So, cricket starts

[ramAnag]

If you bowl so well that you bowl them out in half a day, you've then got to face those conditions yourself. You then have to consider the conditions for the final day, when the wicket is cracked and covered in foot holes, much more a factor in a 5 day game than any 45 over village game. I'd rather have the bat in my hand from the 1st ball thank you, for me it's the difference between positivity and fear.

"When you win the toss – bat. If you are in doubt, think about it, then bat. If you have very big doubts, consult a colleague – then bat."
W G Grace

It's a bit typical of the English to blame a below par batting performance on conditions.

Well who’d argue with the good doctor, and it certainly always used to be the way.

He was playing over a century ago though, and apparently, since 2000, teams batting second have won more Tests...217-250.

Interesting...if you’d always bat first, why have a toss in a Test series? Would it possibly make more sense to just take turns?

[ramAnag]

Did well in that last session.

[AdiSalisbury]

Well, we were outplayed in the end. A disappointing collapse in our 2nd innings after a below par 1st innings just made it too easy for West Indies, who dispite a shakey finish, won with a canter really. I can't help but think that Broad would've got into WIndies better during their 1st innings, don't really understand the selection there. But ultimately, we didn't perform well enough with the bat to deserve anything more than a defeat.

Either way, great to have it back!

[ramAnag]

Well, we were outplayed in the end. A disappointing collapse in our 2nd innings after a below par 1st innings just made it too easy for West Indies, who dispite a shakey finish, won with a canter really. I can't help but think that Broad would've got into WIndies better during their 1st innings, don't really understand the selection there. But ultimately, we didn't perform well enough with the bat to deserve anything more than a defeat.

Either way, great to have it back!

Thought we got back into it and then threw it away during the last hour or so on Saturday evening, Adi. They had the better of the conditions but it really was so English to get into that position with Stokes and Crawley going so well and then collapse.
Root for Denly...Broad for Wood at Old Trafford?

[AdiSalisbury]

Definitely Root for Denly. Broad would be 1st on the sheet. I don't think we need 2 fast bowlers, so it's between Wood and Archer... Wood has the sheer pace that Archer seems to be backing off from, but think Archer did enough to retain his place.

[Geoff Parkstone]

Old Trafford is traditionally the bounciest surface and most supportive to sheer pace, so if we do think Windies are vulnerable to pace, we should play Wood, Archer and Stokes here, plus homer Jimmy. Southampton would have been better for Anderson Broad Woakes perhaps, but its too late for that. Rotation of fast bowlers is all well and good, but you have to pick the right ones for the first match in order to make rotation work

[ramAnag]

Both sticking with Buttler?

[AdiSalisbury]

Yes, he's a match winner.

[Geoff Parkstone]

Both sticking with Buttler?

Yes but the grim reaper is beginning to hone his scythe. If not him, I think Pope hasn't kept enough in first class cricket, and nor has Bracey, with Roderick keeping a lot last year. Bairstow seems to have fallen from grace, although what he was doing on her in the first place is a mystery.

[ramAnag]

So no Archer then. Dropped for breaking the bio-secure rules by making an unauthorised 100 mile trip home...prat!

Reckon Broad would have come in for Wood...but now...Wood or Woakes for Archer? At least Woakes would strengthen the batting but Wood is the one with genuine pace that suits Old Trafford.

Scrub that...apparently Wood and Anderson were/are being ‘rested’...so Curran...or Robinson who I know nothing about.