Sorry Notts, Sidebottom must take much of the blame for his own figures. Yes, the batsmen know more of what they are getting from him, but by all accounts it seems his length has been poor today. I don't know what to say about Harmison, but unless he bowls impeccably for a sustained period in this match at some point I think he will be dropped and replaced by Anderson.

Don't apologise Colly. He's as capable of bowling poorly as the next man, I suppose. We come to expect him to bowl tidily as he does it so often so it is a surprise when he doesn't.

Law 17 meant that harmison shouldnt' have bowled for the first half an our at least.

http://www.lords.org/laws-and-spirit...eld,43,AR.html

And so Chris Gayle cant have been out, can he!

__________________
I have a dream.... (Martin Luther King)

From Cricinfo

http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/engvw...ry/297322.html

Harmison got Ganga, Richard.

Plunkett got Gayle.

Because England have not improved in the bowling department, in fact they have got worse.

You can only measure a peformance - against another performance.

So with England bowling worse than in Australia - the question is why? - Harmison in particular is batting at HOME, had a good start playing for his county, so I think the comparason with Australia is more than valid.

__________________
Ern

Yes Ern but perhaps I am missing something here. Correct me if I am wrong but this attack is not the first choice attack. It is an attack filled with replacements. Surely if Hoggy and Flintoff were fit we would have the exact same attack as last ashes wouldnt we. That is why I say your comment is irrelevant. If England dropped some of the bowlers to "try" to strengthen the bowling, then your argument is valid. At the current time, comparing the 2nd rate bowlers to the regulars just makes no sense to me.

While you are at it Ern why dont we compare this WI attack to the one with Holding, Roberts and Marshall. Its a bit silly aint it, since these guys cannot be selected just like Freddy and hoggy. England have no choice but to pick these bowlers.

__________________
434, world record for the shortest period. Whos choking now?

Absolutely GF.. There is no point saying the bowling has gone backwards, when it is a different bowling attack due to injury, with the two most consistent performers not there!!

I doubt we would be as wayward as this if Flintoff and Hoggard were there. But Ern has never been one to think logically about things (especially if you talk about Bell v Key, Vaughan as skipper, or Flintoff v anyone you can name!!)

Big collapse, means the West Indies are all out for 229. Panesar takes 4 wickets, and now has 50 wickets in 16 Tests..

Strauss gone already. There must be big question marks about his place again.

This is MY point, the England attack in Australia did have Flintoff and Hoggard, but it also had Plunkett and Anderson - England EVEN with Flintoff and Hoggard where poor, but to even that up - Australia are a much stronger team than the West Indies, so a comparason is fair.

Again you don't get that the attack now has three survivers from the Ashes, the land of Roberts et al is a different generation, not less than 12 months.

And even if Flintoff or Hoggard had played, the rest still would have bowled rubbish (Sidebottom would not have been in the team), except for Panesar.

If you think that Harmison and Plunkett have bowled well, and that England have bowled well as a unit - then you are very easy to please.

This Test thus far must rank as one of the worst ever - the fact that England lead by 140 or so, is neither here nor there - rubbish from both side today.

__________________
Ern