Rootin' for Joe etc...

[liquidfootball2]

Further evidence England’s success in Sri Lanka was down to a (massively) substandard opposition rather than through being a good side themsleves.

Couldn't disagree more but then we each have diametrically opposed views and have been round this circle before.

I'll post on today's play soon

[hancockjr]

Further evidence England’s success in Sri Lanka was down to a (massively) substandard opposition rather than through being a good side themsleves.

Or they just came better prepared. The West Indies are worse than Sri Lanka, but England always struggle to beat them, probably through taking them too lightly.

Yes, it's possible that we prepared really really hard for Sri Lanka and didn't bother preparing at all for the West Indies. I think I prefer my theory though, on balance.

[forestfan]

Further evidence England’s success in Sri Lanka was down to a (massively) substandard opposition rather than through being a good side themsleves.

Or they just came better prepared. The West Indies are worse than Sri Lanka, but England always struggle to beat them, probably through taking them too lightly.

Yes, it's possible that we prepared really really hard for Sri Lanka and didn't bother preparing at all for the West Indies. I think I prefer my theory though, on balance.

There was no proper warm-up game, just some 12-a-side two-day crap.

Sri Lanka are ranked 6th in Test cricket, West Indies are ranked 8th. That’s as much proof as you can get that SL are the better team... and given we generally can’t play or bowl spin, it was remarkable we won there, even if they did have injuries. But it’s many months since our players have played serious cricket in seam-friendly conditions. Not excusing being all out for 77, but they should have been given some chance to acclimatise.

We’ve got a shocking record in the Caribbean for some reason, one series win in half a century. OK, for the first half of that they were pretty tough to beat, but since then, well it should be the most winnable away series.

[liquidfootball2]

England's recurring West Indian horror show of being blown away for next to nothing by a battery of hostile pace and bounce came back to haunt them in full force, the scariest nightmare they just can't shake off.

The tall West Indian pace merchants bowled with speed, hostility and precision maximising the unevenness of the second day pitch. Memories of 46 in Trinidad in 94 or the 51 in Kingston in 09 came flooding back as Kemar Roach struck in spectacular fashion in the first hour after lunch. It was as if they had summoned the spirits of old and we were watching archive footage of them in their pomp, in the 80s, their golden age. England subsided from a manageable 44-2 to a miserable 49-7 in the space of just eight overs, and it was right there where this match was won and lost.

The pitch had been heavily watered before the start of the test meaning it was tacky and slower until the evening session on the first day, that was the time to bat. By the evening session the tackiness had gone to be replaced by bounce and pace and Anderson took advantage. Today was a continuation of that as all batsmen found it tough and sixteen wickets fell.

The West Indian batting has always been their weakest point in recent times as their pace attack has been a potent weapon for some time, but with runs on the board this attack can do real damage. Away form on spinning Bangladeshi wickets can be pretty much disregarded as this attack has showed just how they're developing into one of world’s best pace attacks, one capable of competing in all conditions, apart from perhaps the subcontinent, but easily most effective in its own.

For England, hindsight is all knowing and knowledge hard earned, the selection should have included four seamers and Broad would have played. It's often a decent clue to look at the home sides squad and then decide what sort of pitches they would prefer, possibly more pace and bounce and not so much spin?

Obviously the toss was a major advantage but Joe can hardly complain of that after his recent run.

[forestfan]

They’ve got a half decent pace attack, but they’re certainly not Marshall, Holding, Ambrose and Walsh... the England batsmen consistently do their best to make modern day Caribbean bowlers look like the legends of the past though.

[liquidfootball2]

Yes, it's extremely tough facing tall, fast and hostile bowling, at times exceeding 90mph, on a wicket where uneven patches gave unpredictable bounce, some rearing up while others kept down. The ball is on to you that much quicker and there is no time at all to react or cope with the vagaries of the surface.

Shannon Gabriel's ball that dismissed Curran was clocked at comfortably over 90 and gave him nowhere to go, but even Ben Stokes and Anderson look dangerous. After the first two sessions of day one when the tackiness had gone the pitch changed completely in nature, which made making runs early on day one essential.

On this pitch pace delivered by tall bowlers getting more bounce is the key and West Indies have plenty.

[forestfan]

Now throwing in the towel in the field and allowing a couple of tailenders to bat all day.

They need to make as many changes as the squad will permit for the second match, just to make a statement.

[liquidfootball2]

No they don't imo.

They need to play a lot better, the game was lost yesterday, you don't concede such a huge first innings lead and then get anything out of it. They could and should be professional and play a lot better today of course, but the game is played as much in the mind as with their skills, and if it's unredeemable and gone that vital edge you need is inevitably lost and poor cricket invariably results.

Don't do a 1980s and change for the sake of it, pick the best available even if it involves ten of this eleven, they just need to adapt and play a lot better. England have lost badly before, they were hammered by India in a test match on their way to the 4-1 win. They do have a poor performance in them even when they win the series by such a margin.

I also think a lot is made of home advantage and it is absolutely a major advantage but the toss can arguably be even more so. England have been on a remarkable run coinciding with Joe's amazing run of luck with the toss .

Australia, despite not being very good at all without their big stars won comfortably, against the Indians who had a far better side, in the only test they won the toss.

Perfect is home advantage, winning the toss and making the correct call on what to do. This time Holder held all the cards.

The only time India beat us last summer was when Root made a really poor decision and bowled first handing the advantage to the opposition.

In some ways this test mirrors the Indians at Lords, the wrong team picked and a crucial toss lost and England absolutely murdered them. This time it was England up against it with an almighty advantage conceded at the toss and given away with the selection.

[liquidfootball2]

With West Indies 100% certain to go one up I suspect we may well get flat tracks in the last two tests, a bowler to hit the deck hard and make something happen would have been ideal.

Unfortunately the promising fast bowler from Warwickshire, Ollie Stone was on this tour but had to come home as he suffered a stress fracture. As a replacement they called up Mark Wood, but he doesn't really do it for me as far as test cricket is concerned. I recall the last chance he got he was wayward and lacking in raw pace thanks to a catalog of injuries.

They like to use Ben Stokes in that enforcer role, hitting the deck hard to get extra bounce and in fairness he has been excellent when not overused, having wicket taking success both in this match and in the last test in Sri Lanka.

The problem here has been with Sam Curran and Adil Rashid - the two men they've picked to provide 'variety in the attack' and resulting in the painful omission of Broad, a mistake which is all too obvious now.

I personally think they've gone a little bit overboard with this idea that we MUST have 3 or 4 different styles of bowler and in doing so, have lost sight of a bowler who has served us very, very well - Stuart Broad in this case.

Here, if you take away Rashid and add Broad - Root has 2 expert new ball bowlers, a left armer, a gutsy right arm seamer and Moeen Ali's off-spin plus his own part-time spin - that should be enough.

Plus the batting line-up would've been: Jennings, Burns, Bairstow, Root, Stokes, Buttler, Ali, Foakes, Curran, Broad, Anderson - so it's hardly weaker.

I think we might see that team in the next test and to be honest and I wouldn't be too surprised if Adil Rashid has to sit out the final two tests as England revert to four seamers.

The other solution, if they really want to maintain having a very varied bowling attack is to drop Ben Foakes and give the wicketkeeping duties to Bairstow or Buttler. That would probably have been my way of getting the two specialist spinners for this game (which I thought would be needed when I saw how the pitch looked to the eye).

[forestfan]

Not sure Rashid will play another Test for quite a while, seems to have been a liability here. Probably will be a white ball specialist until the next Asian tour.

I remember a series some years back when we collapsed to 50-odd all out in the first Test and then WI played eight specialist batsmen on flat pitches for the rest of the series. Could be the same outcome here.

[blahblah]

They’ve got a half decent pace attack, but they’re certainly not Marshall, Holding, Ambrose and Walsh... the England batsmen consistently do their best to make modern day Caribbean bowlers look like the legends of the past though.

So I'm not approaching puberty

How on earth did that happen? 300 for an unbeaten 6th wicket stand, holy schmoly...

[hancockjr]

Sri Lanka are ranked 6th in Test cricket, West Indies are ranked 8th. That’s as much proof as you can get that SL are the better team

Sri Lanka just lost by an innings to Australia.

Rankings are ok but they are very backward looking - maybe I'm wrong but I thought most of those matches that got them to 6th (hardly dizzy heights!) was with players who had retired by the time we got to play them, so they were considerably weaker than the lowly 6th their ranking suggested.

[liquidfootball2]

Sri Lanka are ranked 6th in Test cricket, West Indies are ranked 8th. That’s as much proof as you can get that SL are the better team

Sri Lanka just lost by an innings to Australia.

Rankings are ok but they are very backward looking - maybe I'm wrong but I thought most of those matches that got them to 6th (hardly dizzy heights!) was with players who had retired by the time we got to play them, so they were considerably weaker than the lowly 6th their ranking suggested.

Before England toured it is true Sri Lanka had had a series of fine results both at home and in the subcontinent with virtually EXACTLY the players who played in the first test against England. Beating Australia and South Africa at home and Pakistan in the UAE.

They are ideally suited to hot humid conditions as they can cope far better than non-Asian sides but most of all they need wickets with NO pace at all, a graveyard for seamers and ones that TURN.

Their form at home or in the UAE and that away from home other than in the subcontinent, is like chalk and cheese. Subsequent form in New Zealand and Australia is totally irrelevant when evaluating the worth of England's win.

Herath retired after the first test against England which they lost and Akila was banned after the series, so they would be weaker now but would get hammered in Australia or New Zealand anyway.

There was a time when they were far better equipped to compete on seaming decks, but Lasith Malinga has long retired from test cricket and Chaminda Vaas went before him, they have no quality seamers other than Lakmal and no backup whatsoever.

They are completely useless in seaming or pace orientated wickets but it's a different story on the turners at home. To state the obvious England played Sri Lanka in Sri Lanka.

With one of their star spinners Akila now banned from all cricket for an illegal action, having been tested following the England tour, they may find unearthing yet another top spinner problematic, but they will still be a different side in home conditions.

West Indies are useless in India or Sri Lanka and recently struggled in Bangladesh. None of these are conducive to pace.

Conditions and wickets always have to be taken into account and results in completely unsuitable and alien conditions discounted as having no bearing whatsoever.

[liquidfootball2]

After the first three days there was some puzzlement as to why sixteen wickets can fall on day two and none at all yesterday. But its perhaps more salient to look at events before that.

For all the very obvious flaws with selection that hindsight has given us, and that has just looked even worse as the game went on, is it really the biggest factor in our defeat? Our batting performance was just so poor and the collapse so sudden, brutal and devastating that for me ten Broads may have struggled to make any difference.

We lost the game in collapsing to such a paltry score as 77! Whatever the conditions and suitability for their attack or just how well they exploited it, there is no excuse for that, we shouldn't ever collapse quite so badly as that, 44-2 to 49-7 in just under 9 overs, a game deciding phase, an hour as appalling as it gets and a real reality check for our batsmen.

At that point the match was gone. You can't win a match in one session but you can certainly lose one.

Yesterday was poor cricket but in a way understandable as there would be no way back whatever happened on day three. They shouldn't have so overused Stokes either, 50 overs represents a real risk of burn out and injury, Flintoff has been there before and to risk Stokes going the same way in chasing a futile cause was criminal. They should have just bowled Root and Jennings or other part timers, the game was lost.

Incentive and meaning were key to yesterday, England, other than their openers playing for their future, have very little of either, the result was 99% decided after day two.

Yesterday was in effect a glorified net, and although the intention may have been to still compete, that vital and much needed edge had gone when the match was lost.

[hancockjr]

3.18 per over required - just need to keep up with the rate!

[forestfan]

Anyway, whatever the arguments about relative merits of opponents... the truth is West Indies aren’t very good. Neither are Sri Lanka, but if we can win in Asian conditions there’s no excuse for not being able to win on pitches that shouldn’t be as unfamiliar to our players.

If this series is lost heavily, or at all, it will be a massive setback before the Ashes, and perhaps even impact on the momentum of the one-day side through the players involved in both.

[liquidfootball2]

Crucially the Ashes and World Cup are in England. We were hammered in the ashes in Australia and lost a test match in New Zealand, did that adversely affect us in only beating India 4-1 at home? I suppose we will never know, it may have been 5-0 otherwise.

I'm being a little facetious and not too serious but it does illustrate a point.

[liquidfootball2]

Anyway, whatever the arguments about relative merits of opponents... the truth is West Indies aren’t very good. .

West Indies bowling attack in home conditions is very good, it has been a potent weapon at home for some time. Its not making enough runs that has constantly been the problem. If they have runs on the board to back them up then they will be formidable. England losing the toss, picking the wrong team and bowling too short was the cocktail that provided the antidote to their recent batting woes.

Making runs in the first two sessions of day one was essential.

Their away form in Asia on turning wickets, pace bowlers graveyards, is largely irrelevant

[forestfan]

All non-Asian sides are poor over there... WI are ranked well below England, Australia, South Africa and New Zealand, which suggests their home record isn’t that great either.

Anyway, let’s hope they at least get some decent batting practice the next day or two.

[liquidfootball2]

Their batting has let them down, their bowling at home has been very quick. If you can't make enough runs at home often enough then no matter how good the bowling, you won't win test matches.

Rankings are very much dependent on so many variables anyway, percentage of recent test matches away from home being amongst them. They do not differentiate between home and away form and should be used with care, not as an absolute guide or anything near tbh.

[liquidfootball2]

Root is still developing as a captain but there is improvement, you can't judge or panic and make big changes after a match in which we really failed so completely and in all departments. Our best moment was possibly just prior to the toss, from there on in it was all downhill.

Unfortunately they are still not consistent enough, and on occasions lose very badly indeed. They need to learn but not dwell on it too long, as in the summer against Pakistan, lose one very badly and then reply by absolutely dominating the next with virtually the same team, or with India, after losing the third test, reply by winning the very next one. The last home ashes was much the same, lose one, win the next. That consistency isn't there, it may be getting better with seven wins from the last nine but its not there yet. This was a rude awakening, a huge reality check.

77 is the reason we lost, forget day three and day four they're largely irrelevant. The effect 77 has on a dressing room is devastating there is no way back.

On the same basis it's the first two days where they should have looked for who won it for West Indies, forget Chase today, he didn't win it, and neither did Holder's double century. For me it was Kemar Roach with the ball and young Hetmyer's 81 in tough conditions with the bat while Anderson was causing havoc, that's where they won it and they were the match winning contributions.

There is only Anderson and Stokes who came out of this game with any credit at all for England on those first two days and Burns belatedly today when it hardly mattered to the match, although it did to his future prospects.

There was a great piece on the continuing woes of Keaton Jennings from Collingwood and Rob Key.

Colly comparing him to Trescothick in both physique and character and comparing the two to see where he's not correct with his weight on hitting the ball.

Just a higher back lift would get his shoulder turned more and bring his weight into the shot instead of half back with a too open shoulder as of now.

Fascinating how just a small tweak could have him right, not as simple as that mentally and for any batsman to change even a small amount, but his current one doesn't work.

Keysey reckoning Jason Roy should be here and thinks he should feature in the ashes with Burns.

[forestfan]

If you “fail completely and in all departments” that’s exactly when you judge, panic and make big changes.

Send 6 or 7 of them home on the next plane and say you’re not playing in the Ashes or World Cup unless you do spectacular things in the early county season. Cook made a debut century after being flown half way around the world at the last minute, time for a few young players to be given the opportunity to do the same.

[liquidfootball2]

If you “fail completely and in all departments” that’s exactly when you judge, panic and make big changes.

Send 6 or 7 of them home on the next plane and say you’re not playing in the Ashes or World Cup unless you do spectacular things in the early county season. Cook made a debut century after being flown half way around the world at the last minute, time for a few young players to be given the opportunity to do the same.

No not at all imo, besides it being completely impractical and never going to happen, it's winning the next test match that matters and building on this sides' recent successes by playing to the top of their abilities.

They didn't change dramatically after the huge setbacks against Pakistan or India, they just changed their attitude and application and either dominated or won the next match. You don't become a poor team after one dismal performance, you don't win seven out of nine by being not fit for purpose. You don't beat India 4-1 by being desperately inadequate and useless.

Turn up and win is what's needed, they've shown how well they can bounce back time and again, they need to show character and do precisely that again.

[hancockjr]

If you “fail completely and in all departments” that’s exactly when you judge, panic and make big changes.

Send 6 or 7 of them home on the next plane and say you’re not playing in the Ashes or World Cup unless you do spectacular things in the early county season. Cook made a debut century after being flown half way around the world at the last minute, time for a few young players to be given the opportunity to do the same.

Halfway up the page you were explaining England lost because they were given insufficient preparation - which is management's fault. Why would you drop 6-7 players for something that was management's fault?

[liquidfootball2]

For me it's the job of the management to plot and plan and they still have a glaring problem up the top of the order, Burns looks the part and scored his second fifty today, it's a pity he didnt take a real opportunity to go on and nail his place as England need him to be secure as the problem is his partner Keaton Jennings.

Jennings cannot be an Ashes contender given he now averages 16 against seam and his limitations against it surely cannot be tolerated for much longer. Out driving in the first innings, he tried his best to leave everything on Saturday morning but with 14 off 84 balls he was batting in a dark alley waiting to be mugged.

It helps him that England have such few options. Joe Denly is the spare batsman but has not looked convincing in the tour matches this winter, making the decision to overlook Jason Roy having encouraged him to play four-day cricket for the Lions before Christmas look particularly odd. So Jennings probably survives but Antigua should be it if he does not improve. Denly can hardly do any worse.

[forestfan]

If you “fail completely and in all departments” that’s exactly when you judge, panic and make big changes.

Send 6 or 7 of them home on the next plane and say you’re not playing in the Ashes or World Cup unless you do spectacular things in the early county season. Cook made a debut century after being flown half way around the world at the last minute, time for a few young players to be given the opportunity to do the same.

Halfway up the page you were explaining England lost because they were given insufficient preparation - which is management's fault. Why would you drop 6-7 players for something that was management's fault?

The first innings collapse was more than likely a failure of preparation. Throwing in the towel to part-timers afterwards is what justifies sending players home in disgrace.

[hancockjr]

If you “fail completely and in all departments” that’s exactly when you judge, panic and make big changes.

Send 6 or 7 of them home on the next plane and say you’re not playing in the Ashes or World Cup unless you do spectacular things in the early county season. Cook made a debut century after being flown half way around the world at the last minute, time for a few young players to be given the opportunity to do the same.

Halfway up the page you were explaining England lost because they were given insufficient preparation - which is management's fault. Why would you drop 6-7 players for something that was management's fault?

The first innings collapse was more than likely a failure of preparation. Throwing in the towel to part-timers afterwards is what justifies sending players home in disgrace.

Fair point

[hancockjr]

Joe Root admitted that England "might have got their selection wrong" in the wake of his side's 381-run drubbing in the first Test against West Indies, but insisted that England would not be deterred from making further bold calls in the future,

Does this sort of thing annoy anyone else as much as me? This was not a "bold" call - putting Rashid in instead of Broad was neither Bold nor "Unbold", it was just a decision and it was wrong, at least in retrospect. Too often people hide behind bad decisions saying "at least it was brave" or "I could have made the easy decision" - just make the correct one!

[liquidfootball2]

Joe Root admitted that England "might have got their selection wrong" in the wake of his side's 381-run drubbing in the first Test against West Indies, but insisted that England would not be deterred from making further bold calls in the future,

Does this sort of thing annoy anyone else as much as me? This was not a "bold" call - putting Rashid in instead of Broad was neither Bold nor "Unbold", it was just a decision and it was wrong, at least in retrospect. Too often people hide behind bad decisions saying "at least it was brave" or "I could have made the easy decision" - just make the correct one!

It wasn't as straight forward beforehand without all the all-knowing hindsight we now possess. The pitch before the match did look mottled, blotchy and ugly and looked at least to the eye as if picking two spinners may well turn out to be the 'bold' decision that gave a significant advantage.

Now we know the pitch, heavily watered beforehand, started slow and tacky, too slow for any real problems for the batsmen once in, but did quicken up appreciably by the evening of day one and was at it's quickest on day two, ideal for pace, before gradually getting flatter as the match wore on.

It's not something that could be predicted that accurately before the match without hindsight and wasn't nearly as 'easy' a decision as you suggest.

We now know it was absolutely the wrong call and by the end of the second day looked very wrong indeed, we know now it didn't in fact give any significant advantage that would win the test match but exactly the reverse, we now know that four seamers was the correct call and Rashid shouldn't have played. We now know leaving Broad out was a clear error, we now know an awful lot more far more clearly than we could possibly have known before the match.

None of this excuses the performance one iota, even with the wrong team we should have played so much better. It was really the batting that badly undermined us.

Hindsight can make fools of anybody. If it had turned out the correct call he would have been lauded as a captain who was brave enough to make it.

Most commentators pre-match thought it looked a wicket where two spinners could, and maybe should play. There were calls to keep all options open by playing Bairstow as keeper and having four seamers and two spinners or dropping a batsman, whichever way he went it was far from straightforward, it was a very difficult decision beforehand and he chose the wrong option, it didn't have any effect on our batting and we should have adapted far, far better.

[liquidfootball2]

If you “fail completely and in all departments” that’s exactly when you judge, panic and make big changes.

Send 6 or 7 of them home on the next plane and say you’re not playing in the Ashes or World Cup unless you do spectacular things in the early county season. Cook made a debut century after being flown half way around the world at the last minute, time for a few young players to be given the opportunity to do the same.

Halfway up the page you were explaining England lost because they were given insufficient preparation - which is management's fault. Why would you drop 6-7 players for something that was management's fault?

The first innings collapse was more than likely a failure of preparation. Throwing in the towel to part-timers afterwards is what justifies sending players home in disgrace.

Fair point

I actually think bowling part timers more than they did to save Stokes being over bowled and burnt out might have been the better call. Overworking one of your main men in a completely futile effort to somehow get something from a game already lost, seemed absolutely pointless to me. Bowling 50 overs is ridiculous especially when so many were unnecessary, it risks burn out before the rest of the series in games they need to win and possible serious injury. You have to remember England's first innings was so short the bowlers barely had a rest before going out again.

Stokes can be hard to get the ball off, but at that point it would have been far more sensible saving him for battles not so pointless and already 100% lost, there are still two more tests, have him working for victory in them, not working without any realistic or even feasible way back in this.