Re: West Indies v England, 4th Test, Bridgetown - Feb 26-Mar 2

by LeFromage Sun 01 Mar 2009, 21:21

Augustus wrote:Sidebottom, Nottinghamshire lad or not, has been an embarrassment in this match. I doubt it's his fault considering his fitness problems, but he really ought to be sent home. Maybe we can chain him to Anderson and Harmison and tell them to swim back across the Atlantic. The survivors can definitely play the 1st Test vs the Windies in England...

...you just know Harmison would turn up on a beach somewhere gnawing on one of SiBo's legs.

Sums up the quality of the resources at their disposal that England would rather play a 70% fit Sidebottom than Harmison or some random Dane.

by eowyn Sun 01 Mar 2009, 21:21

beamer wrote:
Augustus wrote:Sidebottom, Nottinghamshire lad or not, has been an embarrassment in this match.
He's not a Notts lad, he's a Yorkshireman. Well he is when he bowls this crap, anyway...

We got rid for a reason....

by LeFromage Sun 01 Mar 2009, 21:23

eowyn wrote:
beamer wrote:
Augustus wrote:Sidebottom, Nottinghamshire lad or not, has been an embarrassment in this match.
He's not a Notts lad, he's a Yorkshireman. Well he is when he bowls this crap, anyway...

We got rid for a reason....

Needed to free up two seats on the team bus for Timmy Bresnan.

by eowyn Sun 01 Mar 2009, 21:24

Dello wrote:
eowyn wrote:
beamer wrote:
Augustus wrote:Sidebottom, Nottinghamshire lad or not, has been an embarrassment in this match.
He's not a Notts lad, he's a Yorkshireman. Well he is when he bowls this crap, anyway...

We got rid for a reason....

Needed to free up two seats on the team bus for Timmy Bresnan.

Exactly.

by PeterCS Sun 01 Mar 2009, 21:29

So basically all we need for the Ashes are three or four decent bowlers,

by LeFromage Sun 01 Mar 2009, 21:29

Definitely England's session there. They're fighting back...

by LeFromage Sun 01 Mar 2009, 21:32

PeterCS wrote:So basically all we need for the Ashes are three or four decent bowlers,

Tear it up, start again. The batting was piss-weak two games ago - that's an issue that's been papered over rather than fixed.

If the Windies had taken their catches, England would've struggled to make 350. On that wicket.

This has definitely been the "rock bottom" tour. There's nowhere further to sink from here.

by JKLever Sun 01 Mar 2009, 21:34

Well, not watched a ball today as i've been busy but we can now officially declare this a 'Karachi' (just for TheOne)

Much mincing? Any highlights? Lowlights?

by PeterCS Sun 01 Mar 2009, 21:36

Bring back Hoggy.

by WIFAN Sun 01 Mar 2009, 21:36

Almost definitely a draw, but West Indies can come in all guns blazing knowing that the worst case scenario is they will be 1-0 up with only 1 more test to go.

Great batting from Sarwan and Denesh Ramdin, a very entertaining innings from JT and a hard working bowling performance from Swann were the highlights for me.

Lowlight for me was the lack of commitment shown by Sidebottom. IMHO that man does not deserve to play for England again. Strauss and Swann were livid with him and rightly so.

by LeFromage Sun 01 Mar 2009, 21:38

Lowlights: England's one-dimensional, one-paced, totally innocuous bowling.
Mincing: Pietersen bowled a couple of overs.
Wincing: Sidebottom every time the ball went anywhere near him in the field and he had to move his shambling, geriatric frame to intercept it.
Highlights: Stumps. Good times.

by JKLever Sun 01 Mar 2009, 21:39

WIFAN wrote:
Lowlight for me was the lack of commitment shown by Sidebottom. IMHO that man does not deserve to play for England again. Strauss and Swann were livid with him and rightly so.

What happened?

by JKLever Sun 01 Mar 2009, 21:41

Dello wrote:Lowlights: England's one-dimensional, one-paced, totally innocuous bowling.
Mincing: Pietersen bowled a couple of overs.
Wincing: Sidebottom every time the ball went anywhere near him in the field and he had to move his shambling, geriatric frame to intercept it.
Highlights: Stumps. Good times.

Ah, a good one to miss then... tune in for the comedy show tomorrow?

by WIFAN Sun 01 Mar 2009, 21:43

JKLever wrote:
WIFAN wrote:
Lowlight for me was the lack of commitment shown by Sidebottom. IMHO that man does not deserve to play for England again. Strauss and Swann were livid with him and rightly so.

What happened?

If the ball was just 5/10 yards to the right he would just let it run to the boundary. Ramdin also hit a ball in the air in his direction that bounced just inside the boundary right next to him and he didn't even attempt to catch it, he just watched it drop.

If it was a West Indian that behaved like that on the field I would be livid.

by beamer Sun 01 Mar 2009, 21:46

Dello wrote:
PeterCS wrote:So basically all we need for the Ashes are three or four decent bowlers,

Tear it up, start again. The batting was piss-weak two games ago - that's an issue that's been papered over rather than fixed.

If the Windies had taken their catches, England would've struggled to make 350. On that wicket.

This has definitely been the "rock bottom" tour. There's nowhere further to sink from here.

There's still losing to Bangladesh, when do we play them next?

by LeFromage Sun 01 Mar 2009, 21:49

WIFAN wrote:
JKLever wrote:
WIFAN wrote:
Lowlight for me was the lack of commitment shown by Sidebottom. IMHO that man does not deserve to play for England again. Strauss and Swann were livid with him and rightly so.

What happened?

If the ball was just 5/10 yards to the right he would just let it run to the boundary. Ramdin also hit a ball in the air in his direction that bounced just inside the boundary right next to him and he didn't even attempt to catch it, he just dropped it.

That "catch" was with the score on 725 - I wouldn't mark it down as crucial.

As for the rest of his fielding, that's how he's always been. He can run in to the wicket to bowl, but he's treading on egg-shells when he's in the out-field.

by WIFAN Sun 01 Mar 2009, 21:53

It was unacceptable and you can't pass it off as not that vital, all the other bowlers kept running around until the end, diving in the outfield etc.

Given that he bowled a pile of rubbish too, I think his career should be coming to an end very soon.

by Merlin Sun 01 Mar 2009, 21:56

Dello wrote:
WIFAN wrote:
JKLever wrote:
WIFAN wrote:
Lowlight for me was the lack of commitment shown by Sidebottom. IMHO that man does not deserve to play for England again. Strauss and Swann were livid with him and rightly so.

What happened?

If the ball was just 5/10 yards to the right he would just let it run to the boundary. Ramdin also hit a ball in the air in his direction that bounced just inside the boundary right next to him and he didn't even attempt to catch it, he just dropped it.

That "catch" was with the score on 725 - I wouldn't mark it down as crucial.

As for the rest of his fielding, that's how he's always been. He can run in to the wicket to bowl, but he's treading on egg-shells when he's in the out-field.

And doesn't he get all bolshei and evil-eyed at the poor sod who misfields to his pie lobs.
Oh, the irony!

by beamer Sun 01 Mar 2009, 21:57

WIFAN wrote:It was unacceptable and you can't pass it off as not that vital, all the other bowlers kept running around until the end, diving in the outfield etc.

Given that he bowled a pile of rubbish too, I think his career should be coming to an end very soon.

I always felt he was basically just a good county pro who got a rather fortunate England call-up through others dropping out but made the most of it with a remarkable year in international cricket. It was never going to last much longer than that really, injury problems have contributed as well and the selectors made a mistake in discarding the only slightly older (but proven Test wicket-taker over several years) Hoggard as a result of his performances.

by JKLever Sun 01 Mar 2009, 21:59

Wouldn't rule Sidders out in English conditions, got to be more than 70% fit though obviously.

by WIFAN Sun 01 Mar 2009, 22:08

JKLever wrote:Wouldn't rule Sidders out in English conditions, got to be more than 70% fit though obviously.

Fair enough but prepare to play with 10 fielders when that happens.

by LeFromage Sun 01 Mar 2009, 22:12

beamer wrote:
I always felt he (Sidebottom) was basically just a good county pro who got a rather fortunate England call-up through others dropping out but made the most of it with a remarkable year in international cricket. It was never going to last much longer than that really, injury problems have contributed as well and the selectors made a mistake in discarding the only slightly older (but proven Test wicket-taker over several years) Hoggard as a result of his performances.

You might be right, but if he was just a good county pro having a decent trot of form, what does that make England's other bowlers, Harmison, Hoggard, Anderson and Broad, who he was so much better than it was bordering on embarassing?

Perhaps they're all nothing more than good county pros.

by OP Tipping Sun 01 Mar 2009, 22:13

"Test cricket is dead"

There is at least one live match being played, that at the Wanderers.

by LeFromage Sun 01 Mar 2009, 22:27

Dello wrote:
Eric Air Emu wrote:I reckon Mr TV Umpire should only be able to overturn the man in the middle's LBW decision on the basis of whether the ball pitched outside leg and whether the batsman hit it. Anything else and you're guessing...

Exactamundo.

The LBW law is about the umpire's opinion. It's not fact. It's not something that can be cleared up once and for all in a single replay. It's an opinion.

And the farce of referring any LBW shout to the third umpire is that you're also just asking him to make an opinion. It's not fact - it's just another guess, another stab at it. So whose opinion wins out? Who has seniority - the guy in the middle or the guy with the TV? And how many opinions do you need? Maybe there should be a fourth umpire to have a look as well, just to act as a tie-breaker in the case of the two other opinions conflicting. Perhaps there should be some kind of meeting called where they all thrash out an opinion that everyone's comfortable with. And so on.

If the third umpire is the guy whose opinion is law, then there's really no point having a bloke out in the middle. He may as well refer every decision as his opinion is apparently worthless.

As Tom (or Rachel) says, if you have to have referrals for LBW, they should just be to establish if the ball pitched outside leg-stump, if the ball hit the batsman in line and to check if there's a discernible inside edge.

Think Aggers has summed it all up rather nicely:

The off-field umpire must find 'compelling evidence' from the technology available to suggest to the on-field umpire that his decision should be reversed. Note I say 'suggest' because the final decision is made by the man in the middle, not the third umpire.

... So what is 'compelling evidence'? Surely the ball hitting the bat is 'fact'. So is the ball pitching outside the 'mat'.

Actually, 'compelling evidence' is nothing more than the opinion of the third umpire, and that is where part of this problem lies: human beings are still involved.

Another is that the referrals and technology do not always tell you anything at all.

One incident involved a vigorous, determined appeal by England for a catch behind off Chanderpaul. It was given not out, and England chose not to refer it. The replays were utterly inconclusive so, using 'compelling evidence', consider this:

A) Chanderpaul given not out, and England refer it to the third umpire. No evidence from the replay, so decision upheld. Chanderpaul is not out.

or:

B) Chanderpaul given out, and he refers it to the third umpire. No evidence from the replay, so decision upheld. Chanderpaul is out.

How can the same incident produce entirely different results and, above all, still present the same opportunity for a bad decision to be made in the first place?

... I understand that West Indies, England and India are already determinedly against this experiment becoming enshrined in the international game next summer, which means that the ICC will have to go back to the drawing board.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/england/7917366.stm

by Chivalry Augustus Sun 01 Mar 2009, 22:34

Dello wrote:
beamer wrote:
I always felt he (Sidebottom) was basically just a good county pro who got a rather fortunate England call-up through others dropping out but made the most of it with a remarkable year in international cricket. It was never going to last much longer than that really, injury problems have contributed as well and the selectors made a mistake in discarding the only slightly older (but proven Test wicket-taker over several years) Hoggard as a result of his performances.

You might be right, but if he was just a good county pro having a decent trot of form, what does that make England's other bowlers, Harmison, Hoggard, Anderson and Broad, who he was so much better than it was bordering on embarassing?

Perhaps they're all nothing more than good county pros.

SiBo was a good, reliable swing bowler whose body gave out, so much effort did he put in. It's not his fault, he deserves a big pat on the back, and as a specialist swinger we have to have him around the side. But he shouldn't be playing at the minute, it's making things so much worse. He's better than Anderson and Harmison, which makes him one of our better seamers (unfortunately). England aren't exactly blessed with talent at the moment.

by Sponsored content