I think the winners today were the West Indies, cricket and Stuart Broad
Eng v WI -
Firstly, I think the better team won (as the parlance goes), in that if you bat poorly first-up and have a collapse in 2nd innings, as England have track records of doing, then you shouldn’t expect the state of the pitch to come to your rescue on D4/5. Credit to the groundsman that the wicket didn’t play very many tricks on D5 and make batting a lottery as has happened of late at other English Test venues. A dry slow-ish surface blunting pace bowlers also meant an often scarred ball, with a limited capability to shine this in current playing conditions. I wonder how much this blunted JA’s performance.
Unquestionably, this WI team has talent. Extracting it has always been the challenge.
Ed Smith (England’s Chief Selector) did a piece for Sky, wherein he rabbited on about the great level of competition for places in the team. The problem is quality not quantity though.
Pete,
I’d like to say ‘never in doubt’ noting, it seems, we gave Blackwood 3 lives
Great to have cricket back and to have an interesting match. I thought both teams played unexpectedly well given the circumstances and not having played competitive cricket for ages. It’s good to see a resurgent WI team - they batted with much more discipline than I expected.
Yep, it was a good call (yours that is). I would have backed England.
Great credit to all to get Test cricket up and running in these times, and produce an excellent match.
Broad may well return but the truth is that England won the toss, batted, and scored only 204. Throughout the Windies looked better prepared and played smarter cricket with both bat and ball. Felt a bit sorry Blackwood did not get his century but he played very well when it looked in the balance yesterday.
Stokes will be pleased to see Root back I think. I suspect Wood will be dropped for Broad, watching him bowl makes me wonder how he can remain uninjured for two matches in a row. Denly surely played his last game. Foakes for Buttler for me too.
Long live Test Cricket!
My team for OT (agreeing with @BruceW I think) :
Burns
Sibley
Crawley
Root
Stokes
Pope
Foakes
Leach/Bess - better Leach (i/a) given WI are a team of right-handers (bar 1).
Broad
Archer
Anderson
As well as Wood bowled, he only got 2 wickets and one of those was the Gabriel freebie. Stokes got 4 in first innings and, arguably, was under-used in the 2nd (perhaps ‘Captain’s syndrome’). Pure pace, which appears Wood’s primary weapon, isn’t enough at this level.
I’d probably persevere with Bess as he did well enough, and can bat too but otherwise spot on. Shame Bess is not left arm!
Bruce
Anderson and Wood rested, Sam Curran and uncapped fast bowler Ollie Robinson in, Broad is also back with Root for Denly
Pleased with Curran in, assuming he plays, and he might just help Bess with a bit of rough outside the Rt handers off stump. Maybe having Broad and Anderson together is going to he a rarity now, which I guess is fine if replacements are being groomed.
Bit murky weather tomorrow but should be OK for a fair bit of play and then looks OK at moment for the rest of the match
Bruce
Now Archer dropped from the squad for breaching bio-security protocols.
So pick three of Woakes, Curran, Broad and Robinson (about whom I know nothing). Hmm.
Do you think Archer has lived up to the hype. I didn’t watch all of the first test but he gives me the impression his fragile and inconsistent. He certainly has the ability.
It’s a bit early to say, but his results are pretty impressive so far. 8 Tests, 33 wickets at 28 with a strike rate in the mid-50s. Some spells he looks innocuous, others he does look devastating, and he does deliver well. I think his fitness will be the key, can he perform across a full Test summer or will he burn out after a few matches? His action looks like it’s not putting huge pressure on his body, so hopefully he won’t suffer from regular breakdowns.
Most good fast bowlers do end up with serious injuries. I’m looking forward to him touring here where the wickets generally favour the fast bowlers.
I think we forget how young and inexperienced he is. If his body can hold up, and he can add control and skills for when the wicket is not so favourable I think he will have a great career.
Pete,
He’s already had/got back issues, which leads me to think his career lies in the limited overs sphere. He’s also been over-bowled at times when playing for England. Unquestionably, his game isn’t just about pace, as he moves the ball too. He just needs a helpful wicket, which the one at Southampton wasn’t.
The Sky commentary team were discussing the differing body types of fast bowlers during the last match and highlighted how much stress goes through the left leg joints, especially the ankles - Mark Wood’s pictures don’t look pretty on the eye, in the way his ankle contorts!
I’m not sure whether there is more strain on fast bowlers nowadays (overs and games) when compared to the days of the county circuit in England. I think ODIs/other limited overs games and T20s add to workloads but, on the contrary, I wonder if these effectively substitute for a much reduced county season. I may well see if I can find some data.
I remember seeing Dennis Lillee doing his rehab - very informing and, at the same time, concerning as to the stress he put his body through, all this before all the sport science analysts came in to vogue. Anderson also had to modify his action following some stress fractures to his spine.
Windies win toss and bowl. Not an easy decision? Been a damp week in Manchester and looks like a bowling morning but generally a good batting wicket and can spin a fair bit in the final innings.
Bruce
Well that was a waste of a review it looked plum from 12000ks away.
Yup. Just as I was about to moan about this daft habit of ‘one over of spin before lunch’ Burns misses a straight one. Bah!
Windies bit wayward otherwise and pitch looks bit slow.
Early nerves … I suppose
Is Dom Sibley the Chris Tavare equivalent within this team?
And that’s meant as a compliment, in that this team needs a limpet player when the score is 29-2.