England vs West Indies - test series thread

[Good Golly I'm Olly]

So England have announced that the squad for this series will be announced today....will try to update as soon as it comes out!

[guildfordbat]

Just announced by Mark Church (Radio London, regular Surrey commentator) that Stoneman is in the squad. Much deserved.

[VTR]

Stoneman, Crane and Woakes in for Jennings, Dawson and Finn. This of course means Stoneman will play. I don't expect Crane to play, Woakes may come in for a rested Anderson or Broad

[GSC]

Malan retains his place.

WIs up to much these days, or are some likely to find runs much easier than in Aus?

[CaledonianCraig]

Like I said during South Africa series they should have given another opener a chance after the Trent Bridge debacle and test them against a very good bowling attack. All that will be learnt about Stoneman if he hits high scores is that he can do it against a weaker bowling attack. People will believe he is the real deal and will be a guaranteed starter for the Ashes where he may then get found out.

[Good Golly I'm Olly]

Good squad that - I'd maybe have had Hales instead of Malan, but I can understand them wanting to give him a proper go. Crane will be around the team and play if the pitch is turning square I guess

In terms of WI - their bowling is ok - Gabriel is super quick as is Joseph, Holder should enjoy English conditions and Roach can always produce a good spell. Bishoo and Chase are ok spinners - Chase can hold an end but Bishoo needs turn to be effective really. Their batting however leaves a heck of a lot to be desire - the English bowlers should really fill their boots

[VTR]

Completely agree with Craig. Anyone remember Ravi Bopara batting at 3 in The Ashes after plundering runs vs the Windies? Still gives me nightmares that one

[Good Golly I'm Olly]

So what's Stoneman meant to do? Say "nah I'll only play against Aus cos people will think I'm a fraud if I score runs against WI"

Still an international bowling attack lads. The runs count the same

[CaledonianCraig]

So what's Stoneman meant to do? Say "nah I'll only play against Aus cos people will think I'm a fraud if I score runs against WI"

Still an international bowling attack lads. The runs count the same

No of course not. This is more a dig at the selectors. Jennings should have been axed after the Second Test and Stoneman brought in then where he could be tested against a bowling attack more akin to Australia's and would give a better gauge of his abilities. That would have said a lot more about him than big scores against the lesser attack of the Windies.

[VTR]

Yeah, am not having a go at the player either or comparing him to Ravi Bopara, he is likely to be better than that. The selectors needed to get Jennings out as he was an obvious walking wicket, and hardly had any County form. In fact, Stoneman was pretty unlucky not to be in the side from the outset of the series

Sadly not all international runs and wickets are equal. We've seen plenty of jokers like McGrath, Bopara and Giddins over the years utterly found out at the first sight of a quality opposition

[sirfredperry]

I'd like to see Bairstow at five, Ali at seven and Woakes at eight, with Malan not playing. Agree that Stoneman should have been brought in for the 4th Test v SA but at least he'll have his chance now.
   VTR - I take your point about the "inequality" of Test runs. But some of the overseas greats have gorged themselves on under-strength bowling. Mind you - to knock my own argument down - these top players have also made stacks of runs against quality attacks.

[GSC]

I wouldn't really want the lower order to bat higher, think they're fine where they are.

England could do with finding more Trott types for the top order

[Gooseberry]

The stoneman selection is indicative of the muddled thinking in selections.

First hes left out of one series because hes not been seen by Bayliss.
Then heplays a bit of second xi cricket and is suddenly a test starter.

Hes had a decent season and did well for the lions but its still a joirneyman player with a county average in the 30s. This is also how Jennings got his spot.

Maybe Hameed was a couple of games short of a recall...as it is theres every chance he will end up pitched in mid tour again in the winter.

Crane ...i dont see how he gets in ahead of leach but hey ho. England leg spinners...yay. 6 bowlers and teo spinners in aus ...its still on the cards.
At least this time its a proper bowler.
Following what both Bayliss and Moeen have said in interviews I give him a stronger chance of playing in this series than some do.

Trj will be unfortunate to lose out to Woakes returning. Its a given though if they do play crane over malan and pretty likely anyway.

[dummy_half]

The interesting suggestion is to rest Broad and Anderson for a match each, giving Woakes the chance to ease back into test cricket and keep TR-J in the side.

Crane I think is there as a development player and will play only if the wicket is likely to offer significant turn.

Is the squad for the series or just the first Test, as if the former I would have expected another middle order batsman (Hales?) to have been included.

[guildfordbat]

The stoneman selection is indicative of the muddled thinking in selections.

First hes left out of one series because hes not been seen by Bayliss.
Then heplays a bit of second xi cricket and is suddenly a test starter.

Hes had a decent season and did well for the lions but its still a joirneyman player with a county average in the 30s. This is also how Jennings got his spot.

Maybe Hameed was a couple of games short of a recall...as it is theres every chance he will end up pitched in mid tour again in the winter.

Crane ...i dont see how he gets in ahead of leach but hey ho. England leg spinners...yay. 6 bowlers and teo spinners in aus ...its still on the cards.
At least this time its a proper bowler.
Following what both Bayliss and Moeen have said in interviews I give him a stronger chance of playing in this series than some do.

Trj will be unfortunate to lose out to Woakes returning. Its a given though if they do play crane over malan and pretty likely anyway.

Goose - I know you never like facts to get in the way of a post but to be fair to Stoneman and, more particularly for once, the selectors, he has not played any second eleven cricket this year.

Rather than looking just at his career average, you could also consider his first class form this season. More than 1,000 runs, three centuries and an average above 58.

[Good Golly I'm Olly]

Believe Stoneman is the only English bat to score 1,000 runs in the past five seasons too

[GSC]

Stoneman is really the only option. Can't retain Jennings, can't recall Hameeb on the basis of one half century

[guildfordbat]

Dummy - the squad as named is only for the first Test. However, I get the impression that the selectors would be happy to stick with it if they can.

[GSC]

Would probably suggest Malan might need a score in the first test

[Gooseberry]

Sorry Guilford hoisted by my own fact checking petard there!
Its Leach who I was looking at earlier whos been playing in the seconds during the t20 break ...which rather undoes my argument for him over crane as he also seems to be on a slight dip at the minute.

But back to Stoneman...yes hes had a good season. But not good enough to drag his career average over 35 (its lower than I thought)
My point was that Jennings, as have many many players before him, got his call up off the back of a good season.
At 30 has Stoneman suddenly become test class after barely being county standard for years? I know someone previously noted that his homre ground had been a bowlers paradise which may excuse some of his record but at 30 he seems a very stop gap no choice pick.
(Yeah yeah Chris Rogers)
Im not saying they had much choice ..and do agree its a couple of games too soon for Hameed. But that doesnt mean I have to be excited about Stoneman in an England shirt.
And the over arching point I was making was that because Bayliss didnt bother to watch him hes 4 tests short on experience. Of course the chances Re Id be having the reverse rant had he been selected and failed.
The merry go round has to stop. I dont see Stoneman doing that and likely england will head to the ashes with a brittle looking top 3 and Bayliss still desperate to play 6 bowlers anyway.

[jimbohammers]

Goose, you seem to knock every selection England make, if you were picking the team we'd have about 3 players

[king_carlos]

Stoneman has the technique and temperament against fast bowling to succeed on quick pitches down under. That will likely have come into the equation. Roach in particular is a good test of that as well - that goes for Westley and Malan too.

Still no sign of Mark Wood for Durham is worrying.

Potential squad for the Ashes?

Cook, Stoneman, Hameed, Westley, Root, Malan, Ballance, Bairstow, Buttler/Foakes, Stokes, Moeen, Woakes, TRJ, Anderson, Broad, Wood/Plunkett, Crane

[Jetty]

Stoneman has the technique and temperament against fast bowling to succeed on quick pitches down under. That will likely have come into the equation. Roach in particular is a good test of that as well - that goes for Westley and Malan too.

Still no sign of Mark Wood for Durham is worrying.

Potential squad for the Ashes?

Cook, Stoneman, Hameed, Westley, Root, Malan, Ballance, Bairstow, Buttler/Foakes, Stokes, Moeen, Woakes, TRJ, Anderson, Broad, Wood/Plunkett, Crane

They will be taking more openers than that.  

SKY
England head coach Trevor Bayliss claims Jennings remains part of his long-term plans for The Ashes against Australia in the winter and Stokes feels Jennings has the talent to ensure he is involved.

[Duty281]

Malan retains his place.

WIs up to much these days, or are some likely to find runs much easier than in Aus?

West Indies haven't won a test series since defeating Bangladesh at home in 2014. Having said that, they dismissed Pakistan for sub-300 scores three times in six attempts in the UAE last year (only losing the series 2-1).

The Windies are also getting some proper practice in by playing three First-Class matches as a warm-up, including a day-nighter against Derbyshire (starting today).

Wouldn't like to rule them out of getting something from this series.

[dummy_half]

The big issue for the Windies at the moment is getting enough runs on the board - they are getting around 300 against County attacks, and I think would really struggle against the England bowlers in anything like helpful conditions. Their bowling line-up is half way decent, so might be able to keep them in the game on occasion, but I honestly don't see them getting enough runs to challenge.

[guildfordbat]

The big issue for the Windies at the moment is getting enough runs on the board - they are getting around 300 against County attacks, and I think would really struggle against the England bowlers in anything like helpful conditions. Their bowling line-up is half way decent, so might be able to keep them in the game on occasion, but I honestly don't see them getting enough runs to challenge.

Yes, I would go along with Dummy there.

I don't have much knowledge of the current West Indies side but my perception, like most posters I think, is that whilst their bowling could be pretty reasonable, their batting is deficient.

This then makes me think of the age old law that it's bowlers and them taking 20 wickets that win a match but you still need batsmen to set up the opportunity.

[king_carlos]

Stoneman has the technique and temperament against fast bowling to succeed on quick pitches down under. That will likely have come into the equation. Roach in particular is a good test of that as well - that goes for Westley and Malan too.

Still no sign of Mark Wood for Durham is worrying.

Potential squad for the Ashes?

Cook, Stoneman, Hameed, Westley, Root, Malan, Ballance, Bairstow, Buttler/Foakes, Stokes, Moeen, Woakes, TRJ, Anderson, Broad, Wood/Plunkett, Crane

They will be taking more openers than that.  

SKY
England head coach Trevor Bayliss claims Jennings remains part of his long-term plans for The Ashes against Australia in the winter and Stokes feels Jennings has the talent to ensure he is involved.

Bayliss has said that Jennings could still go as he's going to take 3 openers. Unless something very unexpected happens Cook plus 2 from Stoneman, Jennings and Hameed will likely travel.

[alfie]

The king Carlos squad above is exactly the balance and probable personnel I have had in mind while chewing over the current selection ...with the caveat that a number of these players are far from proving themselves yet (indeed some may not really get a chance to do so : I could see Crane , for instance , taken on a wing and a prayer)
Couple of thoughts on the list : Foakes surely over Buttler who hardly hits a red ball these days ?
Malan has a chance as he is in possession at the moment : but he needs serious runs or he will be nowhere near the squad.
Ballance remains in this group more for lack of an alternative than any overwhelming merit. But with the time remaining it is hard to see anyone going past him.  Probably only scope for one other batsman from outside this group to force his way in - but if Malan fails someone will at least get a trial ; though I have no idea who that might be !
Agree Hameed will almost certainly be there unless his recent improvement stalls. Whether Stoneman or Jennings is the other opener depends on how the former takes his chance. Nothing against Jennings but I hope for England's sake Stoneman can do so...
Presume Rashid has been discarded ? Seems harsh ; but he looks to have had his file marked "white ball only".  Surprisingly little discussion around this ?
The pace bowlers almost pick themselves , fitness permitting.

Going to be tough : but if (big if the openers can stand up they have a decent chance , I think. Australia are always tough at home but they are far from the finished article themselves at the moment. I do hope it is a good contest.

Apologies ...I note this is really a West Indies series thread ...I got carried away with the Ashes selection aspect. Trust I can be forgiven...

[Gooseberry]

Article on cricinfo now where Root says they did seriously consider putting him at 3 or even 2 for the Windies series.
That would open up a spot for someone like Ballance to hide down the order and/or get the second spinner in the side.
Whatever we may think its evident from multiple sources in the camp that 6 bowlers is still very much a thing if they can get a functioning top 5.
That means that Cranes around the side with an eye to being used rather than carrying drinks.

He does also say that theres spots up for grabs on the Ashes tour. Which is pretty obvious.

[alfie]

Wonder why they are so fixated on having the six bowler option ? As has been pointed out before on here , there has never been a test team from any country which has consistently gone with such a formation. (You could argue that when SA had Goddard and Barlow at the top of their order they ended up with such a set up : but that isn't really all that different from counting Root as a bowler. Stokes would never have made an England team as a batsman alone - though he hasn't a lot of competition for spots now! But he is too serious a bowler to maintain the fiction that he is just there for his batting)
Variety is nice . But the truth is if you are using two spinners (and expecting them to be effective - if not why play them ?) then you don't need four pace men as well.
It smacks of a lack of belief in their ability to make a considered choice between the bowlers available for any particular match. Or , if you like , trying to fit five into four. The sort of selection paralysis that saw England football managers forever unable to resolve their shape when Gerrard and Lampard wanted to be in the same place...

[Gooseberry]

There seems to be an element of listening tonwhat senior players want for themselves. You could also call it pandering if you wanted to be negative.
Roots interview reads as if its him who had the final say on staying at 4...and its as if the other selections are built around accomodating that rather than picking the best players or a specific set up and shuffling the cards accordingly.
Same with Moeen ..a lot of the "im a batsman not a bowler" is coming from him. And to be fair prior to this series it was a pretty justified statement...hes not a great spinner and theres a lot of pressure on him to be one. The argument is the expectation has affected both his batting and bowling and threatened to bust him altogether.
I dont feel its wrong for them to desire a genuine front line spin option ....my issue is they dont have one and keep picking players who arent good enough or in Cranes case not ready.
Nor is listening to the players fundamentaly a bad thing. But at some point you do have to make pragmatic decisions and at times ask people to take one for the team and step up. Bell at 3, Alec Stewart doing everything except bowling, KP shutting up.
I like the culture of openeness they seem to have developed, the players are being refreshingly honest with the media. Its better than the constant upbeat or youll be dropped of the vaughn era, and no complaining that led to KP imploding.

[guildfordbat]

The big issue for the Windies at the moment is getting enough runs on the board - they are getting around 300 against County attacks, and I think would really struggle against the England bowlers in anything like helpful conditions. Their bowling line-up is half way decent, so might be able to keep them in the game on occasion, but I honestly don't see them getting enough runs to challenge.

Yes, I would go along with Dummy there.

I don't have much knowledge of the current West Indies side but my perception, like most posters I think, is that whilst their bowling could be pretty reasonable, their batting is deficient.

This then makes me think of the age old law that it's bowlers and them taking 20 wickets that win a match but you still need batsmen to set up the opportunity.

West Indies doing their best to prove my perception of their batting wrong as they end day/night one of their tour game against Derbys on 340/3. Runs for the Hope brothers, Powell and Chase. The England attack will clearly be a lot stronger but fair play to the Windies batsmen so far.

[Jetty]

Wonder why they are so fixated on having the six bowler option ?  As has been pointed out before on here , there has never been a test team from any country which has consistently gone with such a formation.  (You could argue that when SA had Goddard and Barlow at the top of their order they ended up with such a set up : but that isn't really all that different from counting Root as a bowler. Stokes would never have made an England team as a batsman alone - though he hasn't a lot of competition for spots now! But he is too serious a bowler to maintain the fiction that he is just there for his batting)
Variety is nice . But the truth is if you are using two spinners (and expecting them to be effective - if not why play them ?) then you don't need four pace men as well.
It smacks of a lack of belief in their ability to make a considered choice between the bowlers available for any particular match. Or , if you like , trying to fit five into four.  The sort of selection paralysis that saw England football managers forever unable to resolve their shape when Gerrard and Lampard wanted to be in the same place...

Good post.

[CaledonianCraig]

Wonder why they are so fixated on having the six bowler option ?  As has been pointed out before on here , there has never been a test team from any country which has consistently gone with such a formation.  (You could argue that when SA had Goddard and Barlow at the top of their order they ended up with such a set up : but that isn't really all that different from counting Root as a bowler. Stokes would never have made an England team as a batsman alone - though he hasn't a lot of competition for spots now! But he is too serious a bowler to maintain the fiction that he is just there for his batting)
Variety is nice . But the truth is if you are using two spinners (and expecting them to be effective - if not why play them ?) then you don't need four pace men as well.
It smacks of a lack of belief in their ability to make a considered choice between the bowlers available for any particular match. Or , if you like , trying to fit five into four.  The sort of selection paralysis that saw England football managers forever unable to resolve their shape when Gerrard and Lampard wanted to be in the same place...

It could be down to a lack of faith in finding reliable out and out batsmen who are consistent run scorers at Test Level. That would bear out if you look at the recent array of batsmen they have tried and have failed. Perhaps they feel more bowling all-rounders offer wider amount to the side than batsmen who invariably struggle to score consistent runs. I may be totally wrong but that is my theory.

[Duty281]

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/aug/13/scariest-test-england-ever-played-terror-west-indies-cricket-1986-patrick-patterson

A superb piece in the Guardian today; recounting a time when the Windies were a touch more formidable.

[dummy_half]

CC

The problem is that playing 6 bowlers doesn't in most cases make your bowling line-up stronger, just more diluted as you rotate one more bowler into the attack. It will usually mean that either someone is hugely under-bowled or that your best bowler (on the day) doesn't get as much bowling.

I suppose it could be helpful if you have an out and out fast bowler who you want to bowl in say 4 over bursts, but we don't have that sort of attack.

Generally, it just seems a confused thought to say that we have inadequate batting therefore we are going to pick one less batsman and have a (semi-redundant) bowler...

[Mad for Chelsea]

Can't argue too much about the selection TBH. Crane is a bit of a desperate call if they're really thinking of picking him, but I suspect they just want to get him involved and around the squad. It was IMO right to give Jennings the whole series against SA, and Stoneman's form this season rightly gives him the next chance. As said, WI have some decent seam bowlers, so it will be a good test of his ability. Long term I fancy Hameed for the spot, but he's only just started to find a semblance of form again, so should be given the rest of the season IMO to get some runs for Lancashire (hopefully) and regain confidence.

I also think it's right to give Malan another shot. He got some good balls (mostly) against SA, and not a fan of dropping players after only a couple of Tests.

Good to see Woakes back. I do expect to see some rotation with the seamers in this series, particularly Broad and Anderson, if things go well.

[dummy_half]

Duty

Thanks for the link to the Guardian piece (and welcome back).

[guildfordbat]

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/aug/13/scariest-test-england-ever-played-terror-west-indies-cricket-1986-patrick-patterson

A superb piece in the Guardian today; recounting a time when the Windies were a touch more formidable.

Hi Duty - cracking link. I echo Dummy's thanks and welcome back.

Particularly interesting for me to see Patrick Patterson featured. Tony Murphy, a Surrey committee man and former bowler, spoke about him at a supporters' club meeting a few years ago. Before joining Surrey at the end of the '80s, Murphy had been on Lancashire's books and spent a lot of his time in their second XI. As Lancs had more than their fill of overseas players, Patterson was also reduced to turning out from time to time with the seconds. I recall Murphy saying Patterson gave no quarter regardless of whom he was bowling against and it was ''terrifying'' to see him roaring in on dodgy wickets at recreation grounds against wet behind the ears batsmen largely before the days of helmets. Still makes me gulp now!

Clearly very different personnel and a very different West Indies outfit these days. However, a decent start to the tour in their recent three day/night match at Derbys. Four centurions and all the main bowlers amongst the wickets although Joseph was regularly no balled. I hope they make a reasonable fist of things in the Tests.

[dummy_half]

It's a shame there is no footage of that first Test in Jamaica. I recall the media / public perception being that Marshall, Holding and Garner were brilliant fast bowlers but in the main played fair, whereas Patterson was just out to kill you. I do wonder how fast he was bowling in that match. The comment from Peter Willey that (as both a player and umpire) he has never seen anyone bowl faster than Patterson in that match has to be taken seriously.

There was an interesting TMS interview during the Eng v SA Oval Test with Devon Malcolm, where he said that on a normal to good day the ball came out of his hand at about 90-92 mph, but in that spell he just found that elusive rhythm and smoothness, and by his reckoning he was probably approaching 100 mph at times.

Got to feel a bit sorry for the Windies at the moment - 1970s and 80s they probably had the best crop of about 10 fast bowlers ever to come through in a short spell (listed in WI debut order):
Roberts
Garner
Holding
(Wayne Daniel)
Croft
Marshall
(Sylvester Clarke)
Courtney Walsh
Patrick Patterson
Curtley Ambrose
Ian Bishop

Bracketed are those who didn't really establish themselves in the first XI, but by God they were good bowlers. Wayne Daniel spent one season playing for my club in the Bradford League (I was only a junior, but recall seeing him around the club during practice).

What would the Windies do now for any pair of the above, never mind a quartet of them?

I wonder if there has ever been a better 4some of bowlers play a Test together than Roberts, Holding, Garner and Marshall?

[dummy_half]

Oh, and as an aside, I just looked at Andy Roberts Wikipedia entry - I didn't know he had such a magnificent full name:
Sir Anderson Montgomery Everton Roberts
That's up there with Sir Isaac Vivian Alexander Richards

[dummy_half]

Moving on - tomorrow sees the start of the first Day/Night test match in England, and the first using a pink Dukes ball.

I'm somewhat sceptical both on the necessity to do this (Tests in England are generally very well attended) and whether English conditions are particularly suitable - relatively late dusks accompanied by heavy dew (and sometimes cold temperatures for spectators, although by the evening session the beer jackets should be quite effective). However, it is worth trying, both to see how significant the issues are and also to some extent as preparation for D/N matches on tours when it is more viable (Pakistan in UAE as well as Aus).

[Good Golly I'm Olly]

I think day/night tests are definitely something to be explored - they may not take off in England, but in other countries we're attendances aren't so good it is worth a go - often crowds in those countries get bigger in the final session as people have finished work for the day, so would make sense to start later/finish later

[guildfordbat]

Excuse my cynicism but I suspect a major factor in the future of day/night tests will be television companies seeking their biggest global audience.

[KP_fan]

The tone from Eng camp .....Talking up the risk, the uncertainty, gritting their teeth & traversing the unknown....makes it sound like British army is being asked to paradrop at night in an unknown area in the war-zone of Mosul

Such an approach is not good....creates a mindset to be prepared for an nonperformance and pardon oneself in advance.

Its a game of cricket.....with Eng having loads of skills...much more in than No.8 WI.....WI's 2 tests with pink ball in completely different desert conditions of UAE notwithstanding

[Mad for Chelsea]

I'm with Olly. I'm not sure Day-night Tests will ever quite take off in England, but am happy for them to be tried, and think that in other countries they will turn out to be a very good thing indeed. Interested to see how this one goes, how the ball behaves, how conditions change, etc., and indeed how the atmosphere in the ground differs from a day Test.

[Good Golly I'm Olly]

Stoneman for Jennings confirmed as the only change for this test - Woakes and Crane miss out

[dummy_half]

Slightly surprised that Woakes wasn't included (perhaps at the expense of Broad or Anderson) - he's not had much cricket yet since his comeback and there isn't a 4 day County game for him to play in between the Tests

[alfie]

Stoneman for Jennings confirmed as the only change for this test - Woakes and Crane miss out

Logical selection.

I don't have a problem with a day/ night trial...two good reasons for this . 1/ Gimmick to draw bigger crowd for less than usually attractive fixture; and 2/ (more important) Opportunity for England players to get at least some experience of pink ball Tests before the Ashes series : Australia have had several such (home ) games now and heaven knows they are tough enough to beat at home anyway !

Imagine the odd such match will happen in the future though I'd be surprised if it became common in England for the obvious climate/hours of daylight reasons. Certain to be regular in a few other countries though so the players will need to get used to it.

I do have one complaint : rotten hours for watching from Melbourne ! Suppose I could turn in early and get up at three- but then I'd probably find it raining.

[Duty281]

There are plenty of positives that the West Indies can grasp ahead of the series. They have prepared well, including with a day/night first-class game (in addition to the day/night test they have already played against Pakistan last year), and are coming up against an England side with fairly haphazard selection (Cook is on his 13th opening partner since the beginning of August 2012!). Furthermore, they have a decent fast bowling attack which could cause some notable dents against a brittle English top order.

England, too, may be a touch complacent with this series tacked on after defeating the mighty oak of the South Africans, with another Ashes series looming on the horizon.

Having said that, the Windies are missing many star players, and it is likely that they will be overwhelmed by the partnership of Broad and Anderson without putting too many runs on the board.

I predict a 2-0 win for the English, with one Test ruined by the weather. But I wouldn't be surprised if the West Indies won a low-scoring test along the way.

[Sponsored content]