btb

I am. Not pander to but entertain - fine definition! When I see phrases like spirit of the game being applied to professional sport I cringe.

I'll let Tony Cozier put the case for West Indies. Is it up to the home side to pander to the opposition support? I got as much joy from West Indies holding out at St. Johns & PoS as I did from Saints holding out for 1-0 victories against both halves of the OF.

Well I have to say that once we got the formality of England's First Innings out of the way it was a cracking Test. The fragility of West Indies batting meant that the game was never safe (although it probably would have been had Gayle not pulled his hamstring) and West Indies decision to go in with just three frontline bowlers nearly backfired. Over the series England were clearly the stronger side and it must be worrying that they couldn't take their chances in the St. Johns & PoS Tests. Odd that in a series where the bat dominated (17 centuries in the 4 Tests) the crucial spell was the hour after lunch on Day 4 of the First Test when England collapsed. Hard to see where West Indies go from here - they do not have enough players of the standard required to win more than the occasional Test, maybe winning this series will lead to a resurgance in the game although it's just as likely the Stanford fiasco will keep West Indies cricket in the doldrums. As for England - plenty of runs (when the going was good) but unable to take 20 wickets in any of the 4 matches. I foresee a long hard summer against the Aussies............

YEEEEESSSSSSS!

Fear West Indies will get what we deserve for such a negative team selection - the extra batsman Simmons got 32 runs and the lack of a fourth bowler allowed England cheap runs in the Second Innings, to concede at over 6 an over in Test Match conditions is very poor. For all those who criticised the pitch - it's not turned out to be a tame draw after all. Bad light is my hope, that close to the equator it gets dark quickly. Edit - See Panesar was find 25% of his match fee for excessive appealing!

The referral system was meant to reverse a decision only when the on-field umpire was clearly wrong - no "well it close so we'll give the batsman the benefit of the doubt". ********************************* As fot the pitches - I know they've been too easy for the batsmen but given West Indies situation it's quite understandable. Given the fragility of the Windies batting I'd say even the last two tests have had their moments when a result could have been on if England had a stronger attack.

Yeah - my apologies, you called the pitch correctly on Day 1. The Australia vs SA Test is a much better game it's just a shame West Indies are my side. Looking forward to the Ashes - I doubt if England will be as inept in the summer but the Aussies are looking a lot stronger playing fully fit bowlers and with Hughes opening in place of Hayden.

West Indies 349/4 - they avoid the follow on! 10 wickets in three days, if Gayle wasn't injured I'd say a draw was inevitable.

England 546/6d (158.5 ov) Around one hour for England to try & make some inroads to the West Indies - we'll have a good idea by the end of play today how the match is likely to finish and just how benign the pitch is. ****************************************** West Indies 33/0 (8.0 ov) Heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeere's Amjad! Starts with 2 no balls. ******************************************* Stumps - Day 2 West Indies 92/1 If West Indies can get through the first hour without losing a major batsman then I think England will find it hard to win this Test.

Stumps - Day 1 England 258/2 (90.0 ov) With Nash, Gayle & Hinds bowling 53 overs it was quite a feat to bowl only 90. Initiative firmly with England.

A bit premature - not even Lunch on Day 1. Remember it's Powell & Baker bowling not Patterson & Bishop.

The difference is England were going from 5 front line bowlers to 4, not 4 to 3. West Indies might not need to win this match - but three front line bowlers! Nash, a man who's bowled less than 90 overs (and taken just 7 wickets) in first class cricket on in the 20th over. There's only so many times you can get away with giving away the initiative and I fear Port of Spain might be less of a featherbed than the last two pitches. It looks like they've (the West Indies) have gone to all out defence before lunch on the first day. Gayle on at the other end!

Very weak bowling line-up for West Indies! Unlucky for Bopara, but probably the right selection with England chasing a win.

Four bowlers seems to be the buzz coming from the England camp. Port of Spain is generally regarded as a fast bowlers pitch and England don't have 4 fit seamers/fast bowlers! Interesting to note that in 2004 England's bowling line-up (in a 7 wicket victory) was Hoggard, Harmison, Flintoff, Giles & Jones. Giles ended up with match figures of 10-1-49-0. Cricinfo suggest the following West Indies line-up I'd be tempted to keep Powell and drop Benn - Gayle could handle the spinner's duties if required. Normally get a positive (from one PoV) result at this ground so providing the weather stays fair I'm looking forward to a 2-0 series win for the Windies!

One more would do just fine! *********************************** SA vs Australia was a great Test - the Aussies coming back from a poor start in the First Innings to win.

In a situation like the current Windies v England series you'd expect the team in the lead to play conservatively. Take the 2005 Ashes at 2-1 up England replaced the injured Simon Jones with Collingwood and played conservatively asking Australia to do the work if they wanted to square the series. Test 1763 It's up to England to make a game of it. I'd expect West Indies to drop Hinds - 48 runs with a highest score of 27 and an average of 16 is........ well Bellish. Powell should go too, although his batting form may save him!

I disagree you say "It's not surprising that seam bowlers have ropey averages in India" but offer no explanation why it should be only India - I've been following England tours abroad since Illingworth's team won The Ashes in 70/71 and English bowlers who do well in the sort of countries I mentioned, like John Snow on that tour, are the exception and not the rule. I think the England attack without Flintoff & Harmison was never likely to take 20 wickets - everyone knew this before the game so why get your knickers in a twist now. Look at the West Indies attack - 4 front line bowlers & only one with an average under 35 - it makes England's collapse at Sabina Park even more mystifying. Again I'm sorry to sound like Old Father Time but it's always been that way in the subcontinent. Look at this series a result in the First, one ball away from a result in the Second/Third and a tame draw in the Fourth and to be honest I hope & expect a tame pitch for the Fifth as West Indies go for a Series win. Well the current West Indies attack hasn't done it too often in the recent past (although you're the one who pointed out with better fielding they may just have done so), the one England just put out was very, very unlikely to outside of Engand (or NZ ). No I'm not implying that the West Indies have a vastly superior attack but they did take their one genuine chance - which has got to be worrying for England especially if Australia have reached their nadir and are on the way back up. It was an exceptional pitch in terms of this series as I've explained above. To an extent I agree with you but too often on a "result pitch" the determining factor is winning the toss - which IMO really takes the excitement out of the game. Let's compromise, if England square the series I'll start a campaign to have a Sixth and deciding Test played at Fir Park!

Bad news indeed.

How can you compare the abandoned Test with the Barbados one where a West Indies victory was a distinct possibility at the begining of Day 5 even if a couple of declarations had been required to get to this position?

For A,B&S I should have been more specific and said hot countries - if you take New Zealand out of the equation you'll see the difference. For Anderson in Australia Av 82.60 in England Av 29.80 in India Av 29.30 in New Zealand Av 35.37 in South Africa Av 74.50 in Sri Lanka Av 126.00 in West Indies Av 49.60 For Broad in England Av 46.46 in India Av 67.00 in New Zealand Av 31.25 in Sri Lanka Av 95.00 in West Indies Av 32.33 For Sidebottom in England Av 26.04 in New Zealand Av 17.08 in Sri Lanka Av 63.60 in West Indies Av 181 That was a poor England attack everybody knew this before the game yet somehow the fact they lived up to their dismal "hot country" form is being used for pet theories about "result" pitches. You say you don't think many teams would have taken 20 wickets on this pitch yet in your previous post you said if the Windies had held onto their catches they could have bowled England out for less than 300.

I'll take your points in reverse order. Exactly! Trent Bridge, Old Trafford, Headingly. Anderson, Broad & Sidebottom (What a name for a Prog Supetrgroup B) ) are the sort of English bowlers who regularly get knocked all over the shop when playing overseas. Slating the pitch is the easy option.

Disagree - what sort of pitch would this England attack (or The Windies for that mater) have got 20 wickets on?

End of over 11 (17 runs) - England 50/0 Benn on - hard to see anything other than Strauss & Cook boosting their averages. Going into the last Test 1-0 up!

Follow on avoided - currently 413/5 ************************************ Sarwan 200 no ************************************ 128th over and Collingwood is brought on - Windies just need to sit tight until lunch & a draw will be the most likely outcome! ************************************ Lunch - Day 4 England 600/6d West Indies 483/5 (138.0 ov) West Indies trail by 117 runs with 5 wickets remaining in the 1st innings

The thinking behind the referral systym was to give the on- field Umpire the benefit of the doubt - so although the Smith decision was close the TV Umpire was correct to stick with the original decision, Chanderpaul was even more unlucky (apparently the TV Umpire didn't have access to Hawkeye) but Nash was different as the referral was made by England and by the same logic unless he was clearly and undeniably out the original decision should have stood.