|
By:
I'd prefer to see runs from hameed and then I'd gladly have him back in
but on the back of dire form for lancs, not for me right now |
|
By:
Windies always get 3 tests against Eng which is a disgrace. They dont deserve it.
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
Hameed is 77 not out overnight,following on from a century in his last match(albeit in a 2nd xi match)
|
|
By:
Benefitted hugely from his time in club cricket here a few years ago.
|
|
By:
I would have Hameed and Butler in too!
I'd like to have an extended look at Roland. We don't need Westley but he has been decent for me. |
|
By:
Looks to be raining from 11.30am today in Manchester. What could have been....
|
|
By:
Which is why i am really pissed at SA batting this series. They couldnt even survive 4 day games.
|
|
By:
overs bowled in this series
lord's 335 trent bridge 297 the oval 319 old trafford 313 |
|
By:
Expect even less in the next series.
|
|
By:
England will almost certainly bat longer than against SA but WI batting will get blown away incessantly, I suspect.
|
|
By:
could see a 2 day game if west indies bat first especially in the floodlit game. at one stage a 2 day finish looked possible against australia in 2015
|
|
By:
england beat WI inside 2 days at headingley (late 90s/early 2000s) when england were weaker than they are now and the WI decline had started to set in (though they still had lara, walsh, ambrose etc)
I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a 2 day game in this series, I'd certainly be selling the number of overs bowled in the series |
|
By:
haven't seen any betting but I'd imagine england will be around 1/10 for the series
|
|
By:
England to win inside 3 days would be a good bet. Provided weather was clear, happy to take anything on them at around 2/1
|
|
By:
you'd have to think there will be several windies totals sub 200 and good chance one in double figures if this bowler friendly weather hangs around
only danger groundsmen will try to make the pitches flatter than in this series to string the matches out as long as possible. not sure will make much difference against a weak batting line up though |
|
By:
I just wondered if anyone agrees with me that Morne Morkel has possibily cost SA the series?
Ok a bit harsh. The thing usually bowls too short and too wide. Too wide you can leave. Too short you can leave but if you don't and he gets it to seam the ball usually goes past the outside edge. What good is that? SA lost the series on the morning of the 3rd Test at the Oval imho ( obviously they were not as good as England either but suspend that for now ). They bowled too short and too wide ( all of them ) but Morne was Senior pro in chief and should have set the example. I truly believe they could have skittled England for under 200 or less. England went on to make a match winning score. Cook was the match winner for me as he did not surrender but Stokes was the one who took full advantage. I honestly thought Morkel should have been dropped after that performance but he got more luck at OT and ended up as top wicket taker so what do I know! I personally believe that Morkel bottles it and does not pitch it up enough. Can you imagine an Ian Botham bowling short of a length so he does not get hit for cover drives? I don't think so. Ambrose and Walsh were both tall but pitched it full. |
|
By:
It's how he bowls. Like a lot of really tall bowlers, he probably is better pitching it up a bit more but he does then bowl too full and get cover driven a fair bit. I think you're being a bit harsh on him, if not entirely unfair.
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
Yeah I think you are both right a little. I remember Mike Hendrick. Used to bowl on the spot every ball. On a length, just short maybe, outside off, consistently moving the ball away and going past the edge. I dont think he ever took 5 wickets in an innings for England but was the best and most skillful bowler. The other guys took the wickets!
I thought SA bowled to a plan on the Thursday at the Oval. Somebody whould have worked out the game was for the taking. They just bowled too short and wide particularly to Cook who playted himself in nicely. Only he and Stokes looked comfortable on that wicket. The fact is the batsmen let SA down but Morkel had the ammunition and conditions to make a difference but he didn't. |
|
By:
bit harsh to put all the blame on morkel. obviously philander not being able to bowl a full allocation was a big factor and rabada and morris were absolutely awful in the first innings at the oval
350 was at least 100 above par in those conditions. sure england would have had the saffers 7 or 8 down on that rain shortened 1st day if they bowled first |
|
By:
yeah true but he is such a good bowler. I guess that is why I was perhaps a bit harsh.
|
|
By:
Personally I liked it when somebody hit me through the covers. I felt I could change my pace, angle, width and length and invariably got him and I can tell you nobody hit 150 plus before they proved me right!
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
DT
Come on! I was a batsman, bowler, fielder. One of my nicknames was Straightbat. I remember a friend telling me a story about a bowler on his side who thought one of the batsmen was vunerable to short bowling outside off stump. He got his man with a short one and yelped I knew I'd get him out there to which my friend replied but he has scored 160! The thing about Morkel is that you need courage to keep pitching it up afetr being driven to the boundary but that is where you can get wickets. |
|
By:
oh and modesty prohibits me from saying what a good Captain I was!
|