>that they played with character and determination, with most of the
>players giving their best effort. The positive thing for the English is
>that Illingworths' strategy won't be criticised for a while. The reverse
>is true for the WI.
>After day four I guess that most WI fans were hoping for the best, knowing
>that the odds were firmly in favour of England. Why? WI seldom win
>matches because of consistent batting which was required in this match.
>Once the bowlers are unable to 'humble' the opponents WI defeat is
>virtually inevitable. I was hoping that Lara might have been able to
>occupy the crease for a while but that was not to be,
>the other batsmen were apparently out of the depths. It was rather
>unfortunate that he did not get his maiden test century. Although the
>bowling was consistently good (?), there is no excuse for the poor
>It is clear that changing the batting order is not the solution to our
>performances. The opening is not any better than the series with
>Australia, albeit good individual performances. Again I will open with
>RR, if history is any guide RR has made most of run when he goes to the
>wicket early (no excuse for his poor performance in the middle order).
>Hooper will remain erratic, the closer to eleven the better.
Interestingly, West Indies badly missed him as a bowler in the first
England innings. The fast bowlers were bowled into the ground, and
ultimately Richardson had to call on Arthurton and Adams (admittedly,
one motivation may have been to improve the over-rate and minimise the
size of the fine WI would incur).
>basically in the same boat as Hooper. Adams not
>being able to make big scores, Lara still not showing why he is regarded as
>the best with the bat.
>think Browne might be a better (not sure about the keeping). I hope that
>Kenny will be back for the next test. Will Chanderpaul get a
>chance?.....will have to wait and see.
>If I can recall correctly, WI batsmen hardly ever get two good score in
>the same match. Can one of our statisticians substantiate? this match is
>a good example.
Your comments are relevant and appreciated, unfortunately this was an
accidental re-post from the close of the second test.
England will have problems for the next Test if Smith's finger, hit in
the second innings, is broken, especially if Stewart is still unable to
return. Emburey did not justify his recall, and if White wasn't
Illingworth's blue-eyed boy his place would also be in doubt. Knight
probably deserves a second chance. If Smith and Stewart *are* both
unfit, I would think Hick would have to return, or otherwise the batting
would be *very* short of experience.
"It's life, Jim, but not as we know it."