Ottis Gibson quits England for Windies role

[WindieWeathers]

Wickets. 7 in 3 matches? Get off it.

Benn gets a 5 wicket haul in Australia and you want him replaced? get off it!! .

You can't downplay Roach's performance while at the same time you want Benn out, that doesn't make sense at all.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

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.

Ooh, he's had 4 bad Tests. That invalidates him as a Test batsman, yes. And amazingly enough, it seems to validate Bravo as better than him. Until Bravo proves he can score consistently in a very weak domestic league, he's almost certainly not going to do it in Test cricket. If you can't score runs on flat pitches against poor bowlers, how are you going to do it against good bowlers?

And ftr, Chanderpaul scored bucketloads of runs in CC last year, which for all its flaws is still a much stronger domestic competition than WI's.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Benn gets a 5 wicket haul in Australia and you want him replaced? get off it!! .

You can't downplay Roach's performance while at the same time you want Benn out, that doesn't make sense at all.

Really? This is your argument? Benn is a poor bowler, and that's why he has an average over 45. Roach is a much better bowler, in all likelihood, but has not proven it yet.

I don't think I even need to fight this fight, because you're embarrassing yourself with this. First you say Roach proved himself by taking wickets, and now you're saying he's proved himself even though he obviously did not take enough wickets to prove anything.

Jeez, for lack of aussie...

 

[WindieWeathers]

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.

You talking for Richard now? anyways he claims "bowlers aren't test standard at 21", so are you and Richard saying that Roach was below test standard against Australia? that's all i'm asking.

Because ODI = Tests?

No because ODI>>>>>> FC standard which is the level you claim Bravo has to prove himself at.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

You talking for Richard now? anyways he claims "bowlers aren't test standard at 21", so are you and Richard saying that Roach was below test standard against Australia? that's all i'm asking.

I don't think it's impossible for a bowler to be Test standard at 21. But history suggests it's very unlikely. Anyway, in the case of Roach, I'm as excited about him as the next guy. But the fact is that he has not proved himself a Test standard bowler yet. Looking good and not taking wickets does not make you Test standard. So let's not jump the gun.

No because ODI>>>>>> FC standard which is the level you claim Bravo has to prove himself at.

No ODI cricket has precisely nothing to do with FC cricket. Completely different formats. And ftr, many successful bowlers in ODI cricket are good FC standard bowlers, but can't cut it in Tests.

But again, different formats. What Barath does in ODI cricket has no bearing on his Test quality. Surely that's obvious?

 

[WindieWeathers]

Ooh, he's had 4 bad Tests. That invalidates him as a Test batsman, yes. And amazingly enough, it seems to validate Bravo as better than him. Until Bravo proves he can score consistently in a very weak domestic league, he's almost certainly not going to do it in Test cricket. If you can't score runs on flat pitches against poor bowlers, how are you going to do it against good bowlers?

And ftr, Chanderpaul scored bucketloads of runs in CC last year, which for all its flaws is still a much stronger domestic competition than WI's.

He was extremely poor in England, under his usual standard in Newzeland and shambolic against Australia, i'd say it was a little more than "4 tests", also i'm not saying Darren Bravo is better than Chanders was at his peak, of course not but i'm saying he may be someone who can contribute a bit more than the 20 runs Shiv is at the moment, and with the experience he gains he just might be the next big thing, also you're only as good as your last game Mr M, you can live in the past if you wish but the fact is the Chanders we saw two years ago doesn't look like he's coming back anytime soon.

 

[WindieWeathers]

Really? This is your argument? Benn is a poor bowler, and that's why he has an average over 45. Roach is a much better bowler, in all likelihood, but has not proven it yet.

I don't think I even need to fight this fight, because you're embarrassing yourself with this. First you say Roach proved himself by taking wickets, and now you're saying he's proved himself even though he obviously did not take enough wickets to prove anything.

Jeez, for lack of aussie...

My point is Benn clearly had a good Series against Australia but your so stuck in the past that you can't even bring yourself to acknowledge that, nah Benn could never get better in your book, "he's a poor bowler" and that's final as far as your concerned.. despite the fact that he's got 4 and 5 wicket hauls against England and Australia in the past year , the only thing that's "embarrassing" Mr M is your bias tendencies against him.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

He was extremely poor in England, under his usual standard in Newzeland and shambolic against

Poor in England yes, but then so was practically everyone. No one on that tour wanted to be there, and that much was extremely obvious.

"Under his usual standard" in New Zealand he still managed to averaged 101? Bravo can barely do 1/3 of that at domestic level against pretty terrible bowlers. So it's a very safe bet that it's he couldn't do it at Test level. Chanders scored a 50 and 100 in 3 innings in that series, so what are you on about?

Shambolic in Australia? He played 2 Tests. In one them he was shambolic (so was everyone bar Dowlin and Barath) and in the other he got a bad decision in one innings when very well set. Anyway, 4 Tests against England + Australia he's been poor.

also you're only as good as your last game Mr M

Time to axe Barath then - 3 and `17.

 

[WindieWeathers]

No ODI cricket has precisely nothing to do with FC cricket. Completely different formats. And ftr, many successful bowlers in ODI cricket are good FC standard bowlers, but can't cut it in Tests.

But again, different formats. What Barath does in ODI cricket has no bearing on his Test quality. Surely that's obvious?

Surely you'd understand that getting 19 runs off 16 balls against the likes of India in an ODI is a much bigger achievement than hitting 50 against Leeward Islands? two different formats yes but you need class to play at international level and that's what Bravo showed.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

My point is Benn clearly had a good Series against Australia but your so stuck in the past that you can't even bring yourself to acknowledge that, nah Benn could never get better in your book, "he's a poor bowler" and that's final as far as your concerned.. despite the fact that he's got 4 and 5 wicket hauls against England and Australia in the past year , the only thing that's "embarrassing" Mr M is your bias tendencies against him.

The man takes his wickets at 45 apiece! If all the West Indies bowlers did that, we'd be facing 450 every time! Just because he takes a few wickets every once in a while doesn't absolve the fact that he doesn't take wickets most of the time. If you're going to pick a spinner, you don't pick him to hold up an end. Certainly not when your fast bowlers are poor-to-average. I'm struggling to see how this is bias for me to call him poor, when his stats are actually very poor.

In that series he took 8 of his wickets in 2 innings (5 of those taking 53 overs of patience, which was admirable, but not penetrative) and 3 in the next 3. The man does not take wickets, overwhelmingly more often than not. I'd love for him to become a Test class bowler, but the fact is that nothing in his career has suggested that he will. He was a very average performer in a competition where even poor spinners take bucketloads of wickets. And in Tests he's done little much different.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Surely you'd understand that getting 19 runs off 16 balls against the likes of India in an ODI is a much bigger achievement than hitting 50 against Leeward Islands? two different formats yes but you need class to play at international level and that's what Bravo showed.

Being able to play ODI cricket does not mean you're able to play Test cricket. So no, it is not necessarily a bigger achievement. But wait, you're saying that an innings of 19 off 16 balls in ODI cricket makes you more qualified than averaging 40+ in domestic cricket? Or makes him a better bet in Tests than Chanderpaul? Baffling. 19 off 16 balls doesn't even mean you can play ODI cricket!

 

[WindieWeathers]

Poor in England yes, but then so was practically everyone. No one on that tour wanted to be there, and that much was extremely obvious.

"Under his usual standard" in New Zealand he still managed to averaged 101? Bravo can barely do 1/3 of that at domestic level against pretty terrible bowlers. So it's a very safe bet that it's he couldn't do it at Test level. Chanders scored a 50 and 100 in 3 innings in that series, so what are you on about?

Shambolic in Australia? He played 2 Tests. In one them he was shambolic (so was everyone bar Dowlin and Barath) and in the other he got a bad decision in one innings when very well set. Anyway, 4 Tests against England + Australia he's been poor.

Lol at the excuses, my point is he's clearly been on a downward spiral, when he was at the crease against Australia he was like a rabbit caught in the headlights and it was sad to see, with him currently injured and not playing any cricket since Australie do you really think he'll come back to form anytime soon? i very much doubt it.

Time to axe Barath then - 3 and `17.

You do know that he wasn't actually bowled out when he was on 17 right? that dismissal was one of the biggest jokes i've ever seen and the way he was playing i'm sure he would have got at lest 30 runs on the board.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Lol at the excuses, my point is he's clearly been on a downward spiral, when he was at the crease against Australia he was like a rabbit caught in the headlights and it was sad to see, with him currently injured and not playing any cricket since Australie do you really think he'll come back to form anytime soon? i very much doubt it.

What excuses? You tell me how his tour of New Zealand was poor. And if you can't, you tell me how it's more than 4 poor Tests, like I said.

You do know that he wasn't actually bowled out when he was on 17 right? that dismissal was one of the biggest jokes i've ever seen and the way he was playing i'm sure he would have got at lest 30 runs on the board.

And Chanderpaul wasn't actually out in the first innings of his last Test? What's your point?

You know, we'll agree to disagree. On Benn, on Chanderpaul, on Bravo.

 

[WindieWeathers]

The man takes his wickets at 45 apiece! If all the West Indies bowlers did that, we'd be facing 450 every time! Just because he takes a few wickets every once in a while doesn't absolve the fact that he doesn't take wickets most of the time. If you're going to pick a spinner, you don't pick him to hold up an end. Certainly not when your fast bowlers are poor-to-average. I'm struggling to see how this is bias for me to call him poor, when his stats are actually very poor.

In that series he took 8 of his wickets in 2 innings (5 of those taking 53 overs of patience, which was admirable, but not penetrative) and 3 in the next 3. The man does not take wickets, overwhelmingly more often than not. I'd love for him to become a Test class bowler, but the fact is that nothing in his career has suggested that he will. He was a very average performer in a competition where even poor spinners take bucketloads of wickets. And in Tests he's done little much different.

Has it ever occured to you that things might have changed in the past year? i mean against NZ i remember thinking "this guy hasn't got it" but then something just changed in one of the ODI matches and he was getting the ball to turn, then suddenly he got Ross Taylor out, since then he's played against England and Australia and has got 4 and 5 wickets hauls, you seem to be judging the guy from his debut against Sri lank till now which is unfair imo because he's clearly improved since then, furthermore his wicket haul against England won us the test, and his wicket haul against Australia should have won us the test but in the end we got a draw so clearly HE CAN get us results when he's in the mood.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Has it ever occured to you that things might have changed in the past year?

As I said, I'd be thrilled if he turned out to be Test class and, yes, he was marginally better in Australia. But until he proves he's Test class, I'm not going to presume he is. He doesn't have anything in his history to suggest that he will be.

i mean against NZ i remember thinking "this guy hasn't got it" but then something just changed in one of the ODI matches and he was getting the ball to turn, then suddenly he got Ross Taylor out

In ODI cricket he's been very poor though.

since then he's played against England and Australia and has got 4 and 5 wickets hauls, you seem to be judging the guy from his debut against Sri lank till now which is unfair imo because he's clearly improved since then, furthermore his wicket haul against England won us the test, and his wicket haul against Australia should have won us the test but in the end we got a draw so clearly HE CAN get us results when he's in the mood.

Take Sri Lanka (and NZ) out of it and he still averages 42 with the ball in Tests. He's occasionally showed signs that he could be better, but much more often she's shown that 42 flatters him.

Anyway, my main gripe is that you've got spinners who have massively outbowled him at domestic level who don't get a shot at averaging less than 45 (or 42) in Tests because Benn constantly looks like he should be taking wickets, but often doesn't.

 

[roseboy64]

Has it ever occured to you that things might have changed in the past year? i mean against NZ i remember thinking "this guy hasn't got it" but then something just changed in one of the ODI matches and he was getting the ball to turn, then suddenly he got Ross Taylor out, since then he's played against England and Australia and has got 4 and 5 wickets hauls, you seem to be judging the guy from his debut against Sri lank till now which is unfair imo because he's clearly improved since then, furthermore his wicket haul against England won us the test, and his wicket haul against Australia should have won us the test but in the end we got a draw so clearly HE CAN get us results when he's in the mood.

Got to hand it to you, you're persistent.

 

[WindieWeathers]

As I said, I'd be thrilled if he turned out to be Test class and, yes, he was marginally better in Australia. But until he proves he's Test class, I'm not going to presume he is. He doesn't have anything in his history to suggest that he will be.

I'm glad you've admitted that he was better against Australia because to me they looked scared of big Benn in the last two tests.

In ODI cricket he's been very poor though.

I wasn't talking about his record in one day cricket i was talking about the day I SAW him start to look dangerous, it just happened to be in a one day match.

Take Sri Lanka (and NZ) out of it and he still averages 42 with the ball in Tests. He's occasionally showed signs that he could be better, but much more often she's shown that 42 flatters him.

Anyway, my main gripe is that you've got spinners who have massively outbowled him at domestic level who don't get a shot at averaging less than 45 (or 42) in Tests because Benn constantly looks like he should be taking wickets, but often doesn't.

I'm not adverse to other spinners getting a chance, if the selectors called up Bishoo, Permpaul or Khan then i'd be happy to see what they can do, but if they are just gonna call up the usual suspects like Jaggs or Miller than that's nothing to get excited about imo.

 

[WindieWeathers]

Got to hand it to you, you're persistent.

Cheers , in all honesty guys we are all Windie fans and though me and Mr M may disagree on certain issues we both want whats best for our team at the end of the day, it's all just healthy debate to me, it's nothing personal.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Ok, gonna have to bow out of this one. I suspect many will be happy that I am, because I sure wouldn't want to read through this mini-epic post war we're having.

In light of that, you win. For the purposes of this argument:

- Benn is Test class
- DaBra right now > Chanderpaul right now

For the purposes of my reality and sanity, I disagree thoroughly with both those things.

 

[Craig]

Has it ever occured to you that things might have changed in the past year? i mean against NZ i remember thinking "this guy hasn't got it" but then something just changed in one of the ODI matches and he was getting the ball to turn, then suddenly he got Ross Taylor out, since then he's played against England and Australia and has got 4 and 5 wickets hauls, you seem to be judging the guy from his debut against Sri lank till now which is unfair imo because he's clearly improved since then, furthermore his wicket haul against England won us the test, and his wicket haul against Australia should have won us the test but in the end we got a draw so clearly HE CAN get us results when he's in the mood.

But Benn had to bowl all day to get his five wicket hauls.

As for Bravo getting 19 runs off 16 balls in an ODI, well Martin Guptill scored a century on his ODI debut (although he was dropped three times), does this make him the next Ponting?