West Indies v England 1st Test - Antigua

First topic message reminder :

WI win toss and decide to field. Not sure why. This "exploit early life in the pitch" thing is really overplayed. Feel England would have batted had they won the toss. Lot of pressure on Cook now.

A fantastic 100

We have a review here against Stokes...... Umpire's call on hitting the stumps and Stokes survives.
Fair enough call, so long as there is no opposit result for a West Indies batsman under similar circumstances.......

Samuels is bowling filth here, he hasn't managed any control over the runs and never looked like taking a wicket, a couple of overs here, a couple there is fine but this? Bring back Holder, for heaven's sake!

With the new ball, Taylor and Roach would be bowling most of the overs today, so what is the logic for holding Holder back? Ramdin just isn't cut out for this, is he?

Think Bell and Stokes should remain positive here. No need to go on a leather hunt, but should not let Benn and Samuels just bowl to them effortlessly.

No idea what Ramdin is doing frankly.

Bell has played nicely. Having said that I don't understand this "anticipation" thing the slip fielders seem to do when fielding to a spinner. Fair enough when the batsman sets himself up for a sweep and we have seen the odd brilliant success, but for a late cut? Any edge and it's between the keeper and you (and may have been at you without moving) and off the middle you are rather guessing anyway. It doesn't strike me as a percentage move.

I don't mind Buttler or Stokes at 6. Gilchrist batted 7 pretty much his entire career. It's quite a big series for Stokes. With Ali emerging as a genuine all-rounder and Woakes improving massively recently his place as England's saviour of all things (rather hastily given to him during the ashes downunder) is severely under threat.

The 2nd new ball is obviously key. If England can get through to tonight 4 or even 5 down they are well on their way to 400+. You don't lose many tests from there.

A score of 400 will be far too much for this West Indies side from a psychological point of view.

Both these guys playing nicely

Stella wrote:

alfie wrote:Anyway well bowled West Indies so far...England in trouble but I will have to get some sleep : hope they can revive !

Ballance and Bell's batting would have helped with the sleep.

I see the revival came about ...perhaps I should have turned in earlier

Bell can start as slowly as he likes if he's going to make 140 plus , eh , Stella ?

Pleased to see Stokes going well too ; good to watch I imagine ?

Oh rats...maybe I shouldn't watch ...fifteen minutes and I've done for Bell

Think he's set England up for a good score though.  Not sure I'd bother with the night watchman with just one over left , and Stokes on strike ?
England will gladly take 341/5 !

No idea why you'd send in the nightwatchman who is off strike with an over to go - getting his wicket early tomorrow could get spirits up in the Windies camp (a little bit).

Gotta think if Stokes and/or Buttler are still there at lunch tomorrow we'll be well in control of this (with 450+)

Sounds like West Indies were a bowler short ?  Pitch clearly not giving anyone a lot ...England may well be glad of having four seamers when it is their turn to bowl.
Really happy to see Stokes making such a handy return.

alfie wrote:Oh rats...maybe I shouldn't watch ...fifteen minutes and I've done for Bell

Think he's set England up for a good score though.  Not sure I'd bother with the night watchman with just one over left , and Stokes on strike ?
England will gladly take 341/5 !

As has been pointed out on twitter Alfie - we haven't looked at the data properly.

Buttler a prime mankad candidate, thus Tredwell rightly sent it

Good day for England really. 5 wickets means WI not quite out of it, but 340 is a lot of runs on day one. Didn't watch the first session, but when I switched on around the 30 over mark Taylor was getting a bit of movement and decent carry, after that the pitch died or WI lost their energy.

In general WI were far too short, including Benn, who was pretty woeful (Tredders will do much better you'll feel, if only by bowling consistently in the right places). Roach at least found a great ball to get rid of Bell (again suggesting there may still be enough in this pitch) to at least give them a lift. I share the general bafflement at Tredders going in to not face a ball, but I guess it's not an easy one to judge.

I'll defend Ramdin a little for bringing Benn back into the attack a couple of overs after Stokes came in, if only because it was at a slightly tricky time: with about 12 overs to go before the second new ball he didn't want to tire out Taylor and Roach. Still feel he could have kept them going a couple overs each longer, and maybe delay the new ball by a few overs if necessary. And Holder should definitely have been bowling instead of Samuels.

WI fielding, as picked up by Mike, well below par.

Beefy had his great hindsight moment in commentary re Stokes not getting picked for the WC, but as discussed on here he simply didn't deserve to make the squad when it was announced. Good to see him back in some decent nick though, albeit in easier circumstances.

I would expect England's bowlers to be a bit more threatening on here, but if WI apply themselves it'll be hard work.

Bell got a good one late on to give the West Indies a little bit to cheer about, but realistically England have had a very good day particularly in light of their start.

Ramdin's choice to bowl first yielded early success and made those of us (yours truly included) who had questioned/ridiculed the decision look a little bit silly. However Ramdin's captaincy from Lunch onwards defied belief - his using Benn immediately after lunch and those resulting 40 minutes in hindsight were the turning point of the day. Using Benn and Samuels for so long once Stokes came in again was strange. Of course with 4 bowlers and your main spinner not providing enough control made it tough for him, and there is no guarantee that things would have ended up better had they gone differently, but...

Unfortunately the West Indies just don't look like a cricket team that up for playing this form of the game. Roach's pace seemed down as well.

For England the main concern will of course be Cook, and the continued search for an opening partner. Both Cook and Trott got good balls, but Cook in particular looked tentative (as did Ballance; it's not really fair to judge Trott based on 2 balls) and that can't be a good sign. On the flip side Bell showed his class, Root continued to show why he is in his right position at 5, and Stokes has kicked things on nicely, making use it has to be said of some pretty ordinary bowling, but he's done well no doubt.

I think bringing in Tredwell is something which everybody will criticise, but I think every team would have done that in that position (Australia for some time didn't use nightwatchmen but even they now seem to be converted). It is one of those calls which are so much easier to make in your armchair than at the ground when it actually matters. If he can blunt the new ball for 5 or 6 overs tomorrow then that would really allow Buttler to come in and express himself.

It's hard to see England not reach at least 400+ from here. If Buttler gets going and Stokes carries on then it could be 500+ easily enough. Teams don't often lose from that position.

After all the hooha England will I think overall be very pleased to have had a good day's cricket overall. No matter the opposition etc.

Would Ian Bell be in the greatest England team of all time? Probably been our most consistent batsman since 2005. 

Also agree Ben Stokes coming in at 6 was a great idea and should be kept for the future.

alfie wrote:Sounds like West Indies were a bowler short ?  Pitch clearly not giving anyone a lot ...England may well be glad of having four seamers when it is their turn to bowl.

Yes. Tough for only 3 seamers especially when your spinners not having a good day.

Returning to the Tredwell thing... honestly I think it's a no-brainer. I don't think England will have even thought about it that much, and I don't think any other side would have done it differently. I know we'd have all wanted to put Buttler in, and we'll all be frustrated if and when Tredwell plods around for a bit tomorrow morning, and I expect loads of people will claim it's England being conservative again, but... there you have it, it was always going to be the call.

If I had a lower-middle order of Stokes, Buttler and Ali (all offering batting and bowling/keeping), I would play Stokes at 6, Buttler at 7 and Ali at 8.

I can only remember one innings of note from Ali in tests, and that was the hundred against Sri Lanka, and I still think he could have done more to get Anderson off strike for that last over. His bowling has really come on though, and I would definitely have him in there as a bowling all-rounder.

Stokes is a player I really rate, and I think he's been messed around a bit by England, especially when he's been played as a bowling all-rounder coming in at 8. He had a good series against Australia when no-one stood up for England, and then he comes back into the team at 8 for India and gets those 3 ducks before being replaced. I'm glad he got runs today, and I hope he cements a spot in the top 6.

Woakes and Rashid are two more that could come into that lower-middle order, or even both come into the team on the strength of their bowling alone. I think England are well stocked in this department, so the key will be to identify the most talented players and stick with them when their form dips.

The top order is more of an issue. Bell and Root are inked in at 4 and 5, and I'd say Ballance has credit in the bank and should continue at 3. Is Trott the best choice at opener though? I guess he'll get a run of games here, but if he doesn't get a score he might find himself out again before the home tests. But then how long can Cook go without making a score?

Personally feel Moeen would be absolutely wasted batting as low as 8, but then the same could probably be said for all three of Stokes, Buttler and Mo if on form, so it is a tough one.

Solid day for England overall. Bell and Root played really well, first firming things up and then picking up the rate when they needed. I really like Root at 5, he keeps the scoreboard ticking over, can play expansively or grind things out depending on the situation.

Ballance played very well at 3 over the previous summer so you have to stick with him, but I'm not sure on the Trott/Cook opening partnership. On paper it should work, considering the success they've had batting together previously, but it just feels like it might be a bit too one-paced, with both prone to getting bogged down.

Pretty good day for England in the end, both sides showing the difference in class eventually. West Indies isn't up for this any more. Bell and Root and then Stokes revived England from a difficult situation and put the West Indies in their place.
West Indies don't have the batting class to match England's score here, the pitch doesn't seem to be offering much to the bowlers, but if the England bowlers stick to a decent, consistent line and length, that should do the job with these West Indies batsmen.

Had the Windies kept England to 3 an over, and thus, say 270/5, I think they'd be slightly ahead. But they've gone for nearly run an over extra, and need a fired up charge to get England for less than 400. One of the cardinal rules regarding bowling first is that you have to, absolutely have to get a first innings lead to counteract chasing on D5.

Re: round the wicket. Personally, as a lefty I've always prayed to god that early on the bowling comes around the wicket. Much easier to judge the line and length when it's coming round, and as generally right armers seam/swing the ball away from the right handers, they are doing that into my pads, which as you all know, is bread and butter for a southpaw. The other thing with bowling round the wicket, is that the bowling arm is further away from the stumps - a bowler has to push it a little more to get it at that fourth/fifth stump line, the angle makes easier to help it along to the mid on/midwicket region. Mind you, round the wicket has its advantages to. Always found it easier to cut and drive when a bowler is over the wicket. The angle making it harder to pinch me for room. When the hands and eye are good, cutting from the fourth stump, and cover driving from off stump isn't too big an ask.

Ideally, though to a lefty you want a guy like Morkel. Comes round the wicket, angles it in - seams it away. Or an Ntini, who's pronounced angle means it's always pushed a little further than you think.

robbo277 wrote:If I had a lower-middle order of Stokes, Buttler and Ali (all offering batting and bowling/keeping), I would play Stokes at 6, Buttler at 7 and Ali at 8.

What happens when Woakes comes back from injury as well?

kingraf wrote:
Ideally, though to a lefty you want a guy like Morkel. Comes round the wicket, angles it in - seams it away. Or an Ntini, who's pronounced angle means it's always pushed a little further than you think.

Did you ever catch Flintoff in the 2005 Ashes swinging it away from Gilchrist from round the wicket? That was absolutely masterful

Hoggy_Bear wrote:

robbo277 wrote:If I had a lower-middle order of Stokes, Buttler and Ali (all offering batting and bowling/keeping), I would play Stokes at 6, Buttler at 7 and Ali at 8.

What happens when Woakes comes back from injury as well?

Woakes or Stokes.

Stella wrote:

Hoggy_Bear wrote:

robbo277 wrote:If I had a lower-middle order of Stokes, Buttler and Ali (all offering batting and bowling/keeping), I would play Stokes at 6, Buttler at 7 and Ali at 8.

What happens when Woakes comes back from injury as well?

Woakes or Stokes.

I agree with that - I think they are fighting for the same all-rounders spot. Though Woakes could carry on improving and become the second or third seamer in his own right.

I think that as Stokes is more of a batting all-rounder, he has the advantage of being a better prospect in the top 6.

All of this is complicated further when Moeen comes back. Though for once they are nice problems to have!

For the ashes, I'd go.

Cook
Trott/Lyth
Trott/Ballance
Bell
Root
Ali
Stokes/Woakes
Buttler
Broad
Anderson
Wood/Finn/Whoever

I foresee a future where the headline Different Stokes for different Woakes is used.

Thought for the morning -

30 years ago, and even largely true 20 years ago, if the Windies had you at 30-3 it would have been a miracle if you'd escaped to 340-5. But then you most certainly wouldn't have been facing Benn and Samuels in tandem (Marshall, Holding or Walsh, Ambrose was something of a different prospect...).

100% disagree that it has to be either Woakes or Stokes.

Woakes is more than good enough and is the best 3rd seamer we have at the moment and therefore should be in the team ahead of Jordan, Finn etc for me. Stokes as 4th seamer is fine, and I really don't think it is one or the other

Olly wrote:100% disagree that it has to be either Woakes or Stokes.

Woakes is more than good enough and is the best 3rd seamer we have at the moment and therefore should be in the team ahead of Jordan, Finn etc for me. Stokes as 4th seamer is fine, and I really don't think it is one or the other

I've never seen Woakes as a third seamer, but then I don't see Jordan as one either, not against the Aussie batsmen, anyway.

alfie wrote:Sounds like West Indies were a bowler short ?  Pitch clearly not giving anyone a lot ...England may well be glad of having four seamers when it is their turn to bowl.
Really happy to see Stokes making such a handy return.

I think so...Holder's not really a Test bowler. He needs a bit more pace, since he doesn't offer much in terms of swing. Morkel is about the same height, and bowls much faster. Holder's pace is okay in limited overs cricket, but is being exposed at Test level.

Benn is past his sell-by date...time to bring in Bishoo, and maybe go in for a pair of spinners, for the next Test....

Mike Selig wrote:

Ramdin's choice to bowl first yielded early success and made those of us (yours truly included) who had questioned/ridiculed the decision look a little bit silly. However Ramdin's captaincy from Lunch onwards defied belief - his using Benn immediately after lunch and those resulting 40 minutes in hindsight were the turning point of the day. Using Benn and Samuels for so long once Stokes came in again was strange. Of course with 4 bowlers and your main spinner not providing enough control made it tough for him, and there is no guarantee that things would have ended up better had they gone differently, but...

Unfortunately the West Indies just don't look like a cricket team that up for playing this form of the game. Roach's pace seemed down as well.

In the end, those of us who questioned Ramdin's decision to bowl first were right...this bowling attack is not Holder, Marshall, Garner and Croft.

Roach is coming back from injury and surgery...it seems he's not the same bowler he once was.

Holder, Holding. Easy mistake to make

Stella wrote:For the ashes, I'd go.

Cook
Trott/Lyth
Trott/Ballance
Bell
Root
Ali
Stokes/Woakes
Buttler
Broad
Anderson
Wood/Finn/Whoever

Couple of comments.

All players - even the best ones - have a shelf life. Broad and Anderson would not appear ready for the knackers yard yet but that day will come and maybe sooner than we care to think.

Jordan has a lot of ability. Whether that explodes out or fizzles away remains to be seen but I would not write him out of future plans at this stage.

guildfordbat wrote:

Stella wrote:For the ashes, I'd go.

Cook
Trott/Lyth
Trott/Ballance
Bell
Root
Ali
Stokes/Woakes
Buttler
Broad
Anderson
Wood/Finn/Whoever

Couple of comments.

All players - even the best ones - have a shelf life. Broad and Anderson would not appear ready for the knackers yard yet but that day will come and maybe sooner than we care to think.

Jordan has a lot of ability. Whether that explodes out or fizzles away remains to be seen but I would not write him out of future plans at this stage.

I'm not writing him off exactly, just feel we need better than Jordan as our third seamer, when we face the Aussies.

Well, I certainly didn't see that recovery coming. I'm sure England would have settled for 240 for five when they were three down early on, but to get almost 350 was remarkable.
Interesting comment in the Daily Tel from Michael Vaughan. He reckons good batsmen don't lose form, they lose confidence. Stokes, for example, couldn't buy a run last year and looked awful. Ballance, on the other hand, seems to have gone the other way.
I can see England winning from here. Still not sure why Windies didn't bat first.

Isn't form the same as confidence?

No I wouldn't say so. Sometimes the reason for a dip is because of a technical glitch which has come along. All the confidence in the world isn't gonna help you play swing if you're angling the bat too early.

Most of the time, though. I tend to think there is a confidence component

I guess what Vaughan was trying to say was that a batsman not making runs has NOT suddenly become a bad player overnight but has become a less-confident one.
Any of us who have played at any level can vouch for the fact that when you're in the runs you never think about getting out and expect to make a good score. When you're in a slump you wonder where your next run is coming from.

sirfredperry wrote:I guess what Vaughan was trying to say was that a batsman not making runs has NOT suddenly become a bad player overnight but has become a less-confident one.
  Any of us who have played at any level can vouch for the fact that when you're in the runs you never think about getting out and expect to make a good score. When you're in a slump you wonder where your next run is coming from.

Indeed, mainly a confidence thing.

Seems a fair point from Vaughan.

Re Woakes, I know Olly is a fan but he isn't a proven international 3rd seamer just yet. He could develop into that, but I do wonder if the England management are looking for something else e.g. speed, reverse swing, which is why we have the likes of Plunkett and Wood in the frame

Not sure Woakes can be a test bowling option outside swinging conditions at the moment. People have this impression of Stokes being a batting all-rounder and Woakes a bowling all-rounder. I think Stokes is a better all-condition bowler, while Woakes has the sounder batting technique. I wouldn't rule out both playing in the same 11 along with Ali.......

msp83 wrote:Not sure Woakes can be a test bowling option outside swinging conditions at the moment. People have this impression of Stokes being a batting all-rounder and Woakes a bowling all-rounder. I think Stokes is a better all-condition bowler, while Woakes has the sounder batting technique. I wouldn't rule out both playing in the same 11 along with Ali.......

Yep agreed on Woakes' bowling. And whilst Woakes technique does look nice, I think Stokes is the player I would back to succeed at Test level with his batting over Woakes. Not based on technique or anything, just I think Stokes is one of those players who has something about him (confidence/arrogance maybe). I would be filled with dread if Woakes was in the Test team at 6 at the moment.

Think Woakes may be a bit better than that now, I think his bowling has come on a lot more. I certainly rate him higher as a bowler (right now) than Jordan and probably Plunkett.

Assuming Moeen's bowling carries on improving I would have no issue with him, Stokes and Woakes playing alongside Broad and Anderson in the summer.

Yes, Woakes has improved with the ball, there is a bit more pace in there for a start. But between the 2 of them Woakes and Stokes, I rate the latter a better bowler overall.

Unless the Steven Finn who played in that South Africa series long ago can return without knocking the stumps down every 2nd ball, or someone else make a superior case for themselves, I wouldn't mind an England bowling lineup of Anderson, Broad, Stokes, Woakes and Ali. 5 decent bowling options, plenty of batting cover.......

Tredders with a current Test batting average of 45 looking to make the most of his promotion up the order

Once again West Indies are starting the day well...both overnight bats gone already for very little.

England will want Buttler and the bowlers to add substantially to this. At least it indicates there is still a bit there for bowlers with a newish ball...

msp83 wrote:Unless the Steven Finn who played in that South Africa series long ago can return without knocking the stumps down every 2nd ball, or someone else make a superior case for themselves, I wouldn't mind an England bowling lineup of Anderson, Broad, Stokes, Woakes and Ali. 5 decent bowling options, plenty of batting cover.......

Agreed. At least in English conditions that seems the logical first choice. They'd like an express bowler - especially for touring certain places ; but until one comes along...

We should be grateful the Cricinfo keyboard warriors have no say in selection:

"Moeen issue is clear. Drop Ballance and move everyone up one. Play Moeen at five, include Rashid instead of Tredwell and you have 4 seamers and 2 quality spinners"

So we drop one of our best recent Test players because he had one bad innings after a winter of barely playing cricket. Our new number 5 is a man who has had one good Test innings so far. And we include a spinner who was the worst bowler on display including the pathetic opposition in the warm-up matches. Genius.