West Indies v England, 5th Test, Port of Spain, Mar 6 - 10

JKLever wrote:So much for Shahs 'extended run' then?

Surely he has to play ahead of Bopara who could've been out playing a terrible shot for 4 lets not forget.

Harmison won't be anywhere near the team given Andy Flowers interview yesterday.

COULD have been out for 4. Kevin Pietersen COULD have been out for 0 or 15 or 60 at The Oval in 2005. In fact, you can COULD most innings. Fact is he went on and scored a ton. Owais Shah could have scored a ton if he hadn't looked a bit scared first innings. He could have scored a ton if he hadn't missed a full bunger from Benn for the second time in the series (the first one was fortunately given not out). He hasn't looked the part whatsoever. I'm not keen on dropping him, but what choice is there? Drop a centurion who has a longer-term future in England's side? Not having it.

Augustus wrote:You see, that sentence didn't really make sense

You say that like it's a bad thing.

People here write whole Boparagraphs that don't make sense.

Yet we'll still drop the keeper who made 76* in this last test for Prior.

Our selections make fark all sense. We said Shah would get a run now give it to him.

freddled gruntbuggly wrote:Don't worry. I'm sure you'll surpass it one day.

Already did it. Got bowled out for 46 after 19-year-old Chanderpaul got 50. But then, courtesy of Stewie's two tons, Gussie's 8fer and Caddy's 5fer, we beat them in the next test.

Due to the humid weather in T & T at the moment the ball has been swinging a fair bit. T & T played only 1 pacer in the last match, and he got 11 wickets with swing as his main asset. That was at Guarracara park, which is actually less seamer friendly than the QPO.

It has been raining a fair bit and the light has faded fairly quickly, so some time could well be lost in this match.

JKLever wrote:
Not sure Monty should play - I'd take a risk and play Adil instead. Of course the risk we should have taken was setting WI 450 rather than 500 in the '3rd' test....

Pointless playing Monty at present. I'd give Rashid a go with Swann. Apparently he can bat so the five-bowler model might have enough batting in it, counting Swann and Son Of. It's high risk but we may as well go down 2-0 trying to square the series.

I'd shove KP up to #3, Colly to #4 and have Ace at #5 where he might be comfier.

All the talk in the studio was of a 4 man attack again in helpful conditions.

Incidentally, Sarwan has 2 hundreds in his last 2 tests at the QPO.

A match winning 4th innings ton against Murali and Vaas last year, and his best ever hundred in 2005 against South Africa when he scored an unbeaten 107 in a team total of 194, on a wicket that was very helpful for the pacers (Ntini took 13 wickets).

Well obviously Shah's got to be given a couple more tests- I'm sure you'll see him up his game when the conditions are more challenging. He's just that kind of guy. He also adopts the old blind cats from the local animal shelter and smiles at strangers.

As much as I'd liking Rashid to make the breakthrough - I think he'd just be one big bulging udder of runs for the Windians. Honestly is Sarwapaul going to have any trouble with him at all? The ony real condundrum the selectors is have is choosing between Harmison and Kahn to replace Sidebottom. Might as well go for the latter - at least that way lies hope, however dashed it might become.

And I think Prior should play on the basis that paternity leave should be respected as an essential right of employment.

Andy Flower has confirmed Sussex will be back behind the stumps, according to the Beeb.

Doesn't sound like he's ready to kiss and make up with Harmy either: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/england/7917369.stm

JKLever wrote:All the talk in the studio was of a 4 man attack again in helpful conditions.

brilliant.

I don't know who they're going to pick.

Suspect Sidebottom's out of the equation, and the noises coming out of the England camp don't sound too promising for Harmison.

Which only leaves six bowlers that could possibly be selected - three of which are spinners!

Another brilliantly planned squad...

I suppose that means Anderson, Broad, Khan and Swann, with the final decision between a second spinner and a sixth batsman.

They'll be going back on their word, I suspect, whichever way they turn. They said Shah was going to get an extended run, but I would've thought he'll be dropped if they want a fifth bowler. And they said Rashid wasn't just there to make up the numbers and was, in fact, a serious contender for a place in the final XI, but I can't see them picking him over Panesar as the second spinner - which would leave him as the only member of the 18-strong party that have toured who wouldn't have played a Test.

Does Monty really deserve a recall any more than Harmison or Bell? Would have hoped Rashid would be next in line to get a go if they decided to go with a second spinner.

His batting could be a factor as well if they want to go with another bowler, having three who are number 8s at worst and only two genuine tailenders would help if we were a batsman light.

Eric Air Emu wrote:He also adopts the old blind cats from the local animal shelter and smiles at strangers.

I knew I liked him for more than his Ramps-ish twitchyness and wristiness.

Eric Air Emu wrote:As much as I'd liking Rashid to make the breakthrough - I think he'd just be one big bulging udder of runs for the Windians. Honestly is Sarwapaul going to have any trouble with him at all?

Is the phenomenon that is Chanderwan Sarwapaul going to have any trouble with any bowler England have in their squad or the compost heap that is the A/'Lions' team?

Surely that should be Shivnaresh Sarwapaul?

Ramnarine Chanderwan.

Soz beamer, I wasn't being very logical there, but heck, imagine all three at 3, 4, 5 for WI. *drool*

Dello wrote:Ramnarine Chanderwan.

Wasn't Ramnarine (or something like that) one of the many fairly rubbish spinners WI have tried in recent times?

Augustus wrote:

JKLever wrote:So much for Shahs 'extended run' then?

Surely he has to play ahead of Bopara who could've been out playing a terrible shot for 4 lets not forget.

Harmison won't be anywhere near the team given Andy Flowers interview yesterday.

COULD have been out for 4. Kevin Pietersen COULD have been out for 0 or 15 or 60 at The Oval in 2005. In fact, you can COULD most innings. Fact is he went on and scored a ton. Owais Shah could have scored a ton if he hadn't looked a bit scared first innings. He could have scored a ton if he hadn't missed a full bunger from Benn for the second time in the series (the first one was fortunately given not out). He hasn't looked the part whatsoever. I'm not keen on dropping him, but what choice is there? Drop a centurion who has a longer-term future in England's side? Not having it.

Its not the fact he could've been out for 4 for me, but its the fact he kept playing the shot and got very very lucky.

A 100 @ 6 as many people have given Bell shoite for on a road, behind all those other big scores is a no brainer situation, as it should have been for Ace - cept even the best can have a very bad day in the office.

I agree with many that Shah stays in as he should be given a run after the time he has had to wait. After all your saying after one innings a player has gone from the 3rd choice to the 1st choice? Hardly consistent. Time will come for Bops, but IMO Shah plays this test and the next two to see what he is made of in this arena.

But having said all that with rain about and it being historically a result pitch

My team for this test would be:

Strauss
Cook
Shah
KP
Wobbles
Bopara
Prior
Broad
Swann
Anderson
Khan

"4 man attack"

Excellent, England should well and truly be able to engineer another draw.

Indeedy.

Its been pissing with rain in TT. Its historically got a fair bit in it for the bowlers and it swings.

No point in having 5 bowlers if we get rolled by Taylor and Edwards for diddly squat.

The last test was a joke with no-one getting anything from it. This pitch sounds like it will suit our boys alot better.

beamer wrote:

Dello wrote:Ramnarine Chanderwan.

Wasn't Ramnarine (or something like that) one of the many fairly rubbish spinners WI have tried in recent times?

Dinanath Ramnarine was the best spinner we have had since Lance Gibbs. He took 45 wickets in 12 tests at an average of 30 runs per wicket with his leggies, and he had a really nice action. He is the only spinner who was given an entire home season to prove his worth. Unfortunately he was a notoriously lazy trainer and Carl Hooper refused to have him in the side while he was captain.

Perhaps as a result of this, he has become the head of the West Indies Players Association that has given the WICB such a hard time over the last 5 years (quite rightly too).

Crikey - there's no more damning indictment than being called lazy by Carl Hooper.

Hopefully fattist England get thrashed by the non-fattist Windies.

WIFAN wrote:

beamer wrote:

Dello wrote:Ramnarine Chanderwan.

Wasn't Ramnarine (or something like that) one of the many fairly rubbish spinners WI have tried in recent times?

Dinanath Ramnarine was the best spinner we have had since Lance Gibbs. He took 45 wickets in 12 tests at an average of 30 runs per wicket with his leggies, and he had a really nice action. He is the only spinner who was given an entire home season to prove his worth. Unfortunately he was a notoriously lazy trainer and Carl Hooper refused to have him in the side while he was captain.

Perhaps as a result of this, he has become the head of the West Indies Players Association that has given the WICB such a hard time over the last 5 years (quite rightly too).

Shame, he had the tools to be a really good spinner.