West Indies v England, 3rd Test, St John's, Feb 15-19

That is the conspiracy theory that is flying around caribbeancricket.com at the moment

They certainly have looked distracted and played some terrible shots. At least when England were 51 all out they were dismissed with stumps flying everywhere etc. This has been horrible batting.

"Bodies that are bronzed" :-D

one more gone...Flintoff got him out

I am guessing it was a very FAST ball which got big of Nash.

Swanneeeee, how I luv yah!

....bye, Monty.

There's room on the bandwagon.

Go Swanny!

KP: ... enforce the follow-on ..... enforce the follow-on

(in best Larsen 'put the caaaat out' voice)

My theory is that Strauss has been making some wacko decisions but he's been very lucky in that the Windies have been a bit poo. Had they not been a bit poo, I fear we would've been questioning his captaining ability today.

Batting again??? What the.......??????????

Oh, seems our bowlers are an ickle bit tired.

Not enforcing the follow on.

Hmmm.

If England run out time to win this game, that's not gong to look very clever...

eowyn wrote:Batting again??? What the.......??????????

Oh, seems our bowlers are an ickle bit tired.

They have been bowling for nearly one whole day...

lardbucket wrote:KP: ... enforce the follow-on ..... enforce the follow-on

(in best Larsen 'put the caaaat out' voice)

Nice. There should be more Far Side references on this forum

Seems a negative decision, although injury/illness to a couple of bowlers may have swung it in favour of batting again. But I think Swann could have bowled virtually unchanged from one end with whoever else was available from the other and WI would probably have self-destructed again.

We'd better not do one of our speciality second innings collapses and set them something chaseable here...

I guess enforcing the follow-on was the only way to LOSE the game, as I had hoped (I always barrack for the WI when they are not playing Oz). Strauss too canny for that ...

lardbucket wrote:I guess enforcing the follow-on was the only way to LOSE the game, as I had hoped (I always barrack for the WI when they are not playing Oz). Strauss too canny for that ...

Aye canny laddy. Pu' a li'le fishy on yer li'le dishy when the bo'at cums in.

Bat until mid-way through the afternoon session tomorrow for another 150 - 180 and then bowl will be the plan, I suppose. I think it's a fair enough decision given some of our recent experiences; Lord's vs SA particularly where we didn't seem to have the stamina nor the pressure required to take wickets.

Go away for 15 minutes and all hell broke loose.

I'm trying not to be a sook here, but I feel disgusted that my team just gave away 7 of their 10 wickets.

Obviously I have to admit that Swann was impressive, but he was presented with 3/5 of his wickets too.

All the great work of Sabina has been undone by the administrators and some of our better batsmen.

Still, I must remember that this is a developing team and I hope they learn their lesson from this.

Swaaaaaaaaaaaaannnnnnyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy!!!!

Harmy - dodgy tummy (dodgy head too, but that's a different story)
Fred - dodgy hip
Broady - dodgy hair
Jimmy - just dodgy

All in all, a reasonable choice to bat again.

Augustus wrote:Bat until mid-way through the afternoon session tomorrow for another 150 - 180 and then bowl will be the plan, I suppose. I think it's a fair enough decision given some of our recent experiences; Lord's vs SA particularly where we didn't seem to have the stamina nor the pressure required to take wickets.

Come 'orf it, Gussy.

This is England we are talking about here, they're going to want 220 more to give themselves a 500 lead minimum.

Weather forecast?

Swanny's 5-57 is the first Michelle by an England off-spinner since Peter Such's 5-81 at the SCG in January 1999, the first in the Caribbean since John Emburey's 5-78 at Port-of-Spain in March 1986. Swann's analysis is the best by an England off-spinner in an overseas Test since Emburey's 7-78 at the SCG in January 1987 and the best in the Caribbean since Jim Laker's 7-103 at Bridgetown in January 1948.

Big_Bad_Bob wrote:

Augustus wrote:Bat until mid-way through the afternoon session tomorrow for another 150 - 180 and then bowl will be the plan, I suppose. I think it's a fair enough decision given some of our recent experiences; Lord's vs SA particularly where we didn't seem to have the stamina nor the pressure required to take wickets.

Come 'orf it, Gussy.

This is England we are talking about here, they're going to want 220 more to give themselves a 500 lead minimum.

Well, working on 150 to 180 - that would leave us 430 to 460 ahead, presumably with no more than four sessions to go. If Windies could chase that at a consistent r/r of 4 then let them. It would enhance our chances of winning in setting them that.

Personally, I'd go out tomorrow with slogging intent. If we get bowled out for 160 then so be it. Just bat properly tonight to make sure another 50ao is impossible.

Preaching to the converted, Gus - it's the England camp that need to be convinced!

Blimey, BBB, are you and Gussy in agreement???!!