England V West Indies, Lords, 1st Test Thread

by Duty281 Thu 17 May - 6:11

First topic message reminder :

Just a little under 15 hours now until the English Test Summer gets underway with the first of three tests against the lowly West Indies. This is seen as little more than a tune up for England, with the bigger obstacle of South Africa to come later in the summer.

Indeed, England are seen as overwhelming favourites for the series despite a disappointing Winter campaign in the UAE and Sri Lanka which saw them just about hold on to their World no.1 ranking. In the red corner, the West Indies are coming over to England on the back of a 2-0 home defeat to the Australians but their captain Darren Sammy remains hopeful of an upset.

Teams

England 1 Andrew Strauss (capt), 2 Alastair Cook, 3 Jonathan Trott, 4 Kevin Pietersen, 5 Ian Bell, 6 Jonny Bairstow, 7 Matt Prior (wk), 8 Tim Bresnan, 9 Stuart Broad, 10 Graeme Swann, 11 James Anderson

West Indies 1 Adrian Barath, 2 Kieran Powell, 3 Kirk Edwards, 4 Darren Bravo, 5 Shivnarine Chanderpaul, 6 Marlon Samuels, 7 Denesh Ramdin (wk), 8 Darren Sammy (capt), 9 Kemar Roach, 10 Ravi Rampaul, 11 Fidel Edwards

Cricinfo Preview
10 Day Weather Forecast for London

Enjoy!

by Shelsey93 Tue 22 May - 0:09

They are not dropping Prior. Full stop.

I still think that there is nothing in it between Bresnan and Finn. They can either go Finn (because Bresnan had an average game and it was a close call to start with) or Bresnan (because he is the man is posession and it swings at Trent Bridge). I don't really mind which way they go.

by alfie Tue 22 May - 0:10

Wouldn't say Sammy gave up at lunch , but I think he realized he was up against it and resorted to hoping to win the raffle with some spin...

If the partnership had been broken pace would have been back both ends.

Now they are rather going through the motions.

by gboycottnut Tue 22 May - 0:11

eirebilly wrote:100 run partnership from 148 balls. Thats excellent going.

But England can still lose this match as they have had a spectacular batting collapse in a test match in the past. In one of the 1991 ashes test matches down under, England in one of their innings lost their final 6 wickets for 3 runs.

by eirebilly Tue 22 May - 0:13

Another 50 for Bell clap

by alfie Tue 22 May - 0:14

These two have played very well . It was a bit tight at 57/4 , but they have never given supporters any cause for concern.

Fifty for Bell clap

by eirebilly Tue 22 May - 0:20

This will be done before your bed time alfie Very Happy

by alfie Tue 22 May - 0:21

Right , billy Smile

Very thoughtful of them.

by gboycottnut Tue 22 May - 0:22

eirebilly wrote:This will be done before your bed time alfie

It isn't over just yet. England can still spectacularly collapse by losing their last 6 wickets for under 10 runs.

by msp83 Tue 22 May - 0:23

Bresnan of course is more effective when it comes to keeping the runs down. Finn, with his greater pace and movement offers something different, and I think has far greater chances of taking wickets. It indeed is an interesting choice, and a nice dilemma to have for the England management!.
By the way, is Fidel enjured or something?

by gboycottnut Tue 22 May - 0:25

msp83 wrote:Bresnan of course is more effective when it comes to keeping the runs down. Finn, with his greater pace and movement offers something different, and I think has far greater chances of taking wickets. It indeed is an interesting choice, and a nice dilemma to have for the England management!.
By the way, is Fidel enjured or something?

That may not be a bad thing for the West Indies as Fidel Edwards isn't as fast a bowler as he once was. A bowling attack of Roach and Gabriel with the new ball, Rampaul as the third change, with Sammy as the fourth bowler looks like a better bowling unit for the WI unit.

by eirebilly Tue 22 May - 0:28

Strauss was reading the V2 and decided that you need sleep alfie Very Happy

gboycottnut, you are fast taking over trebbs job here Very Happy

by msp83 Tue 22 May - 0:31

Alfie, I have never ben a fan of Sammy and all those so called attitudinal changes that he is said to have brought about. I believe a lot of it nonsense, and a lot of it is down to Shivnarine Chanderpaul's terrific consistency with the bat.
Even by his abject standards, this was terrible. Unless Fidel Edwards had some serious injury, this is just most idiotic. Samuels wasn't turning it before it lunch, in fact he never really turned the ball in his life. On this helpless track, it was just foolhardy to expect Samuels to SPIN england to defeat.

by eirebilly Tue 22 May - 0:32

Cook gone

by Makrish Tue 22 May - 0:32

England, with 2 runs to win, to collapse 6 wickets for one run, and the match to end as a tie.

As I type, Cook falls...

by msp83 Tue 22 May - 0:33

The WI captain bringings himself on, and Guess Gets a wicket!.

by alfie Tue 22 May - 0:33

Cook gone ! Pity...but his 79 has won the match for England at the end.

Well played.

Bairstow to hit the winning runs now on debut ...

by msp83 Tue 22 May - 0:35

A review here against Bairstow, not much there, too high, and he hit it as well.

by gboycottnut Tue 22 May - 0:36

Makrish wrote:England, with 2 runs to win, to collapse 6 wickets for one run, and the match to end as a tie.

As I type, Cook falls...

I believe that Curtley Ambrose once got 7 wickets for 1 run V Australia during the 1992/93 test series! So this could be possible!.

by Makrish Tue 22 May - 0:36

Cheeky review there, and Sammy knew it!

by msp83 Tue 22 May - 0:37

Bell plays the winning shot!, England wins wy 5 wickets!!!.

by alfie Tue 22 May - 0:37

msp83 wrote:Alfie, I have never ben a fan of Sammy and all those so called attitudinal changes that he is said to have brought about. I believe a lot of it nonsense, and a lot of it is down to Shivnarine Chanderpaul's terrific consistency with the bat.
Even by his abject standards, this was terrible. Unless Fidel Edwards had some serious injury, this is just most idiotic. Samuels wasn't turning it before it lunch, in fact he never really turned the ball in his life. On this helpless track, it was just foolhardy to expect Samuels to SPIN england to defeat.

I don't think he did expect it , msp ... Like I say , he was hoping for a miracle ...careless shot ,whatever .. I think Fidel must have an injury , but yes , I agree he'd have done better to bowl himself...

But the game was over at lunch , really.

by GSC Tue 22 May - 0:38

England had 8 extras in the WI 2nd innings. 7 of which were LBs. In 130 overs.

WI have 12 extras in just under 40 overs. With 8 NBs.

As always, the WIs have talent, they just don't have the discipline or know how when they get into strong positions to kill teams off.

by GSC Tue 22 May - 0:39

Cook goes just before the end, Bairstow under review for LBW.

Would be the mother of all collapses 2 runs short

by alfie Tue 22 May - 0:39

Nice finish from Bell , good game , two sixties ...

But Broad MOTM I think...

by Makrish Tue 22 May - 0:39

That was well played by both sides, good effort by WI to get England 5 down, they applied themselves in the third innings and put England under pressure at times.

England's batting hasn't been up to the extraordinary standards expected of them over the past couple of years, but still performed admirably. Bowling's as good as ever.

by Duty281 Tue 22 May - 0:40

Duty281 wrote:Well it won't be zipping around like that tomorrow and all we need is 180 runs from the combined efforts of Cook, Trott, KP, Bell, Prior, Bresnan, Broad and Swann. Easily done I would think. Today Strauss was done by a good ball and Jimmy is a bowler anyway so I wouldn't be too worried. England to win by five wickets.

*Cough cough*

Anyway good win on a flat deck and two good innings by Cook and Bell. Lovely to see Strauss score a century and Broad take 11 wickets And now for my gloating:

1 nil to the Champions, 1 nil to the Champions, 1 nil, TO THE CHAMPIONS!

Roll on Friday and Trent Bridge!

by GSC Tue 22 May - 0:41

They showed fight, helped by the Lords pitch dying on day 4.

Can't help but feel they'll be beaten in 4 days at TB tho.

by GSC Tue 22 May - 0:45

Innings like this probably show why Cook is next in line to Captain the team.

Never lost his head amid the carnage last night and this morning. Trott must feel a bit under pressure from Bell at #3, Bresnan is definitely in need of a big performance at TB.

by alfie Tue 22 May - 0:53

Cook and Bell both deserve great credit for calm , sensible but quite aggressive run making to settle things comfortably after early wickets. OK , not the greatest bowling attack to face , but they did the job in style.

I really think if Bell had not had a total 'mare in UAE That series may have gone very differently .

Hope he can master Asian conditions in India in a few months...

by killer938 Tue 22 May - 0:59

Yeh, he needs to work out how to play in those conditions because in every other type of conditions he has been clearly one of the best batsmen in the world over the last couple of years.

by gboycottnut Tue 22 May - 1:06

alfie wrote:Cook and Bell both deserve great credit for calm , sensible but quite aggressive run making to settle things comfortably after early wickets. OK , not the greatest bowling attack to face , but they did the job in style.

I really think if Bell had not had a total 'mare in UAE That series may have gone very differently .

Hope he can master Asian conditions in India in a few months...

Well Bell is very weak at being able to play leg spin or unorthdox spin bowling. He has had problems playing guys like Warne, Muralitharan and Ajmal. Against fast bowling and seam/swing bowling he looks comfortable, but I don't agree that the series V Pakistan in the winter would have been any different had Bell been in form.

by sirfredperry Tue 22 May - 1:08

Far from convincing by England but certainly some plus factors - Strauss's 100, two 60s from Bell, Broad's bowling and the cool finish from Cook.
But England should really have made 500 and not given themselves such a fright. KP looked capable of carnage in the first innings and then got out rather stupidly.
Can't help thinking that we could have done with a fourth seamer. You shouldn't really have your two main strike bowlers sending down 25 overs each on the first day - especally if (as was not the case last Friday) they are needed again on the second day. As it was, we struggled to bowl WI out on the Sunday
Are we gonna dismiss South Africa twice on decent wickets with this attack ? I think not.
A defeat here, to what is a poor Windies side, would have been a huge setback.

by JDizzle Tue 22 May - 1:13

I don't think the issue is us dismissing South Africa twice. I think we comfortably have the firepower to take 20 wickets against any batting attack in English conditions. This was probably the least helpful pitch England will play on all summer and they've rolled the Windies twice and won the game with a session and change to spare. England beating SA will all depend on how well out batsmen play Steyn, Morkel and Philander, not on how our bowlers bowl as excellence has become the norm for them now.

by mystiroakey Tue 22 May - 1:16

yep its all about how our batters perfom. our bowling unit has become a strong force- it rarely underperforms

by killer938 Tue 22 May - 1:19

Bell was weak in the 2005 series against Warne but actually in the 2006/7 series in Aus, despite us getting hammered, he was a lot more positive against Warne and yielded better results. He got out to him twice but one of those was on 87 and was him being positive again.

He definitely struggled against Ajmal but I agree it wouldn't have made a difference in that series.

SA have Tahir but Bell will have the advantage of having seen him a reasonable amount while he was at Warwickshire and it being English conditions.

by sirfredperry Tue 22 May - 1:34

Agree about the bowling and the need for the batters to perform against the excellent SA attack.
But consider the facts in this latest Test. In their first innings, Windies were 180 odd for four with Swann going for 14 in one over and the visitors looking to make a competitive total. Then Samuels plays a loose shot and another wicket falls straight away and it's practically innings over.
In the second innings Windies are 61 for four but somehow manage 345. You can't expect SA to throw wickets away and have two catastrophic run outs like the Windies did.

by JDizzle Tue 22 May - 1:47

Have South Africa got someone with a record on par with Shiv in England though? I doubt it. Smith would come closest, but even he has weaknesses and if memory serves me right I don't think Jacques Kallis has the greatest record in England either. I don't think England's bowlers did bowl as well as they could have in this test match, correct. Anderson bowled well, but was unlucky and the luck will come. Broad started not great but got better and better as the game went on, and finished with 11 wickets. Bresnan was solid, but never looked like changing the game (I have always said I'd prefer Finn) and Swann, the conditions never really suited him but he will be disappointed to have not bowled more economically. But in the first test of the summer, on the flattest track they will play on this summer, I think this was a top performance from the bowling attack and to say we will struggle to take 20 wickets against SA is a little ludicrous.

by sirfredperry Tue 22 May - 1:52

Well let's hope the present Eng attack does a little better than during the SA tour of England. Eng made SA follow on at Lord's but then took hardly any wickets over TWO days as the visitors comfortably saved the match.
Then Smith made a terrrific last-innings 100 to win one of the Tests when Eng should really have been the victors.
I think too much depends on Swann. If you're playing four bowlers and someone gets after Swann then Eng could be in trouble.

by Stella Tue 22 May - 1:57

The Saffers have a better top six than the windies by a country mile. We will struggle a little at times if the third seamer isn't firing.

by killer938 Tue 22 May - 2:07

You would say that about India and Australia as well, though I agree with the sentiment and it will be very difficult, I am still confident that the bowlers will do their job as usual

by Stella Tue 22 May - 2:09

India batted like amateurs last summer...........bar Dravid and at times Dhoni.

by JDizzle Tue 22 May - 2:10

I'm not writing the South African line up off completely! I fully expect them to put up more of a fight than than the Windies one, but I have faith in our bowling attack that we can pick up 20 wickets in all the Test matches, unless the pitch is a real road. I think we may struggle to get 20 wickets at Lord's if the wicket is like this one when the Saffers roll into town, but apart from that I have confidence.

Sirfred, in the game you mention it was a bit of an anomaly. The wicket was a classic Lord's pitch and offered little to the bowler, but due to a combination of bad SA batting and some good bowling we were able to roll them cheaply (although Ashwell Prince made a first innings ton and showed how easy it was to bat on). Then second time up it was still flat and South Africa scored what they should have done first innings. Sure, we didn't bowl our best but we've bowled worse. And this was with Monty at his lowest ebb as a Test match bowler as he bowled about 40 wicketless overs. I genuinely think we couldn't have done much more to win that game. We played good cricket.

And Stella, the good thing about this English bowling attack is that if one isn't firing then another will step in. I don't doubt that for a second. If two are struggling then we may toil, but we can deal with the lack of one bowler not quite hitting his straps. And undoubtedly they Saffers will try to get after Swann, but he will know this and I am sure he will relish the chance to have a go at them.

by killer938 Tue 22 May - 2:12

Yes I know, but my point is before the series you would have said that the Indians had an incredibly strong batting line up and look what happened, i.e. you never know.

by Stella Tue 22 May - 2:17

killer938 wrote:Yes I know, but my point is before the series you would have said that the Indians had an incredibly strong batting line up and look what happened, i.e. you never know.

Nope, you don't.

Should be a cracking THREE matches. Only three but we do have the 5 ODI's vs Australia to look forward to! (yes, sarcasm).

by killer938 Tue 22 May - 2:22

Yep, got my ticket for the Friday at Lords, lived in London for 5 years and yet never went to Lords so I can't wait

by JDizzle Tue 22 May - 2:23

That's the biggest, and most baffling, discussion point of the summer. Why the top two Test sides in the World only get 3 tests, and yet we get 5 meaningless ODI's against the Aussies? Headscratch

(Although I am going to one!)

by Duty281 Tue 22 May - 2:35

JDizzle wrote:That's the biggest, and most baffling, discussion point of the summer. Why the top two Test sides in the World only get 3 tests, and yet we get 5 meaningless ODI's against the Aussies? (Although I am going to one!)

Agreed, if we removed the pointless 5 match ODI series we would have room for another Test against the Saffers. I prefer 4-0 to 3-0 Whistle

by mystiroakey Tue 22 May - 3:13

sirfredperry wrote:Agree about the bowling and the need for the batters to perform against the excellent SA attack.
But consider the facts in this latest Test. In their first innings, Windies were 180 odd for four with Swann going for 14 in one over and the visitors looking to make a competitive total. Then Samuels plays a loose shot and another wicket falls straight away and it's practically innings over.
In the second innings Windies are 61 for four but somehow manage 345. You can't expect SA to throw wickets away and have two catastrophic run outs like the Windies did.

your telling me that we cant expect the saffas to choke occasionally !!! Shocked

by Shelsey93 Tue 22 May - 3:26

JDizzle wrote:That's the biggest, and most baffling, discussion point of the summer. Why the top two Test sides in the World only get 3 tests, and yet we get 5 meaningless ODI's against the Aussies? (Although I am going to one!)

I agree that it is completely baffling...

1. The public prefer Tests.
2. The ECB do well from Tests.
3. SA v Eng has 'Icon' status which was meant to ensure that series should be 5 Tests long.
4. We played 7 ODIs v Aus in 2009, 5 in 2010 and will play another 5 in 2013. And that is just the home series.
5. We already have 8 other ODIs this summer.
6. The Olympics isn't really an excuse, as they don't start until after the Aussie ODIs, and there are plenty of grounds outside of London.
7. The players want a four match series.

The only things in favour of a series v Australia are...

1. England need more ODI practice (don't agree)
2. More grounds get to host international cricket ergo better financially overall
3. The public like ODIs (the stadiums are always full)

by mystiroakey Tue 22 May - 3:44

ODI's are much easier to plan, and you can almost garantee a full house and a pay day- tests get abit complicated considering they can last anywhere between 3-5 days long, planning,budgeting and forecasting gets abit tough.

i personally love test matchs but i understand how difficult they can be to plan and therefore to bump up the tours monetary value better to have 5 odis over 2 more tests

by Sponsored content