Of course the coach has authority. But how much authority? Authority to over-rule the machinations of the D/L method? Authority to over-rule what the scoreboard is telling the entire ground? Well clearly what the West Indies back-room staff lack in maths ability, they make up for in their deference to "authority".
I think you've misunderstood me, I'm saying Stewart was a quality batsmen, I liked him, he was a hero of mine growing up! I remember watching those twin hundreds, probably the best performance by an English batsmen of the 90's (Atherton's defiance included) and since. I stand by my words though that at the international level Prior's a flat track bully. His average doesn't tell you much, I mean that last hundred was against an absolute joke of an attack, Gayle kept using part timers. TBH I don't hold County performances in very high regard, the standard just isn't anywhere near high enough.
I do agree and I think Chris Gayle, as the captain, also had a fair share of responsibility in that goof up.
To be fair, you're right about Prior's last hundred where for some reason Gayle decided not to bowl proper bowlers at him.
Hmm, that's a bit more of a grey area. South Africa actually faced a ball after they believed they won the game; West Indies merely took the light when they shouldn't have. South Africa actually ended up behind because they got the D/L calculations wrong where the West Indies were behind and then miscalculated whether or not they should take the light. People talk as if they were robbed of certain victory but after playing the game normally throughout and working towards the final target for the entirety of the time they were out there, they were in fact behind.
I won't defend him with the gloves (except that he's not as bad as he's lazily made out to be) but his batting is of a high quality and I couldn't give much of a toss whether he's playing in the ODI team or the Test team. In any case I think his ODI batting average isn't reflective of his ability.
172 in one-and-a-half Twenty20 innings is a pretty low score, I'd say.
Not great conditions for batting, though.
Normally I'd agree with you, but the problem I have with this is the fact that he really shouldn't have been picked in this format in the first place.
Indeed, but they didn't get 15 wickets so it's not really a fair conversion. For example, 270 in two a half Twenty20 games (ie. an ODI) is a low score as well, but it's actually fine in an actual 50-over contest.
Someone has the sheet in their hand and they're supposed to trust that over the scoreboard which could be wrong? And maths ability wasn't necessary in that instance, what you mean to say is that all of them are illiterate.
The problem i have with him is that his List A record is pretty damn poor as well and that's over 174 matches so i'd say thats a good representation of his talent in OD cricket. His FC is good, and he's started his test batting career well, but he's got a poor ODI record and a poor List A record. There are keepers with better List A batting records (including one in the squad) and when his keeping is as bad as it is, you have to wonder why they persist with him apart from a misguided preference to have the same keeper for both forms.
Fair enough but I wouldn't say England deserved the win. Match could have gone either way.