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

PeterCS wrote:But - by the same token - what of the bowlers?

Averages soaring north.

The bowlers will soon be forming a 40 Club themselves.

Broad 41.91 (current series 32.33)
Anderson 35.85 (49.60)
Sidebottom 27.70 (181.00 )
Swann 30.00 (24.15)
Flintoff 32.07 (30.20)
Panesar 33.61 (122.00 )
Harmison 31.78 (36.75)

Three of them have actually improved their average this series, surprisingly...

All of those bowlers are much of a muchness in these conditions.

Rashid might be doing himself a favour having missed out until now...

at least the Karachi test had a bit of drama at the end

JKLever wrote:All (of those) bowlers are much of a muchness in these conditions.

Possibly fixed?

PeterCS wrote:

JKLever wrote:All (of those) bowlers are much of a muchness in these conditions.

Possibly fixed?

Maybe all current bowlers. I think there's a fair number of bowlers of 10-20 years ago who could have forced a result on that, or indeed any pitch, when they were in their prime.

Amjad will have to have game at P o S. Rashid too possibly, but that would probably have to be at Shah's expense.

Yes, those who don't rely on the surface. You could see perhaps Warne bowling a side out with runs on the board. Or the 2 W's using a bottletop and a bit of reverse, or maybe even the WI quicks of the 80's would frighten a few out.

Can't think of many in world cricket currently though it's true.

So what are the positives we can take from this?

eowyn wrote:So what are the positives we can take from this?

Positively the flattest pitch I've seen in a long time.

Positively tedious last session to take away with us. And burn.


Congratulations to AC though, to second JKL's fulsome praise.

He played ugly but he stuck at it. I hope the 28-innings monkey is off his back now, and he can again play with a bit more fluency, as has his fellow-opener.

Maybe that IS a positive?

I had to laugh whn Smiffy said in one of his post-match interviews (the one the Beeb played) about "taking the positives" from the Wanderers match.

PeterCS wrote:Positively tedious last session to take away with us. And burn.


Congratulations to AC though, to second JKL's fulsome praise.

He played ugly but he stuck at it. I hope the 28-innings monkey is off his back now, and he can again play with a bit more fluency, as has his fellow-opener.

Maybe that IS a positive?

The fact that all the batsmen apart from Shah made substantial scores is a positive. Never mind that it was a road, it will boost their confidence. Also Swann's brave effort with the ball and the fact that we didn't even threaten the widely feared collapse on the final day.

Shithouse of a match obviously, but Cook getting a century is a genuine positive.

Other than that, pure gash.

Match aggregate - 1628 for 17. Overall average of 95.76. Slightly below Sri Lanka-Pakistan last week, that's all you can say as a positive there!

Well done, I knew there must be some, we wouldn't be England if there wasn't.

You can't really be too harsh on any of our bowlers either. Well you can... a few are positively average but not sure we can draw too many conclusions.

Would still like to see Sidders on a pitch with a little life in it, but I guess he'll be dropped for the ever consistent GBH.

Heaven forbid Harmy should play again after his latest outburst.

Basil wrote:Heaven forbid Harmy should play again after his latest outburst.

Wonder if he got his "audience" with Strauss after all!

But let's face it - Sidebottom is/was crap out in the WIndies - worse still carrying an ankle gyp, and even worse still his petulant gestures at the misfields off his bowling whilst making minimum effort in the field to others. Send him home to have the ankle sorted - he's much better bowler i our conditions.

Keep Harmless guessing and bring in Khan for T n T. Why not?
Unforch, Ace is there to be shot at, and he'll probably be sacrificed for the second spinner.

oops

JKLever wrote:You can't really be too harsh on any of our bowlers either. Well you can... a few are positively average but not sure we can draw too many conclusions.

Would still like to see Sidders on a pitch with a little life in it, but I guess he'll be dropped for the ever consistent GBH.

I'm a bit sick of hearing about pitches, though. That's always England's first line of excuse: not their kind of wicket.

The trouble with picking "conditions" bowlers - as England always do - is that you're totally screwed if you don't get the conditions you were budgeting for. You end up with these one-dimensional bowlers who are both clueless and toothless if Plan A isn't a goer.

As most international cricket in this day and age is played on good batting tracks under brilliant sunshine, with a ball that stops swinging (if it ever starts) after eight overs, the sensible thing to do would be to pick bowlers not based on some random hope that all the stars will align and conditions will suit them to a tee, but from the initial assumption that the wicket is going to be a belter, the weather's going to be great and you're going to need a bowling attack with the attributes to take 20 wickets in those circumstances, which is usually considered to be real pace through the air, natural bounce and hostility, some miserly bastard squeezing the life out of the batsmen - attacking by defending - and "mystery" spin off the straight. They're fashionable skills whatever the weather.

If it turns out to be an overcast day on a green top, your bowling attack won't lose any effectiveness through being non-specialist "conditions" bowlers - if you've got the attributes to take wickets on batting pitches, you're going to have a blast in bowler-friendly conditions.

But picking a bowling attack specifically engineered towards taking wickets on a green-top, and turning up and finding a big, beige road - there's nowhere to go from there.

I fear I've explained that quite badly. To put it another way, which of England's bowlers on this tour would you back to give batsmen a hard time whatever the conditions? Flintoff. Pace, hostility, bounce - he's got the all-weather game.

But he's the only one. (And he's made of bone china.)

Dello wrote:

JKLever wrote:You can't really be too harsh on any of our bowlers either. Well you can... a few are positively average but not sure we can draw too many conclusions.

Would still like to see Sidders on a pitch with a little life in it, but I guess he'll be dropped for the ever consistent GBH.

I'm a bit sick of hearing about pitches, though. That's always England's first line of excuse: not their kind of wicket.

Totally agree, but I do feel this pitch would defeat most bowlers around the world and was talking only about this game really.

I fear I've explained that quite badly. To put it another way, which of England's bowlers on this tour would you back to give batsmen a hard time whatever the conditions? Flintoff. Pace, hostility, bounce - he's got the all-weather game.

But he's the only one. (And he's made of bone china.)

No understood. And agree, but we've always produced good line and length merchants (whilst not actually being that good at it in reality) rather than 'quicks'

Nasser Hussain banged on about this for years as captain - that we always struggle when there isn't much in the surface.

Can't see how any performances on that pitch should be taken into consideration when picking the team for the next test . . . . batsmen had it way to easy and the bowlers did it real tough . . . .

That said, some of the bowlers stuck at it with a bit more heart than others . . .

Owais keeps messing up his chances

JKLever wrote:

Dello wrote:

JKLever wrote:You can't really be too harsh on any of our bowlers either. Well you can... a few are positively average but not sure we can draw too many conclusions.

Would still like to see Sidders on a pitch with a little life in it, but I guess he'll be dropped for the ever consistent GBH.

I'm a bit sick of hearing about pitches, though. That's always England's first line of excuse: not their kind of wicket.

Totally agree, but I do feel this pitch would defeat most bowlers around the world and was talking only about this game really.

I fear I've explained that quite badly. To put it another way, which of England's bowlers on this tour would you back to give batsmen a hard time whatever the conditions? Flintoff. Pace, hostility, bounce - he's got the all-weather game.

But he's the only one. (And he's made of bone china.)

No understood. And agree, but we've always produced good line and length merchants (whilst not actually being that good at it in reality) rather than 'quicks'

Nasser Hussain banged on about this for years as captain - that we always struggle when there isn't much in the surface.

And Duncan Fletcher was somewhat mocked for his "obsession" with 90 mph bowlers - even if they had shitehouse FC records like Simon Jones and Sajid Mahmood.

He valued the attribute over the "stats". Which makes more sense than selecting a bowler who is at the top of the FC averages and gets to bowl at, say, Headingley (although it doesn't have the same snakes in the pitch as it used to) on nice, juicy, bowler-loving wickets, over the bloke who is, say, fifth in the averages and bowls every week on the Somerset Highway.

West Indies have the same problem with bowling on flat pitches at the moment. Fidel Edwards can cause problems on any pitch if he is at full throttle, but JT sometimes goes missing when the wicket is flat and he picks up niggling injuries so easily. Darren Powell is just carp on any surface and Benn has only been effective in one test when the ball was turning from day 1.

As some have already said, extreme pace, reverse swing and wrist spinners are badly needed to win tests on some of the pitches around the World these days. Unfortunately those are in short supply at the moment.