:really boycott??

Teams fluctuate with performance levels- a good england would have bolwed them out as well, and a slightly off SA or Aus wouldnt have bolwed them out today

Ahh but this isn't that good an England team is it.

Ahh this isn't a good England team despite being number 1 in the world. Would really like to see what a good England team is then

For a great England team how about this lot from the 1950's:-

1 Len Hutton
2 Colin Cowdrey
3 Peter May
4 Ken Barrington
5 Denis Compton
6 Trevor Bailey
7 Godfrey Evans
8 Jim Laker
9 Tony Lock
10 Fred Trueman
11 Brian Statham

or what about this great England team from 1985:-

1 Graham Gooch
2 Tim Robinson
3 David Gower
4 Mike Gatting
5 Allan Lamb
6 Ian Botham
7 Paul Downton
8 John Emburey
9 Phil Edmonds
10 Paul Allott
11 Jonathan Agnew

I'm not denying that they aren't great England teams, but you must admit the team we have now is pretty darn good! A couple of bad sessions doesn't change that!

They aren't all that darn as good as many people like to believe it really is. Darn good teams don't get bowled out for humiliating totals of a total of 70 odd runs V an average Pakistan team.

OMK most of what you've said I largely agree with but i have to pick you up on this. Firstly its not an average Pakistan team, their record since whatshisname got the capatinscy is very very good. Their spin bowling attack is the best in the world currently by a distance. As for collapses on the sub continent the Aussies got skittled out for bugger all in India when they were at the absolute height of their powers (2003/4?) and the great West Indies team got bowled out for 50 odd in Pakistan...these are the two greatest sides in test history.
All that aside pointing out Englands issues with the batting is hardly a ringing endorsement of the 5 frontline bowlers theory, if anything it shows why they have wanted depth in the batting.
As for the quality of Englands bowling they have taken wickets all over the world, even in conditions they werent expected to. They havent exactly let the West Indies rack up monstrous totals in this series either. They have 3 bowlers ranked in the top 5 in the world, no other side has 3 in top 10. Sure that doesnt tell the whole story but its an indication the bowling attack has been strong over a sustained period, which it has. Every side is going to have its brain fart moments and days where things dont go entirely to plan but that doesnt mean they are fundamentally weak or in dire need of reformation.
I dont think anyone kids themselves that England are the greatest test side ever, but in terms of England sides in the modern game this is about as good as its been. They are ranked number one, but I agree with your assessment that SA may be a touch stronger at the moment....but we can highlight flaws in their team too (spinner?) England may have to raise their game for that challenge, but they are capable of doing that. We may well see Finn replace Bresnan, but i cant see them option for a 5 man attack in the first test when faced with Morkel and Steyn.

pakistain can be an amazing team- they can beat anyone at any fromat- dont want to really bring to many ifs and buts into this discussion. But i honestly think they are way better than there 'paper'(or rankings/results) and that could be due to the 'incidents' that have been publicised recently

Bresnan's pace has to pick up, that was made him a force in dificult flat wickets. During his peak, he could fairly decent, if not express pace at the late 80 mph mark. But throughout the series, he hasn't been able to maintain that consistently. If he doesn't do that consistently, his effectiveness would be seriously affected, and that call to Steve Finn has to come sooner rather than later.

So 2 decent, nothing out of the world overs to start the day. Anderson is just warming up, the pace is down for the first over.
Nothing fancied from Sammy.

Sammy very close to getting bowled of Anderson there.