West Indies vs England, Barbados - Friday 1st May to Tuesday 5th May

With England having taken an unexpected (at start of day) lead in Grenada we move to Bridgetown for the last match of the tour. Team selection will be interesting, though I do expect England to select the same team.

Good arguments can be made for giving Lyth a chance to open, while by and large the bowlers have not looked overly threatening. This is demonstrated by the four different centurions WI have had, plus some good late partnerships.

WI may well have Taylor back. Holder has been the least impressive of the Windies seam bowlers, but his batting will be valued. Bishoo bowled well, but had to bowl too many overs in Englands first innings due to lack of options. Perhaps Taylor could return for a batsmen. If so whom? Blackwood has a century, but also some brainless cricket, so the old man Chanderpaul could be the most vulnerable. It woudl be a shame if his career was to end like this - but Phil Simmons will not allow sympathy or emotion to drive his selections.

If the weather holds could be a fascinating clash.

Retain Holder for his batting but drop Chanderpaul? Not going to happen is it. We have an inflated opinion of his batting based on that one freak innings (remember Tino Best?) which is not all indicative of his ability and record or what could reasonably be expected of him to deleiver on even a semi regular basis, hes only passed 50 on 3 other occasions in 30 international innings (domestic record is even more barren). Hes no more of an all rounder than Jordan or Broad really. This series could be the end of chanderpaul who has barely played any international cricket in the last few years anyway...but I cant see him being dropped ahead of this one if nothing else because Windies are so short of anyone who looks like a real test batsman in the side (Samuels excluded who turns up less often than Gayle)
5 bowlers would be nice for them, but Samuels can give reasonable support and its arguably Gabriel who making it genuinely problematic and forcing so many overs form the spinners, he simply cannot bowl at a decent pace over a long day and is a pretty limp prospect when not regularly topping 90mph.
Could he make way? Hes the one Windies bowler who looks like he could actually threaten englands batsmen.
Roach has been about as effective as and England bowler at the world cup since the first innings of the first test, but is the only West Indian with a genuine test pedigree and very much the senior guy. Not getting dropped.
Bishoo shouldered the overs and caused some problems, although he doesnt look test class really with only 4 bowlers and the likelihood of spending long periods in the field they have to keep a full time spinner in. They could swap him for another but thats just shuffling the deck chairs. He most likely will stay unless the pitch looks like a genuine seamers paradise.
I real think Windies are in a position where they need to be selecting the 3 seamers they think are most likely to be able to cause England problems. That would be Taylor Garbriel and Roach. Noddys record in tests is just poor.
That said theres always politics and the desire to make Holder the Golden Child of the IPL rejects West Indies side. Plus he did get a century once in his entire career .....

They could just pick a tin of custard. Englands bowling conundrum isnt so much different really. They also cant really sort out the long tail (despite having two actual all rounders) and only Anderson of the seamers is producing good returns against a weak batting side.
One of the reserves might come in for Jordan or Stokes.

Trott will be given another game whatever the internet ma think of his initial selection hes been given the chance and they will make it a fair crack of the whip.

My team for Barbados would be:

Cook
Trott
Ballance
Bell
Root
Stokes
Buttler
Ali
Broad
Wood
Anderson

I expect England will stick with the 'don't change a winning side' policy though, which is fair enough, as the series is on the line still.

A young Jason Holder was a batting all rounder. Seem to have missed Jordan's Test hundred which has him grouped with Broad/Holder types. And Broad was at one stage a more than handy batsman. Maybe Holder will be more Johnson than Flintoff with the bat, but that's good going.

As for the Test, Hope WI set up for a win. There's no difference losing 1-0 or 2-0, so they may as well try salvage a drawn series. Think England only have one series win in 40 odd years in the carribbean, it's a proud record, one I'd hope they'll look to maintain.

Stella wrote:My team for Barbados would be:

Cook
Trott
Ballance
Bell
Root
Stokes
Buttler
Ali
Broad
Wood
Anderson

I expect England will stick with the 'don't change a winning side' policy though, which is fair enough, as the series is on the line still.

I like your batting order- I certainly don't think Ali has done enough with the bat to be batting above Stokes and Buttler like he was in the last Test.

I would go further and put Buttler at 6. He has some serious talent, so give him a chance to bat with the other batsmen rather than the tail all the time

Stokes doubtful with a back strain.

Yeah all bets are on on selection now! Cricinfo has Rashid coming in for him after all that. It would give england the variety they crave and retain the batting depth, but does put a lot of pressure on the 3 seamers to deliver individually.
Big game for Jordan.

I would be amazed to see Rashid come in. Nervous yet delighted in equal measure, but amazed. As a bowler he just does not fit into the Moores/Cook gameplan. If selected I can see him getting a bowl, being fairly expensive and not being asked to bowl again.

Why was he taken, if he doesn't fit into the plans? I'd like to see him for Stokes, if Stokes is unfit. More likely that they'll pick another seamer.

Stella wrote:Why was he taken, if he doesn't fit into the plans? I'd like to see him for Stokes, if Stokes is unfit. More likely that they'll pick another seamer.

The argument is that Whittaker, Fraser and Newell selected the touring squad, with Moores and Cook insisting Tredwell be added because he builds pressure. Could be false, but certainly there have been indications that it is true.

LondonTiger wrote:

Stella wrote:Why was he taken, if he doesn't fit into the plans? I'd like to see him for Stokes, if Stokes is unfit. More likely that they'll pick another seamer.

The argument is that Whittaker, Fraser and Newell selected the touring squad, with Moores and Cook insisting Tredwell be added because he builds pressure. Could be false, but certainly there have been indications that it is true.

I see. Feel a bit sorry for Rashid, if this is true. Fraser "we want you to tour" Moores "You can bring him, but he isn't playing"

Even if there's some truth in this, I feel we're too far away to judge the emphasis which is so important. Moores' stance might have been - ''Happy to have a further look at Rashid close up but he'll need to convince me he's worth a Test place''. I see nothing wrong with that and don't blame Moores if Rashid has failed to do so.

Also, we need to have a good look at the wicket for this Test before deciding that Rashid should come in as a second main spinner. Unless the conditions suit Rashid, he isn't the most obvious replacement for Stokes (if unfit).

Don't you think only the captain and coach should pick the touring squad, and teams? Have people, scouts if you like, who inform them who's playing well on the county circuit, and let them know who they rate, but ultimately have the two main men as the selectors.
I know it's a tradition to have a team of selectors, but I'd do away with them, as it creates contradiction, and confusion.

Like guildfordbat says you can't just say throw in Rashid before viewing the pitch. If the pitch is a fast track then he'd be largely wasted. I think there is more merit in bringing Lyth in for Trott and Michael Vaughan shares those views. Firstly, Trott is off-form and secondly he isn't even an opener so what is the point?

That's an extra kettle of fish, Stella! Sympathetic to your comments - our methods of selection are very rooted in the past and don't seem that appropriate today. However, I would need more time and thought as to the ideal solution.

I honestly don't know what people are suggesting: that the coach/captain are ignoring Rashid thus potentially weakening the team because they don't like him, or he doesn't fit, or whatever?

It has always bemused me how otherwise sensible people somehow think that the coach/captain's aims are anything other than doing everything they can to win as many matches as possible, starting with picking what they believe to be the best available side to do so. By all means disagree with them if you like, but assigning nefarious motives seems a trifle Machiavellian and frankly it would be counter-productive.

We had similar arguments when Mike Hesson became NZ coach and insisted on installing McCullum as his captain - apparently this was all to do with a hidden agenda of getting rid of Ross Taylor etc. etc. Strange how nobody seems to be commenting on this anymore...?

Which is not to say that things can't sometimes get a bit cosy/cliquey, but it won't be a case of "oh Rashid might do better than Tredwell, but we like Tredders he's a proper bloke, so we won't give Rashid a chance in case he shows Tredders up". More likely it will be that the coach and captain genuinely believe(d) that Tredwell would do a better job (and 5-120 over the course of the match at under 2 runs per over was a pretty good effort), that they didn't think Rashid would do well, or that they didn't know and preferred to stick with who they knew.

I know there are some here who say "well we won't know until we try him" - to an extent only. Surely a main purpose of the coaching staff is that actually they have a strong suspicion as to who will perform in a test environment and who won't. It's an argument which people have occasionally put to me "oh well how do you know he won't be any good if you don't give him a try?" and the answer is usually because of x,y and/or z in his game I believe won't translate well to the international game; people then say "oh well that's only your opinion" and well yes it is, but I have been given the role of coach precisely because people think my opinions are by and large valid.

So if Moores and co have seen something in Rashid which they don't like and that is why he is not getting a chance, then that's fine by me, that's the kind of call they are being paid to make. You don't pick someone to have a look at them or give them a chance, you pick someone because you think he will make your team better.

For what it's worth, the reports I've heard are that Rashid hasn't bowled well in the nets and his attitude is not the best. My personal opinion is that he bowls too slowly, and that unless you are spot on as a leggie it is very very hard to be successful in international cricket today. I don't see him as the long-term solution to England's lack of spin options.

The more general question about the role of selection committees in cricket is an interesting one (it is interesting because cricket is as far as I know the only sport where teams are picked by committee). I do think there is an argument for some kind of external involvement, at least as far as saying "we think x,y or z might be worth a look at"; otherwise it is too easy to simply carry on believing that the players you have are the best available. On the other hand clearly the coach and captain should play a role in picking the squad and ultimately the team. I believe the captain should have final say on the match-day XI personally.

Here in France we introduced an external selection committee for the first time last year. Prior to that selections had been made by the coaches and director of cricket. As a coach I always consulted my captain (or who I thought would be captain if the captain hadn't yet been named) and more often than not we were in agreement. When we weren't we debated things back and forward until we agreed, and our final agreement was what I proposed to the DoC.

Changing to a selection committee improved some things, and brought some frustration in other areas. Without wishing to go into too many details in public, I was frustrated that the selection committee wanted the final say on the match-day XI, despite the fact that unlike the coaches they weren't spending time with the team, so ultimately we were the best placed to decide who would be the most likely to perform.

There is probably a happy middle there somewhere, but it is not all that easy to find.

But can we please move away from the idea that the coaching staff want anything but the best for their team?

I'm sure Moores, Cook, Fraser, etc want the best for the team. It's how they attempt to do that, which is something that needs changing.
I've no issues with Rashid not playing, if they feel he isn't good enough, though we're guessing as to why they might think that. Like Craig says, look at the pitch and decide.

Mike I think the real issue people have with the Rashid situation is that the coach/captian perhaps didnt even want him on the tour in the first place and had a pre determined negative attitude toward him. Its not the first time this has happened with a player, and not quite on the scale of Pattinson, if indeed it is the case at all.
But if there is a disconnect between the selectors and the team then thats a problem for everyone, including the players who get selected then marginalised.
Its not the first time that Rashid has been drinks carrier on a tour. But also as you allude to its not the first time theres been questions raised about his attitude either.
Theres definitely an element of frustration for the fans here, hes perceived as the type of player England desperately need to add a different element to their team. He of course has to be good enough to warrant selection ( hi Borthwick!)
The sugestion that he wasnt wanted is perhaps unfair, but worrying if true.

Yorkshire fans certainly are very grumpy hes off sunning himself instead of taking wickets in the rhubarb league.

Gooseberry wrote:the coach/captian perhaps didnt even want [Rashid] on the tour in the first place...

Quite possibly.

Gooseberry wrote:... and had a pre determined negative attitude toward him.

I find this very unlikely. Regardless on their opinion on Rahid prior to the tour I would think and certainly hope that Moores et al have the level of professionalism required to look at any player objectively and dispassionately and make a call based on what they've observed.

Very occasionally as a coach I have been told/asked to give a player a chance on tour or whatever, even if at the time I didn't think he was good enough. Even more occasionally I've been proved wrong and when that happens I have had the honesty and integrity of admitting as much and carrying on. More often I was right, and subsequent events showed this. This is not conceited of me; the simple fact is I wouldn't be in my position if I wasn't right more often than not.

The Pattinson case was quite a bit different. Vaughan and Fletcher wanted a specific type of bowler to replace Hoggard (I think?), and were told by the selectors that Pattinson was the nearest replacement. Vaughan was a bit sceptical but went with it, and as things turned out he was right to be sceptical and the selectors got it spectacularly wrong. Not sure what the parallels between Pattinson and Rashid are? Pattinson bowled plenty in that match, he just didn't bowl very well.

Mike Selig wrote:

The more general question about the role of selection committees in cricket is an interesting one (it is interesting because cricket is as far as I know the only sport where teams are picked by committee).  
...

But can we please move away from the idea that the coaching staff want anything but the best for their team?

Some may find it surprising to know that before Alf Ramsey's appointment in the early 1960s, the England football team was selected by an FA Committee. Seems incredibly antiquated now.

Very much agree with your general theme and bottom line, Mike. That's what I was trying to briefly get across earlier. A coach may have negative thoughts / doubts about a particular player but that doesn't mean they're wrong or that he has concocted them for his own evil purposes. The onus has to be on the player to use every small opportunity (bowling in the nets, being the ''best ever twelfth man'' as per Brett Lee, etc) to dissuade the coach of that view and gain a bigger opportunity.

Unchanged side and Bob Willis saying this is a crucial match for Jonathan Trott and feels they may look at Lyth V New Zealand if another failure by Trott here. He also feels either Stokes or Jordan are fighting to stay in the side for the Ashes with either Wood, Plunkett or Finn waiting in the wings to take their place in the side.

So ...everyone fit , no changes for England. Hardly a surprise. Trott may be on his last chance ; but didn't think he'd be left out of this one - waste of time picking him at all if they weren't going to give him a fair run.
New opener for West Indies as Smith seems to have exhausted their patience...and they'll be glad to have Taylor back. And another change in the spin department...
Sun out ...started on time

Trott out for a duck trying to fend off a bouncer in the second over. England 0 for 1.

Boycotts in heaven with that. Trott

Oh dear ...Just what Trott didn't need ...

Good bouncer . But he didn't handle it well ...pressure mounting on him.

Great start for Gabriel and West Indies

I think I've cracked the reasoning behind Trott as an opener -

The ICC have introduced a handicap system whereby England have to play with effectively 10 men.

Think the bowlers are going to enjoy this pitch more than the first two...bit more pace and bounce from the early overs.
These two are pretty nippy anyway.

Gabriel actually looking better than Taylor so far...

I'd keep selectors, but do away with a coach. To this day I can't fathom the point of one. Especially in modern cricket. Captain leads the charge, there's a batting, bowling and fielding coach. There's an analyst. Team manager. And selectors. What on earth is the coach doing?

(Yes I know a coach wondering about the value of a coach is self defeating... But I'm talking elite level here)

Head coach is not so much a coach as kind of a coach-manager hybrid - basically the boss for the on-field stuff. Bit like in all the other sports, he won't actually do much coaching, it's more about tactics, gameplans and managing the rest of the staff.

I think there is a common misconception about what coaching means TBH. Most of the work a coach does isn't technical.

Oh! is there a Test on?

Wicket of Ballance came as a bit of a surprise then ...

Batsmen had looked to be getting on top ; and suddenly Holder has gone right through his defence. Bit of late swing : well bowled.

Lovely ball but not a lot of footwork from Ballance.

Now Bell gone ! Bit of a soft dismissal. The Bell haters will be out in force on the net

West Indies right on top now...

alfie wrote:Now Bell gone !  Bit of a soft dismissal. The Bell haters will be out in force on the net  

West Indies right on top now...

To be fair to them, he has contrived to get himself out cheaply 2 or 3 times this series now. One outstanding innings, but its only that and Trott's abject form that is keeping him out of the spotlight.

Trott just isn't a test opener. Seems like a square peg into a round hole move to get him in the team.

GSC wrote:Trott just isn't a test opener. Seems like a square peg into a round hole move to get him in the team.

He might have handled the position three-four years back...but he just doesn't look the same player. In truth , he hasn't looked the part since the start of 2013.
Partly the bowlers have worked out how to bowl to him. Partly he may just have gone "off" - at least at Test level.

Maybe this will bring him a second innings hundred ; but , sadly , I think he's done.

Good session for West Indies ...going off to lunch having already bagged two ducks

Me for some sleep ...hope Cook and Root can steer England into a better position after the interval.

Looks likely we'll need Moeen Ali, Stokes and Buttler to show plenty of application in this innings.  No idiotic run outs or hoiks straight down the throat of deep fielders....

Best to judge things once both teams have batted on this pitch. In any case it is not inconceivable that Cook and Root will put on a big partnership here and a lot of batting to follow.

GSC wrote:Trott just isn't a test opener. Seems like a square peg into a round hole move to get him in the team.

Nail on the head.

Why? That is what I ask. I mean okay if they wish to try to bed him back into the side and let him get some form back then fair enough but play him at his correct position in the team. He is not an opener so why play him there especially considering he is trying to rebuild his test career. If they want him badly in the side then play Adam Lyth as opener and drop one of the other batsmen.

Cook holding himself and the team together as far. Keep up the good work.

A quality innings from Cook at last. On a pitch that has had life for the bowlers, the England skipper has reached his 50.

Some interesting selections from the West Indies. Kemar Roach of course hasn't been at his best since his injury return and he was pretty average in the last game. But he did bowl OK in the first game, this is his home ground, he's experienced and should lead the attack in years to come. Gabriel has got some pace but there is nothing else that comes with the package, not even some hanging around skills with the bat that Roach has got. So unless Roach got some fitness issues, I would think it is not a great call. Credit to Gabriel for that first over wicket though, but why is it that he has bowled only 5 out of the 49 overs so far? Ramdin being his usual silly stupid self?
And WI did Devendra Bishoo get dropped? He bowled a lot of overs in the last game without any support from the other end. He didn't run through England, but still took 4 wickets and bowled alright. Offered a bit of resistance with the bat too and offered much greater control than Benn ever did.
Excited to see exciting youngster Shai Hope coming in. I am told he's more of a middle order bat, but Smith should never have played tests this decade, he had international failure written allover him long time back!.

Gosh, Ramdin is a total clown, 14 out of 47 overs on day 1 of a test match, on a track that seamers found to be lively, from Marlon Samuels!. Absolutely incredible, the extent of this ridiculous nonsense!!!. Or perhaps Ramdin the captain and Simmonns the coach might have seen something special in Samuels the bowler that we the rest of the world haven't seen. Perhaps they really think his bowling is going to win them more test matches?
How on earth is this idiot captain of a test side?

Gabriel is clocking up good speeds, but Cook's up to the task. Think this already is his best innings in the last 2 years.......

Ali on the other hand, after being kept quiet by the seamers, is taking on Veerasammy Permaul the spinner.

Moeen, only on 33 at the moment, has already played his best knock after that ton against Sri Lanka.

I didn't realise you were a coach Mike, you don't ever mention it.................

Really disappointed both Jordan & Stokes have been picked again, even more so having seen the pitch taking spin on day 1. Pity there isn't anyone with the ability to read the pitch but that wouldn't be a coach's role either.

On the plus side I absolutely love watching Moeen bat, no doubt that'll be the kiss of death for him.

So England go to tea at 151-4. The West Indies did pick up the big wicket of Joe Root, but this session has been England's. Cook has batted as solidly as he ever did, and Ali, after taking his time, is really looking good and he's playing the pacy short ones from Gabriel pretty well. The garbage from Samuels and not bowling Gabriel early to Ali, Ramdin let the advantage slip, not for the first time he did that in the series.