creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

[thebish]

from the BBC ticker..

(I've seen this happen more than once!!)

A related image from yesteryear of gaggles of small boys hurdling the fence and racing to intercept a boundary a split second after it hits the rope. The race winner, crouched behind rope with cupped hands, then always seem surprised that the ball hit the rope, skipped up and smacked him in the face. Most often seen at televised John Player Sunday League matches, so perhaps the thought of getting on TV blinded them to the inevitability of receiving a solid leather kiss to the chops...

[thebish]

and - Ramdin gone too..

when you choose to bat - 140-6 is not where you want to be...

[David Lee's Hair]

Not wanting to tempt fate, but without Chanderpaul they are a poor side.

[TANGODANCER]

Not wanting to tempt fate, but without Chanderpaul they are a poor side.

You tempted fate. At 212 for 6 it's looking respectable now.

[thebish]

Not wanting to tempt fate, but without Chanderpaul they are a poor side.

You tempted fate. At 212 for 6 it's looking respectable now.

even better at 273-6...

[thebish]

having said that - this is the reason the elected to bat - it is a cracking batting wicket... 350 will be below par...

[BWFC_Insane]

having said that - this is the reason the elected to bat - it is a cracking batting wicket... 350 will be below par...

On the other hand England need to realise that picking only three strike bowlers, one of which a spinner, could land you in trouble when bowling first on a decent wicket.

[thebish]

having said that - this is the reason the elected to bat - it is a cracking batting wicket... 350 will be below par...

On the other hand England need to realise that picking only three strike bowlers, one of which a spinner, could land you in trouble when bowling first on a decent wicket.

what do you mean by "strike" bowlers - and how many do you think we should pick?

[TANGODANCER]

having said that - this is the reason the elected to bat - it is a cracking batting wicket... 350 will be below par...

On the other hand England need to realise that picking only three strike bowlers, one of which a spinner, could land you in trouble when bowling first on a decent wicket.

An opinion that could reverse quite quickly if our batsmen do well. Worked well enough in the first test, and for the first six wickets here. Two batsmen finding form isn't a reason to sack the selectors.

[David Lee's Hair]

I take full credit for the Windies fight back

[TANGODANCER]

I take full credit for the Windies fight back

Indeed you do sir, indeed you do.

[BWFC_Insane]

having said that - this is the reason the elected to bat - it is a cracking batting wicket... 350 will be below par...

On the other hand England need to realise that picking only three strike bowlers, one of which a spinner, could land you in trouble when bowling first on a decent wicket.

An opinion that could reverse quite quickly if our batsmen do well. Worked well enough in the first test, and for the first six wickets here. Two batsmen finding form isn't a reason to sack the selectors.

Jeez some mild criticism and you extrapolate to sacking the selectors.

As for bish's question, I think that if you're only playing 4 bowlers then the fourth for me needs to be a bit more threatening than Bresnan when you're playing on decent tracks. I think there is a question that when Broad, Swann and Bresnan can all bat on their day whether you stick a 5th bowler in there for certain tests.

Basically today when Broad and Anderson tired a bit the ball softened and the Windies pair got in we had few answers.

I'm not sure that a top test side, and we are, should be bowling Jonathan fecking Trott......

[TANGODANCER]

having said that - this is the reason the elected to bat - it is a cracking batting wicket... 350 will be below par...

On the other hand England need to realise that picking only three strike bowlers, one of which a spinner, could land you in trouble when bowling first on a decent wicket.

An opinion that could reverse quite quickly if our batsmen do well. Worked well enough in the first test, and for the first six wickets here. Two batsmen finding form isn't a reason to sack the selectors.

Jeez some mild criticism and you extrapolate to sacking the selectors.

As for bish's question, I think that if you're only playing 4 bowlers then the fourth for me needs to be a bit more threatening than Bresnan when you're playing on decent tracks. I think there is a question that when Broad, Swann and Bresnan can all bat on their day whether you stick a 5th bowler in there for certain tests.

Basically today when Broad and Anderson tired a bit the ball softened and the Windies pair got in we had few answers.

I'm not sure that a top test side, and we are, should be bowling Jonathan fecking Trott.

To rest the pace lads till the new ball arrived was the reason given. Valid enough given today's temperatures. Not sure any criticism's due anywhere yet. West Indies are also a top test side.

[BWFC_Insane]

having said that - this is the reason the elected to bat - it is a cracking batting wicket... 350 will be below par...

On the other hand England need to realise that picking only three strike bowlers, one of which a spinner, could land you in trouble when bowling first on a decent wicket.

An opinion that could reverse quite quickly if our batsmen do well. Worked well enough in the first test, and for the first six wickets here. Two batsmen finding form isn't a reason to sack the selectors.

Jeez some mild criticism and you extrapolate to sacking the selectors.

As for bish's question, I think that if you're only playing 4 bowlers then the fourth for me needs to be a bit more threatening than Bresnan when you're playing on decent tracks. I think there is a question that when Broad, Swann and Bresnan can all bat on their day whether you stick a 5th bowler in there for certain tests.

Basically today when Broad and Anderson tired a bit the ball softened and the Windies pair got in we had few answers.

I'm not sure that a top test side, and we are, should be bowling Jonathan fecking Trott.

To rest the pace lads till the new ball arrived was the reason given. Valid enough given today's temperatures. Not sure any criticism's due anywhere yet. West Indies are also a top test side.

I dispute that the Windies are a top test side. They're getting better but no more.

If we had picked a 5th bowler we'd not need to bowl a batsman to rest Anderson and Broad. My point being that the work could be better shared and we'd retain more threat.

[TANGODANCER]

I dispute that the Windies are a top test side. They're getting better but no more.
If we had picked a 5th bowler we'd not need to bowl a batsman to rest Anderson and Broad. My point being that the work could be better shared and we'd retain more threat.

Alas, being but a poor spectator with a rudimentary knowlege of the game, I tend to leave it all to Strauss and co.

[thebish]

If we had picked a 5th bowler we'd not need to bowl a batsman to rest Anderson and Broad. My point being that the work could be better shared and we'd retain more threat.

hmmm... but - as you were moaning we only had 3 "strike" bowlers - then presumably you'd have 4 "strike bowlers" - and only one containing bowler... on a good batting wicket??

my understanding of the term "strike bowler" is that it is a bowler whose focus is on wickets regardless of the cost - ie. not a bowler capable of "containing" - he'll "buy" wickets and concede runs in the process...

to have 4 out of 5 bowlers on a good batting pitch who are not capable of containing is madness... sometimes you need to dig in - especially on a long hot afternoon and on a flat pitch...

(not that I agree with your characterisation of all three of broad, anderson and swann as "strike bowlers" - which is why I asked you how you were defining "strike" bowler.)

[BWFC_Insane]

If we had picked a 5th bowler we'd not need to bowl a batsman to rest Anderson and Broad. My point being that the work could be better shared and we'd retain more threat.

hmmm... but - as you were moaning we only had 3 "strike" bowlers - then presumably you'd have 4 "strike bowlers" - and only one containing bowler... on a good batting wicket??

my understanding of the term "strike bowler" is that it is a bowler whose focus is on wickets regardless of the cost - ie. not a bowler capable of "containing" - he'll "buy" wickets and concede runs in the process...

to have 4 out of 5 bowlers on a good batting pitch who are not capable of containing is madness... sometimes you need to dig in - especially on a long hot afternoon and on a flat pitch...

(not that I agree with your characterisation of all three of broad, anderson and swann as "strike bowlers" - which is why I asked you how you were defining "strike" bowler.)

I would define strike bowler as someone capable of taking wickets in unfavourable bowling conditions relatively regularly. By that I mean match to match, not getting 5 every innings!

But with 5 bowlers I'd be happy with 2 'containers' as you put it. I just think then we could keep Anderson and Broad fresher.

Not all the time, would depend on the test, weather, pitch etc. But I do think we are too rigid with the four bowlers mantra especially as one is being picked over others mainly cos he can bat, if you believe Aggers and co, etc.....

[TANGODANCER]

Not all the time, would depend on the test, weather, pitch etc. But I do think we are too rigid with the four bowlers mantra especially as one is being picked over others mainly cos he can bat, if you believe Aggers and co, etc.....

What exactly does that mean BWFCi? Surely that's what selectors work on all the time? We won the first test and I'm pretty confident we can win this one. What exactly is your point?

[superjohnmcginlay]

having said that - this is the reason the elected to bat - it is a cracking batting wicket... 350 will be below par...

On the other hand England need to realise that picking only three strike bowlers, one of which a spinner, could land you in trouble when bowling first on a decent wicket.

An opinion that could reverse quite quickly if our batsmen do well. Worked well enough in the first test, and for the first six wickets here. Two batsmen finding form isn't a reason to sack the selectors.

Jeez some mild criticism and you extrapolate to sacking the selectors.

As for bish's question, I think that if you're only playing 4 bowlers then the fourth for me needs to be a bit more threatening than Bresnan when you're playing on decent tracks. I think there is a question that when Broad, Swann and Bresnan can all bat on their day whether you stick a 5th bowler in there for certain tests.

Basically today when Broad and Anderson tired a bit the ball softened and the Windies pair got in we had few answers.

I'm not sure that a top test side, and we are, should be bowling Jonathan fecking Trott......

We're unbeaten with Bresnan playing and anybody who saw him in Melbourne (me! wahay!) would think he can be threatening. He's just been bowling after jimmy n broad so ball's a bit softer etc.

But I can understand your point, my issue is the batsmen. They're still a bit shaky for me after the dogshit performance in t'arab emirates. I don't think getting shut of a batsmen's a good idea.

[BWFC_Insane]

Job done this morning, Bresnan did really well. Now it's up to England to show how good the pitch and conditions are for batting.