*Official* Australia vs West Indies - Frank Worrell Trophy 2022

[Slifer]

Match 1 of massacre series done. WI put out of their misery.
Takeaways ( have been same for last 7-8 years or so) - WI have no real batsmen after batters 1 & 2 (except for performers on dodo pitches). On a pitch which really needs you to rely on your skills and offers little assistance, the bowlers are a huge question mark. Kraigg the batsman-very good, Kraigg the captain - poor.

Ok so I'd like to know which team outside of India and RSA that weren't massacred in Australia? Nobody here expects this WI to remotely compete with Australia. They haven't but they at least had decent performances from Kraig and young Chanderpaul against the best bowling attack atm. I'll take that.

 

[pomnotenglish]

Ok so I'd like to know which team outside of India and RSA that weren't massacred in Australia? Nobody here expects this WI to remotely compete with Australia. They haven't but they at least had decent performances from Kraig and young Chanderpaul against the best bowling attack atm. I'll take that.

Hey @Slifer,
Thank you for your comment. I just wrote my post as my point of view. Didn't really intend to start a debate there. And, I agree with you about the fact that nobody expected the WI to roll Australia over. You, perhaps, choose to look at the positives and I am simply looking at the areas which they have not improved on since ages. You have your own point of view, I have mine. So, let's keep it that way. The bottom-line is that a strong West Indies is much needed for world cricket.

 

[Slifer]

Hey @Slifer,
Thank you for your comment. I just wrote my post as my point of view. Didn't really intend to start a debate there. And, I agree with you about the fact that nobody expected the WI to roll Australia over. You, perhaps, choose to look at the positives and I am simply looking at the areas which they have not improved on since ages. You have your own point of view, I have mine. So, let's keep it that way. The bottom-line is that a strong West Indies is much needed for world cricket.

Fair enough. And I'll concede that the bowling outside the Caribbean is woeful and the batting, in general, is pathetic.

And people might not agree with you that I strong WI is needed for cricket but I do. Here's why. I looked back at even 1990s series vs teams like SL and NZ and our stadiums were packed. WI also offer a nice buffer/neutral between the two cricketing blocs: Asia ( Ind, Pak, SL, Ban and Afg) vs SENA.

 

[The_CricketUmpire]

Hey @Slifer,
Thank you for your comment. I just wrote my post as my point of view. Didn't really intend to start a debate there. And, I agree with you about the fact that nobody expected the WI to roll Australia over. You, perhaps, choose to look at the positives and I am simply looking at the areas which they have not improved on since ages. You have your own point of view, I have mine. So, let's keep it that way. The bottom-line is that a strong West Indies is much needed for world cricket.

The West Indies have struggled in world cricket for 20+ years in terms of Test cricket.

I mean sure...yes they have won the ICC Champions Trophy (was it in 2004), and that tournament doesn't exist anymore and they have won one or two T20 World Cups (maybe one) but apart from that they have struggled.

I think, regardless of who people support in world cricket, we all would love to see the West Indies become a consistent dominant force again.

Its hard to get involved and watch this series against Australia - the West Indies aren't really strong opposition.

This leads me to my next point, and I may get criticised for it but here it goes - I think world cricket isn't as strong anymore as it used to he in the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s through to the early to mid 2000s. Nowdays there isnt the depth in quality fast bowlers or spinners either and some teams aren't as strong today as they were in the glory years.

It does then make it hard to assess how good the star batsman and bowlers of today (and the past decade) are compared with the the stars of yesteryear. For example Steve Smith - now clearly without a doubt he is an absolute star, an excellent batsman, currently he averages in the 60s in Test cricket. How would he go in an era like the 1990s against fast bowlers like Curtly Ambrose, Courtney Walsh, Wasim Akram, Waqar Younis, Allan Donald, Shaun Pollock, Chaminda Vaas and then the spinners: Murali, Dan Vettori, Saqlain Mushtaq and Mushtaq Ahmed. I reckon he doesn't average in the 60s in Test cricket but thats my opinion, he would still average in the high 40s to 50s I think (still very good). I just think at times we all forget about past players and the strong and tough era they played in. I could write a lot more but it would take me ages to write it.

Even the batting with the Aussie's: i think there's holes in it apart from Smith and Marnus. Yet you yo back to lets say the 1990s and the wonderful strong depth we had - i could name 10 batsman in First Class cricket that would play in the Aust team now. Same with the bowlers - Starc....he is good but is probably "just a good bowler", Nathan Lyon has taken 400 odd wickets but again I rate him as just a good bowler, in a stronger era the likes of Lara and co would use their feet and punish him because he roughly bowls the same types of balls and it gets predictable. Cummins is good and Australia's best bowler and he may considered an all time great when his career is over

But yeah look, sorry if I sound negative but world Test cricket just isn't the same anymore unfortunately. Probably the obsession with T20 is partially to blame too.

Cheers :-)

 

[Ashes81]

Until the financial inequalities in world cricket are addressed, which less face it, they won't be, then the likes of the W Indies will continue to struggle to compete.

Evrytime the W Indies are playing a test series, half the players who should be there are off chasing the T20 $ somewhere around the world as the board can't compete financially.

Its not just the W Indies either, SL and SA face similar issues.

 

[The_CricketUmpire]

Until the financial inequalities in world cricket are addressed, which less face it, they won't be, then the likes of the W Indies will continue to struggle to compete.

Evrytime the W Indies are playing a test series, half the players who should be there are off chasing the T20 $ somewhere around the world as the board can't compete financially.

Its not just the W Indies either, SL and SA face similar issues.

And you know what - thats sad. Very sad. Which means the quality in world cricket drops. Batsman - easier runs on friendlier decks and the bowlers not as good as previous stronger eras. This is why it does get hard to rank players now against players from the past.

I mean look at Travis Head, would not get a game for Australia in the 1990s. Neither would Warner. Imagine Taylor and Slater opening the batting now (same applies to Hayden/Langer). Simon Katich comes to mind too (plus many other players). But other countries in same boat too.

 

[Daemon]

cricket.com.au on Instagram: "A little bit of mayo? Travis Head celebrates his first Test wicket in Australia after an acrobatic catch from Steve Smith! #PlayOfTheDay #AUSvWI @nrmainsurance"

37K likes, 88 comments - cricketcomau on December 3, 2022: "A little bit of mayo? Travis Head celebrates his first Test wicket in Australia after an acrobatic catch from Steve Smith! #PlayOfTheDay #AUSvWI @nrmainsurance".

www.instagram.com

is there a catcher who fluctuates from village to outrageous as much as smith does

 

[andruid]

I'm gonna be Yron
Like a Lyon in Zyon ???

 

[pomnotenglish]

This leads me to my next point, and I may get criticised for it but here it goes - I think world cricket isn't as strong anymore as it used to he in the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s through to the early to mid 2000s. Nowdays there isnt the depth in quality fast bowlers or spinners either and some teams aren't as strong today as they were in the glory years.

Absolutely, I feel the same. Two things I feel have added to the decline is the changing nature of pitches ( having become more batsmen-friendly or maybe they are prepared that way) and another is the increasing commercialization of the game. T20 can't be considered real cricket IMHO but then I guess idealism has its own place and reality demands that there should food on the plate. T20 T10 and perhaps T5 in the near future offers a lucrative deal for a player to take care of their financial needs and also satiates the '24/7 on' nature of Gen Z or whatever the current Gen is called. In any case, at the end of the day, perhaps the purist's approach to cricket is long gone and we can just have fond reminiscences about it.

 

[The_CricketUmpire]

Absolutely, I feel the same. Two things I feel have added to the decline is the changing nature of pitches ( having become more batsmen-friendly or maybe they are prepared that way) and another is the increasing commercialization of the game. T20 can't be considered real cricket IMHO but then I guess idealism has its own place and reality demands that there should food on the plate. T20 T10 and perhaps T5 in the near future offers a lucrative deal for a player to take care of their financial needs and also satiates the '24/7 on' nature of Gen Z or whatever the current Gen is called. In any case, at the end of the day, perhaps the purist's approach to cricket is long gone and we can just have fond reminiscences about it.

Yep I agree with all of that. Another thing is the depth, let's look at Aust cricket. Here is a list of batsman from a stronger era who played a small amount to no cricket at Test level.

This is their records at First-Class level. As we know First Class cricket are matches with a duration of 3 days or more including Test matches.

Jamie Siddons: 11,587 runs @ 44.91

Jamie Cox: 18,614 runs @ 42.69

Stuart Law: 27,080 runs @ 50.52

Micheal Bevan: 19,147 runs @ 57.32

Martin Love: 16,952 runs @ 49.85

Darren Lehmann: 25,795 runs @ 57.83

Matthew Elliot: 17,251 runs @ 47.00

David Hussey: 14,280 runs @ 52.50

Jimmy Maher: 13,149 runs @ 38.78

Andrew Symonds: 14,477 runs @ 42.20

Tom Moody: 21,001 runs @ 46.25

Brad Hodge: 17,084 runs @ 48.81

Michael Di Venuto: 25,200 runs @ 45.90

There is absolutely no way that type of depth in quality in numbers is in Australian cricket currently. Guys like Travis Head, David Warner - wouldn't be playing Test cricket in a stronger era. Marcus Harris (who I had in games in Perth in WA Premier cricket 1st Grade, I was an umpire) wouldn't even be in a Test squad in a stronger era yet here he is and apart of the Test squad vs West Indies. Even Marnus Labuschagne - good start to his carer but I reckon his technique for a number 3 at times can be questionable (just my opinion) and he would be found out in a stronger era. They did a stat a few days ago on Fox cricket during the Test match where if opposition bowlers didn't bowl no balls or fielders did take their catches then Labuschagne would be averaging around 44 roughly, currently he averages 59.31 in Test cricket.

Basically the whole product of Australian cricket and the whole product of world cricket standards wise has dropped and to me that isn't a good thing, very sad.

 

[Gob]

The West Indies have struggled in world cricket for 20+ years in terms of Test cricket.

I mean sure...yes they have won the ICC Champions Trophy (was it in 2004), and that tournament doesn't exist anymore and they have won one or two T20 World Cups (maybe one) but apart from that they have struggled.

I think, regardless of who people support in world cricket, we all would love to see the West Indies become a consistent dominant force again.

Its hard to get involved and watch this series against Australia - the West Indies aren't really strong opposition.

This leads me to my next point, and I may get criticised for it but here it goes - I think world cricket isn't as strong anymore as it used to he in the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s through to the early to mid 2000s. Nowdays there isnt the depth in quality fast bowlers or spinners either and some teams aren't as strong today as they were in the glory years.

It does then make it hard to assess how good the star batsman and bowlers of today (and the past decade) are compared with the the stars of yesteryear. For example Steve Smith - now clearly without a doubt he is an absolute star, an excellent batsman, currently he averages in the 60s in Test cricket. How would he go in an era like the 1990s against fast bowlers like Curtly Ambrose, Courtney Walsh, Wasim Akram, Waqar Younis, Allan Donald, Shaun Pollock, Chaminda Vaas and then the spinners: Murali, Dan Vettori, Saqlain Mushtaq and Mushtaq Ahmed. I reckon he doesn't average in the 60s in Test cricket but thats my opinion, he would still average in the high 40s to 50s I think (still very good). I just think at times we all forget about past players and the strong and tough era they played in. I could write a lot more but it would take me ages to write it.

Even the batting with the Aussie's: i think there's holes in it apart from Smith and Marnus. Yet you yo back to lets say the 1990s and the wonderful strong depth we had - i could name 10 batsman in First Class cricket that would play in the Aust team now. Same with the bowlers - Starc....he is good but is probably "just a good bowler", Nathan Lyon has taken 400 odd wickets but again I rate him as just a good bowler, in a stronger era the likes of Lara and co would use their feet and punish him because he roughly bowls the same types of balls and it gets predictable. Cummins is good and Australia's best bowler and he may considered an all time great when his career is over

But yeah look, sorry if I sound negative but world Test cricket just isn't the same anymore unfortunately. Probably the obsession with T20 is partially to blame too.

Cheers :-)

Classic gibberish post of how everything was better in the past but particularly lol at the bolded bit

And there is no era where Smith averages less than 50 lol

 

[Gob]

Absolutely, I feel the same. Two things I feel have added to the decline is the changing nature of pitches ( having become more batsmen-friendly or maybe they are prepared that way) and another is the increasing commercialization of the game. T20 can't be considered real cricket IMHO but then I guess idealism has its own place and reality demands that there should food on the plate. T20 T10 and perhaps T5 in the near future offers a lucrative deal for a player to take care of their financial needs and also satiates the '24/7 on' nature of Gen Z or whatever the current Gen is called. In any case, at the end of the day, perhaps the purist's approach to cricket is long gone and we can just have fond reminiscences about it.

Apart from the odd pitch here and there, last 3 years have produced the most bowler friendly wickets for a long long time and there are number of great pace attacks exploiting that. This is not the mid 00's

 

[ataraxia]

Basically the whole product of Australian cricket and the whole product of world cricket standards wise has dropped and to me that isn't a good thing, very sad.

Without examining the matter all too closely and from a purely statistical point-of-view, less outstanding performers actually points to a stronger competition (at Shield level). Not to mention flat pitches, and bowlers being worse.

Long-form batting is probably the specific discipline which is improving at the slowest rate - this is IMO due to concentration being not what it used to me - but it's improving nonetheless. (Wicketkeeping also has a claim to that title ftr.)

 

[Beamer]

So I don't know how to feel about this test. Obviously I expected us to lose. But I expected the bowling to hold it's own and the batting to suck, not the other way around.

I was dissapointed with the bowling effort outside of the first 2 sessions on Day 1, when I think we were incredibly unlucky. But rather than keep at it, like the Aussies did, we descended into chaos, bowled Chase and Kraigg and generally lost the plot. We will not win tests in countries with the kookaburra ball without more stamina and discipline. It's not just a small sample either, Roach and Holder both absoutely suck with the kookaburra.

I guess the major new positive was Tage Chanderpaul, who looked every inch a test opener. With the quality of our middle order (or lack thereof), we're going to need him.

The Aussie bowling attack was so good, I'd even say better than the South African attack that took us to the cleaners last year. Given that, the batting did better than expected. Generally, I'd say the attitude and work-rate of this West Indies side is first rate and to be commended. They definitely play in their captains image and style.

But ultimately we will not progress from a middling test side that gets obliterated by India, Australia and New Zealand, wins often at home and burgles the odd test away until we produce more quality middle order batsmen. Bonner is not good enough against pace and Brooks is not good enough full stop. Holder has not batted well enough to justify a place at 6, he has been mediocre for the last few tests. Josh had a bad test but i'll just have to hope this was a one-off. Mayers is a number 6, not a number 4 or 5.

 

[Beamer]

I also have no clue what side will be picked on Wednesday, we have so many injuries. Bonner concussed, Mayers can't bowl, Roach highly doubtful, Seales nursing a knee injury.

My team would be:

Braithwaite
Chanderpaul
Blackwood
Brooks (no choice as he's the backup batsman)
Thomas (will probably fail but deserves the chance)
Holder
Da Silva (wk)
Chase (he's not good enough but has to play to balance the side)
Joseph
Phillip (Roach is so bad with the kookabura anyway it's worth go regardless)
Seales

If Mayers can't bowl I don't think he makes the side as a speciast batsman in these conditions. Though Brooks is so meh I wouldn;t complain if he did get a play instead of him.

 

[Gob]

Without examining the matter all too closely and from a purely statistical point-of-view, less outstanding performers actually points to a stronger competition (at Shield level). Not to mention flat pitches, and bowlers being worse.

Long-form batting is probably the specific discipline which is improving at the slowest rate - this is IMO due to concentration being not what it used to me - but it's improving nonetheless. (Wicketkeeping also has a claim to that title ftr.)

Do you mean in Aus or test cricket in general?

If its the latter, then its blatantly untrue. I thought its well established fact that wickets have been far more favourable for bowlers in recent times despite Ramiz rajas best efforts to change it.

 

[Gob]

I also have no clue what side will be picked on Wednesday, we have so many injuries. Bonner concussed, Mayers can't bowl, Roach highly doubtful, Seales nursing a knee injury.

My team would be:

Braithwaite
Chanderpaul
Blackwood
Brooks (no choice as he's the backup batsman)
Thomas (will probably fail but deserves the chance)
Holder
Da Silva (wk)
Chase (he's not good enough but has to play to balance the side)
Joseph
Phillip (Roach is so bad with the kookabura anyway it's worth go regardless)
Seales

If Mayers can't bowl I don't think he makes the side as a speciast batsman in these conditions. Though Brooks is so meh I wouldn;t complain if he did get a play instead of him.

Looked way out of his depth tbh.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Yep I agree with all of that. Another thing is the depth, let's look at Aust cricket. Here is a list of batsman from a stronger era who played a small amount to no cricket at Test level.

This is their records at First-Class level. As we know First Class cricket are matches with a duration of 3 days or more including Test matches.

Jamie Siddons: 11,587 runs @ 44.91

Jamie Cox: 18,614 runs @ 42.69

Stuart Law: 27,080 runs @ 50.52

Micheal Bevan: 19,147 runs @ 57.32

Martin Love: 16,952 runs @ 49.85

Darren Lehmann: 25,795 runs @ 57.83

Matthew Elliot: 17,251 runs @ 47.00

David Hussey: 14,280 runs @ 52.50

Jimmy Maher: 13,149 runs @ 38.78

Andrew Symonds: 14,477 runs @ 42.20

Tom Moody: 21,001 runs @ 46.25

Brad Hodge: 17,084 runs @ 48.81

Michael Di Venuto: 25,200 runs @ 45.90

There is absolutely no way that type of depth in quality in numbers is in Australian cricket currently. Guys like Travis Head, David Warner - wouldn't be playing Test cricket in a stronger era. Marcus Harris (who I had in games in Perth in WA Premier cricket 1st Grade, I was an umpire) wouldn't even be in a Test squad in a stronger era yet here he is and apart of the Test squad vs West Indies. Even Marnus Labuschagne - good start to his carer but I reckon his technique for a number 3 at times can be questionable (just my opinion) and he would be found out in a stronger era. They did a stat a few days ago on Fox cricket during the Test match where if opposition bowlers didn't bowl no balls or fielders did take their catches then Labuschagne would be averaging around 44 roughly, currently he averages 59.31 in Test cricket.

Basically the whole product of Australian cricket and the whole product of world cricket standards wise has dropped and to me that isn't a good thing, very sad.

The standard of world cricket hasn't dropped, that's blatantly ridiculous.

Australian cricket probably has, but that's just because they were unusually strong for those 15-20 years.

Agree re. Marnus though. He's managed to forge a career averaging 60 now whereas I doubt he'd have had much opportunity in the early 2000s. He's not as good as Martin Love or Brad Hodge, who barely got a run.

 

[Beamer]

Looked way out of his depth tbh.

He's out of form but he fought and stayed out there for a while. He has been decent overt the last 18 months tbf to him. Obviously if we had 3 guys averaging 40 plus in tests than Blackwood, Bonner, Brooks et all would be banished, but unfortunately that is not the case.

 

[trundler]

Agree re. Marnus though. He's managed to forge a career averaging 60 now whereas I doubt he'd have had much opportunity in the early 2000s. He's not as good as Martin Love or Brad Hodge, who barely got a run.

Both of them were worse than Bevan, Elliot, Blewett etc who were test class but nothing more over a decentish sample size. None of these guys would be better than Khawaja or Marnus over a full career. Mark Waugh who was a level above all of them averaged 41. So no, some random shield batter from 20 years ago isn't automatically better than proven world class batsmen, especially in this era.