What was wrong with the W.I ?

[sammy2]

Team in the late 90s ? Im not sure why they failed, Two of the best fast bowlers in cricketing history, Lara, Adams, Hooper in the batting line up. Was it because they had no good openers ?

 

[krkode]

I wouldn't say they "failed" per se. They weren't the world beaters they once were, but that's easily explainable - only 1 or 2 good batsmen, 2 good bowlers, whereas at one point they had 4 good fast bowlers, several champion batsmen, etc. They weren't great anymore but they weren't that bad during the late 90s as they turned out after that.

What little success they had can obviously be attributed to Walsh, Ambrose and Lara. When Ambrose retired, things got bad. When Walsh retired they got worse and when Lara retired everything just fell apart.

Lack of good openers is probably part of it too. If you look at India's record during the late-90s, we were even worse than WI at tests. And we had crap openers back then. Once we got Sehwag and now Gambhir, things started getting much better. That also coincided with better over all bowling.

 

[Richard]

West Indies between 1992 and 1997 were outclassed only by Australia (and by South Africa in a one-off Test). They beat or drew with everyone else, home and away. It was only from 1997/98 onwards that things became truly diabolical, and not at home until 2001. Why was that? Well Lara was only a moderate Test batsman between 1996/97 and 2001; Adams only just scraped being that; Hooper was again no more than just-about-acceptable in what games he played; Chanderpaul and Campbell were often below their best; the rest of the batting was often ridiculously weak (with the likes of Robert Samuels, Philo Wallace, Roland Holder, Clayton Lambert, David Joseph and Adrian Griffith); and the bowling after Ambrose and Walsh was often diabolical. And workhorses though Ambrose and Walsh were, they couldn't bowl all session every session. Other teams around that time mostly had deeper pockets in terms of the bowling.

But between '92 and '97, even though Richards, Marshall and Dujon (though he'd been poor for a number of years beforehand) were gone, Lara was superlative for most of that period, Adams came in and was mostly excellent, Chanderpaul likewise, Campbell started very well, Hooper had gotten over his diabolical start to become a pretty decent batsman as well, Richardson and (at the very start) Haynes were still around and even Arthurton wasn't the absolute worst you'll see.

In the bowling, the biggest difference was Ian Bishop, when fit. He provided a third prong and was a better bowler than Walsh, which is saying something. Kenneth Benjamin (and even Cameron Cuffy when he was picked) also wasn't anywhere near as bad as the Roses, Dillons and () Patterson Thompsons.

The team was still a pretty damn good one and their results were enough to justify being considered second-best in The World. From 1997/98 onwards, they were almost instantaneously into the bottom three (with NZ, Zim and occasionally even Eng) and on occasions even the worst.

 

[Slifer]

I think the WI were a pretty good test side up until the tour of Pakistan in 1997 and the tour of RSA right after. Before then they were still a very good side (top3) as stated above. For me, what caused them to plunge so far (and even caused them to lose 2 crucial rubbers to Australia) was the loss of that crtical third bowler, in particular Ian Bishop. Coincidentally Bishop retired in 1997 after the Pakistan series, so there u have it.

 

[sammy2]

I was just reading something about Ian bishop aswell on cricinfo, he was basically dale steyn back then, started very well then got injured.

I will have to check the records for those years and compared their win - lost ratio.

 

[krkode]

I did a win-loss comparison, actually. From about 1996 to 2000 or something like that.

WI was something like 11-15.

The only teams with positive records during that time were Aus, SA and Pakistan.

India had a dismal 7-15 or something like that.

I also did an average comparison to see how strong Ambrose and Walsh were during this time. Walsh's bowling average from 1996 to retirement in 2001 is actually 1 better than his career average. And Ambrose's during the same period is about .50 better than his career average. So these two were definitely chugging along as well as they ever have during this time.

 

[Richard]

I was just reading something about Ian bishop aswell on cricinfo, he was basically dale steyn back then, started very well then got injured.

I will have to check the records for those years and compared their win - lost ratio.

This is the results from 1992 to 1997. As you can see, there's the same sort of pattern as between 1986/87 and 1991, despite the fact that several of the big names remained in the first period and most had gone in the second. Gomes, Holding and Garner essentially departed after the home blackwash in '86 (all played a handful of games, with reduced effectiveness, and missed several) and after '91 Greenidge, Richards, Dujon and Marshall all retired. The replacements mostly either took time to find their feet (Ambrose, Hooper) or plain weren't anywhere near as good (Simmons, Kenneth Benjamin, David Williams\Murray). Only one (Lara) hit his straps immediately. Soon Haynes was gone too, and his replacement (Stuart Williams) was nowhere near as good either.

Basically, West Indies beat the weaker teams (New Zealand home and away; India and Sri Lanka on tour) and drew with the stronger ones (England; Australia; India at home).

There were two series scorelines which weren't fair reflections - the series in Australia in 1992/93 should've been 2-2, and the series at home to Australia in 1995 was decided by the inept Courtney Browne, who somehow managed to play ahead of both Williams and Murray (I think Murray was injured) dropping a crucial catch, and had a better wicketkeeper been playing West Indies could've won. Also, the series at home to England in 1993 could easily have been 2-2 rather than 3-1 but for one dropped catch.

Only once were West Indies genuinely outplayed and beaten (Australia in 1996/97), but as had been the case between '86/87 and '91, they also only once put in a really impressive victory over a team who could be said to present much of a challenge to them. Between '86/87 and '91 it was Australia at home in '91; between '92 and '97 it was Pakistan at home in '93.

West Indies were the second-best side around, but they weren't able to see-off the really tough challenges and merely managed stalemates in them (except Australia in '96/97, where they were beaten easily by a better side).

 

[Richard]

I did a win-loss comparison, actually. From about 1996 to 2000 or something like that.

WI was something like 11-15.

The only teams with positive records during that time were Aus, SA and Pakistan.

India had a dismal 7-15 or something like that.

I also did an average comparison to see how strong Ambrose and Walsh were during this time. Walsh's bowling average from 1996 to retirement in 2001 is actually 1 better than his career average. And Ambrose's during the same period is about .50 better than his career average. So these two were definitely chugging along as well as they ever have during this time.

West Indies cricket actually fits quite neatly into descrete packages:

For the first 20 years of their Test status (6 were lost to war, obviously), they only once played a team other than England. Against England, they were generally good enough to beat the usually weakened teams England sent to the Caribbean (England didn't win in West Indies until 1960) but were beaten handsomely by the full-strength England sides in England.

From 1948/49 onwards they begun to play other teams. And between '48/49 and '60/61, only Australia ever consistently had the better of them (they lost to England, away, once; England, home, once; and Pakistan, away, once), drew one home series against England in '54 and won everything else.

Between '62 and '66/67 they were comfortably the best side around, winning every series (though only 5 were played).

Then between '68 and the home season of '73, they won just 2 Tests and avoided series defeat just twice, both against New Zealand. Their batting remained strong but their bowling was weak.

Then between the tour of England in '73 and the '75/76 away series they were building-up strength, and a shellacking by Australia in '75/76 proved the catalyst.

Between '76 and '86 they were almost untouchable. Excluding two series' where they were reduced by Kerry Packer to West Indies A, they played 16 series in this time and won 14, losing just 5 Tests (1 hugely contentuous and 1 a rank dead-rubber).

Between '86/87 and '91, they were obviously no longer untouchable and could not beat the best of the rest but still hammered the weaker sides. Between '92 and '97, as mentioned above, they were similar, but their victories over the weaker sides became less convincing and they were thoroughly outplayed in Australia in '96/97 for the first time since '75/76.

For the brief time between '97/98 and '00 they were diabolical away but still very tough at home. And from '00/01 onwards they've been quite simply abysmal full-stop.

 

[sammy2]

Well in 2001 WI was ranked at 5 ahead of india, NZ, Pakistan, interesting. So I guess they were right up there with the best in the late 90s for sure.

It's just since 02/03 to now they went way down hill, I wonder why some people pretend like WI has been playing bad cricket since they lost in 95.

Ohwell, History.

 

[Richard]

West Indies have been absolutely diabolical from the winter of 2000/01 onwards.

Since then their away record (against Test-standard teams) reads P41, W2, D8 L31. 3 of those 8 draws were rain-affected and 2 others could easily have been lost but for a last-ditch rearguard. They won 1 series early on and have lost the other 11, until stopping the rot with that recent 0-0 in New Zealand.

Their home record is a little better - P37, W7 (2 of which were dead), D13, L17. In 11 series, Australia and South Africa have beaten them comfortably on each of the 2 occasions they've toured, but in the other 7 they've only lost 3, to New Zealand in 2002, England in 2004 and India in 2006. But for the defeats to NZ and India, you could say their home record was OK.

And of course between 1997/98 and 2000, their record was massively polarised: away they played 15, lost 13, won 1; at home they played 15, won 8, drew 4, lost 3. And won 3 series' and drew 1.

 

[sammy2]

West Indies have been absolutely diabolical from the winter of 2000/01 onwards.

Since then their away record (against Test-standard teams) reads P41, W2, D8 L31. 3 of those 8 draws were rain-affected and 2 others could easily have been lost but for a last-ditch rearguard. They won 1 series early on and have lost the other 11, until stopping the rot with that recent 0-0 in New Zealand.

Their home record is a little better - P37, W7 (2 of which were dead), D13, L17. In 11 series, Australia and South Africa have beaten them comfortably on each of the 2 occasions they've toured, but in the other 7 they've only lost 3, to New Zealand in 2002, England in 2004 and India in 2006. But for the defeats to NZ and India, you could say their home record was OK.

And of course between 1997/98 and 2000, their record was massively polarised: away they played 15, lost 13, won 1; at home they played 15, won 8, drew 4, lost 3. And won 3 series' and drew 1.

Wow at 97/98 to 2000

I was born in 88, so it's good to have all this explained to me. Thanks richard.

 

[Slifer]

tbh the WI team from 1997 onwards imo was the worst team of all time. I see current sides that perhaps they can become a competent team again. what we desperately need in the WI is for the WICB to be scrubbed and people who could be more neutral (instead of constant inter island bickering). And Richard I would say that the first time that the WI were actually comprehensively beaten was against Pakistan in 1997. In Australia in 96/07 they lost the 1st two tests by 100 + runs and won the third. And in the 4th test crucially Ambrose was missing . Hayden who was dropped no less than 5 times went on to make a hundred and Aust won easily by and ins. WI won the last test by 10 wkts.

 

[Richard]

And Richard I would say that the first time that the WI were actually comprehensively beaten was against Pakistan in 1997. In Australia in 96/07 they lost the 1st two tests by 100 + runs and won the third. And in the 4th test crucially Ambrose was missing . Hayden who was dropped no less than 5 times went on to make a hundred and Aust won easily by and ins. WI won the last test by 10 wkts.

As I say - in my book, the fact that West Indies won Tests in that '96/97 series only when they were already two games down means Australia's victory was comprehensive. Not like any of the three defeats were close-run things (nor, of course, were the victories) either.

And much as Ambrose's absence was unfortunate, Hayden's being put down 5 times, while obviously to no credit of the batsman, was entirely WI's fault.

 

[Jigga988]

tbh the WI team from 1997 onwards imo was the worst team of all time. I see current sides that perhaps they can become a competent team again. what we desperately need in the WI is for the WICB to be scrubbed and people who could be more neutral (instead of constant inter island bickering). And Richard I would say that the first time that the WI were actually comprehensively beaten was against Pakistan in 1997. In Australia in 96/07 they lost the 1st two tests by 100 + runs and won the third. And in the 4th test crucially Ambrose was missing . Hayden who was dropped no less than 5 times went on to make a hundred and Aust won easily by and ins. WI won the last test by 10 wkts.

Yeah, it seems to me that the WICB really struggle to agree on anything at all, there are always back room arguments, sponsership arguments, and captaincy arguments, not to mention the disgraceful way in which Lara was treated and forced out the squad when he still clearly could've got in the side. Finally the poor preperation of the regional tournament (granted thats probobly due to lack of finance and is improving) just exasporated the situation. Things are now just seeming to turn around off the field and is therefore transferring on to the field. There are still some shocking selections but none the less improvement has been made evident right now. I'm hopeful for us to compete with the stronger sides e.g. England, Pakistan, Sri Lanka in the next year that will give time for the guys to settle.