1st Test: England v Bangladesh: Lord's 26-30 May

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by flanflinger

If you had tickets - would you turn up? It would cost me £8 in train fare and I would probably just about tasted my beer before it will all be over..

Hmmm. I'd have to get up at 5.00am to sort my little one out in time to get out of the door by 6.30 for a 7.15 train that would deposit me at Liverpool Street (wherever that is) by 9.00... and giving me an hour or so to trek across London in a desperate effort to avoid the dreaded tube system - which I dislike intensely but which our border collie, who'd have to come with us, would hate.

The return ticket for 2 adults would be £64.00... and I suspect such a gruelling day out would mean little progress on jobs here either Saturday OR Sunday: quite a big setback given everything that needs doing here right now....

Might just pass... for that money I can get a term's worth of excellent infant-aquatics swimming sessions with our "birthlight" instructor (better than it sounds).. or we could cover a week's campsite fees in the Lake District. No contest!

ps. I assume the ground would be doggie friendly: I can't imagine anywhere vaguely cricket-related not being... but you never know these days.

[Mongoose]

I think I'd want to see a contest having paid my money. I love seeing England score lots of runs / take quick wickets, but it isn't quite the same when you see the quality of opposition.

I'm very disappointed in what I've seen from Bangladesh. I really thought they had started to improve, but here they are, giving no resistance. I want to see England having to play well and working for their victory. If Bangladesh are serious about gaining a real foothold in test cricket, they need to treat test matches as a five-day event, not a quick slap-and-run in the park. Their batsman have shown no application whatsoever - some of the shot selection has been abysmal. I would like to be able to praise them more and see them progressing, but I think they have really let themselves down. After 22 overs, they'd be better off being 60-1 than 90-5.

All in all though, I think England have shown thorough professionalism in the way they have gone about the game, and some of the batters have gained vital time in the middle.

[Victor Frankenstein]

I think if anything this is just confirming how much england have moved on, we are genuinely the second best team in the world now, we're closing teams down and not letting go. I do think that bangladesh are better than this and that perhaps lords has got to them a bit, but england are so good now that we're not letting smaller teams into the game like we used to. We're not playing our best cricket either, jones is the only bowler giving close to 100% and that's because he's fighting for his place.

The umpires have definatly been on our side too, this is one of the things that really annoys me about umpires, they always give decisions to who they percieve as the better side, which is a bias the better side doesn't need and something the australians have always had to help them and will no doubt have on their side this summer too. I'm not saying they only win because of the umpires before anyone cries, clearly they are the better side, but the umpires tend to make it even easier for them, in the same way the umpires made it even easier for us to beat the windies last summer.

[Rachael]

I'm not convinced we can draw the conclusion you do from this particular game... but I will say this: events elsewhere in the world have now convinced me that this England side only have to stand still and avoid complete humiliation in the Ashes to be seen as the undisputed 2nd side in the world - with the possible exception of SL it seems everyone else is in reverse!

I guess we all recognise that the WI are in a complete mess... but Pakistan are competing for the tag of most erratic and disappointing formerly heavyweight side. Both those sides and SA are playing players who'd look unconvincing in a top domestic side let alone in Test cricket. NZ have returned to looking a damn fine domestic cricketing side rather than a genuine Test nation, and of course Bangladesh and Zimbabwe are playing at a level that wouldn't overly worry Glamorgan.

I can't believe India are going to underperform indefinitely and I guess England should be ready to be put in their place on their next subcontinental encouter with Sehwag, Dravid, Tendulkar, Harbhajan and Kumble... but let's face it: if India play as they did against the Aussies then even that contest could see England unchallenged.

[Mongoose]

Originally Posted by Rachael

events elsewhere in the world have now convinced me that this England side only have to stand still and avoid complete humiliation in the Ashes to be seen as the undisputed 2nd side in the world - with the possible exception of SL it seems everyone else is in reverse!

I think India are the main challengers. Their batting is full of class, and they're working really hard on producing quality young fast bowlers, so they should start to improve their record on their travels. So I think England need to keep improving to maintain their position. After all, we've got a big test coming up in the winter schedule.

Of course, this is all beside the point, as England desperately want to topple Australia as no.1. I first started watching cricket properly in 1989, so I am one of the many England fans who can't remember what it's like to beat Australia. We need to keep going forward. We've finally got a system that seems to be working, and the people making the decisions (Graveney, Fletcher, ECB) should be applauded for the turnaround in England's test fortunes. If this continues, England might be able to pay back some of the Ashes jokes we've been on the end of from the Australians!

[Victor Frankenstein]

Originally Posted by Rachael

I'm not convinced we can draw the conclusion you do from this particular game...

Fair enough, but surely you'd agree that the england team of even 3 years ago would have got the first couple of wickets down then shut off for a bit and allowed bangladesh to at least around 200-250, then we'd also have lost a couple of early wickets before a couple of the middle order settled in for some bigger scores, we'd have got to the same total but we'd have been 7 or 8 down rather than 3.

It's the attitude to the game that i feel has changed and has been proved, yes not all the england players looked massively pumped up for the game like they would be against australia or south africa, but they went about their job professionally and stuck to the task until the job was done, that is a paradigm shift in the england team mentality in my opinion.

No offence but i can tell you mainly listen to test match special as you mirror their constantly negative attitude towards england, good commentators but an overt bitterness towards all england teams and players, no doubt because of the majority of them having less than note worthy england careers.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Mongoose

I think India are the main challengers.

I'd like to think that the Indian side is way out ahead of where England have recently been (though not of where many of us are hoping they soon will be), hot on the trail of the Aussies and presenting a singularly formidable prospect, quite as daunting as the great WI sides of the past... and on the basis of player-by-player reputation you'd think that was not so far fetched a notion (at least not if Pathan and Balaji can live up to expectations).

Sadly.. the recent capitulation to the Aussies and the ignoble failure against Pakistan suggest otherwise: I hope it's just a blip and that we'll see England facing a second overseas opponent that really warrants trepidation... but am I confident?

[Rachael]

I did actually watch virtually all of this last Test.... and as Talksport seems to have got most of the Test cricket these days I've been unable to get the TMS line for a while.. but I don't think it makes a blind bit of difference.. and I certainly dispute that the TMS lot are remotely negative by comparison with the TV lot.

With regard to the so-called miracle transformation of the current England team.. I do think that's a load of ********. For starters it does a gross disservice to those excellent teams of the '90s who got roundly stuffed by teams that were just damn good.. which is just plain unreasonable. Secondly.. if there was a "a paradigm shift in the england team mentality" then it was a fairly long time ago now: I accept, entirely, that Fletcher now has a team moulded in his own image (capped by the appointment, today, of maynard as assistant coach)... but for ****** sake - the revolution was completed years ago under Hussain, not last year under Vaughan.

The one difference between 5 years ago and now strikes me as being nothing to do with the team itself... it's to do with the standard of preparation of the fringe players.. and for that we should pay tribute to 3 things: reform of the County Cricket system (2 divisions, with promotion and relegation, plus Kolpak players, etc, raising the standard of domestic cricket) and the academy (which I would hold to have been a huge success).

It's not, to my mind, that this current team is materially better than the first choice XIs led by Atherton or Stewart.. it's just that where before there was no depth.. that depth is now slowly emerging: Atherton and Stewart always had to carry the odd passenger, especially as injury crises kicked in.. whereas now things don't look that desperate.

[Alison]

Originally Posted by Rachael

It's not, to my mind, that this current team is materially better than the first choice XIs led by Atherton or Stewart.. it's just that where before there was no depth.. that depth is now slowly emerging: Atherton and Stewart always had to carry the odd passenger, especially as injury crises kicked in.. whereas now things don't look that desperate.

Both Atherton & Stewart were saying pretty much the opposite this morning on C4, they were of the opinion that this England team is better than any they played in.

[Rachael]

What I heard Stewart say was that this was the best England SQUAD of players: I can't recall if just one or both men agreed that injuries were what wrecked past efforts was lack of depth.