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

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Rachael

On a side point.. the merits of having the Ashes at the end of the summer are just becoming apparent: at least if gives Troy C a month or two to gently remind his proteges what bowling one side of the wicket means and Duncan Fletcher a chance to contemplate replacing Harmison, Hoggard and Flintoff with Tremlett, Lewis and Collingwood.

He He Rachael, it's the way you tell um.
I wonder do you mean England could win the Ashes with Tremlott, Lewis and Collingwood, I wondered why I was limping, I had not realised you had been pulling my leg.Collingwood indeed.

Originally Posted by Rachael

I'm sure at least 2 of the 3 will turn it around this summer.. but Caddick and Tremlett must surely be more motivated than ever back on the county scene.

Caddick in the same match as McGrath, the sound effects mic would be great to listed to.

[flanflinger]

Tremlett, Lewis and Collingwood would have a good chance against Chertsey team, I can't see them winning the Ashes though...

Harmison, Hoggard, Flintoff, Jones and Giles are currently the best bowling attack we have, and unless there is an injury I do not see them losing their places.. Now anyone going to take me up on the 250 declaration... I think that is more likely than seeing the bowlin attack changed.

Anyone got a ticket for Saturday? Better get the refund form ready...

[Occasional Fan]

I won't take the 250, Flanflinger. The match may be a foregone conclusion now, which is a desperate shame for the Bangladeshis, but hopefully they will continue to take bits and pieces from each game they play, but from England's viewpoint they should surely at least give themselves some time at the crease. Jonathan Agnew reckons they will aim to bat through most of tomorrow and then polish off the game on Saturday (in time for Michael Vaughan to get to a football match on Sunday for which he reportedly has tickets). I'd guess Aggers is closer to the mark on this one than you, with respect! Maybe they could win the match in two days, but it would be a wasted opportunity to get some team cohesion going and to let the batsmen get used to the test arena after almost four months out of the action.

[Rachael]

Ok.. getting serious for a while.. whilst the bowling WAS pretty dire.. it was not particularly discouraging.

The really good news was definitely Jones: he really does seem comfortable pitching the ball up on a full-ish length and just waiting to see what happens. Hoggard also presented no real cause for alarm: he did struggle with his rhythm.. but he had a damn good excuse in that Troy Cooley cocked up with the tape measure (went from the wrong line) - factor that in and you can pretty much disregard the uncharacteristically ropey start he made.

With regard to Flintoff.. what can one say: he was pretty ropey.. but then again.. he wasn't expected to be fully fit for this Test, and did at least charge in without obvious problems. You could fret that he'd have been smacked out of the attack on today's performance had the batsmen been any good... but to be honest there's just no good reason to doubt that he'll improve, week by week, now hes getting back into playing.

The only real concern today might be Harmison.. but even here there were few surprises: I've yet to see him (ever) bowl anything less than disgracefully in a first spell with the new ball... and he duly obliged today.. and we had the usual **** of wild and wayward short **** he tends to serve up when nervous or impatient - but did anyone seriously expect anything else?

IN sum: good job it wasn't the Aussies playing (as they really would have had this Test all but in the bag by now)... but not a day to fret about.

[flanflinger]

Originally Posted by Rachael

but did anyone seriously expect anything else?

I did, as did Richie Benaud - I rate Harmison, and if a man with his experince can say that Harmison is one of the best he has seen (which he did today) then that is a bigger compliment than anything else.

PS I never said that Flintoff was "ropey" he just wasn't at his genius best.

[Rachael]

Don't get me wrong, Flanflinger: I've no argument with RB on that count. When Harmison has settled, patiently, into a disciplined line and length and is patiently waiting for the batsmen to get themselves out I suspect we're all agreed that he looks the part. My criticisms were very specific:

Originally Posted by Rachael

I've yet to see him (ever) bowl anything less than disgracefully in a first spell with the new ball... and he duly obliged today.. and we had the usual **** of wild and wayward short **** he tends to serve up when nervous or impatient

I stand by those criticisms entirely: whether it's purely feeling pressure to "make something happen" or what I don't pretend to know.. but when he get the 1st new ball he invariably wastes it... and when he tries anything less than patient probing he just sprays it around in a manner that's more reminiscent of Devon Malcolm than Ambrose.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Rachael

I stand by those criticisms entirely: whether it's purely feeling pressure to "make something happen" or what I don't pretend to know.. but when he get the 1st new ball he invariably wastes it... and when he tries anything less than patient probing he just sprays it around in a manner that's more reminiscent of Devon Malcolm than Ambrose.

That is his nature Racharl, and he is no worse that Ambrose or Garner for that matter for that matter, it to them more that one spell to find line and length, neither probed patiently, it's just Englands batsmen of the day could not cope later, how many good starts were sqandered,
As for Devon Malcolm, his line was never that good, but he was at his best in his opening bursts, hence he got important top order wickets, beit at times not that many.
He never seemed to be able to come back.

Originally Posted by RACHAEL

I've yet to see him (ever) bowl anything less than disgracefully in a first spell with the new ball... and he duly obliged today.. and we had the usual **** of wild and wayward short **** he tends to serve up when nervous or impatient

Harmison, and Hoggard also, it's true to say neither bowled well for most of the day, and if wickets where distributed in a fair manner, Simon Jones and Flintoff (The pick of the bowlers) would have had more.

[Victor Frankenstein]

Originally Posted by Occasional Fan

I did note that Jonathan Agnew feels that Matthew Hoggard is flattered by his 4-42. True or false?

I'm a big fan of hoggard and think he's never got the credit he deserves, but yesterday he was woeful and didn't deserve one wicket let alone 4. BUT, i've seen him bowl plenty of times where he deserved 10 wickets and got none, cricket always balances out in the end. He did have a reason in the morning as Rachael has pointed out, and did improve in the afternoon but still bowled too short and wide in general.

I agree with Rachael that Harmison came as no surprise in that he bowled like a novice to start with and then slowly got his rythym and actually bowled well in the afternoon imo. He's always going to do this, not sure what the solution is other than to perhaps suggest flintoff opens with the normally accurate hoggard, but then that only delays the inevitable wasted over by harmison so i guess we just have to accept the aussies will be on 35 off the first 4 overs before harmison sorts his radar out and takes a wicket/cuts off the runs.

On to the batting, I thought strauss looked badly out of form, but still managed to get some runs, that must help his confidence but i don't think he needs any help in that department, just time at the crease, he'll come good in the end. Tresco didn't look like a man in a bad trot, but vaughan as usual did his best to get out, he really does annoy me as he has more talent than this, and he's meant to set an example as captain :/

I see us getting to 350/400 as quick as possible then declaring. I think bangladesh got carried away with the occasion and will hopefully put up a better show in the second innings so I do think we need to get more than just 250 and declaring.

[flanflinger]

Originally Posted by Rachael

and when he tries anything less than patient probing he just sprays it around in a manner that's more reminiscent of Devon Malcolm than Ambrose.

You really didn't watch him yesterday did you. His Hawkeye pitch map for his first spell showed that he did not spray it around, in fact he only bolwed one-ball down the leg-side!!

What he did mnot do yesterday, is find a correct length. Spraying it around implies that he lost control, when in fact he was probably trying to find the best length for the pitch.

But I agree with you that Harmison does not have great first-spells, something he has apparntly realised and has commented on to one of the Channel 4 team, he mentioned that he needs 6 overs to get lose and then he feels he is into his rythmn.

[Rachael]

Darren Gough used to say that if he didn't get a wicket in his first 12 deliveries with the new ball he had "failed" as a new ball bowler: high standards, perhaps, but really indicating the importance of getting it right from the very first delivery. Gough hated giving the batsmen any easy "sighters", aiming to make them play, or at least seriously think about playing, each and every delivery.

Despite yesterday's dire opening overs, that standard is one Hoggard generally seems happy to set himself: he does, by and large, make pretty good use of the new ball. Harmison, by contrast, seems (and has seemed throughout the past year) to need to get his 1st day's lunch inside him before he settles!

ps. posted before reading posts from VF / FF: agree with everything said. I'd certainly echo the thought that Harmison tends to waver in his length (invariably towards too short, with the odd over-correction thrown in) before (though the one seems to follow the other) he starts going too wide or down the leg side. Same effect though: the batsmen might as well just sit in the pavillion for the opening spell, safe in the knowledge that they wouldn't have to play a shot even if they went to the crease!