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

by OP Tipping Tue 10 Mar 2009, 22:04

Well played, England. I don't have any criticism for Strauss re the dec, it seemed right at the time.

And congrats to the Windies on getting the Wiz back.

by Gary 111 Tue 10 Mar 2009, 22:05

Yorkie Jill wrote:Prior MOTM! heh heh heh.

Quite right too. He's smashed the world record and become the first keeper to notch a half-century in a match for both teams.

by tac Tue 10 Mar 2009, 22:06

Demelza wrote:
tac wrote:Well.

If England had showed half the intent shown today at other times during the series they would have won . . . they didn't, and they didn't.
You can't have watched much of it. I really don't think you can fault their effort. I think each and everyone put in 100%. Even Monty. Cough.

Is this a famous Nigel NSR before me?

by holcs Tue 10 Mar 2009, 22:06

Augustus wrote:Declarations are easy with hindsight, aren't they? Could Strauss have had men around the bat defending 210 or so? Would the Windies have blocked the shit out of it and basically defending themselves to death chasing 210 in 70 overs? Would England have bowled as well, would the pitch have been quite the same (it seemed to deteriorate noticeably in the last session but not much before)?

It makes me laugh how the forum experts are all there after the event. Looking back I don't see many bemoaning the timing of the declaration at the time. Actually, I can't see any. JK and I had a bit of a tete-a-tete saying it was about right. Nothing else. It's easy to say we'd have won and all that but I have no problem with the declaration. The ARG declaration was a disgrace but this one was as balanced as we could have hoped for.

Besides which, we'd have gained maybe four overs (losing two to the change-over) for declaring half an hour earlier (Windies over-rate was 11.6 so they bowled 6 in half hour - that being the number we lost). Would that have been enough, considering we couldn't prise out the last wicket at the ARG in much more than that.

Not all of us are able to get on here, when were fairly irritated by a declaration gussie.

Think mine was mentioned as soon as i came on here about 12-15 overs out.

They are all in hindsight perhaps, but still we batted too long. And whose to say that those batters who batted 40 or 50 balls for single figures may have gone after it a bit more and opened up.

The Windies mindset all test was defensive, doubt it would have changed, they didn't need to win the test to win the series.....

by Yorkie Jill Tue 10 Mar 2009, 22:07

eowyn wrote:
Yorkie Jill wrote:Prior MOTM! heh heh heh.

Where's BBB?

Crikey. I hope he's somewhere where he can't smash things.

I think that's the mentallest motm award i've ever seen. Perhaps they felt hugely sorry for him? And what you said, Gary!

by PeterCS Tue 10 Mar 2009, 22:07

holcs wrote:
PeterCS wrote:This one was "the Sobers declaration" mentioned above.

215 to win. Achieved in just over 50 overs. Decided the series. And Garry copped a lotta stick ....

Were they 1-0 down in the last test of a series??

We certainly did not give ourselves enough time and the last 6 overs of our innings only went for 30 runs, whilst Broad and KP used up pointless time trying to get KP's 100.

No. (But it was at Trinidad, I notice Laughing

) But bold is not the same as suicidal.

Hindsight and distance are two wonderful things, especially with declarations and follow-on decisions. I guess if you REALLY and consistently followed your own advice as captain in any form of (real) cricket, C, you would lose quite a lot more matches than you would win.

I would agree there was a painful period of about 6 overs just before lunch as Kev (relatively) laboured to 100, after going great guns with Prior earlier on. But though you could argue (and you do) that Strauss should immediately have pulled them off and given them a rocket for excessive stats consciousness, I don't think that bit of deliberateness was the skipper's fault.

by Henry Tue 10 Mar 2009, 22:08

Swann or Anderson should have been MOTM.

by Guest Tue 10 Mar 2009, 22:08

tac wrote:
Demelza wrote:
tac wrote:Well.

If England had showed half the intent shown today at other times during the series they would have won . . . they didn't, and they didn't.
You can't have watched much of it. I really don't think you can fault their effort. I think each and everyone put in 100%. Even Monty. Cough.

Is this a famous Nigel NSR before me?

Sorry, still don't understand that. Can't you leave the word Nigel out, just for once?

by Gary 111 Tue 10 Mar 2009, 22:09

I think Strauss got this declaration just about right - but he had been backed into a corner and didn't have much choice.

The lack of intent in the 3rd Test and decision to use a night-watchman in the 2nd innings however was baffling.

by PeterCS Tue 10 Mar 2009, 22:10

tac wrote:
PeterCS wrote:I find myself in surprisingly cheerful mood about the England performance.

No rose-coloured glasses. Just think there's a lot of work to do, BUT also a bit to build on. James Anderson may after all be a rightful "one of the four" that Jilly properly mentions. Monty may not be dead. Swann is good.

And - nailing my colours (though not balls) to the mast - most of all, I like Strauss as captain. He was out second knock being positive, and he keeps thinking, generally intelligently.

Johnson will need to target Straussy's fingers come ashes time . . .

We have the (East End) contract already arranged in that case.

by PeterCS Tue 10 Mar 2009, 22:12

Gary 111 wrote:
Yorkie Jill wrote:Prior MOTM! heh heh heh.

Quite right too. He's smashed the world record and become the first keeper to notch a half-century in a match for both teams.

A heart-warmingly humanitarian award. Halves all round. What a guy!

by Yorkie Jill Tue 10 Mar 2009, 22:15

Botham's Mr Angry Pants tonight, for a change...

Hindsight is fab. Who knows whether any wickets would have fallen in those magic 6 overs? They got 8 in the end without them, which was a top effort. If - always bloomin' 'if' - they'd had those 6 overs and not taken wickets, would that have been more acceptable, to get the draw?

End of the game, you say 'if they'd done this....they'd have won', 'if WI hadn't managed this, they'd have lost'

Is it such a big deal because of the pre-series expectations? 'Everyone' thought England would win, 2-0, 3-0 whatever? Well then it's obvious the mindset's wrong, right before the series even begins.

They were set up for a fall before they even started.

by eowyn Tue 10 Mar 2009, 22:18

Demelza wrote:
tac wrote:
Demelza wrote:
tac wrote:Well.

If England had showed half the intent shown today at other times during the series they would have won . . . they didn't, and they didn't.
You can't have watched much of it. I really don't think you can fault their effort. I think each and everyone put in 100%. Even Monty. Cough.

Is this a famous Nigel NSR before me?
Sorry, still don't understand that. Can't you leave the word Nigel out, just for once?

I think he's implying you're being a bit of a Dumbmelza. Everyone put in 100% all series?

by holcs Tue 10 Mar 2009, 22:18

PeterCS wrote:
holcs wrote:
PeterCS wrote:This one was "the Sobers declaration" mentioned above.

215 to win. Achieved in just over 50 overs. Decided the series. And Garry copped a lotta stick ....

Were they 1-0 down in the last test of a series??

We certainly did not give ourselves enough time and the last 6 overs of our innings only went for 30 runs, whilst Broad and KP used up pointless time trying to get KP's 100.

No. (But it was at Trinidad, I notice ) But bold is not the same as suicidal.

Hindsight and distance are two wonderful things, especially with declarations and follow-on decisions. I guess if you REALLY and consistently followed your own advice as captain in any form of (real) cricket, C, you would lose quite a lot more matches than you would win.

I would agree there was a painful period of about 6 overs just before lunch as Kev (relatively) laboured to 100, after going great guns with Prior earlier on. But though you could argue (and you do) that Strauss should immediately have pulled them off and given them a rocket for excessive stats consciousness, I don't think that bit of deliberateness was the skipper's fault.

1-0 down in the final test, you got to risk losing to win. Strauss IMO didn't with the state of the game as it was.

by PeterCS Tue 10 Mar 2009, 22:18

Beefy's only furious because he predicted a steamrolling IIRC.

He hates it when reality lets his brash assertions down, and he looks for blood.

by JKLever Tue 10 Mar 2009, 22:18

Yorkie Jill wrote:Botham's Mr Angry Pants tonight, for a change...

Hindsight is fab. Who knows whether any wickets would have fallen in those magic 6 overs? They got 8 in the end without them, which was a top effort. If - always bloomin' 'if' - they'd had those 6 overs and not taken wickets, would that have been more acceptable, to get the draw?

End of the game, you say 'if they'd done this....they'd have won', 'if WI hadn't managed this, they'd have lost'

Is it such a big deal because of the pre-series expectations? 'Everyone' thought England would win, 2-0, 3-0 whatever? Well then it's obvious the mindset's wrong, right before the series even begins.

They were set up for a fall before they even started.

Only people who hadn't watched the previous 18 months cricket & didn't notice this isn't the same attack as in 2005! I 'thought we may' win by the odd test, it turns out we lost by the odd test. Anybody who is an England fan and 'expects' anything is an eejit!

by tac Tue 10 Mar 2009, 22:19

eowyn wrote:
Demelza wrote:
tac wrote:
Demelza wrote:
tac wrote:Well.

If England had showed half the intent shown today at other times during the series they would have won . . . they didn't, and they didn't.
You can't have watched much of it. I really don't think you can fault their effort. I think each and everyone put in 100%. Even Monty. Cough.

Is this a famous Nigel NSR before me?
Sorry, still don't understand that. Can't you leave the word Nigel out, just for once?

I think he's implying you're being a bit of a Dumbmelza. Everyone put in 100% all series?

Dumbmelza . . . .farkin love it. Lol@eowyn!

by Guest Tue 10 Mar 2009, 22:20

Yes, I don't think they could've tried harder. Who do you think didn't then? Calling me names makes you look very clever, BTW.

by holcs Tue 10 Mar 2009, 22:22

I think I predicted the side that imploded least often would come out on top this series.

I was correct, it just happened to not be my team.

by tac Tue 10 Mar 2009, 22:23

Demelza wrote:Yes, I don't think they could've tried harder. Who do you think didn't then? Calling me names makes you look very clever, BTW.

Intent implies a lot more than just trying hard . . . do you honestly think England played with "intent" throughout the series?

by PeterCS Tue 10 Mar 2009, 22:23

holcs wrote:
PeterCS wrote:
holcs wrote:
PeterCS wrote:This one was "the Sobers declaration" mentioned above.

215 to win. Achieved in just over 50 overs. Decided the series. And Garry copped a lotta stick ....

Were they 1-0 down in the last test of a series??

We certainly did not give ourselves enough time and the last 6 overs of our innings only went for 30 runs, whilst Broad and KP used up pointless time trying to get KP's 100.

No. (But it was at Trinidad, I notice ) But bold is not the same as suicidal.

Hindsight and distance are two wonderful things, especially with declarations and follow-on decisions. I guess if you REALLY and consistently followed your own advice as captain in any form of (real) cricket, C, you would lose quite a lot more matches than you would win.

I would agree there was a painful period of about 6 overs just before lunch as Kev (relatively) laboured to 100, after going great guns with Prior earlier on. But though you could argue (and you do) that Strauss should immediately have pulled them off and given them a rocket for excessive stats consciousness, I don't think that bit of deliberateness was the skipper's fault.

1-0 down in the final test, you got to risk losing to win. Strauss IMO didn't with the state of the game as it was.

I get your point, but I am saying there is an intelligent risk, and there is a gift.

But we will just have to beg to differ!

by eowyn Tue 10 Mar 2009, 22:24

Demelza wrote:Yes, I don't think they could've tried harder. Who do you think didn't then? Calling me names makes you look very clever, BTW.

Harmison for starters.

I wasn't trying to look clever just playing a silly game with your name. Like I said on another thread, I ramble out loud sometimes.

by Yorkie Jill Tue 10 Mar 2009, 22:26

JKLever wrote:

Only people who hadn't watched the previous 18 months cricket & didn't notice this isn't the same attack as in 2005! I 'thought we may' win by the odd test, it turns out we lost by the odd test. Anybody who is an England fan and 'expects' anything is an eejit!

Aye, I know it wasn't everyone of course, but there was a fair bit of expectation for it to be an easy ride, particularly for Strauss's first series, probably more in the press than people actually following and knowing the real issues i.e. never expect; accept.

by LeFromage Tue 10 Mar 2009, 22:27

Yorkie Jill wrote:Botham's Mr Angry Pants tonight, for a change...

Hindsight is fab. Who knows whether any wickets would have fallen in those magic 6 overs? They got 8 in the end without them, which was a top effort. If - always bloomin' 'if' - they'd had those 6 overs and not taken wickets, would that have been more acceptable, to get the draw?

End of the game, you say 'if they'd done this....they'd have won', 'if WI hadn't managed this, they'd have lost'

Is it such a big deal because of the pre-series expectations? 'Everyone' thought England would win, 2-0, 3-0 whatever? Well then it's obvious the mindset's wrong, right before the series even begins.

They were set up for a fall before they even started.

Botham is bullshit and bluster. Always has been. He's one of those people that has all the answers - after the event.

A bit like George Costanza.

by Guest Tue 10 Mar 2009, 22:27

tac wrote:
Demelza wrote:Yes, I don't think they could've tried harder. Who do you think didn't then? Calling me names makes you look very clever, BTW.

Intent implies a lot more than just trying hard . . . do you honestly think England played with "intent" throughout the series?

Obviously, if they were trying hard, it was their intent to win!

by Sponsored content