West Indies ATG Team- Open Voting

[watson]

Greenidge and Hunte

Tempted to go for Fredricks coz i love him, but Hunte was a better batsman for me


I dunno why people want Gibbs in the side so much. He would be an asset to the side in SC conditions, yes, but Garner did superbly in the few chances he got in the SC. Garner is a world-class bowler on any kind of pitch anywhere in the world. Gibbs is a match-winner on helpful pitches, but even then probably isnt >>> Garner like some people are making it sound. On pitches not conducive to spin bowling, gibbs wouldnt be of much use as a strike option. Garner should clearly be the choice

If Garner's presence in the team is absolute then the obvious thing to do is to drop Holding and include him as part of the fast bowling trio.

Marshall-Ambrose-Garner-Gibbs-Sobers would be a momentous attack.

 

[kyear2]

Can we have a re-vote on Gibbs/Garner?

That was the mistake that caused all the problems.

Also, Worrell was like Sobers in that his best suite was his left arm medium pace.

So, if Worrell is selected, we would basically have two part time left arm spinners as the spin attack.

I'll say it again, Sobers bowling is much more valauble as the fourth seamer, then as the only spin option.

Agree, Marshall, Ambrose, Holding and Sobers rotating with the old ball from one end while Gibbs keeps it quite from the other while taking the acasional wicket is more than enough, especially since Marshall and Ambrose would already have caused significant damage with the new ball followed by Whispering Death.

 

[marc71178]

Again under estimating Walcotts keeping. Keeping to Ramadin and Valentive is considerably more difficult than to the pace quartet and he managed just fine.

For a handful of games. If you're not fit enough to do it regularly then you're not good enough.

 

[The Sean]

I'll say it again, Sobers bowling is much more valauble as the fourth seamer, then as the only spin option.

Agree, Marshall, Ambrose, Holding and Sobers rotating with the old ball from one end while Gibbs keeps it quite from the other while taking the acasional wicket is more than enough, especially since Marshall and Ambrose would already have caused significant damage with the new ball followed by Whispering Death.

Strongly agreed. Sobers' versatility as a spinner was of course useful and he did a job in that capacity, but he was a world-class left arm quick and far more effective in that style. In my opinion, Sobers as the fourth quick and back-up spinner would add a lot of value to the attack, but Sobers as the fifth quick (where he would hardly get a bowl) and lead spinner (where in this ATG context he isn't anywhere near good enough) would be a complete waste.

 

[kyear2]

Exactly.

 

[steve132]

Strongly agreed. Sobers' versatility as a spinner was of course useful and he did a job in that capacity, but he was a world-class left arm quick and far more effective in that style. In my opinion, Sobers as the fourth quick and back-up spinner would add a lot of value to the attack, but Sobers as the fifth quick (where he would hardly get a bowl) and lead spinner (where in this ATG context he isn't anywhere near good enough) would be a complete waste.

+1. I'm really surprised at the number of posters who believe that this team needs a FOURTH right arm fast bowler rather than a top-class spinner. The issue is not whether Garner (or any other preferred candidate for fourth seamer) is a better bowler than Gibbs but rather which bowler adds the most value to the side. Three great fast bowlers constitute an extremely impressive pace attack. A spinner adds variety to this mix. One of the many reasons why this is important is because some batsmen are much better players of pace than spin. The spinner is also a potential match winner on a crumbling pitch - see Gibbs at Kensington Oval in 1962, Old Trafford in 1963 and 1966, Bourda in 1965, etc.

The great West Indian team of the 1970's and 80's used four fast bowlers only because it lacked a quality spinner. However successful this team was, on certain occasions the lack of variety in the bowling attack was clearly a weakness. Clive Lloyd, who is a first cousin of Lance Gibbs and played alongside him in the WI team for many years, certainly recognized the value and importance of spin. (Lloyd faced, among others, Bedi, Chandrasekhar, Underwood and Abdul Qadir in their prime).

Sobers, whose most effective form of attack was fast medium bowling, is not a bowler who should be the principal spinner in an all-time team. I would expect him to bowl seam most of the time, reserving his chinamen and googlies for occasions when the team needs to buy wickets and runs are no object, and bowling orthodox slow left arm (as the second rather than the primary spinner) mainly if not exclusively when the conditions favor spin.

It may be too late to matter but for what it's worth my vote for the bowlers would be:

Marshall
Holding
Ambrose
Gibbs

 

[kyear2]

Really think.we need to revisit vote. Australia and England has two.spinners.and we have none.

 

[Red]

Really think.we need to revisit vote. Australia and England has two.spinners.and we have none.

I wont have much time over the next 3-4 weeks. If anyone wants to re-run it, be my guest!

 

[cnerd123]

Even when they had great pace stocks, WI did often use a spinner. Gibbs for one. And later on guys like Roger Harper and Derick Parry played a lot of games. Maurice Foster and Viv Richards' part timers were used often too. Oh, and Carl Hooper.

 

[watson]

I wont have much time over the next 3-4 weeks. If anyone wants to re-run it, be my guest!

IMO - Before we re-run the vote we need to ask the question whether people want a specialist spin-bowler in the team or not;

'Should an ATG WI team include a specialist spin-bowler?: YES or NO.'


If there are more NO votes then we leave the side as it currently stands.

If there are more YES votes then we re-run the vote for the bowling attack as a one-off;

'Select 3 pace-bowlers and 1 spin-bowler.'


Just a suggestion.

 

[watson]

Should an ATG WI team include a specialist spin-bowler?: YES

 

[kyear2]

Good idea, and I was never really thinking of doing over the vote but rather something like this.

Should the team have a spinner: YES

 

[kyear2]

Opener Votes:

Greenidge: 22
Hunte: 7
Worrell: 7
Haynes: 7
Fredricks: 1

Three way tie, even closer than the spinner and keeper votes.

 

[steve132]

Should an ATG WI team include a specialist spin-bowler?: YES

 

[marc71178]

If it wants a specialist spinner then surely that person has to be shoehorned into opening as well then? No other team has been repicked after votes are counted so why should this one?

 

[Days of Grace]

If it wants a specialist spinner then surely that person has to be shoehorned into opening as well then? No other team has been repicked after votes are counted so why should this one?

Not at all.

I see nothing wrong with realising we have made a mistake with the composition of the team once it becomes apparant after other positions are filled.

 

[marc71178]

Mistakes have been made in the past though - should be up to people to recognise it when they make their picks.

 

[The Sean]

I tend to agree with Marc here. I chose Gibbs and believe the team should have a spinner, but everyone knew what the choices were at the start of the process and the majority decided they didn't want a slow bowler. I think it's the wrong call, but it's the one that was made.

I'd change elements of the Australian and English teams as well, but rightly or wrongly the choices have been made and I think it would set a rather tedious precedent to then go back and revisit every selection.

 

[Howe_zat]

The point was the discussion, not the result, wasn't it?

 

[harsh.ag]

Howe_zat You've got it quite clearly figured out. Since I wasn't part of the discussion in the first place (like a jackass), was it close between Gibbs and (I am guessing) Garner? Actually, I would prefer to have Andy Roberts as the third pacer and prefer Garner over Holding.