Why does cricket need a strong West Indies?

[Goughy]

The Stanford 20/20 looked very progressive and dynamic and that it may be capable of making a difference.

However, members of WICB seem more interested in how they can keep hold of their little areas of power and influence rather than how Stanford and others like him can be involved in improving the game in WI.

 

[Richard]

Stanford seemed pretty to me, too, TBH. He's got all that money, which could be invested in so many areas... but he's more interested in giving massive prize-money. Didn't make much sense to me.

I don't know a heck of a lot about the pockets-of-power situation in The WICB but things like that are rarely helpful. Given that there's no one Govornment above The WICB, I$C$C are surely the only ones with the power to sort such a situation out?

 

[Goughy]

I don't know a heck of a lot about the pockets-of-power situation in The WICB but things like that are rarely helpful. Given that there's no one Govornment above The WICB, I$C$C are surely the only ones with the power to sort such a situation out?

TBH I seldom agree with outside intervention. Id much prefer the changes came from within the WI itself through the cricket public, ex-players and fresh backers.

Whether evolution or revolution, it doesnt matter to me as long as it is done domestically rather than imposed. Even cricket boards have should be able to exercise self-determination even if it is to the detriment of the nations performance.

 

[Perm]

Stanford seemed pretty to me, too, TBH. He's got all that money, which could be invested in so many areas... but he's more interested in giving massive prize-money. Didn't make much sense to me.

Acts as an incentive IMO. I realise he could probably have invested a whole heap of his money into development and infrastructure, but it seems as though he just wants to watch some entertaining cricket and reward the winners. Typical American

 

[Richard]

TBH I seldom agree with outside intervention. Id much prefer the changes came from within the WI itself through the cricket public, ex-players and fresh backers.

Whether evolution or revolution, it doesnt matter to me as long as it is done domestically rather than imposed. Even cricket boards have should be able to exercise self-determination even if it is to the detriment of the nations performance.

Outside intervention would indeed be far from ideal, but while power is retained, the power to retain power is retained. I mean, I'm sure Liam Camps and Xavier Rose waltzing into the offices, seizing power via military coup and getting the matter sorted would be a nice outcome, but that's not how things work. Unless the right people are elected to the top positions in The WICB things aren't going to change... and so long as those responsible for elections are keen to cling to their power by electing people who will allow them to, that's likely to remain as it is.

 

[Goughy]

Outside intervention would indeed be far from ideal, but while power is retained, the power to retain power is retained. I mean, I'm sure Liam Camps and Xavier Rose waltzing into the offices, seizing power via military coup and getting the matter sorted would be a nice outcome, but that's not how things work. Unless the right people are elected to the top positions in The WICB things aren't going to change... and so long as those responsible for elections are keen to cling to their power by electing people who will allow them to, that's likely to remain as it is.

There is nothing as constant as change. The right people just need to be involved which I why I mention backers and ex-players rather than Liam and Xavier

Not hard to see parallells (sp?) in the English game (though it may be a little less petty). However, the MCC gave up power, the TCCB moved into the ECB. The counties ceded power to the ECB, Lord Mclaurin was given power and authority to make changes based on recommendations etc. THere are many more examples within the English game where it has taken baby steps in the evolution from a pretty recent amateur administration to a professional and business-like model.

All these changes were made in-house due to internal and domestic pressures. The same will happen in the WI (I hope) but the issue is when? and how much further behind they will be by the time it happens?

And to repeat, the changes must be brought about by internal forces and personalities.

 

[Richard]

Yes. It's hard to see those internal forces on the horizon right now, though.

(And I genuinely think that there are hundreds of people who'd do worse jobs as The Reformers than our own Trinidadian)

 

[Goughy]

Yes. It's hard to see those internal forces on the horizon right now, though.

Well a number of ex-players are speaking out which is a start. There is also talks about getting qualified and experienced members for committees to discuss the way forward and Mr. Stanford himself is a pretty big factor.

So whilst the process is only beginning there certainly are the seeds of internal forces looking to make changes.

 

[Neil Pickup]

I thought that the WICB were being difficult in terms of not accepting Stanford's terms for granting the money to the development?

 

[Goughy]

I thought that the WICB were being difficult in terms of not accepting Stanford's terms for granting the money to the development?

Yeah, so the first shots of the early battles are taking place. Just a matter of time as to how things progess.

 

[Manee]

Adding to my previous post, I feel the veterans earn for all of the major test nations (-Bangladesh and Zimbabwe probs) to have their own identity and play at about the same standard with sort of conflicting styles. Here is an example.

Australia - The best on paper, professional unit
West Indies - Quick quick bowlers and hitter batsman
India - Unbeatable at home and with a deadly spin unit.
etc...

But with West Indies losing their quick bowlers and India siding with pace over spin among other things all teams are becoming quite uniform and I don't think the veterans and commentators like that.

 

[pasag]

Like others I don't care if they dominate or not, but cricket definitely needs a competent West Indies, just like it needs a competent and strong England NZ, India, Pakistan etc if only to save us from farces like the past two Test matches. But cricket doesn't need WI or any team for that matter to be in the top few sides.

 

[Manee]

I still think this judgement that they are 'finished' may be a bit premature, they may still win the series. Not likely, but possible with Taylor in some form and Chanderpaul back.

 

[pasag]

I still think this judgement that they are 'finished' may be a bit premature, they may still win the series. Not likely, but possible with Taylor in some form and Chanderpaul back.

Nah, they're finished.

 

[Manee]

You're probably right but never write a team off, I know the differences are endless, but some wrote off Australia as ageing and finished after the Chappell Hadlee series before the World Cup. The difference is that this series is only half done.

 

[pasag]

You're probably right but never write a team off, I know the differences are endless, but some wrote off Australia as ageing and finished after the Chappell Hadlee series before the World Cup. The difference is that this series is only half done.

Yeah you can never write anyone off in sport, but with Test cricket you can come closet to it. WI winning either of the remaining Tests would be incredible, mainly because the match would end up being awesome, but I just can't see it happening in a million years tbh unless some English batsmen have some serious brain explosions.

 

[Perm]

I still think this judgement that they are 'finished' may be a bit premature, they may still win the series. Not likely, but possible with Taylor in some form and Chanderpaul back.

What Gelman said. They're finished mate, they just don't have the hard working attitude that you need in order to compete (unless you have ultra-talent). It's a sad thing, but to think that the West Indies have a chance of winning either of the next two Test's is just a romantic notion.

 

[Perm]

You're probably right but never write a team off, I know the differences are endless, but some wrote off Australia as ageing and finished after the Chappell Hadlee series before the World Cup. The difference is that this series is only half done.

Those people were deadset goons. I don't think anybody with an IQ in triple figures seriously thought that Australia were finished after the Chappell Hadlee series, it doesn't take an idiot to realise that 4 or 5 of their top players were missing and that was one of the main reasons they lost.

 

[Richard]

Like others I don't care if they dominate or not, but cricket definitely needs a competent West Indies, just like it needs a competent and strong England NZ, India, Pakistan etc if only to save us from farces like the past two Test matches.

The past two? The First one was a pretty reasonable contest, even if we always had the upper hand.

 

[Richard]

Adding to my previous post, I feel the veterans earn for all of the major test nations (-Bangladesh and Zimbabwe probs) to have their own identity and play at about the same standard with sort of conflicting styles. Here is an example.

Australia - The best on paper, professional unit
West Indies - Quick quick bowlers and hitter batsman
India - Unbeatable at home and with a deadly spin unit.
etc...

But with West Indies losing their quick bowlers and India siding with pace over spin among other things all teams are becoming quite uniform and I don't think the veterans and commentators like that.

I certainly don't like it, I hate the idea that India should become more seam-friendly and less of a spin-haven. Absolutely hate it.

Australia haven't always been the best on paper, though, just almost always in the top 2.

Nor have all the most notable West Indian batsmen been strokeplayers, there's usually been one or two more laid-back ones. And some complete chameleons like Chanderpaul who can play insanely fast and eye-poppingly slow innings, according to their mood on the day.