***Official** West Indies in England***

[stumpski]

at Panesar's strike rate of 18. Needs a bit more than that. That's sub-Hoggard.

 

[Richard]

He's been very tidy I agree, but has he had to bowl his 70 mph floaters in the closing overs?

No. Why should he? He's not a death-bowler, he's a middle-overs bowler, and he's done that job damn well, better than almost everyone who's played for England lately. Just like Mark Ealham did, but his lack of runs counted against him. Had he been a hopeless batsman like Mullally, I reckon he'd have played far more ODIs.

WRT his batting, obviously he's a better player than scores of 2, 3 and 5 would indicate, but he needed runs to hang onto his place when Bopara and Flintoff return.

I'd prefer get rid of every single one of the other bowlers

 

[PhoenixFire]

Broad has looked more than capable with the bat this series, hopefully he'll be able to turn it into genuine number 8/7 ability

 

[stumpski]

All over, and at last the West Indies and their supporters have something to celebrate.

Powell is Man of the Match - could just as well have been Morton, but fair choice.

 

[PhoenixFire]

IMO Morton did his job well, but I thought it was pretty awful to watch. Along with Hayden as a player I depsise watching because of lack of grace.

 

[wpdavid]

Another onedayer, another drubbing. Can you imagine what seven of these matches are going to be like against the Indians? Perhaps we can organise 24-hour prayer vigils to get Fred fit enough to bowl in those games, even if I don't hold out much hope for his batting nowadays. Perhaps it would help if someone persuaded our skipper to let our most economical bowlers bowl their full allowances too. Quite where the selectors go from here is anyone's guess. It would be very easy to go into cast-of-thousands mode over the next few years, but we all know where that gets us.

 

[PhoenixFire]

It's about time KP made some runs as well, stupid shot today.

 

[stumpski]

Yeah, that Headingley double-ton seems a long time ago now.

With a full 12 days until England's next international fixture (the first Test) can we assume that, under the new regime, we might see some of these guys turn out for their counties? Most of them could do with a bit of county cricket I think. It's not as if any of the bowlers has been an ever-present for England this year, and batsmen should always want to play.

 

[wpdavid]

Yeah, that Headingley double-ton seems a long time ago now.

With a full 12 days until England's next international fixture (the first Test) can we assume that, under the new regime, we might see some of these guys turn out for their counties? Most of them could do with a bit of county cricket I think. It's not as if any of the bowlers has been an ever-present for England this year, and batsmen should always want to play.

We're talking about one round of county games before the first India test, aren't we? I'd be astonished if any of them were rested.

 

[Swervy]

Just like Mark Ealham did, but his lack of runs counted against him. Had he been a hopeless batsman like Mullally, I reckon he'd have played far more ODIs.

sorry, I might be being stupid here, could you just run that logic by me again.

If Ealham was as bad a batsman as Mullally, Ealham would have played for ODIs...so he would have been a worse player than he actually was, and that would have encouraged the selectors to pick him MORE!!! Am I reading that correctly?

Firstly Mullally was a much better bowler than Ealham, and secondly, if Eahlam was as bad a bat as Mullally, it is pretty doubtful he would have ever come close to being in consideration for an England place...infact, he might have struggled to get into the Kent team in the first place

 

[pasag]

Nice stuff from WI, but jeez England are dire in ODIs.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Another onedayer, another drubbing. Can you imagine what seven of these matches are going to be like against the Indians? Perhaps we can organise 24-hour prayer vigils to get Fred fit enough to bowl in those games, even if I don't hold out much hope for his batting nowadays. Perhaps it would help if someone persuaded our skipper to let our most economical bowlers bowl their full allowances too. Quite where the selectors go from here is anyone's guess. It would be very easy to go into cast-of-thousands mode over the next few years, but we all know where that gets us.

Mascarenhas could have bowled out but it wouldn't have made any difference. The reason Mascarenhas has a good ER is because of when he bowled, the other bowlers would have kept it tight in the middle overs as well with the men back and little aggression from the batsmen - practically anyone could have done a job like he did. Collingwood's first 4 overs went for 14 for instance.

Mascarenhas and Panesar are 'middle over specialists' - except these middle overs get less and less with each new set of ICC changes. England should only have room for one out and out bowler like this and given how generally poor Panesar has been bowling, fielding and batting he should be the one to go. His contribution is negligible.

 

[TT Boy]

It's about time KP made some runs as well, stupid shot today.

He failed three times for FFS. Hardly worth getting worked up about; considering his average for 2007 is still head and shoulders better than the rest.

Ian Bell’s plethora of pointless innings should be the real concern and **** knows why Trott was selected, Vikram Solanki could have bench warmed.

Getting beaten by the West Indies is embarrassing. Fair play to them though.

 

[TT Boy]

Mascarenhas could have bowled out but it wouldn't have made any difference. The reason Mascarenhas has a good ER is because of when he bowled, the other bowlers would have kept it tight in the middle overs as well with the men back and little aggression from the batsmen - practically anyone could have done a job like he did. Collingwood's first 4 overs went for 14 for instance.

Mascarenhas and Panesar are 'middle over specialists' - except these middle overs get less and less with each new set of ICC changes. England should only have room for one out and out bowler like this and given how generally poor Panesar has been bowling, fielding and batting he should be the one to go. His contribution is negligible.

Fair point on Dimitri, Scaly.

His figures before the backend of the second ODI were marvellous; economy rate nearly under two runs an over, what happens next? Captain brings him back, cue Marlon Samuels clearing his front leg and smashing Mascarenhas out of the park. Same thing occurred with Yardy. For it was a clear plan of the West Indies not to lose any wickets in the middle overs, and hence the over-inflated 'figures' the likes of Mascarenhas finished with. For in reality he looked about as potent with the ball as Ian Bell would be and whoever made the Rosebowl bully claim may have made an astute call.

 

[Swervy]

Getting beaten by the West Indies is embarrassing. Fair play to them though.

Why is it that embarressing, the WIs are the better ODI side and have been for a while

 

[TT Boy]

Why is it that embarressing, the WIs are the better ODI side and have been for a while

Before this series the West Indies were the only international class side that we could beat (Champions Trophy and World Cup), so to lose at home is an embarrassment in my book. But like Collingwood I’m sure you found plenty of positives.

 

[Richard]

Before this series the West Indies were the only international class side that we could beat (Champions Trophy and World Cup), so to lose at home is an embarrassment in my book.

In dead games, both times... by the tiniest of margins.

Last time we played WI in a series, they also won 2-1; the series before that (badly disrupted by rain) was also 2-2.

The last time England could argue they were a superior ODI side to WI was 2000, when we still had a few half-decent players.

 

[Richard]

Fair point on Dimitri, Scaly.

His figures before the backend of the second ODI were marvellous; economy rate nearly under two runs an over, what happens next? Captain brings him back, cue Marlon Samuels clearing his front leg and smashing Mascarenhas out of the park.

On one occasion. You missed, did you, the 5 or 6 other occasions he aimed a similar thing and refrained as the delivery wasn't suitable? Evidently so.

For it was a clear plan of the West Indies not to lose any wickets in the middle overs, and hence the over-inflated 'figures' the likes of Mascarenhas finished with. For in reality he looked about as potent with the ball as Ian Bell would be and whoever made the Rosebowl bully claim may have made an astute call.

You also missed, it seems, the fact that others bowled at the same time and didn't manage anywhere near the economy Mascarenhas did. It wasn't a plan not to lose wickets in the middle, at all - they would have done in both games had the catching been good enough (5 drops, all crucial, by England in said games). The batsmen were unable to get Mascarenhas away because he, unlike all other bowlers, bowled well in the middle. Had someone else been bowling, and bowling less well, the scoring-rates would have been considerably faster.

 

[Richard]

Mascarenhas could have bowled out but it wouldn't have made any difference. The reason Mascarenhas has a good ER is because of when he bowled, the other bowlers would have kept it tight in the middle overs as well with the men back and little aggression from the batsmen - practically anyone could have done a job like he did.

No, they couldn't, and didn't.

 

[Richard]

sorry, I might be being stupid here, could you just run that logic by me again.

If Ealham was as bad a batsman as Mullally, Ealham would have played for ODIs...so he would have been a worse player than he actually was, and that would have encouraged the selectors to pick him MORE!!! Am I reading that correctly?

Yes. You've evidently failed to grasp the pyschology of the situation. The biggest reason Ealham was dropped was because he was perceived as a "bits-and-pieces player", and there was a time (despite Jeremy Snape, the ultimate bits-and-pieces player, playing at it) when everyone was desperate to be seen not to be picking said players. Had Ealham not been a batsman of any skill whatsoever he'd not have had the tag, and would have been regarded as what he was - a high-class specialist bowler. Sadly, his small amount of ability with the bat actually counted against him.

Firstly Mullally was a much better bowler than Ealham, and secondly, if Eahlam was as bad a bat as Mullally, it is pretty doubtful he would have ever come close to being in consideration for an England place...infact, he might have struggled to get into the Kent team in the first place

And that's as big a load of nonsense as I've ever read. Ealham at the domestic level was one of the better bowlers going around, in the First-Class game never mind the one-day. He's not, quite, as good as Mullally, but it's not anywhere near as large a gap as you suggest.

Had the selectors had sanity, too, of course, he'd have been in contention for a ODI place, as all good economical bowlers are.