England v West Indies 2017

A whole new game now Malan is at the crease, coming in under the floodlights with the new ball due soon

Bizarrely they don't take the new ball after 80 overs

I can't get excited about thrashing the Windies. I worry about the future of test cricket.

RedChaser said:

killerandflash said:

Bizarrely they don't take the new ball after 80 overs

Is that because it would be too easy to see, serious question.

I doubt there was any thought behind the decision, which was quickly reversed by the coaching staff sending someone onto the pitch with a stern message!

Back in their heyday the grounds were were packed with West Indian fans, seems like like they have given up on them.

Uboat said:

blackpool72 said:

Uboat said:

I can't get excited about thrashing the Windies. I worry about the future of test cricket.

I know where your coming from but back in the 70s not too many West Indian fans worried about England

I'm a big fan and advocate of Test cricket, yet I'm sitting here watching Yorks v Northants, which says a lot about the need for a contest.

I feel your pain.
As a Charlton and Surrey fan I know where you are coming from

Disappointed that Cook in particular bit also Root slowed down right when the ball amd the conditions were supposed to be at their easiest. The ball was old and not moving but hadn't completely deteriorated and it was the middle session, 2 set batsmen, should be time to cash in before the next new ball and fading light. But they slowed down. It's not a major issue but as I said above the reports are that this pink ball is very tough to bat against for 10-15 overs then gets much easier. You have to cash in when the going gets easier otherwise you make it much harder when the next new ball appears.

Overall pretty happy though. If we can see off the new ball and Stokes/ Bairstow can have a go tomorrow we should pass 550 then stick them in. Give our swing bowlers (Jimmy and TRJ) the new ball and hope to have them 4 down early.

cantersaddick said:

Now I wasn't alive to watch the Windies teams that were most successful but I have read a lot about them and watched a lot of footage and spoken to people who did watch them. There is one gripe that people had with them and slightly tarnishes the success they had for me.

They were a brilliant team, but sometimes overstepped the mark in terms of hostile (and dangerous) bowling, with a barrage of bouncers at times, not controlled by the umpires (there weren't the restrictions there are now)

cantersaddick said:

Now I wasn't alive to watch the Windies teams that were most successful but I have read a lot about them and watched a lot of footage and spoken to people who did watch them. There is one gripe that people had with them and slightly tarnishes the success they had for me.

Whoops meant to save as a draft rather than post...

My gripe is, and this is probably one for only the purest of cricket fans, their over rate. Now before you laugh hear me out.

They had a deliberate tactic (some of them have said as much in books and interviews) to slow the over rate right down. They aimed to bowl 10-15 overs less than they should in a day. This was because of the make up of the team. They played with 6 batsmen a keeper and 4 quicks. No 5th bowler except for the odd part timer amongst the batsmen. So they deliberately slowed the over rate down so they could bowl their four quicks in pairs for long spells and wouldn't have to use a 5th bowler. A deliberate tactic. And in my eyes cheating. At the very least it's against the spirit of the game.

One of the beauties of cricket (in my eyes) is that the balance of the side can change and aides do things differently. Unlike in rugby where you select one player for each role or football where it's the same with slightly different formations. But to take this to the extreme and to find a way to abuse this to your advantage doesn't feel right to me.

For me all the truly great sides have had either a very good spinner, who can both take wickets and hold an end, enabling you to play 3 seamers. Or they have had a very good all rounder. This side had neither.

Will we ever see a pace attack like the one the windies had from the 70s and 80s again?

cantersaddick said:

Disappointed that Cook in particular bit also Root slowed down right when the ball amd the conditions were supposed to be at their easiest. The ball was old and not moving but hadn't completely deteriorated and it was the middle session, 2 set batsmen, should be time to cash in before the next new ball and fading light. But they slowed down. It's not a major issue but as I said above the reports are that this pink ball is very tough to bat against for 10-15 overs then gets much easier. You have to cash in when the going gets easier otherwise you make it much harder when the next new ball appears.

Overall pretty happy though. If we can see off the new ball and Stokes/ Bairstow can have a go tomorrow we should pass 550 then stick them in. Give our swing bowlers (Jimmy and TRJ) the new ball and hope to have them 4 down early.

I know what you mean .. BUT .. remember the Ozzies are next up and our batsmen have been .. a) slated for lack of 'test match' application and b) getting out to frivolous strokes/mediocre bowlers .. I would hope that Capn and VCapn were out to set a good example of not giving it away unnecessarily even against bowlers who'd find it hard to get into a decent standard league club side .. I hate to say it, but this series should act as a good set of practice matches/morale boosters for the trip down under .. and Westley, Malan and Stoneman still need to prove that they are 'real' test quality

cafc999 said:

Will we ever see a pace attack like the one the windies had from the 70s and 80s again?

they would not get away with such intimidation nowadays .. they made 'bodyline' look tame and friendly .. despite this, they were all terrific bowlers and spurred one another on with an in-team contest of who's best and nastiest

Malcolm Marshall not a big guy but FAST and hostile RIP

Goonerhater said:

Malcolm Marshall not a big guy but FAST and hostile RIP

I met and chatted to Malcolm Marshall a few times .. off the field, a real gentleman, Mr Hyde, on the field of play, a real demon, the complete Dr Jekyll .. pity he died so young, he had a lot to give

johnny73 said:

cantersaddick said:

cantersaddick said:

Now I wasn't alive to watch the Windies teams that were most successful but I have read a lot about them and watched a lot of footage and spoken to people who did watch them. There is one gripe that people had with them and slightly tarnishes the success they had for me.

Whoops meant to save as a draft rather than post...

My gripe is, and this is probably one for only the purest of cricket fans, their over rate. Now before you laugh hear me out.

They had a deliberate tactic (some of them have said as much in books and interviews) to slow the over rate right down. They aimed to bowl 10-15 overs less than they should in a day. This was because of the make up of the team. They played with 6 batsmen a keeper and 4 quicks. No 5th bowler except for the odd part timer amongst the batsmen. So they deliberately slowed the over rate down so they could bowl their four quicks in pairs for long spells and wouldn't have to use a 5th bowler. A deliberate tactic. And in my eyes cheating. At the very least it's against the spirit of the game.

One of the beauties of cricket (in my eyes) is that the balance of the side can change and aides do things differently. Unlike in rugby where you select one player for each role or football where it's the same with slightly different formations. But to take this to the extreme and to find a way to abuse this to your advantage doesn't feel right to me.

For me all the truly great sides have had either a very good spinner, who can both take wickets and hold an end, enabling you to play 3 seamers. Or they have had a very good all rounder. This side had neither.

Read up on our introduction of 'bodyline' bowling. It could be argued we were the first to overstep the mark and use a strategy not in the spirit of the game.

Ohh I know I'm not debating that. All I'm saying is that in my view the opinion of that team as one of the greats is a little tarnished. They employed a deliberate tactic that in today's game would be considered cheating and theyvwould be penalised for.