BBC HomeExplore the BBC
This page was last updated in October 2007We've left it here for reference.More information
Listen to Radio Five Live Sports Extra - BBC Radio Player

Test Match Special

The blog from the boundary

Stewart at the Test - day 5

  • Alec Stewart - former England captain
  • 21 May 07, 03:05 PM

Alec StewartAfter watching the rain fall here at Lords for most of the day, here is my assessment of the England performances in this match - I have scored players out of 10, with six being a par score.

Andrew Strauss 5
In both innings got starts, but failed to make a meaningful contribution. As a captain did everything that could have been expected considering the injury to Hoggard and never looked flustered. In my opinion his declaration with just three fit frontline bowlers was the safe option, although they should have had five or six overs at the West Indies last night rather than just two.

Alastair Cook 8
Fifth test hunded at the age of just 22 to go with 65 in second innings. Is quickly establishing himself at top of the order. One criticism is that he has failed to get past 127 in his England career. Graham Gooch his mentor will be telling him that "great" players get big hundreds ie 150 plus.

Owais Shah 3
Never looked comfortable in his two short innings with nerves appearing to affect him. I still believe he has what it takes to become an international class batsman and it's rather harsh to just judge him on one Test but it appears Michael Vaughan will replace him for the second game at Headingley.

Kevin Pietersen 8
After a careless shot in the first innings he showed all his style and class with a scintillating 109 in the second to enable Engand to declare and have a chance for victory.

Paul Collingwood 8
The unsung hero of the England team had luck on his side with two dropped catches and a big lbw shout going in his favour. But he was rewarded for his grit and determination in posting another Test hundred, whilst in the second innings played unselfishly in upping the run rate for his team.

Ian Bell 8
Bell's preferred position would be three, but number six has proven to be his most successful. Hardly played a false stroke and looked in total control in posting his fourth hundred in five matches on home soil.

Matt Prior 9
A dream debut, proving the faith shown in him by Peter Moores and the selectors was correct. His batting was of the highest standard whilst his keeping was safe and steady. He now needs to build on the confidence he will have gained to cement his place in the team and keep other keeper batsman candidates at arm's length.

Liam Plunkett 4
With Hoggard's injury there was more responsibility on his shoulders but he failed to produce a consistent bowling performance. Showed glimpses of what he is capable of, but must maintain his line and length for longer periods.

Matthew Hoggard 3
Just 10.1 overs and didn't feature again. Fingers crossed for a speedy recovery as England's bowling needs his control.

Steve Harmison 3
With his very good start to the county season for Durham behind him, I expected to see the Harmison that on his day can be the best bowler in the world. This was certainly not the case as his action and confidence let him down.

Monty Panesar 8
Fully justified his selection on a non-turning wicket as he bowled with great control and variation. Five lbws out of six wickets showed the value of bowling straight.

Finally - I would imagine that the England selectors will make the following changes for Headingley. Michael Vaughan for Owais Shah, James Anderson for Matthew Hoggard with Durham's Graham Onions brought in as bowling cover.

Personally I'd like to have seen Michael Vaughan prove his fitness in a county match and give him the opportunity to find some form as well but I'm sure he'll be straight back into the side.

Post a comment

Please note Name and E-mail are required.

Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this weblog until the author has approved them.

Contact details

Comments

  1. At 05:02 PM on 21 May 2007, Steve Houghton wrote:

    Hi Alec, good posting. Agree with it all but am wondering why oh why??!!! I have watched Steve Harmison this season week in week out perform for Durham. What's gone wrong for England?? Has he lost his bottle? Or is it just down to peopl messing about with his action and 'rhythm' too much. Where has the Harmison that terrified the living daylights out of the West Indies 3 years ago?? We miss him!!

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  2. At 05:02 PM on 21 May 2007, Gary French wrote:

    I think Plunkett should be used in the ODI arena only. We should be bringing in Stuart Broad. We need to introduce players with talent at a young age and give him the whole summer to settle in.

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  3. At 05:02 PM on 21 May 2007, Phil wrote:

    WHY oh WHY cannot we not drop Harmy - how BAD does he have to get? And why is plonker still going to be there in your humble opinion?

    How about Broad? How about my granny!!!

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  4. At 05:10 PM on 21 May 2007, Robbie wrote:

    How long will it be before you nick Boyd Rankin off us Paddy's? He clearly has more class than Harmison as proved in the world cup.

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  5. At 05:12 PM on 21 May 2007, James S wrote:

    Hmm The ratings look pretty fair but it seems like there's no coincidence that the people that Mr Stewart manages not only get a decent score but also a glowing write-up.

    Monty deserved as much credit as Prior for effectively bowling out the Windies on a pudding of a pitch.

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  6. At 05:12 PM on 21 May 2007, Bazu wrote:

    I'd have said 9 was fairer for Monty, personally. Six wickets at 21.5 runs apiece on a track some were saying he shouldn't even be selected for is hardly to be sniffed at, after all.

    Otherwise, I'd largely agree with your scores - and it's encouraging seeing so many of our batsmen scoring 8 or 9!

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  7. At 05:13 PM on 21 May 2007, Jonathan wrote:

    Remember when England write off weaker opposition their is a surprise just around the corner.....

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  8. At 05:15 PM on 21 May 2007, Chris wrote:

    Why is Shah most likely going to be dropped like a shot for Vaughan, who has neither proved form or fitness, when Harmison is likely to be retained for the second test?
    He hasn't bowled well for a VERY long time.. surely a 'all new' attack (assuming Hoggard doesn't recover), with the freedom to express themselves would gain more both for experience, and future back-ups..

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  9. At 05:15 PM on 21 May 2007, Slartibartfast wrote:

    I agree with Alec's ratings.

    I was very disappointed with Plunkett and Harmison as well.
    They were all over the place at times. Harmison's only wicket was very fortunate as well(very average delivery).

    I'm very happy with the batting(all those 100's), but the seam bowling was terrible.
    That's an area that concerns me greatly.

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  10. At 05:16 PM on 21 May 2007, David Bezant wrote:

    I think it would be best to try and bring in decent cover while we twiddle our thumbs and wait for probably the best bowling in English conditions to return to full fitness. How is the mighty Simon Jones doing at the moment?

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  11. At 05:17 PM on 21 May 2007, Chris Diddams wrote:

    I think we declared too early. Alec says that it was the safe option given that we only had 3 bowlers, but presumably Strauss did not know that Hoggard was going to get injured when he declared?!

    In the event we were always going to struggle with Hoggard out, but at the time Strauss made the decision we had 2 men at the crease who had both passed 100, much better to try to get to 650 ish and force the follow on

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  12. At 05:17 PM on 21 May 2007, Surrey2007 wrote:

    agree with most except Monty should have got a 9. Though I am glad you are more positive on him than ur mate Aggers, who would call a 10w match haul "adequate" at best. Aggers - credit where it is due please!

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  13. At 05:24 PM on 21 May 2007, Alan Morris wrote:

    It's extremely annoying, having watched how well Harmison bowled for Durham against Lancashire in a Friend's Provident game to then see him return to his Ashes form. He was up around 95mph in that match, with some excellent control.
    We need Hoggy fit for the next Test. Anderson, Plunkett and Harmison is not a threatening enough seam attack, and we definitely miss Freddie's accuracy.

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  14. At 05:26 PM on 21 May 2007, Derek Thornton wrote:

    I cannot think of any reason why Steve Harmison should play for England again this summer. He needs to sort himself out, and that will take time. Nor should Flintoff be in the side until he has proved his fitness AND match readiness with both bat & ball. Vaughan also, he should not get in until he has prvoed himself ready.

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  15. At 05:27 PM on 21 May 2007, Richard wrote:

    Matt Prior is rated with a near perfect 9 ? He was not England's best player. But he was the only one " mentored " by you....... Any connection ?

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  16. At 05:30 PM on 21 May 2007, Rob Eberstein wrote:

    Alec,

    How refreshing that your scores reflect the actual performances. Too many pundits 'sit on the fence' and give every player a 7 rating, so thanks for your honesty.

    To think that there weren't going to pick Monty. I'm sure Monty has cemented his place in the team for a very long time.

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  17. At 05:31 PM on 21 May 2007, Jeremy wrote:

    quick question for stewart about simon jones and the no.8 spot: in a situation where simon jones were to recover full fitness, is he still the fourth seamer that would automatically get into the side. If yes, dont you think that batting with jones hoggard harmison and panesar as your no.8, 9, 10 & 11 is a weaker batting line up than that of a team who should now be pushing australia to the number one spot in the world? I personally think he should be in there as we saw (briefly in 2005 till injuries hit) that them four can challenge any other fast bowling attack in the world to being the best. My final point is that of harmison and vaughan. Even though vaughan is arguably the best test captain around, i still feel like most other people that his form over the last 3/4 years has been a major worry, although we know he can perform as he has shown. Similaly with Harmison, when do the selectors find the guts to drop either of them to show that noone's position is definite.

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  18. At 05:33 PM on 21 May 2007, Graem Peters wrote:

    Your ratings are close to mine. I had Collingwood on 7 because of the chances he gave and the one he failed to catch. I had Plunkett at 5.
    England were hardly put under pressure in the field but I felt that Cook, Shah and Pietersen looked far from sharp. England fielders should aim to produce the commitment level of Panesar and the skill level of Collingwood.
    I think your guess of the squad for Headingley is about right. I'm wondering if Kabir Ali's bowling form and ability to bat at no8 would be better than Onions. Broad, the better long term prospect, post injury, needs to bowl for Leics.

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  19. At 05:36 PM on 21 May 2007, Paddy Briggs wrote:

    Stewie

    That's about right. Harmison has not earned thr right to selction for Leeds. I'd go for Onions for Harmison + Anderson to replace Hoggy. Let Vaughan get some runs for Yorkshire before he's picked - but they won't do that I suppose! I'd replace Shah with Ramps not Vaughan.

    Paddy

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  20. At 05:37 PM on 21 May 2007, Steven wrote:

    Harmison was world beating on bowler friendly tracks in the West Indies, and has offered little (unless your the batsmen) since. We should use the rest of the summer against weaker opposition to bring on some new bowlers, the likes of Charlie Shreck (Notts), Stuart Broad just for starters

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  21. At 05:38 PM on 21 May 2007, Geoff wrote:

    Hmm... Matt Prior 9, but Monty only 8. Methinks Alec represents one of these players.

    On the whole agree though, I think Stuart Broad has a chance of featuring in this series if he recovers from injury - but the seem bowling has been dreadful.

    This isn't a new problem... we failed to take 20 wickets in any of the ashes matches... and even if it hadn't rained today I think we would have failed again. We need wicket takes in the team, good old fashioned players who you can throw the ball to and tell them to take you a wicket... at the moment you wouldn't throw SH the ball and ask him to HIT the wicket.

    It's a big problem - look around the county scores and there really aren't any English players making inroads on a regular basis.

    Batting wise there does seem to be a vast improvement. I'm especially happy with KP as the happy go lucky batsman with Cook, Collymore and Bell all to provide more sedate support. At this moment in time though I have big doubts about Strauss - he surely must be feeling the pressure.

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  22. At 05:38 PM on 21 May 2007, Huw Davies wrote:

    A bit harsh giving Strauss a 5 after that largely positive assessment, surely?

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  23. At 05:41 PM on 21 May 2007, Paresh Soni - BBC Sport wrote:

    Gary and Phil - Stuart Broad has a knee injury so great prospect that he is, it's probably not the best time to bring him in!

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  24. At 05:46 PM on 21 May 2007, Steve Jones wrote:

    I think the bowling attack line up for 2nd Test should be:-

    Panesar
    Anderson
    Onions
    Plunkett

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  25. At 05:48 PM on 21 May 2007, Ed wrote:

    Going back to the "Culinary XI", how about Monty Pancake and Alec Stewpot?

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  26. At 05:52 PM on 21 May 2007, Alex wrote:

    "A bit harsh giving Strauss a 5 after that largely positive assessment, surely?"

    He said his captaincy was fine - that's worth a par 6 - and his batting was disappointing - worth a 4 or 5. So, combining the two, a 5 is probably a fair enough score.

    I can see why Prior was scored higher than Monty - in a side with five hundreds, his still stood out as the best, and that's quite an achievement... especially on debut. Monty bowled very well, as we've come to expect from him, but I think the pacemen made him look good tbh.

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  27. At 05:54 PM on 21 May 2007, Dave Carter wrote:

    I agree with 9 for Monty apart from that with Alec Stewart. Is the fast-bowling cupboard really bare?? With Jones and Hoggard not fit, Anderson and Mahmood having shown themselves less reliable than Plunkett, and Harmison with technical and mental flaws there is little left. Broad, Tremlett, Onions are untried If a couple of these don't come up with the goods, its Darren Gough, Dom Cork and Jimmy Ormond.

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  28. At 05:54 PM on 21 May 2007, Chris B wrote:

    where are all the people who were saying that england made a good choice with the rigbt balance of bowlers and batsmen?

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  29. At 05:56 PM on 21 May 2007, Steve wrote:

    Too many players like Harmison, Vaughan, Strauss (and possibly Flintoff) get into the side on reputation alone. The new regime needs to make it clear that current form is needed to keep your place. Now, in the next Test, the two weak links in the batting line-up are going to be Strauss and Vaughan, the vice-captain and captain respectively.

    I would love to see Harmison dropped, but who is there to replace him with? Mahmood, Anderson??

    Well done to the century-makers (especially Matt Prior) but I'm not too optimistic about the selection for the Headingley test. The same tired, misfiring attack (apart from Monty) being led by players who don't merit selection on current form.

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  30. At 06:07 PM on 21 May 2007, Jake wrote:

    how can you rate hoggard 3... i know he only bowled 10 overs and you give him a reting the same as harmison's, that's not fair, gie him a 5.

    James Anderson and Sajid Mhmood are England's two worst bowlers but you have to bring Anderson in because of Hoggard.

    Broad has not proved himself in the 4 day game how can you put him in Test Match.

    And seeing as the county chamiponship is the worst domestic league in any cricketing nation how can you even consider putting him as back up.

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  31. At 06:09 PM on 21 May 2007, Pete wrote:

    Is a certain Mr Lewis unavailable for selection also?

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  32. At 06:09 PM on 21 May 2007, PAT FENELON wrote:

    I would rather have Dave Langford-Smith than Harmison. The selectors really have to stop being so nice and get angry. get rid of underperformers and make them work there way back into the team. My side for the second test is as follows:

    Cook
    Strauss
    Vaughan
    Pieterson
    Collingwood
    Bell
    Prior
    Onions
    Anderson
    Plunkett
    Panesar

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  33. At 06:11 PM on 21 May 2007, englandbill40 wrote:

    Word to the wise Alec. Monty scores 10 regardless as he is monty revered by both myself and Mr Dirs. Please dont force us Monty enforcers to set you straight in person.... Nuff said.

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  34. At 06:22 PM on 21 May 2007, Dave K wrote:

    If we are going with a 4 man bowling attack, at Headingly (or anywhere for that matter) the three seamers all need to be both accurate and wicket taking threats whilst the spinner contains and picks up what he can at the other end.

    Imo, our ideal attack would be Jones, Hoggard, Flintoff and Panesar if all were fit to do a full days work in the field. Unfortunatelt, three of them aren't and the other options don't look that inspiring.

    For a start, I don't see Plunkett as this type of bowler. Just about an adequate first change for a county side with no trophy pretentions and in no way a test level strike bowler.

    Onions may be an option but a first class bowling average of 35 doesn't auger well for stepping up to the next level. Whilst he probably performs on the seamer friendly Chester-le-Street wicket, he didn't look like much in the CC match at Hove last year, which was about the time he was being touted for an England call of some sort.

    Harmi gets found out too often but until Jones is fit I guess he is one of our better options, purely on the basis that he has done the job on occasion, albeit rarely.

    Other than that, you could throw lots of names agaist the wall and see which ones stick, but they all look rather similar in the end and not that frighening te a test level batting lineup.

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  35. At 06:23 PM on 21 May 2007, Nomi wrote:

    Shah wasn't given a fair chance. He knew whatever he did he would be dropped for Vaughn. With such a blade hanging over your head, no batsman can perform at a firstclass level, let alone at test match level. He should be given a fair and consistent run before he is judged.

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  36. At 06:23 PM on 21 May 2007, Alex wrote:

    "Too many players like Harmison... get into the side on reputation alone."

    The problem is that Harmison was bowling really well for Durham just before the match. He was rated the best player on the county circuit (counting foreigners), and was performing week in and week out. Take that *together* with his pedigree, and there was really no way England could leave him out.

    I suspect that, much like the England supporters, Harmy might just expect the worst by now whenever he takes to the field for his country - regardless of what kind of form he's in. It can't help that his backers are expecting him to be the 'best bowler in the world' - I don't think those comments are helping him.

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  37. At 06:27 PM on 21 May 2007, Phil wrote:

    "Gary and Phil - Stuart Broad has a knee injury so great prospect that he is, it's probably not the best time to bring him in!"

    .... ummm, why not? Because his name isn't Vaughn?

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  38. At 06:29 PM on 21 May 2007, Kanna wrote:

    I believe the England Team for the next match should be:-

    Strauss
    Cook
    Vaughan (c)
    Pietersen
    Collingwood
    Bell
    Prior
    Plunkett
    Harmison
    Anderson
    Panesar


    Ideal Team is

    Strauss
    Cook
    Vaughan (c)
    Pietersen
    Collingwood
    Bell
    Prior
    Flintoff
    Harmison
    Anderson
    Panesar

    Tresco on standby with kabir ali and onions

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  39. At 06:29 PM on 21 May 2007, Richard wrote:

    Matt Prior is rated with a near perfect 9 ? He was not England's best player. But he was the only one " mentored " by you....... Any connection ?

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  40. At 06:30 PM on 21 May 2007, Nomi wrote:

    Shah wasn't given a fair chance. He knew whatever he did he would be dropped for Vaughn. With such a blade hanging over your head, no batsman can perform at a firstclass level, let alone at test match level. He should be given a fair and consistent run before he is judged.

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  41. At 06:39 PM on 21 May 2007, Pete wrote:

    Is a certain Mr Lewis unavailable for selection also?

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  42. At 06:41 PM on 21 May 2007, ed clarke wrote:

    Alec, i think u are spot on with the ratings especially about Prior , Panesr and the horrible bowling by the 2 qucikies. I hope people dont now expect miracles from porr Cook and Prior..the Eng [press always looks for a hero and then puts way too much pressuer on the youngstesr. Thankfully the way the Eng quickies bowled has now given the Windies guys a chane to see the ball a bit more in Eng conditions in the middle and gain some confidence for the remaining tests. Re Panesar...a good bowler but still learning the spin trade///thankfully he hasn't learnt to loop the ball a bit more yet to let it spin some more...i.e speaking as a Windies fan...I hope all the Eng press that have written off the fellas from Windies realize that this series is between 2 only fair test teams...Eng is really not a very good test team at this time, and Windies is just a poor one, so please be honest....and will be no walkover for England...it is clear how much Eng depends on Freddie...hopefully Windies can also show that they can do well without BCLara..I believe we will seea good series and I think Chris Gayle and Sarwan will perform very well this series and lead the way for the younger fellas.

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  43. At 06:45 PM on 21 May 2007, ed clarke wrote:

    Alec, i think u are spot on with the ratings especially about Prior , Panesr and the horrible bowling by the 2 qucikies. I hope people dont now expect miracles from porr Cook and Prior..the Eng [press always looks for a hero and then puts way too much pressuer on the youngstesr. Thankfully the way the Eng quickies bowled has now given the Windies guys a chane to see the ball a bit more in Eng conditions in the middle and gain some confidence for the remaining tests. Re Panesar...a good bowler but still learning the spin trade///thankfully he hasn't learnt to loop the ball a bit more yet to let it spin some more...i.e speaking as a Windies fan...I hope all the Eng press that have written off the fellas from Windies realize that this series is between 2 only fair test teams...Eng is really not a very good test team at this time, and Windies is just a poor one, so please be honest....and will be no walkover for England...it is clear how much Eng depends on Freddie...hopefully Windies can also show that they can do well without BCLara..I believe we will seea good series and I think Chris Gayle and Sarwan will perform very well this series and lead the way for the younger fellas.

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  44. At 06:45 PM on 21 May 2007, Bill wrote:

    A bit harsh on Matthew Hoggard. Breaking down with an injury does not justify giving him a 3. That is just ridiculous.

    And very generous to Plunkett and Harmison, both of whom were almost totally ineffective, Harmison especially. Only one can stay for Headingley, and I think Plunkett may be the best option going forward. Harmison has completely lost the plot, and should be discarded. Sure, he is capable of great things with ball in hand but how long do we have to wait for it to happen again?

    I wouldn't be at all disappointed to see both Durham softies given the boot, but unfortunately the are not enough English bowlers ready to make the step up from county cricket. James Anderson and Kabir Ali to come in for Headingley.

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  45. At 06:47 PM on 21 May 2007, yatesman123 wrote:

    all correct alec!

    i have a question, is there anyone who can come into the bowling attack that can just bowl consistently, not taking a huge amount of wickets but restricting the run rate?

    i dont no much of onions, but it seems like a desperate attempt to restore a larger bowling line up.

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  46. At 06:49 PM on 21 May 2007, tinker wrote:

    Are the english ever going to give up that line about harmison being on his day the best quick in the world?

    face it his record against top teams like australia and south africa is terrible(61 and 43)

    he bashed the minnows and a very weak west indies in 2004 it was an anomaly.

    he has had about 5 full seasons of test cricket and has only averaged under 30 with the ball in 2004 when he had a weak west indies twice and the kiwis at home.

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  47. At 06:50 PM on 21 May 2007, jason crompton wrote:

    what about playing jon lewis at headingly, without flintoff and hoggard we need at least one accurate bowler there

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  48. At 06:51 PM on 21 May 2007, ed clarke wrote:

    Alec, i think u are spot on with the ratings especially about Prior , Panesr and the horrible bowling by the 2 qucikies. I hope people dont now expect miracles from porr Cook and Prior..the Eng [press always looks for a hero and then puts way too much pressuer on the youngstesr. Thankfully the way the Eng quickies bowled has now given the Windies guys a chane to see the ball a bit more in Eng conditions in the middle and gain some confidence for the remaining tests. Re Panesar...a good bowler but still learning the spin trade///thankfully he hasn't learnt to loop the ball a bit more yet to let it spin some more...i.e speaking as a Windies fan...I hope all the Eng press that have written off the fellas from Windies realize that this series is between 2 only fair test teams...Eng is really not a very good test team at this time, and Windies is just a poor one, so please be honest....and will be no walkover for England...it is clear how much Eng depends on Freddie...hopefully Windies can also show that they can do well without BCLara..I believe we will seea good series and I think Chris Gayle and Sarwan will perform very well this series and lead the way for the younger fellas.

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  49. At 06:55 PM on 21 May 2007, James wrote:

    No, Phil, that would be because he's injured... The inability to run would hamper his bowling, one fears. And the inclusion of Vaughan is on the fairly safe assumption that he's fit again.

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  50. At 06:56 PM on 21 May 2007, JoeySomething wrote:

    To everyone who reckons Strauss isn't good enough to play Test cricket, I managed to glance at his record in Test cricket to date. He's made nearly 3,000 runs in 36 tests, including 8 hundreds at 43.09. That gives him a better average all of our regular batsmen of the 90's, bar Graham Thorpe. He scored two hundreds in the Ashes victory...and now he's having a poor run of form, for the first time since he came into the side, and now everyone's calling for his head? Have a little faith! Consider this as well; if we drop Strauss in favour of Vaughan, we're dropping a captain out of form in favour of a captain with dodgy knees and what can only be described as unsubstantiated form.

    Agree in some cases that players are playing on reputation, but here's the big question: who can England bring in who have the potential to cause as much damage as Harmison? I can't think of anyone that will leave Chris Gayle in slight disarray - only Harmison. The point is, that when these players play, they really play. You could bring in Onions, but I don't think he'll make the same impact.

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  51. At 07:01 PM on 21 May 2007, James wrote:

    No, Phil, that would be because he's injured... The inability to run would hamper his bowling, one fears. And the inclusion of Vaughan is on the fairly safe assumption that he's fit again.

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  52. At 07:04 PM on 21 May 2007, adam watkinson wrote:

    Strauss 4
    Cook 7
    Shah 1
    KP 9
    Collingwood 9 MOM
    Ian Bell 8
    Prior 8
    Plunkett 4
    Hoggard 4
    Harmison 5
    Panesar 9

    Overall performance: England 7 WI 5

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  53. At 07:05 PM on 21 May 2007, Simon wrote:

    Hey Stewie, you were very generous with the marks you gave the players you manage!!!!!! 5 for Strauss and only 8 for Monty, you are having a laugh. I think the BBC needs to find an impartial pundit!!

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  54. At 07:05 PM on 21 May 2007, James wrote:

    Phil- Broad could be called Walsh or Ambrose, it's the knee injury that's stopping him. I'm struggling to see where the bowling attack for the next test is going to come from- the likes of Anderson, Plunkett and Mahmood have, the odd good performance aside, struggled thus far in tests, Harmison is evidently not performing at this level, despite his Durham performances, and guys like Onions and Shreck, whilst performing well, surely don't fill you with the confidence that the likes of Hoggard, Harmison and Jones did during the Ashes, or the '04 Windies tour. That said, when Harmison first came on the international scene he was rubbish too, so I suppose these guys have to start somewhere. How old are Onions, Shreck and the others touted on here (excluding Broad, obv)?

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  55. At 07:12 PM on 21 May 2007, Theodogdinho wrote:

    Strauss should only get a 4. He would have known by 5pm yesterday that rain was forecast for today so he should have declared when Pietersen and Prior got out.

    Don't mind Prior getting 9 on debut, otherwise 8 would be adequate. He should be expected to make hundreds as often as the top 6.

    Hoggard ought to get 5. You can't mark someone down 2 points for getting injured.

    Harmison deserves his 3. Haven't seen today's play, but he's probably bordering on 2!

    Panesar should definitely get 9. On a pitch that didn't take much turn he bowled with accuracy and control and fully deserved his 6fer. The ball that dismissed Chanderpaul fizzed. Let's hope Vaughan shows as much confidence in him as Strauss did and doesn't relegate him to the last-resort status that he's had under Vaughan before.

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  56. At 07:17 PM on 21 May 2007, Scottishwolf II wrote:

    For all those ranting and raving about Broad - he is injured at present so hence is not going to get a game. That would be the key reason as to why he is not figuring at the moment.

    Odd about Harmison - he had looked very good for Durham. Fingers crossed he can come again, as the selectors must be wondering if he is near the end of his England road.

    As to Vaughn coming back in. Shah failed so will likely be dropped for the captain being fit again. Vaughn was scoring runs in county cricket until about a week ago when he got injured for those complaining about him not doing it at county level.

    Finally, as to Strauss as skipper - well for me, bowling a Harmison who was falling away in his bowling action down the slope didn't seem like a great move. That allied to putting Bell in ahead of Prior yesterday when England needed very quick runs was also a poor piece of captaincy. Without Vaughn we seem to lack any imagination and just do what is expected/traditional. For me Strauss missed a number of tricks and think he needs to go back to the drawing board as skipper.

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  57. At 07:17 PM on 21 May 2007, Dave K wrote:

    The rankings are about right. Cook and Monty maybe a bit more to put them ahead of the other 8s but fair enough.

    as for teh next test, if, as we probably should, we are going with a 4 man bowling attack at Headingly the three seamers all need to be wicket taking threats, preferably with some idea of accuracy too, whilst Monty contains and picks up what he can at the other end.

    Imo, our ideal attack would be Jones, Hoggard, Flintoff and Panesar if all were fit to do a full days work in the field. Unfortunately, three of them aren't and the other options don't look that inspiring.

    For a start, I don't see Plunkett as this type of bowler. Just about an adequate first change for a county side with no trophy pretentions and in no way a test level strike bowler.

    Onions may be an option but a first class bowling average of 35 doesn't auger well for stepping up to the next level. Whilst he probably performs on the seamer friendly Chester-le-Street wicket, he didn't look like much in the CC match at Hove last year, which was about the time he was being touted for an England call of some sort.

    Harmi gets found out too often but until Jones is fit I guess he is one of our better options, purely on the basis that he has done the job on occasion, albeit rarely.

    Other than that, you could throw lots of names agaist the wall and see which ones stick, but they all look rather similar in the end and not that frighening to a test level batting lineup.

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  58. At 07:24 PM on 21 May 2007, Bill wrote:

    A bit harsh on Matthew Hoggard. Breaking down with an injury does not justify giving him a 3. That is just ridiculous.

    And very generous to Plunkett and Harmison, both of whom were almost totally ineffective, Harmison especially. Only one can stay for Headingley, and I think Plunkett may be the best option going forward. Harmison has completely lost the plot, and should be discarded. Sure, he is capable of great things with ball in hand but how long do we have to wait for it to happen again?

    I wouldn't be at all disappointed to see both Durham softies given the boot, but unfortunately the are not enough English bowlers ready to make the step up from county cricket. James Anderson and Kabir Ali to come in for Headingley.

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  59. At 07:37 PM on 21 May 2007, lloyd wrote:

    Ratings about right.

    Regarding selections for next test, Vaughan shouldn't be selected until he's back getting runs in the county game. It's ridiculous, everyone bar the selectors seem to think so, he seems to be undroppable. I wonder how bad he needs to play to not be selected in the ODIs, as no doubt he'll not have played many before that team is announced too.

    With Hoggy injured, it looks like Harmison is guaranteed selection too. Instead he should have everything to prove.

    Flintoff shouldn't be recalled unless he's fit to bowl, and I don't think he will be as he'd didn't bowl for Lancs yesterday.

    Hopefully S Jones will recover his fitness and form because the bowling is starting to look weak to, even in comparison to the unprepared W Indies.

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  60. At 07:42 PM on 21 May 2007, jb wrote:

    i feel our batting is doing very well and we will not need to worry about that against the indies as there bowling is not like it used to be, however, we will not win this series with bowling which has been seen in the poor display in the first test. i think harmison should stay in for the next test, bring in anderson for hoggard and if any change should occur other than that i do feel that plunkett should go out not harmison. harmy will change and i feel he will turn it on in the next test. plunkett is still young and needs to pick up a few more wickets in the county game. COME ON HARMY

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  61. At 07:51 PM on 21 May 2007, seb wrote:

    First Monty deserves at least 9 out of 10, Shah should be droppes for Vaughan and we should look at onions 2 replace hoggard.
    Prior may have started well but i think you should keep an eye on S Davies, who has shown awsom potential for a youngster.
    Rashid definatly shoows potenial for the future, however he needs 2 mature, remeber Schofield. Thats why Broad and Rashid should not included too early.

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  62. At 08:05 PM on 21 May 2007, Toby wrote:

    For goodness sake! Anyone who supports English cricket will know that Harmison has the capability to completely demolish a side. Alec got it quite right saying that he is low in confidence. We need as supporters to get behind him and not constantly bloody slate him. He can and will be the best bowler in the world.
    COME ON HARMY!!!

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  63. At 08:09 PM on 21 May 2007, Toby wrote:

    For goodness sake! Anyone who supports English cricket will know that Harmison has the capability to completely demolish a side. Alec got it quite right saying that he is low in confidence. We need as supporters to get behind him and not constantly bloody slate him. He can and will be the best bowler in the world.
    COME ON HARMY!!!

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  64. At 08:16 PM on 21 May 2007, Rob Whittle wrote:

    Alexx

    Excellent posting. I like the analysis and summary which I agree with

    + point for England. Their general batting with High Averages bar Shah, and average Strauss Performance.

    + Priors Batting and Keeping. He deserves a 4 match run

    + Monty 6 wickets on an unhelpful wicket. Fielding good.

    + Cooke coming back with 2 good opening innings

    + Bell, KP, Colly batting nicely

    Big neg -- England seam and pace attack. Rubbish kipper stuff from Plunks, Harm and crooked Hoggy. This area needs looking at and I'm concerned at the lack is consistent wicket taking balls and metronomic line and length. Too many wides, longhops, short stuff and leg/pad fodder. Terrible.

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  65. At 08:31 PM on 21 May 2007, Rob Whittle wrote:

    Alex

    I do like you 0 to 10 scoring, as like soccer it sorts the wheat from the chaff.

    We need all 11 players performing not just 8. In this match two Durham quicks really let the side down.

    Plunkett 3-4 (3 wickets in 1st innings), Harmy (1 jammy wicket) 3 Injured Hoggy 4-5.

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  66. At 08:33 PM on 21 May 2007, George B wrote:

    Not really interested in the ratings particularly, but all I'd say on them is this:
    Prior was superb in the first innings and deserved his AS rating. To achieve that in your first innings of your first test is a remarkable achievement.

    As for Hoggard, yes it was unfortunate he got injured, but what did he achieve beforehand? Not a lot - and hadn't looked like taking a wicket. I presume AS's marks are based on achievement: and he achieved nothing.

    As for Harmison, he was abysmal. His first 2 deliveries in the second innings showed that his head is still in Brisbane and his bottle has gone. He should be jettisoned immediately. He hasn't bowled well for absolutely ages and it's time for someone else to be given a chance.

    I dunno: these northern softies with their injuries (Hoggard and Flintoff) and bottle-merchant Harmison - about time we had some good southern steel in the side.

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  67. At 08:36 PM on 21 May 2007, Alex Rushforth wrote:

    Freddie Flintoff

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  68. At 08:51 PM on 21 May 2007, Richard Morton wrote:

    So, you would keep Liam Plunkett in the side. He was a bit of a spray gun again for me, surely the best way of gettin wickets is bowling in the right places or building pressure, not gifting runs with needless wides.

    I'm not sure how far from fitness Simon Jones is, but surely there are other options to try in the bowling department?

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  69. At 08:52 PM on 21 May 2007, Paddy Pang wrote:

    It's been evident for a couple of years now that Harmison is the most over rated bowler in the world. His inclusion in England teams is based solely on repuatation, and neither form, or current ability.

    It seems the only evidence that the Harmison backers use to to defend their man is how he terrorised the Windies back in 2004. Yet this was over 3 years ago, on bolwer friendly pitchers, against a terrible side.

    England need their premier pace bolwer back: Simon Jones.

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  70. At 08:57 PM on 21 May 2007, Leon Francis wrote:

    Kevin Peterson deserves a 9 rating and. Shah a 2.

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  71. At 09:03 PM on 21 May 2007, yannis tjanetis wrote:

    Totally agree with AS on this; I am concerned however that Vaughan will be brought back in...is he fit??? is he on form? I may be in the minority here but I would select Shah for the next Test as well - let's give the lad a REAL chance and see what he can do.....

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  72. At 09:10 PM on 21 May 2007, George wrote:

    I agree with Alec's rating but would probably have given Harmison 2!! I think its time the selectors did their job and had a look at the county sides. Onions, Broad etc! But this will never happen with David Graveney there the man should have gone with Fletcher, but instead will milk his job for the next century!

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  73. At 09:16 PM on 21 May 2007, Scottishwolf II wrote:

    Lloyd,

    You say Harmison and Vaughn need to prove it in county cricket.

    Before this match Harmison has 24 wickets at 14.37 in the county championship. Second only to Murali in the averages - but Murali has only taken 6 wickets...Sounds like Harmi should be in the side, and had nothing to prove?

    Vaughn (in just the one match) hit 88 runs, with a 72 and a 16 retired hurt. So again his form seemed pretty good in that match, or should we deny ourselves our best skipper and a decent batsman to allow Shah to continue to worry his way into an early grave at no 3?

    So my question is - are these valid stats that show these players are in form and should be in the side, or are these just stats and we should go on who the classy players are for the England side? Either way - both of them deserve to play this series - lets reassess at the end of it. Taking 190 wickets and our best skipper out of the equation is a serious thing to consider doing to the side.

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  74. At 09:16 PM on 21 May 2007, Brit in Holland wrote:

    Overall, I suppose I agree. Maybe a 9 for Monty, considering the circumstances (i.e. the quicks not being able to force a breakthrough, little help from the pitch, etc.)

    As for selection for Headingley: Harmison is simply the bes we have at the moment. Alright, his average is over 30, but so is this chap Onions'. My ideal line up remains the one we had for the Ashes 2005, replacing Giles with Monty. I believe the four seamers feed off each other. i just hope that the injuries are relieved soon, and we can see a full attack: Flintoff, S. Jones, Hoggard, Harmison and Panesar! Until then, I haven't got a clue, as I don't rate Anderson, Plunkett, Tremlett, Onions, or anyone else (most notably, I think Mahmood should never be called up again).

    So: why drop Harmison now, if there's no-one better to take his place?

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  75. At 09:18 PM on 21 May 2007, Patrick Harvey wrote:

    How can you suggest picking a fast bowler who has no idea where his next delivery is going and failed to take a main-line batsman's wicket in 28 overs , send Harmison back to his county, and pick an up and coming fast bowler. Picking a player who is so underperforming will continue to fester the belief that his place is guaranteed and that results do not matter -as has happened since our ashes win. Making all the players accountable for their selection will be the first step in rebuilding a winning side

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  76. At 09:25 PM on 21 May 2007, Jeffrey Francis wrote:

    5 lbws in an innings is a bit suspicious and very rare since cricket began as a game. The one against Ganga was a mistake for sure.

    Umpire Rauf is trying to create a watershed moment for modern umpiring. He should not be the star of the game. Let the players play. Call the lbws for both teams. Collingwood received an early Christmas gift.

    Panesar is an over-zealous appealer. I am surprised that the match refrees have not said anything. Monty is at Australian Levels right now without his antics.

    Pietersen made a wonderful, mature and responsible century. It was the best of the England centuries by far.

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  77. At 09:37 PM on 21 May 2007, Louis Gardiner wrote:

    Message for Steve Houghton. Harmison plays badly for England, because it is England, in all sports, a good club player does badly for the national team: Frank Lampard, Steven Gerrardish, Harmy, etc. the list goes on.

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  78. At 09:41 PM on 21 May 2007, Paul Jebb wrote:

    All the good work Steve Harmison achieved under Troy Cooley seems to have gone. His grip of the ball is all wrong. and he is leaning to the left on delivery, hence the amount of stray bad balls down the leg side. Is their someone in the England set up who can take him to one side and go back to the basics with his action, run up, delivery and follow through? England need a reliable Harmison not a medioaca Harmison.

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  79. At 09:47 PM on 21 May 2007, Doctor Nick wrote:

    I'm glad to see Colly get an extended run in the Test side. He has the grit that some of his colleagues lack, scores valuable runs and his fielding remains exemplary. Vaughan's body is too unreliable and he does not merit a place in the side currently. Prior did well but so did Frank Hayes on debut so don't get carried away - let's just say good start, keep it going. Conversely, Owais Shah is a good bat and deserves a second chance. Let's remember how easily the selectors dispensed with Gooch first time round... Looking forward to when Tresco's back (class act) but hope he gets fully recovered from his distress first. The seam bowling is where things need fixing. Hoggy's a big miss. Anderson is the sensible replacement for him. Fred needs to get his body and attitude back in shape so he should sit things out for a while and score some serious runs for Lancashire (or face eventually returning at 8). Plunkett is still a good prospect and deserves faith, especially as alternatives are currently limited by injury. Harmy's form for Durham this season has been good, but he looked well out-of-sorts at Lord's - he should be sent away for a few weeks of serious practice and recalibration. Bresnan may be worth thinking about for his home turf, and Onions is another possible. Meanwhile, let's look forward to a day (and a pitch) when we can try out Rashid and the increasingly impressive Monty as a spin double act...

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  80. At 09:53 PM on 21 May 2007, Scottishwolf II wrote:

    >Jeffrey Francis wrote: Pietersen made a wonderful, mature and responsible century. It was the best of the England centuries by far.

    Hmm - my view the one that secured the draw we needed in the Ashes 2005 is the best

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  81. At 09:56 PM on 21 May 2007, Scottishwolf II wrote:

    >Jeffrey Francis wrote: Pietersen made a wonderful, mature and responsible century. It was the best of the England centuries by far.

    Hmm - my view the one that secured the draw we needed in the Ashes 2005 is the best

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  82. At 10:07 PM on 21 May 2007, Tom wrote:

    Giving Matthew Hoggard just 3 out of 10 is hugely unfair - he didn't have chance to shine in the test so why should be slated like that?
    Other than that the ratings are fair...

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  83. At 10:28 PM on 21 May 2007, Vicky wrote:

    I believe I heard Mr Stewart say on R5 that he is Prior's business manager.

    Funny how his client gets the best grading and a glowing review. Should he not have made this conflict clear?

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  84. At 11:06 PM on 21 May 2007, Anthony wrote:

    Agreed, although if Flintoff comes back at Headingley I'd like to see him bat at 7 (where he belongs, frankly). He thinks it's the other way round, but he's clearly a bowling all-rounder who bats a bit. Panesar, Anderson, Harmison, Flintoff - not a bad bunch, really. If Moores took the plunge and dropped Plunket for Flintoff we'd be a stronger side.

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  85. At 11:21 PM on 21 May 2007, James Yandell wrote:

    On the whole a good summary of the 4 and a bit days of cricket. Looks like a tough spot for the selectors and I have to say I am not a massive fan of this 'let's get vaughan back asap' mentality that is going on. I think it is sending a message to Andrew Strauss and any other FEC (Future England Captain's) that says: 'Thanks for that Straussy (or whoever it may be) but we're gonna go back to Vaughan who hasn't played cricket in a month. Strauss, in my opinion, has not put a foot wrong in the 4 or 5 (?) test matches that he has been captain and his batting at the top of the order is solid and he is capable of scoring big. I think as there is no problem with the current batting set up why change it? Let Vaughan go back to Yorkshire and score a few runs and then bring him back in once he's proved he can score runs and can last 4 days of cricket. Owais Shah, unsurprisingly, looked like a rabbit caught in headlights. He knew he had two chances to prove himself and hasn't made the most of it. Give him a run while vaughan proves his fitness and ability and see what the guy is made of.
    With the exception of Monty the bowling was dire and that is the one area of major concern, Harmison is spyradic at best, Plunkett is the same and losing Hoggard was a blow. Who's in for the next test?
    No matter how many runs you score, your never going to win a test match without taking 20 wickets and Engalnd didn't look like achieving that at Lord's.

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  86. At 11:30 PM on 21 May 2007, Nathan Deutscher wrote:

    I agree with almost all Alex's comments, except why do Shah and Harmy desreve 3 marks for do nothing and surely Monty deserves a 9 or 10 after his lenghty spell with several plum lbw's turned down.

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  87. At 11:40 PM on 21 May 2007, Chris Baxter wrote:

    Hi Alec
    I agree ith your ratings althoug maybe a 9 for monty he did well considering he had little support at the other end! I think everyone is being a bit harsh on harmy true he had a bad ashes series and continued that form this test but did nobody see him for durham? 95 mph with good accurarcy name another bowler that can do that in England? I think he should be given a least one more test to prove what he can do!

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  88. At 12:35 AM on 22 May 2007, Dougie wrote:

    Dear Vicky,

    "I believe I heard Mr Stewart say on R5 that he is Prior's business manager.
    Funny how his client gets the best grading and a glowing review. Should he not have made this conflict clear?"

    If Alec has discussed his business relationship with Prior on national radio (and also on this blog), then I think he's made it pretty clear. Don't you?

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  89. At 01:03 AM on 22 May 2007, mike Horton wrote:

    I think that Alec Stewart is over generous in his high assessment of the England batsmen. England should have upped their run rate substantially against the W.I. poor fielding and mediocre bowling. England's 1st innings run rate of 3.89 should have risen dramatically on the 2nd day. This run rate was only slightly above the W.I. 1st innings run rate of 3.76. Further, England's run rate in their 2nd innings should have risen above their posted rate of 4.27 given their commanding 1st innings lead. If the England batsmen had been more venturesome, maybe an earlier declaration would have been possible, with an England win more likely given the inclement weather on the final day.

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  90. At 01:03 AM on 22 May 2007, Gerald wrote:

    Nathan Deutscher is wrong if he reackons Monty needs a ten, of course he only scored 2 runs last night.

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  91. At 01:05 AM on 22 May 2007, Graham N wrote:

    It is interesting to note how much better the England batters performed in this test compared to the bowlers. This may well be as a result of Peter Moores' decision to engage Andy Flowers as the new batting coach. To have 4 centurions in the first innings was an outstanding achievement. However, apart from Panaser's 6 wickets, the rest of the bowling was substandard and left a lot to be desired. It would appear that Moores should now think of dispensing with the services of Kevin Shine and bring in a bowling coach with a proven track record at international level if England are to make a sustained impact throughout the rest of the series and beyond.

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  92. At 02:04 AM on 22 May 2007, Gordon "Tapas" Oreo wrote:

    I agree with Gerald, Nathan did only score 2 runs last night and his bowling was ordinary to say the least, and he missed a easy catch off bart's bowling behind the stumps.

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  93. At 02:16 AM on 22 May 2007, Peter wrote:

    Can't ever argue with Alec, always the voice of reason! What we would give for another A.Stewart in the England team!!

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  94. At 04:28 AM on 22 May 2007, bart wrote:

    Tapas is right nathan bowled like harmy but slower

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  95. At 04:44 AM on 22 May 2007, Lloyd wrote:

    As a captain i felt let down by some of the umpiring decisions yesterday

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  96. At 04:51 AM on 22 May 2007, Magic wrote:

    I think major changes are required before the next match Monday night

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  97. At 06:06 AM on 22 May 2007, Dion Nash wrote:

    Well assuming Freddie and Vaughan will be back for the next test and maybe Hoggard will not be fit, my team would be as follows:
    Cook
    Strauss
    Vaughan
    Pietersen
    Collingwood
    Bell
    Flintoff
    Prior
    Broad
    Harmison
    Panesar
    Well Harmison and Strauss will be the ones who will need to perform for me. If not will replace them with Hoggard and Trescothick if fit. Also with Prior doing so well in the first test and with Freddie back in the team, we can now afford to play an extra bowler in place of a batsman. So Straussie better regain his form with the bat.

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  98. At 06:28 AM on 22 May 2007, dipanker wrote:

    hi Alec,thank You for supporting Prior.i personally believe that you always put yourself for the best of the English team,aparting yourself from all personal opinion or interest.i think england played really good without their regular captain,and without their key player like freddie.i think you rightly suggested for the selectors to drop Plunket and Shah for the second test.we want a desecent as well as aggressive cricket from this english team throughout the series.

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  99. At 06:47 AM on 22 May 2007, Deutch wrote:

    I agree with magic, changes should be considered, i think Shane will fit back in nicely and improve the fielding of the team, with tapas and Bart seriously falling short in that department, and young Luke will add some stability behind the stumps

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  100. At 06:54 AM on 22 May 2007, shane wrote:

    Maybe wholesale changes are required with the inclusion of Kegs,Blackie and Hayes, one win from nine isnt that great

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  101. At 07:09 AM on 22 May 2007, Neil wrote:

    I would not have given Strauss a 5, his captaincy was poor, if anything he declared too early we should have got past 600 and tried to make sure we only bat once

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  102. At 07:11 AM on 22 May 2007, Dan wrote:

    Deutsch, Shane and magic make some points well worth considering. But at the end of the day decisions have to be made and who will be dropped from the side?Do you go on form or loyalty?To compete with the best you need play the best

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  103. At 07:20 AM on 22 May 2007, Butters wrote:

    Changes are needed but maybe the Melton League is to hard for woodesket, and they should consider a move to the Sunbury league

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  104. At 07:35 AM on 22 May 2007, Ayden wrote:

    Dear Alec,

    Just how good do you think Alistair Cook is he looks a batsman of the future and looks to have a big career ahead of him?

    From Ayden

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  105. At 07:40 AM on 22 May 2007, Tim Sims wrote:

    Jeffrey (no.76) - there's nothing suspicious about 5 LBWs if they're all out, and they all looked very out to me. As most other commentators have said, good on Rauf for doing what most umpires haven't wanted to do and treat spinners the same as pacemen when it comes to LBW. If (say) Hoggard gets the ball to straighten and hits the batsman dead in front, it's out every time. Why not Monty? Agree that Collingwood should have been given though.

    And what's wrong with his appealing? He wasn't appealing knowing that the batsman was not out, he wasn't charging at the umpire and he wasn't continuing to appeal after a not out decision had been given. The guy's commendably enthusiastic - what do you expect? "Excuse me, Mr Umpire sir, but how's that? Out? Oh, jolly good."

    Overall I'd give Monty at least a 9. He had to fill the gap left by Hoggard and look to take wickets rather than contain - a very big ask for a finger-spinner on an early-season pitch. 6 wickets, all for bowling straight and accurately, says it all.

    Also just on Prior - I was hugely sceptical before the game. As a former keeper I thought his glovework was poor and his batting no more than a bit useful. He's proved me very wrong on both counts - no catches to take but stopping the rubbish Harmy sent down the leg side was really impressive. At least 9, again.

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  106. At 07:59 AM on 22 May 2007, Kevin Poynor wrote:

    Forget Vaughan and Flintoff. Let's have Anderson and Onions in to provide a strong bowling attack for the second test.

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  107. At 08:39 AM on 22 May 2007, nasur wrote:

    Good stuff, Stewy. Looking at the way Trescothick and Harmison consistently break up on the big stage, one wonders if the gap between County and Test cricket is just too big.

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  108. At 08:41 AM on 22 May 2007, Rich wrote:

    One criticism of Cook is that he has failed to get past 127 in his England career."

    Really Stewart, that's just abit egotistical; getting over a 100 is good enough.

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  109. At 09:10 AM on 22 May 2007, Leeabe wrote:

    Please could the media get off Harmison's back?All he needs is support not criticism.It is a pity if they destroy such a delightful bowler.

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  110. At 09:14 AM on 22 May 2007, Simon Thornley wrote:

    Hi Alec I pretty much agree but two points:I think it is time to say goodbye to Vaughan. He has been a great captain for England but now casts too long a shadow, and I cannot see him achieving full, sustained fitness. Strauss will, I believe, flourish once he knows the job is his without any caveats. Secondly, despite being a Lancs. supporter I don't think Anderson is currently right (by the way he is another example of poor man management by England...) Given the current state of the Windies, isn't this a perfect opportunity to bring in someone like Broad? We must learn to bring on new players early!

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  111. At 09:21 AM on 22 May 2007, lehlohonolo wrote:

    Steve Harmison is a good bowler, but whether his got what it takes to be a the best bowler in the world is debatable. I've been looking at him since that tour of SA in 2004-2005 and he did not look like a bowler that could trouble the South Africans and from then on I believe his confidence and form dipped drastically. I'm South African and I think he's got all the attributes of a good bowler, he's tall, bowls at a reasonable speed and if he gets his line and length could be a handful. The only problem for him is that the are plenty of other young up and coming bowlers around the world who are better bowlers, if he wants to reclaim his no. 1 bowler position then he is going to have to work really hard.

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  112. At 09:33 AM on 22 May 2007, Trevor Ledger wrote:

    All of the above and everything that has been said over the last two years needs to refocus and look at what is possible against what is probable.

    For instance our best bowler is, without doubt, Simon Jones. If possible he should be playing at number nine and winning us matches. BUT, it is probable that he will not feature all that much in test cricket ever again so we need to identify a long term replacement for him - someone like Broad or maybe Onions or even Shreck - (Big, green and mean...)

    It is possible that Harmison will rediscover his form but in two years he hasn't managed it so it is probable that he won't - another long term replacement needed.

    It is possible that Flintoff will mature into a batsman that can function at number six in a test team but it is probable that he will never be good enough to bat higher than eight - so we either need a batting all-rounder or we need to play with three seamers and use Collingwood and Pietersen as a fifth bowler this giving us space for another batsman.

    Possibly/Probably Trescothick but at the expense of whom?

    It is clear that we need to build confidence but as Harmison is so nervous, Hoggard injured and Plunkett looking dodgy could we not use a series against an inexperienced Windies to try out new bowlers on pitches that are likely to be more friendly? Certainly better than blooding them overseas.

    Just to add another note - what about Rashid of Yorkshire - a batsman that bowl Leg Breaks - having interviewed the groundsman at Headingley and seen results over the past few years this is not an out and out seamers track any more - Monty got in them last time and Rashid plays there all the time - two spinners maybe? But then we would definitely need Flintoff... Possibly/probably...

    SO right now why not play:

    Vaughan
    Cook
    Strauss
    Pietersen
    Collingwood
    Bell
    Prior
    Onions
    Broad
    Plunkett
    Panesar

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  113. At 09:39 AM on 22 May 2007, keith yeulett wrote:

    surely not vaughn who has done nothing for as long as i can rember this is a test match not a social outing

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  114. At 09:52 AM on 22 May 2007, Toby Prince-Iles wrote:

    Hi Alec you were a brilliant wicket keeper batsmen but i think we have found your replacement. Matt prior is something special with the bat and gloves and he proved that in this test match he should have made his England debut a while ago his is fantastic

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  115. At 09:55 AM on 22 May 2007, Jeff Warren wrote:

    Matthew Hoggards's injury and Owais Shah's nerves, saves the selectors from making the desicion of which century making batsman/men to drop to accomodate the inevitable return of Flintoff & Vaughan. Shah will make way for Vaughan (who's worth to English Cricket is his Mike Brearley-esque captaining ability) and Flintoff can replace Hoggard purely as a frontline bowler. He may also be able to contribute with the Bat, relieved of the direct pressure of being expected to make runs. I would bat Vaughan at 3 in the order and Flintoff at 8

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  116. At 09:58 AM on 22 May 2007, Neville SixSmith wrote:

    I don't think Michael Vaughan should waltz back into the side!!!
    Vaughan needs some cricket under his belt, let him play for his county both one day and county championship. He needs to get his touch back, but until such time let's not rush him back and risk another injury.
    Andrew Strauss has done a fine job each time he has been given the responsibility.
    Yes, I agree the bowling attack does need reviewing, but let's not shake things up too much and risk unsettling the side.
    Oh Monty Monty, Super Monty Super Monty Panesar.

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  117. At 09:58 AM on 22 May 2007, Trevor Ledger wrote:

    except of course that Broad is injured so stick shreck in there and send Harmison back to DUrham for a season - it will do him no end of good and we do need him at his best...

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  118. At 10:07 AM on 22 May 2007, Peter wrote:

    Harmison was asked by Nasser on Sky if he wanted the first ball of the day and his response was I'm not bothered really, that says enough, until he can be bothered lets find someone else. Any fast bowler in the country should be pawing at the ground like an angry bull to get at the batsmen, what Aussie would have responded to that question in that way?

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  119. At 10:21 AM on 22 May 2007, Rich wrote:

    I'd agree with most of those. Seems pretty fair, although 3 for Hoggy is possibly a tad harsh. Shah and Harmison got the same mark as they didn't do what they were there to do, but Hoggard did his job and was unlucky to suffer an injury.

    With the talk of Flintoff being selected for the next game, I wouldn't be surprised to see him replace Hoggy if he can prove his ankle is up to bowling again. Anderson, although good, has been a little too erratic to be in a Test team at the moment, although if he's being edged into the side this may be the series to do it. Get him in there and established before the next Ashes in 2 years time so we don't have to throw a debutant or inexperienced bowler into the frame against the best batsemn in the world.

    I'll be watching to see who Moores names, but he needs to get Harmison firing again (why did we get rid of Cooley? Harmy's gone steadily downhill since his departure) and hopefully Vaughan can pick up some runs. Let's hope for 5 rain-free days later this week...

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  120. At 10:35 AM on 22 May 2007, Sean wrote:

    Wasn't there myself, but from friends who were at Lord's every day, I've heard a fair bit of disquiet about the quality of Prior's keeping, which appears to have been largely ignored on the back of lots of (justified) century-related excitement.

    Whilst it's great to have a keeper scoring runs, his primary duty is to take any chances that come along - whilst I would back Prior being given a chance at Test level and hope he gets lots of runs this summer, we need to be careful not to get too excited about what he offers.

    The damage caused by dropping the likes of Tendulkar in single figures and then watching them go on to get a big tonne will not be balanced out by an average of 25-30 at number seven/eight.

    Also agree that Alec's 9 rating might appear to be a little coloured by his relationship with Prior, but everyone knows this now and I'd expect him to be honest if he has a good or bad game - you wouldn't expect, for example, CMJ not to report on any five-fers or pastings that his son gets for Sussex.

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  121. At 10:40 AM on 22 May 2007, Peter Tennant wrote:

    I agree with the scores, except maybe for Hoggard. The bowlers were a real disappointment, but what's even MORE disappointing is that rather than explaining this, people just seem to be shrugging their shoulders and talking about the great 'mystery' of Harmison.

    Why has no-one else noticed the DIRECT relationship between the performance of our bowlers and the appointment of bowling coach Kevin Shine? Since he took over from Troy Cooley, the bowling average of ALL our bowlers have gone up...

    Harmison has been bowling ferociously for Durham, but a few days with the 'advice' of Mr Shine, and suddenly he's a mess... Come on England, get a proper coach in there, not someone who's NEVER played at test level!!!

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  122. At 10:41 AM on 22 May 2007, Jerry wrote:

    Alec, agree with what you said, but the selectors must be in a quandary about who to drop if flintoff is fit. Luckily for Vaughany Shah failed so he comes back in at three. Then does flintoff replace a batsmen, but which one. The only other candidate would be Strauss, but that would be unfair.

    I suggest if Flintoff is 100% fit to bowl he replaces Plunkett and bats at 7, giving the batting line up a long tail and the same bowling options as in the first test.

    If he isn't 100% to bowl, then really he shouldn't play.

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  123. At 10:43 AM on 22 May 2007, Matt Dobs wrote:

    I don't think allister cook's importance at the top of the order can be highlighted enough. He is rapidly becoming the most important batsman in the test side, he's exactly what you want from an opening batsman. I've not managed to actually watch much of the cricket (no sky) but does he ever really ride his luck and look like getting out? doesn't seem to from radio/online comentary. and only 22! got another 13 years in him!

    another thing, bit harsh giving hoggy a 3. Surely just an N/A is more appropriate as he only bowled 10 overs in one innings! bit like giving a footballer who came on in the 90th minute a rating!

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  124. At 10:52 AM on 22 May 2007, Garth wrote:

    when are we going to be able to bowl AND bat well in the same match? i remember over the last few years it was our bowling attack that was winning us matches (i.e. hoggard, jones, harmison, flintoff, giles) particularly in the ashes 2005. now our bowling has gone to pot (except panesar) and it's our batsmen who are stepping up to the plate!!! frustrating!

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  125. At 11:05 AM on 22 May 2007, steve wrote:

    maybe we should drop harmeson for flintoff if hes fit to bowl at headingly..

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  126. At 11:26 AM on 22 May 2007, Jezza wrote:

    Bring back Caddick!!!!

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  127. At 11:32 AM on 22 May 2007, Mr Popodopolous wrote:

    As for the posters who mentioned Lewis. Well, there are a couple of flaws:
    1) He's injured
    2) He got injured after playing through the pain barrier for England, and considering he is Gloucestershire's main wicket taker, we don't want injuries to him again.

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  128. At 11:55 AM on 22 May 2007, Stu wrote:

    Argh, how many times are people going to keep arguing that Broad should be selected for the next test match.

    As Paresh Soni has already pointed out, Broad is out at the minute with a knee injury, so he cannot play, even if he was selected. That isnt due to bias or favouritism, but biology, he cannot play with a knee injury, especially when he is a fast bowler.

    Overall I totally agree with your ratings Alec, yes Monty's bowling was very impressive, but the pressure was really on Prior coming into the game, and to bat like he did in the first innings showed enormous character, and his keeping was decent. He deserved the rating he got, and it was not due to any bias as some seem to be suggesting.

    Hoggards score was about right, yes he did nothing wrong in his overs, but he didnt really look like getting a wicket, he was accurate but not really firing, so how can he get a higher mark.

    Really not sure what it is with Harmison but his confidence seems to be shot at the minute, and you can see it in his bowling. he was doing really well for Durham, but as soon as he bowled a couple of poor deliveries for England, he seemed to give up. Maybe give Onions a go, if Harmy doesnt regain form in the next test, or else it could be fatal for his England career.

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  129. At 12:15 PM on 22 May 2007, jay wrote:

    Hi Alec

    I agree with most but think after Steve Harmison he should be left to get on with county cricket for a few more weeks. How can any body say that he could be the best in the world on his current England form he has no right to even be the 13th man let alone in the 11. Vaughan give him credit he won us the Ashes back in 2005 but since then what has he done?

    Alan Donald.....get him in some one of his experiance would be great for our bowlers who ever let Troy leave should follow. Our bowlers won us the ashes and what do we do lose him down under.

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  130. At 12:18 PM on 22 May 2007, sufferingfan wrote:

    Surely Harmison has shot his bolt. All the Windies batsmen have to do is let the odd length one go and clobber the rest.
    Panesar deserves at least a 9, and why on earth did Shah bat at 3 instaed of Bell. He could have batted at 6 and settled his nerves a bit. Right now he doesn't look a test class bat.

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  131. At 01:32 PM on 22 May 2007, Andrew Seear wrote:

    Likely team for the Second Test -

    Cook
    Strauss
    Vaughan (c)
    Pieterson
    Collingwood
    Bell
    Prior (wk)
    Anderson
    Harmison
    Plunkett
    Panesar

    Its very hard for me to understand Marcus Trescothick saying hes 'not ready' to play for England when hes performing so well for Somerset. Surely its the ultimate playing for your country!

    Harmison should be dropped, told to go away and regain his form. Same for Freddy. His batting form has been so disappointing recently, and he can't current bowl!

    I wish I could say the same for Vaughn and Strauss, but I fail to see who else can replace them.

    You could argue Shah was unlucky, but then 5 other players scored hundreds for England when he didn't threaten double figures.

    Therefore the Team I would to see at Headingly is -

    Cook
    Trescothick
    Vaughan (c)
    Bell
    Pieterson
    Collingwood
    Prior (wk)
    Anderson
    Onions (or someone else in form)
    Plunkett
    Panesar

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  132. At 02:02 PM on 22 May 2007, Bec wrote:

    I know Harmison was bowling well for Durham but it would seem that the minute he puts on an England shirt discipline, control and mental strength goes straight (well down to 3rd slip rather than straight) out the window .

    I also thought it was unfair that Hoggard got 3 when he only bowled 10.1 overs.

    One final thing - Thank goodness for Monty P!

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  133. At 02:05 PM on 22 May 2007, grouchmonkey wrote:

    I disagree with a lot of this, as it is just based on going with the results on the day, and not how comfortable the players looked doing the job.

    There is danger of overrating Prior - when he came in, the bowling was pretty ragged thanks to the exellent efforts of Cook et al and a lot of his shots showed suspect technique. Not saying he hasn't got talent, just that he would have had a harder time against the likes of McGrath/Warne/Tait and isn't the finished article yet.

    Strauss did declare too early, but not in the second innings - the first. 553 sounds like a lot but if we had piled on another 150 WI would not have been able to avoid the follow on so we let them back in the match - the "Adelaide mistake"

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  134. At 02:21 PM on 22 May 2007, jayyy wrote:

    i think the england team shud b.......


    rampakash
    butcher
    hick
    lara
    trueman
    stewart
    russell
    mahmood
    lee
    akhtar
    owais shah (as a leg spinner)

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  135. At 03:09 PM on 22 May 2007, Abdulhamid Ismail wrote:

    I think Vaughan must go back to basics and play for Yorkshire before being an automatic choice for England - What are the selectors afraid of ?

    Abdulhamid Ismail.

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  136. At 03:13 PM on 22 May 2007, PaulQ wrote:

    Good calls but how the bloody hell do you get a 10 bowl and keep wicket at the same time

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  137. At 03:16 PM on 22 May 2007, Rob wrote:

    bring in rashid!!!!!!

    he is doin great for yorkshire and he is pretty gd with the bat!!!

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  138. At 04:34 PM on 22 May 2007, Paul Atkins wrote:

    Alec I have rated your blog as a 3, only. You seem to have only introduced the one contentious issue........ie feathering your own nest by backing your mates with high scores

    Let's go for some minuses Harmy is a minus 3 for sure.

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  139. At 06:05 PM on 22 May 2007, SUNIL wrote:

    I THINK MICHEAL VAGN. LOOKS LIKE HE BACAME
    MAIN PERSON OF ENGLAND CRICKET. ACTUALLY HE SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM CAPTAINCY. ENGLAND AWATING FOR HE JUST WANT TO FIT HE WILL BACK. NOTHING REQUIRED HIM TO COME BACK IN TEAM. JUST FIT. NO PERFORMANCE,NO FIT NO PROBLEM. I DONT UNDERSTAND WHAT IS VAGHAN HE IS NOT IN FORM. HIS AVERAGE LIKE NORMAL BATSMAN.HE DONT HAVE EVEN CENTURY IN ONE DAY CRICKET.
    I THING THEIR SO MANY PLAYERS WAITING TO TAKE HIS PLACE. IF BORAD DECIDED ANY WAY HE WANT IN TEAM THEN DIFFERENT THING.

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  140. At 11:02 PM on 22 May 2007, Derek Gill wrote:

    Broad injured, Lewis injured, Jones on come back, Freddie a gamble, Vaughan a gamble, Tremlett freezes, Plunkett and Harmison hopeless, Mahmood expensive, Anderson ok ish, Ryan Sidebottom?????? English fast bowling strength in depth I think not!!!

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  141. At 11:09 PM on 22 May 2007, Derek Gill wrote:

    Broad injured, Lewis injured,Hoggard injured, Jones on come back, Freddie a gamble, Vaughan a gamble, Tremlett freezes, Plunkett and Harmison hopeless, Mahmood expensive, Anderson ok ish, Ryan Sidebottom?????? English fast bowling strength in depth I think not!!!

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  142. At 11:52 AM on 23 May 2007, John Morse wrote:

    Stewart rates all the bowlers less than 4 with the exception of Panesar. Prior makes batting at test level look a doddle.

    Answer the wicket.

    This was not a test quality wicket.
    It looked like Adelaide again.

    To be safe England should have got at least 700
    in the first innings. To keep the game alive they
    declared with a 400 lead and in my opion would have lost on this wicket.

    What a noise you could of made about Harmison if we had lost. Do not worry he can bowl.

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  143. At 02:34 PM on 23 May 2007, iain Erskine wrote:

    I see Bray (Ireland) hit 146 without a boundary
    is this a record? Iain

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  144. At 05:56 PM on 23 May 2007, Chris wrote:

    Great column Alec - just few thoughts:

    Firstly, I agree with you re Michael Vaughan. No disputing he is a good captain of the England side, but his batting is not up to scratch at the moment, so like you say he should prove himself at county level, get some scores under his belt before he comes back in to the England team. But this leaves the question of the captaincy. I personally don't rate Strauss - or whoever is advising him - and think he lacks the imagination and tactical nouse of a good captain. So what about giving Paul Collingwood a go?

    Secondly, with our lack of in form or fit seam bowlers at the moment, do you see anyone coming up through the ranks? Our batting looked great at Lords but without Freddie and Hoggard our bowling looked worse than average - apart from the wonderful Monty of course.

    And, finally, if Freddie is passed fit for the 2nd test, but only as a batsman, surely he shouldn't play? He is England's top bowler when on form, but his batting hasn't been great of late. To leave out one of the five centurions to make way for him would surely be crazy.

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details
  145. At 04:33 PM on 24 May 2007, Des Johnston wrote:

    Vaughn's last inernational score was 70 odd against the West Indies in the World cup. he lasted every match he played in. he's fit, hungry, and good for runs. i seem to recall these endless debates over Gower. In both cases, they are class.

    All this worry over 8,9,10 and 11. For years, the Aussies have had 6 batsmen, their keeper, their spinner and 3 fast bowlers. McGrath and Clark were poor batsmen in the ashes and Brett lee used to be a poor batsman before getting his act together. Let's look at our ideal top 8:
    Strauss or Trescothick
    Cook
    Vaughn
    Pieterson
    Collingwood
    Bell
    Flintoff
    Prior

    All can bat very well. With these 8, surely we can hide 3 others?

    Complain about this post
    Post a complaint

    Please note Name and E-mail are required.

    Contact details

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites



About the BBC | Help | Terms of Use | Privacy & Cookies Policy