Ottis Gibson quits England for Windies role

[shivfan]

1) Holder hasn't played a full first-class season yet. Marshall was rushed in too early and failed. One of the main reasons Barath did not fail is that he played three or four full FC seasons for Trinidad before he was selected. Roach made his FC debut a good 18 months before he was called into the WI side....

2) Yes, Darren Bravo has been injured. All the more reason why not to rush him into the WI side. Let him play some more cricket for Trinidad, like Barath, before pushing him into the Test side. He's already a part of the ODI squad for the WI, so let him continue in that vein. I'm sure he'll play in some ODIs against Zimbabwe.

3) Surely, you should know by now not to listen to Aussie commies? A lot of them wanted Gayle replaced as captain by Ganga!

4) The leading run-scorers in the series were Gayle (346), Katich (302), Watson (263), and Nash (250) in the series. Deonarine just scored 100 runs in the series. Surely, you're not saying Deonarine's the best batsman in the WI side on the basis of one Test? As Barath discovered, it's a bit more difficult scoring runs in the following Test, than it is in the first one in the side....

Let's look at some stats....

Nash 12 tests average 39

Dwayne Bravo 34 Tests average 32

Barath two Tests average 34

Deonarine 5 Tests average 29

So, right now, Nash is the more consistent batsmen of the four. To drop him would weaken the batting. When the other three improve their consistency with the bat, then we can talk about replacing Nash....

 

[WindieWeathers]

1) Holder hasn't played a full first-class season yet. Marshall was rushed in too early and failed. One of the main reasons Barath did not fail is that he played three or four full FC seasons for Trinidad before he was selected. Roach made his FC debut a good 18 months before he was called into the WI side....

2) Yes, Darren Bravo has been injured. All the more reason why not to rush him into the WI side. Let him play some more cricket for Trinidad, like Barath, before pushing him into the Test side. He's already a part of the ODI squad for the WI, so let him continue in that vein. I'm sure he'll play in some ODIs against Zimbabwe.

3) Surely, you should know by now not to listen to Aussie commies? A lot of them wanted Gayle replaced as captain by Ganga!

4) The leading run-scorers in the series were Gayle (346), Katich (302), Watson (263), and Nash (250) in the series. Deonarine just scored 100 runs in the series. Surely, you're not saying Deonarine's the best batsman in the WI side on the basis of one Test? As Barath discovered, it's a bit more difficult scoring runs in the following Test, than it is in the first one in the side....

Let's look at some stats....

Nash 12 tests average 39

Dwayne Bravo 34 Tests average 32

Barath two Tests average 34

Deonarine 5 Tests average 29

So, right now, Nash is the more consistent batsmen of the four. To drop him would weaken the batting. When the other three improve their consistency with the bat, then we can talk about replacing Nash....

So now it's gone from "Holder hasn't played an FC match" to "Holder hasn't played a full FC season"? come on Shiv you're changing your tune here , it's my belief that some kids are just extremely talented and have the ability to step up sooner than others, i mean can you really see the likes of Brathwaite not making his debut before he turns 19? i don't think so, imo Holder has all the tools to be ready very soon, if he does well for Barbados then why not chuck him in against Zimbabwe? i don't think we have anything to lose to be honest, and also is it fair to compare Deonarine and Barath's record to a man who's played much more test cricket than them? not for me, i bet by the time Deonarine and Barath reach twelve tests they'll have a better avarage than Nash, look i've got nothing against Nash but i just think with a new coach in town we should exercise our options rather than just stick with the status quo forever and a day.

 

[Richard]

"Probably" doesn't mean "true" though does it? and in all honesty i'm inclined to believe you wouldn't be making such a case if Aamer wasn't proving your theory wrong..

He isn't proving my theory wrong, because my theory is not based on cases like him whose ages cannot be known. Aamer is more likely to be about 20-21 than 17; since there is no certainty and never will be probability is all that these things can be decided on.

Yes i'm enthusiastic about Wi's young talent, why shouldn't i be? i mean i called for Barath to be called up last year and you've already confessed that you didn't agree with his call up so looking at things right now who do you think got it right? .

No, we'll only know whether it was right a good way down the line. That he played 1 good innings in his debut series does not justify the call-up.

 

[Craig]

Geoff Lawson is certain that Aamer is 19. AFAIK the PCB did bone density tests to determine how old a player really is, but at this stage I don't think the test results have been made public, otherwise cricinfo would of updated his profile. At this stage I would say Henry is right.

 

[WindieWeathers]

He isn't proving my theory wrong, because my theory is not based on cases like him whose ages cannot be known. Aamer is more likely to be about 20-21 than 17; since there is no certainty and never will be probability is all that these things can be decided on.

Well Roach and Parnell are proving your theory wrong so the difference is the same really.

No, we'll only know whether it was right a good way down the line. That he played 1 good innings in his debut series does not justify the call-up.

It does justify it because he proved he can perform at the highest level, watching his stroke play it was clear the kid knew exactly what he was doing, if he's hitting a 100 in the Aussies backyard you really think his form is gonna suffer against the likes of Zimbabwe at home? i don't think so.

 

[Richard]

Well Roach and Parnell are proving your theory wrong so the difference is the same really.

Not really - neither have played Test cricket for 5 minutes and neither have yet been successful.

It does justify it because he proved he can perform at the highest level, watching his stroke play it was clear the kid knew exactly what he was doing, if he's hitting a 100 in the Aussies backyard you really think his form is gonna suffer against the likes of Zimbabwe at home? i don't think so.

In my book playing a single innings isn't proving that someone can perform at the highest level - proof of that comes in playing many good innings', and we'll only know at what age Barath can do that when he starts to do it.

 

[WindieWeathers]

Not really - neither have played Test cricket for 5 minutes and neither have yet been successful.

So Roach didn't have a successful series against Australia? i think you're own with that notion.

In my book playing a single innings isn't proving that someone can perform at the highest level - proof of that comes in playing many good innings', and we'll only know at what age Barath can do that when he starts to do it.

Well it wasn't about just one innings imo because even after he get the 100 the next game he batted extremely well and wasn't actually bowled out, at the end of the day he earned his call up and took his chance, until it's proven that he's not up to the test cricket standard he's absolutely justified his selection.

 

[Richard]

So Roach didn't have a successful series against Australia? i think you're own with that notion.

Err, no. Roach did not have a remotely successful series against Australia - he had a series which showcased the fact that he has some tools to work with that may one day make him a very good bowler. Nothing more.

Well it wasn't about just one innings imo because even after he get the 100 the next game he batted extremely well and wasn't actually bowled out, at the end of the day he earned his call up and took his chance, until it's proven that he's not up to the test cricket standard he's absolutely justified his selection.

Barath's made a promising start, no more. No single series can justify a call-up in itself - unless of course it's a call-up made only for that instant short-term, such as Paul Nixon's in 2006/07.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

maybe his progress is just little bit behind Barath's but like i've been saying from the start the kid has got huge potential

I think you've just explained exactly why he shouldn't be picked, especially not in relation to when Barath was picked. You're admitting he's not at the same level yet, so why pick him now? Makes no sense at all.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Err, no. Roach did not have a remotely successful series against Australia - he had a series which showcased the fact that he has some tools to work with that may one day make him a very good bowler. Nothing more.

Exactly.

At the end of the day he took 7 wickets @ 51 with a poor economy rate. He showed enormous potential, but he didn't prove he can succeed at Test level.

 

[WindieWeathers]

Err, no. Roach did not have a remotely successful series against Australia - he had a series which showcased the fact that he has some tools to work with that may one day make him a very good bowler. Nothing more.

He scared the hell out of ponting AND TOOK WICKETS, and that was in Australia's backyard, what more do you expect from him exactly?

Barath's made a promising start, no more. No single series can justify a call-up in itself - unless of course it's a call-up made only for that instant short-term, such as Paul Nixon's in 2006/07.

Yes he's made a promising start which means his call up was justified, if a man has yet to fail how can you say he isn't worthy of a call up? .

 

[WindieWeathers]

I think you've just explained exactly why he shouldn't be picked, especially not in relation to when Barath was picked. You're admitting he's not at the same level yet, so why pick him now? Makes no sense at all.

I said he's a "little bit behind" Barath not a million miles away , are you implying that every new batsman has to be at Barath's level to get a chance? if so that doesn't make sense to me, Bravo has his own skills and has every chance of being just as effective as Barath IMO, his one day performance against India showed he's got all the strokes in the book at international level.

 

[Richard]

He scared the hell out of ponting AND TOOK WICKETS, and that was in Australia's backyard, what more do you expect from him exactly?

He hit Ponting, you mean - he certainly did not "scare the hell out of" him any more than any short quick bowler will scare the hell out of any batsman. He took 7 wickets in 3 Tests at 51 each - if a bowler is to be considered to have bowled well I expect far more than that. As I say - I personally don't expect Roach to be bowling well just at this present moment so I'm not going to be heaping scorn on him for not doing so, but to suggest he bowled well just because he hinted at some promise is wrong.

Yes he's made a promising start which means his call up was justified, if a man has yet to fail how can you say he isn't worthy of a call up? .

Because justifying a call-up takes far more than 3 Test matches. Same way a call-up being shown to be ill-judged takes more than 3 Tests.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I said he's a "little bit behind" Barath not a million miles away , are you implying that every new batsman has to be at Barath's level to get a chance? if so that doesn't make sense to me, Bravo has his own skills and has every chance of being just as effective as Barath IMO, his one day performance against India showed he's got all the strokes in the book at international level.

And how does that counter my point in any way? A little behind Barath is still a long way behind Chanderpaul and Nash and in no way a reason to hand a debut now. When he's not longer a little behind, we'll see. Patience.

And ftr, yes, a batsman should at least have accomplished what Barath has before he plays Test cricket. Because he's more likely to succeed because he's better prepared and tested.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

He scared the hell out of ponting AND TOOK WICKETS, and that was in Australia's backyard, what more do you expect from him exactly?

Wickets. 7 in 3 matches? Get off it.

 

[Craig]

And scoring a century on Test debut doesn't prove anything. Sinclair scored 214 on his Test debut, and look where he is now, being a run machine for Central Districts but not for New Zealand.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Lou Vincent did it against a stronger attack. McGrath, Gillespie, Lee and Martyn...and Warne. And he scored just 2 more in his next 39 innings. Only passed 50 nine more times.

 

[WindieWeathers]

He hit Ponting, you mean - he certainly did not "scare the hell out of" him any more than any short quick bowler will scare the hell out of any batsman. He took 7 wickets in 3 Tests at 51 each - if a bowler is to be considered to have bowled well I expect far more than that. As I say - I personally don't expect Roach to be bowling well just at this present moment so I'm not going to be heaping scorn on him for not doing so, but to suggest he bowled well just because he hinted at some promise is wrong.

You're the one saying that bowlers don't tend to be "test standard" at the age of 21 so regardless of if you think he bowled well or not wasn't Roach performance in Australia "test standard"? or did the observers who praised him see a different match to you?

Because justifying a call-up takes far more than 3 Test matches. Same way a call-up being shown to be ill-judged takes more than 3 Tests.

So if he hits another 100 against Zimbabwe you'll admit his call up was justified then?

 

[WindieWeathers]

And how does that counter my point in any way? A little behind Barath is still a long way behind Chanderpaul and Nash and in no way a reason to hand a debut now. When he's not longer a little behind, we'll see. Patience.

And ftr, yes, a batsman should at least have accomplished what Barath has before he plays Test cricket. Because he's more likely to succeed because he's better prepared and tested.

The same Chanderpaul who can hardly get beyond 20 runs these days? yeah sure , furthermore while Barath done his stuff at FC level Bravo has done well at ODI level for the Windies, something Barath didn't do before he recieved a call up, so you see it can work both ways.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

You're the one saying that bowlers don't tend to be "test standard" at the age of 21 so regardless of if you think he bowled well or not wasn't Roach performance in Australia "test standard"? or did the observers who praised him see a different match to you?

Bowling well does not make you Test standard if you don't take wickets. No one is saying Roach didn't bowl well, but he didn't prove anything other than he can bowl well. He's proven nothing of effectiveness and consistency, so let's not get carried away just yet.

So if he hits another 100 against Zimbabwe you'll admit his call up was justified then?

Because ODI = Tests?