West Indies vs England 2nd Test - Greneda (Apr 21st-25th)

First topic message reminder :

20 wickets is the key to winning test matches, and we saw in Antigua that it's easier said that done, even against this so called 'mediocre' West Indies team. True, the pitch died and became easier to bat on, but we lacked variety, and bite.

So who comes in?

Rashid/Ali or Wood for Tredwell or Jordan?

Tredwell did take four in the first innings, but will more than likely tie an end up, than clean up. Jordan is similar, and with Greneda more prone to spin, I can see one of the two spinners replacing the latter.

Lyth/Ali for Trott?

Trott had a stinker, but received a couple of good deliveries, and will be harshly dropped, after his first game back. Some have mentioned Ali to open, though this won't happen, imho.

The likely XI

Cook
Trott
Ballance
Bell
Root
Stokes
Buttler
Ali/Rashid
Tredwell
Broad
Anderson

Carberry won't be agreeing with you, Craig

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Mike Selig wrote:Overall a decent day for England so I don't want to be overly negative, but Ballance, Ali and Stokes were all really poor wickets to lose, just such basic errors to make.

Anyway the positives are a first century opening partnership for ages, and Root and Ballance continuing to look the part.

England are in a strong position but will have to bowl well. Interested to see how Ali goes after a below par first innings.

I don't know if it is just me Mike but do England tend to be overly loyal to its players compared to other countries? I mean they seem to persevere with players even if they have a few bad matches with no real scores or performances of note. Ali could be the latest in that group as he may not contribute much in this test but I'll bet there is a good chance he will keep his place. Carberry was another that springs to mind in recent times.

Ali has had one bad innings with the ball and bat and suddenly he needs to be dropped - cmon now

Also are people really having a go at Stokes getting out trying to smash a long hop out the ground?! Just didn't pull it off, happens sometimes

Nah I don't think England persevere with players more than other countries TBH. Australia stuck with Hayden for ages, Ponting had a really poor run as well (both similar to Cook); India stuck with Gambhir/Shewag for a while, Harbajhan also.

Ali has earned a bit of a run in the side after last summer. He will rightly be persevered with.

I do think the English media (and fans) lack even more patience than those from other countries...

Olly, yes I am (blaming Stokes for his shot). On this pitch, against a slow slow bowler it is hard to nail the long-hop for 6. There had already been a number of miscued pull shots from spinners. Playing the shot with a man back was frankly folly, and a dismissal waiting to happen. There was plenty of room between backward square and deep mid-wicket to nail it for 4.

Mike Selig wrote:Nah I don't think England persevere with players more than other countries TBH. Australia stuck with Hayden for ages, Ponting had a really poor run as well (both similar to Cook); India stuck with Gambhir/Shewag for a while, Harbajhan also.

Ali has earned a bit of a run in the side after last summer. He will rightly be persevered with.

I do think the English media (and fans) lack even more patience than those from other countries...

Olly, yes I am (blaming Stokes for his shot). On this pitch, against a slow slow bowler it is hard to nail the long-hop for 6. There had already been a number of miscued pull shots from spinners. Playing the shot with a man back was frankly folly, and a dismissal waiting to happen. There was plenty of room between backward square and deep mid-wicket to nail it for 4.

Cheers for the answer. I think it was kingraf earlier who was spot on in that everyone of us have players we like and players we don't. Also I think we all have different ideas on set up of the side. Ideally, England should have an opening pair of someone who can play the anchor role and one who plays his shots. If they persist with Cook and Trott then Root should go to No.3 to give the innings early impetus. At the moment those that score quickly are all in the mid-order - not ideal. I am still to be convinced by the bowling attack at the moment but that might just be the non-responsive pitches in the Carribean.

I'd have ditched Ali already to be honest, he isn't a test level batsmen and I don't think he's all that as a bowler, would prefer to give Rashid a chance and use Root as a secondary spinner.

The team seems like it's lacking a third genuine bowler; too many decent all rounders with emphasise on a longer batting line up but that only works if they are good batsmen not bashers.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I'd have ditched Ali already to be honest, he isn't a test level batsmen and I don't think he's all that as a bowler, would prefer to give Rashid a chance and use Root as a secondary spinner.

The team seems like it's lacking a third genuine bowler; too many decent all rounders with emphasise on a longer batting line up but that only works if they are good batsmen not bashers.

Again I can't disagree with much of that. I suppose my problem is what is Ali? A bowler who can bat a bit or a batter who bowls a bit? As has been said there are already plenty of players seen as all-rounders in the side so do England need another or, as I suspect, would they better off with a specialist bowler? Now I understand Ali is rusty but some of that rust should have been shaken off by the second innings so surely he should be looking for a Treadwell-esque haul otherwise you have to ask if lack of a specialist spinner will cost them a real push for a win?

But then you look at the options outside the team and...

Finn still hasn't recovered from running into the stumps.
Woakes is injured (presumably he will return) but there are plenty who didn't find him threatening enough (for me he is more of a 4th seamer still, although he has improved beyond recognition since his debut in 2013).
Plunkett played some of the home tests last summer and didn't look all that.
Wood is an unknown.
Who else is there?

I am reminded that players tend to improve a hell of a lot outside the England team...

As for Rashid: personally I think this test has demonstrated how hard it is to bowl leg-spin in international cricket. Bishoo hasn't bowled badly but has 2-120odd. Reports suggest that Tredwell and since then Ali have both outbowled Rashid in the nets, and Tredwell outbowled him in the practice matches as well.

I'm not saying Rashid would necessarily be a terrible idea, but he hasn't really made a compelling case for himself either. The arguments to pick him seem to be "well he's a leg-spinner" or "the guys we are picking aren't very good".

England seem to rate Ali as their current no 1 spinner. Not saying they're right, but they're certainly not far off and he is improving at a rate. Let's not forget how successful he was (and how well he bowled) against India last summer, no easy task. Seems strange to now want to write him off after one off-colour innings on a day 1 pitch.

Craig I absolutely can't agree with moving Root up to 3. At the moment he is England's best player, and seems completely at home at 5. Everything about his game says that that is his natural position, and every time England have moved him up the order he's struggled. Yes, it is unideal for England to have 3 "grinders" at the top of the order (although it worked fine in 2009-2012) but given the personnel they have at their disposal... We sometimes accuse England of being too rigid etc. Well TBH it seems like some fans have decided what the shape of the team should be, and are trying to fit players into it. That doesn't strike me as the best strategy.

Please let us not even consider moving Root from the spot in which he is scoring runs by the bucket load. One could argue that England's issues with the bat largely originated when he was moved up to open at the expense of Compton , just as it seemed he had successfully replaced Collingwood in the middle order...

I agree with Craig that it would be good to have one of the top three who was a bit more fluent than the current group ( I would suggest that Strauss was probably more inclined to play strokes when he formed part of that trio , though he wasn't what you'd call a dasher) . But as long as they are able to set things up for the more aggressive types at 4-7 it strikes me as a workable model. Also suspect that as Cook (hopefully) gets back into a more confident state of mind he will tend to score more quickly.

Ali looked a decent spin prospect last northern summer : not going to write him off for a dozen or so poor overs on return from injury. Not a Swann , perhaps ; but they don't grow on trees. Ask Australia about trying to replace Warne !

Third pace bowler remains an issue. Those keen to pension off Broad and Anderson sooner rather than later might reflect on the last time England won a Test without a significant contribution from one or both
of them...really only Tremlett who has impressed on more than the odd occasion in the last six or seven years ; and injuries have done for him.  Bresnan was effective as a third seamer (and once quite the good luck charm) but never looked like taking a leading role.  The rest have yet to prove anything ...
I have hopes for Woakes - unfortunately injured now - but want to see a lot more before I get too excited.

The really good thing about Stokes and Ali is they make it easy to maintain five proper bowlers at all times without compromising the batting.

So overall, England's day, but the draw is still where the smart money is. If Windies keep the lead to round 100, they should back themselves to bat out, say 100 overs. From there, it would be interesting to see if England think they can chase maybe 220 in 60 odd overs on a day fiver.

In terms of a seamer someone with genuine pace and/or a left armer would actually make a difference to the attack, trading one of the curent guys for another right arm medium fast isnt going to give england an x factor. Right now there is noone available who is remotely of enough quality to jump in and make that difference, otherwise theyd be in the tour squad.

With Rashid the worry is he has too many bad spells. His real hope of a spot is if Tredwell and Ali become unavailable, or on two spinner test pitches.

As it is england have more bowling options in the side than they have for a long time. 5 front line bowlers and two part timers at least gives them the rotation they need and should enable the seamers to spread their workload and keep plugging away even when the aussies have 700 on the board. Its a better situation than the west indies have with a 4 man attack of which one can only manage 15 proper overs in a day.

alfie wrote:Please let us not even consider moving Root from the spot in which he is scoring runs by the bucket load. One could argue that England's issues with the bat largely originated when he was moved up to open at the expense of Compton , just as it seemed he had successfully replaced Collingwood in the middle order...

I agree with Craig that it would be good to have one of the top three who was a bit more fluent than the current group ( I would suggest that Strauss was probably more inclined to play strokes when he formed part of that trio , though he wasn't what you'd call a dasher) . But as long as they are able to set things up for the more aggressive types at 4-7 it strikes me as a workable model. Also suspect that as Cook (hopefully) gets back into a more confident state of mind he will tend to score more quickly.

Ali looked a decent spin prospect last northern summer : not going to write him off for a dozen or so poor overs on return from injury. Not a Swann , perhaps ; but they don't grow on trees. Ask Australia about trying to replace Warne !

Third pace bowler remains an issue. Those keen to pension off Broad and Anderson sooner rather than later might reflect on the last time England won a Test without a significant contribution from one or both
of them...really only Tremlett who has impressed on more than the odd occasion in the last six or seven years ; and injuries have done for him.  Bresnan was effective as a third seamer (and once quite the good luck charm) but never looked like taking a leading role.  The rest have yet to prove anything ...
I have hopes for Woakes - unfortunately injured now - but want to see a lot more before I get too excited.

The really good thing about Stokes and Ali is they make it easy to maintain five proper bowlers at all times without compromising the batting.

Alfie - Chris Woakes is our saviour #allhailtheStokesWoakescombination

I have to say that Samuels salute is the funniest thing I have seen in sport in a long time.

Stokes is an England player, and I will support him and want him to do well, but he does come across as a Class A plonker, so fair play to Marlon, my new favourite cricketer

alfie wrote:
The really good thing about Stokes and Ali is they make it easy to maintain five proper bowlers at all times without compromising the batting.

Only if they remember to insert their brains before stepping out to bat!

kingraf wrote:So overall, England's day, but the draw is still where the smart money is. If Windies keep the lead to round 100, they should back themselves to bat out, say 100 overs. From there, it would be interesting to see if England think they can chase maybe 220 in 60 odd overs on a day fiver.

Hi Raf - haven't seen a lot of this Test but from what I have and as long as the rain largely stays away, I would tell Olly (he's the betting one of the Surrey boys) to put his money on an England win. We certainly haven't been without faults in this match but I feel, despite some of the comments about slow batting, that we've moved things on enough and are sufficiently ahead. I'm reckoning we'll have a first innings lead of circa 120 - 150 with 5 sessions to follow. In my book that will bé long enough to bowl them out a second time and chase down the likely type of toal required. Despite the stodge at the top of the order, England have got several biffers if needed for a late run chase.

Btw, I didn't like the Samuels salute. Yes, Stokes may bé a plonker and probably deserved it but I can see it spreading to junior cricket with retaliation following.

Well, England should ultimately be reasonably happy with their position, but will be disappointed at the way pretty much all the wickets were lost: Trott, Cook and Balance out to attacking shots when well set, Bell out early to an attacking shot, Stokes and Ali forgetting their brains.

Good innings by Root, showing that being busy and putting the bowlers under pressure allows reasonably rapid scoring on this pitch without necessarily looking to hit the ball out of the park all the time.

Interesting match position, and while I would say England are ahead, they advantage isn't as big as it perhaps should have been.
Worst case scenario is we lose the remaining 4 wickets for about 50 and so lead by just over 100 by the middle of the morning session. Windies will pass us probably just after lunch and have 2.5 sessions to build a lead before setting England a not-quite attainable target of about 280-300 in maybe 70 overs.

Best case - Root and Buttler play well this morning and we get a lead of about 200 by lunch (it's a longer than average session, and both batsmen should score quickly once in), allowing a bit of a thrash for a few overs after. Declare with a lead of 250ish and the best part of 5 sessions to go. Unless the wicket starts to spin viciously, in this case I could see us having to chase 120 in the last session tomorrow.

Hi Guildford

Yes, having done the rough work again, an England result is probably more likely than I initially felt. A draw is still my guess, if I'm honest.

Re the Stokes sending off. I found it brilliant. Infinitely more apt than swearing blue and black at a batsman who's just knocked a hundred. Hundred times more creative as well. Stokes, uh... stoked these fires in the Windies innings, and for me, that's just deserts. Can't separate sledging from a send offs imo.

Point taken about Root and No.3 - he has been messed about enough lately. I do think England need a free-scoring No.3 though especially if they stick with Cook and Trott opening. Momentum is key in the top order but the problem England have is that all of their quick scoring batsmen are mid to lower order - not ideal and a bit too lop-sided look to the batting. Now it is possible that Cook may score quicker if he rediscovers form and yesterday was a step in that direction. Trott, well perhaps yesterday will have helped but what happens if he has more flops with the bat than not in the rest of this series? The Ashes Series will be a few tests closer and options would need looking at in the openers slot and to be honest the options won't get much of a chance to either fully prove themselves or get much experience (if they are untried) at Test level - again far from ideal going into the Ashes.

kingraf wrote:Hi Guildford

Yes, having done the rough work again, an England result is probably more likely than I initially felt. A draw is still my guess, if I'm honest.

Re the Stokes sending off. I found it brilliant. Infinitely more apt than swearing blue and black at a batsman who's just knocked a hundred. Hundred times more creative as well. Stokes, uh... stoked these fires in the Windies innings, and for me, that's just deserts. Can't separate sledging from a send offs imo.

Did you realise that Stokes gave Samuels a longer round of applause than any of his team-mates when the WI player got to his ton?


Mind loved the salute by Samuels - hilarious, and far more effective in winding Stokes up than the abuse he will get from the aussies.

I thought the send-off was a bit childish, but quite amusing in its own way. I don't take any issues with it, and descriptions of it as "the most cowardly act in cricket" (Steve James, telegraph unsurprisingly) seem to be somewhat lacking in perspective.

Guildford, the number of times I have heard "we will see [x,y,z] replicated in junior cricket" yet by and large it has completely failed to happen and the sky hasn't caved in. I am thinking of things like how the DRS system was going to see kids make the "review" gesture every time they disagreed with a decision, mankads were apparently going to become prevalent after Buttler had a brain freeze (or was trying to gain an unfair advantage, depending on how much credit you want to give him), sledging etc. etc.

As a coach of young players myself, I value the spirit of the game, but for me the spirit of cricket can be summed up as respect - of your team-mates, the umpires, the opposition, the spectators. I try to impart these values onto teams I coach, and it is always amazing to me how well all the teams get on at junior tournaments (car park cricket becomes a feature). Competitive on the field, but great times off it.

Sometimes we overstep the mark sure. Send-offs (aggressive ones) do happen, and when they do you deal with it. But the sky doesn't fall, and the game continues.

Juniors are surprisingly perceptive. They don't just copy behaviour they see mindlessly.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I'd have ditched Ali already to be honest, he isn't a test level batsmen and I don't think he's all that as a bowler, would prefer to give Rashid a chance and use Root as a secondary spinner.

The team seems like it's lacking a third genuine bowler; too many decent all rounders with emphasise on a longer batting line up but that only works if they are good batsmen not bashers.

Again I can't disagree with much of that. I suppose my problem is what is Ali? A bowler who can bat a bit or a batter who bowls a bit? As has been said there are already plenty of players seen as all-rounders in the side so do England need another or, as I suspect, would they better off with a specialist bowler? Now I understand Ali is rusty but some of that rust should have been shaken off by the second innings so surely he should be looking for a Treadwell-esque haul otherwise you have to ask if lack of a specialist spinner will cost them a real push for a win?

I think we're out on our own here mate, i'm not one for protecting players for their own personal gain rather than what's best for the team. This why I disagree with the Root argument of keeping him at five, it's all well and good that he and Ballance are scoring runs but if it doesn't result in the team winning matches then something needs changing. Alternatively you can promote Bell to number three, it's not necessarily about playing aggressively but putting the bad balls away and being proactive at the crease.

Graham Thorpe is a prime example of this, ignoring stats he's the best batsmen i've seen play for England but how many times did he end up stranded or having to do something stupid being stuck with the tail? It's an inverted situation in a way but if Root is as good as people think then a promotion up the order should not be a problem, personally I think Johnson, Steyn and the express pacemen are always going to give him big big problems.

That is a very fair point about not putting the bad ball away. From the bits of commentary I caught, there seemed to be plenty of full tosses and half trackers that Cook and Trott didn't even get a run off. That is the problem with such a defensive mindset.

I do think the top 3 are a bit pedestrian when taken as a whole, but Ballance has shown he can go through the gears.

So its the opening combination that doesn't look too good to me, though I don't know who this dashing opener is, so perhaps we have to accept a pretty staid opening pair as the best we have got.

VTR wrote:That is a very fair point about not putting the bad ball away. From the bits of commentary I caught, there seemed to be plenty of full tosses and half trackers that Cook and Trott didn't even get a run off. That is the problem with such a defensive mindset.

I do think the top 3 are a bit pedestrian when taken as a whole, but Ballance has shown he can go through the gears.

So its the opening combination that doesn't look too good to me, though I don't know who this dashing opener is, so perhaps we have to accept a pretty staid opening pair as the best we have got.

On your first point I do think the reason they were both so defensive and slow scoring was that A. Both were desperate for a decent score so were ultra-cautious. B. Both were low on confidence. When two in-form and confident batsmen got to the crease (Ballance and Root) everything changed and both are in form and confident. However, even that aside you can't really call Cook and Trott fast scoring but surely now the time has run out already to look at options in the opening slot (for Trott).

If anything i'd open with Ali giving him more licence to play shots than he gets down at 6 and bring Taylor into the middle order at the expense of Trott, still don't know why he isn't in the side.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

VTR wrote:That is a very fair point about not putting the bad ball away. From the bits of commentary I caught, there seemed to be plenty of full tosses and half trackers that Cook and Trott didn't even get a run off. That is the problem with such a defensive mindset.

I do think the top 3 are a bit pedestrian when taken as a whole, but Ballance has shown he can go through the gears.

So its the opening combination that doesn't look too good to me, though I don't know who this dashing opener is, so perhaps we have to accept a pretty staid opening pair as the best we have got.

On your first point I do think the reason they were both so defensive and slow scoring was that A. Both were desperate for a decent score so were ultra-cautious. B. Both were low on confidence. When two in-form and confident batsmen got to the crease (Ballance and Root) everything changed and both are in form and confident. However, even that aside you can't really call Cook and Trott fast scoring but surely now the time has run out already to look at options in the opening slot (for Trott).

True, but even an in-form Cook and Trott are not going to be scoring at a fast rate. Ballance was quite bogged down, until he was joined by the more pro-active Root who seems to bring out the best in him. No way would I move either of those around the order, but I could easily see Trott being replaced unless his digging in results in big scores. It might be harsh but I don't think he's going to get many chances before someone else is looked at.

EDIT: In case that looks like a contradiction to my previous post, someone replacing Trott simply might not be up to the standard required. Cook/Trott could genuinely be the best pair we have

I think we should be happy that we have a solid top five, though Ballance has yet to be truly tested.

A bigger issue for me, is finding a way to take 20 wickets. We may against the west indies, but we have bigger fish on the menu when the main course arrives in the summer.

That doesn't tend to be a massive problem at home Stella, it's once we leave the comforts of England that taking 20 wickets becomes an impossible dream.

The problem (for me) is Trott. Okay he had a good innings but that is one in four in this series. The other thing is that would you want a Trott scratching around for run gong into the Ashes where he mentally imploded against the Aussies? But like I said the selectors (so to speak) have already left it too late to make any changes. In my opinion Adam Lyth should have played in the first two tests and let him show if he has what it takes - if he never scored any runs of note then give Trott the chance in the final test. At least then it sort of would have told the selectors if Lyth has it or not.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:That doesn't tend to be a massive problem at home Stella, it's once we leave the comforts of England that taking 20 wickets becomes an impossible dream.

In the past yes, but against the Aussies, with this attack? Bowling out an Indian team who quite frankly weren't up for it, last summer with this attack doesn't prove much.

CaledonianCraig wrote:The problem (for me) is Trott. Okay he had a good innings but that is one in four in this series. The other thing is that would you want a Trott scratching around for run gong into the Ashes where he mentally imploded against the Aussies? But like I said the selectors (so to speak) have already left it too late to make any changes. In my opinion Adam Lyth should have played in the first two tests and let him show if he has what it takes - if he never scored any runs of note then give Trott the chance in the final test. At least then it sort of would have told the selectors if Lyth has it or not.

Giving a man two tests proves nothing.

Stella wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:The problem (for me) is Trott. Okay he had a good innings but that is one in four in this series. The other thing is that would you want a Trott scratching around for run gong into the Ashes where he mentally imploded against the Aussies? But like I said the selectors (so to speak) have already left it too late to make any changes. In my opinion Adam Lyth should have played in the first two tests and let him show if he has what it takes - if he never scored any runs of note then give Trott the chance in the final test. At least then it sort of would have told the selectors if Lyth has it or not.

Giving a man two tests proves nothing.

Who? Lyth or Trott? If you mean Lyth then it gives them a good idea of whether he is up to the job or not - better knowing than not don't you think?

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Stella wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:The problem (for me) is Trott. Okay he had a good innings but that is one in four in this series. The other thing is that would you want a Trott scratching around for run gong into the Ashes where he mentally imploded against the Aussies? But like I said the selectors (so to speak) have already left it too late to make any changes. In my opinion Adam Lyth should have played in the first two tests and let him show if he has what it takes - if he never scored any runs of note then give Trott the chance in the final test. At least then it sort of would have told the selectors if Lyth has it or not.

Giving a man two tests proves nothing.

Who? Lyth or Trott? If you mean Lyth then it gives them a good idea of whether he is up to the job or not - better knowing than not don't you think?

Lyth. We know Trott can succeed in tests, but maybe not opening.

England are playing what they think is their best XI, which is ok with me, unless someone is injured of course.

Stella wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:That doesn't tend to be a massive problem at home Stella, it's once we leave the comforts of England that taking 20 wickets becomes an impossible dream.

In the past yes, but against the Aussies, with this attack? Bowling out an Indian team who quite frankly weren't up for it, last summer with this attack doesn't prove much.

There are going to be sessions when the Aussies can't handle Anderson and Broad but the lack of a top spinner will be a problem, i'm not that worried about the summer in general though.

Trott pre-mental breakdown could succeed ....yes. Surely, now he needs to prove all over again that the mental scars have completely healed and he can still perform at test level? Fair enough that the selectors think this is their best XI and who am I to argue but if Trott does not rediscover his form my point is ....tough as surely it is too late to be throwing in debutant openers for the Ashes?

Trott didn't "mentally implode" he had clinical depression.

Mike Selig wrote:Trott didn't "mentally implode" he had clinical depression.

Okay wrong terminology but still he needs to prove now that he can mentally cut it again at Test level. I really hope he can and time will tell as if not it is too late to chuck a rookie in surely?

Selection? Easy. Spot class and/or Test match temperament, pick the guy and stick with him.
  Neither Trescothick nor Vaughan had great county records but were seen as potentially good Test batsmen. Bell was perceived to be class so was persevered with despite averaging 17 in the 05 Ashes series in which he finished with a pair.
  Sometimes, of course, class alone is not enough (think merely of Ramprakash). Nor is weight of runs in county cricket (Hick). Grit can come into it (Collingwood).
 It's no co-incidence that new England Test records are now being set. Selection has moved on from the bad old days of the numerous one-Test wonders and there is now a degree of continuity (except if you're KP, of course!).

Any rain due today?

Stella wrote:Any rain due today?

I think today is fine but tomorrow I think thunderstorms were forecast.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Stella wrote:Any rain due today?

I think today is fine but tomorrow I think thunderstorms were forecast.

What's the plan then? Quick runs this morning, aim for a 180 lead, then put them in, if we haven't got bowled out?

Stella wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Stella wrote:Any rain due today?

I think today is fine but tomorrow I think thunderstorms were forecast.

What's the plan then? Quick runs this morning, aim for a 180 lead, then put them in, if we haven't got bowled out?

Has to be.A lead of 150+ by mid-afternoon, assess how the pitch is playing as well though. If it is susceptible to spin by mid-afternoon and you are still batting then declare. If not bat on to tea and build a bigger lead then declare.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Stella wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Stella wrote:Any rain due today?

I think today is fine but tomorrow I think thunderstorms were forecast.

What's the plan then? Quick runs this morning, aim for a 180 lead, then put them in, if we haven't got bowled out?

Has to be.A lead of 150+ by mid-afternoon, assess how the pitch is playing as well though. If it is susceptible to spin by mid-afternoon and you are still batting then declare. If not bat on to tea and build a bigger lead then declare.

We have a 74 run lead now, so I would hope it's 180 by lunch. With rain due, batting much longer may turn this game into definite draw.

Stella wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Stella wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Stella wrote:Any rain due today?

I think today is fine but tomorrow I think thunderstorms were forecast.

What's the plan then? Quick runs this morning, aim for a 180 lead, then put them in, if we haven't got bowled out?

Has to be.A lead of 150+ by mid-afternoon, assess how the pitch is playing as well though. If it is susceptible to spin by mid-afternoon and you are still batting then declare. If not bat on to tea and build a bigger lead then declare.

We have a 74 run lead now, so I would hope it's 180 by lunch. With rain due, batting much longer may turn this game into definite draw.

Yes, of course, forgot that lead. Of course by lunch then the lead may be up to around 200 so declaration should come sometime around then or just after. Of course the forecast weather-wise for tomorrow may be different now so who knows? However, England need to aggressively need to go looking for the win. Hopefully, Root's back injury won't prevent him having a bowl as he looked very decent in the First Test - he could be important as well.

Getting bowled out for 450 may not be the end of the world.

Stella wrote:Getting bowled out for 450 may not be the end of the world.

Yes I'd agree with that. Score quickly is the key as well and who knows as if wickets fall quickly it may suggest the pitch is starting to do something.

Hi all, haven't really commented much on this one as haven't watched a massive amount so far (watched bits and pieces of England's innings only).

Not massive criticism for Bell's dismissal? On a slow pitch having just seen one drag-on seemed a fairly foolish shot to be playing to your third ball... Agree with Mike re Stokes's dismissal: shouldn't have been trying to hit it for six, plenty of space between the deep fielders to aim at.

Thought Samuels's send-off was a bit silly and childish TBH, but nothing else much wrong with it (i.e. didn't overstep the line).

Root played superbly, made run-scoring look ridiculously easy on a pitch where no one else has score significant runs at a SR of more than 50. Think some of the criticism of England's top 3 is a little unfair, Ballance didn't exactly score slowly in the context of the match, and without Cook and Trott's contributions England could actually be in a spot of bother here. If England can push on this morning they still have time to force a win.

Also, I know it's "only" WI, they're considered underdogs, etc. but is anyone else frustrated that they seem to be happy just playing for draws? Little or no intent to actually win the games in general. They seem happy to just bat time, and mostly bowl fairly wide of off stump in an effort to stop England scoring...

Finally, a word on Ramdin. His batting isn't the best, his keeping in this match has been somewhere between shoddy and dreadful, and his captaincy - well, as Mike says they're 15 year olds who's probably do a better job... What is he bringing to the team? Ditto how Devon Smith continues to get chance after chance to fail is beyond me...

To be fair to the Windies MfC I think they are building from the bottom up. They want to make themselves harder to beat hence the way they are playing just now. They have new management and they're looking to make the Windies an all-round more disciplined unit. They certainly look like a tougher nut to crack than recent Windies teams as the mid- to lower order have a bit more stickability about them. They are still some way short of being a great Test side but they look a better unit than recent sides to have played England.

LT - To clarify, I was referring to Anderson's send off of Samuels, not Stokes

To be honest, if the West Indies sneak a 0-0 here, I think they'll gladly take it. Can't criticise them for playing to their realistic expectations. No point in getting into a fire fight if you only have one can of gas and some match sticks. Ramdin isn't the best skippy, but who else is there? Maybe Samuels, but I'm not sure he's captaincy material.

Samuels as captain? Shouldn't you salute to a captain, rather than the other way around.

But should Ramdin be in the team in the first place? Guy averages 26 with the bat, and is a poor keeper by international standards (and that's probably being kind to him). Is there really no one better in the WI?

I get the point about WI first making themselves hard to beat, and I agree with that, but there've been moments in this series where they could have seized the moment and enforced themselves upon the games, but have failed to do so. Worse, I'm not sure they've even really tried to do so. I guess I would have liked to see a bit more intent from them...

Mad for Chelsea wrote:But should Ramdin be in the team in the first place? Guy averages 26 with the bat, and is a poor keeper by international standards (and that's probably being kind to him). Is there really no one better in the WI?

I get the point about WI first making themselves hard to beat, and I agree with that, but there've been moments in this series where they could have seized the moment and enforced themselves upon the games, but have failed to do so. Worse, I'm not sure they've even really tried to do so. I guess I would have liked to see a bit more intent from them...

I suppose you have to walk before you can run - so to speak. Also the West Indies have, historically, been a team full of flamboyant batsmen playing an aggressive game. I'd say that is fine when you have the all-round game and talent to do it but in the last decade or so that talent (post-Lara) has been lacking but yet they still try to play that way and sorry but it is just not possible as their results have shown. I think that is where the current management are trying to get them out of that mindset and play to their standards and not give away wickets and in turn make them harder to beat. Probably, the plan is to stop being thrashed in test series, build a bit of confidence in doing that and build from there.