3rd Test England v West Indies

England name 12-man squad for third Investec Test match against West Indies

The England selectors today named a 12-man squad for the third Investec Test match against West Indies commencing Thursday June 7 at Edgbaston.

Pace bowler James Anderson is the only omission from the squad selected for both previous Investec Test matches against West Indies. Anderson received treatment during the course of the second Test for a minor quad problem and it has been decided that missing the final Test in the series will give the 29 year old an opportunity to overcome several minor injuries.
England won the second Test in the three match series by nine wickets at Trent Bridge to secure a series win having won the first Test at Lord’s by five wickets. Preparations for the final Investec Test in the series will begin in Edgbaston on Tuesday.

National selector, Geoff Miller, said: “We have been made to work hard for our two victories so far and are delighted to have secured the series, however we know that we will need to continue to play some good cricket if we want a third win against the West Indies this week.

“James Anderson will miss this Investec Test as we look to manage his workload ahead of a busy period of cricket this summer and beyond, a decision which is in the best interests of the team and James himself.”

England squad – 3rd Investec Test

Andrew Strauss (Middlesex) (Captain)
Jonny Bairstow (Yorkshire)
Ian Bell (Warwickshire)
Tim Bresnan (Yorkshire)
Stuart Broad (Nottinghamshire)
Alastair Cook (Essex)
Steven Finn (Middlesex)
Graham Onions (Durham)
Kevin Pietersen (Surrey)
Matt Prior (Sussex)
Graeme Swann (Nottinghamshire)
Jonathan Trott (Warwickshire)

Fists of Fury wrote:
Mike, that is the point though, it wasn't even bordering on dangerous. Play should continue until someone almost or actually gets hurt, until then it clearly isn't dangerous. Considering that KP was scoring at a T20 rate there obviously weren't any issues seeing the ball.

This nonsense is what leaves grounds empty and damages the game in a big, big way. Those umpires should be hauled over the coals for such a pathetically inept showing in the instance of the light. Incompetent buffoons.

Mike Selig wrote:

Fists of Fury wrote:
Mike, that is the point though, it wasn't even bordering on dangerous. Play should continue until someone almost or actually gets hurt, until then it clearly isn't dangerous. Considering that KP was scoring at a T20 rate there obviously weren't any issues seeing the ball.

This nonsense is what leaves grounds empty and damages the game in a big, big way. Those umpires should be hauled over the coals for such a pathetically inept showing in the instance of the light. Incompetent buffoons.

If two spinners are operating play isn't dangerous but can be unreasonable, so "dangerous" isn't the only standard. You are right in that play wasn't dangerous out there yesterday, nor was it unreasonable. The umpires got it wrong, but that doesn't warrant being dragged over coals, or being called incompetent buffoons. Everyone makes mistakes, and no doubt when the umpires are sat down afterwards they will self-reflect and admit their mistakes.

"Play should continue until someone almost or actually gets hurt, until then it clearly isn't dangerous."

I'm sorry but this sounds to me like "let's wait until something bad happens until we do something about it. Clearly conditions can be dangerous but no one get hurt by sheer luck. That is not a situation that anyone wants to see.

A lot of overreaction in the press and on here from people who ought to know better. The umpires got it wrong yesterday. That happens.

Personally I would move away from the light-meter because there are obvious accuracy issues, and also it is too inflexible; the reason they went off for the 2nd time yesterday was because the light was at the same level as when they'd gone off for the first time, but the game was different, different bowlers were operating, and everyone was seeing the ball fine. Light meters aren't human eyes.

I didn't like the "offer" to the batsman: it ignored the fact that fielding is very difficult (although not usually dangerous) in murky conditions, and in fact tougher than batting - unreasonable vs dangerous again, but no one should have to field in a situation where you lose a fraction of a second because you can't pick up the ball off the bat.

Fists of Fury wrote:It wasn't ideal for the batsmen, either. They were seeing it like a beach ball and then they have to get themselves in again.

Gutted that KP didn't make a century, that was an innings off sheer class. He looks in imperious form.

Fists of Fury wrote:Nemesis? That is extreme.

He looks to attack bowlers like Samuels, naturally, so there will always be a chance of getting out to him. It has been KP getting himself out by playing aggressively, as opposed to being bamboozled by Samuels.