Devon Smith

[marc71178]

See, one silly comment cancels-out another.

Which is exactly what my comment was doing to yours.

 

[iamdavid]

The example of Stephen Waugh can always be used but for me he's an anomaly - not many endure as poor starts to their Test-careers as him and come back to have careers an eighth as good as his.

Atapattu (ducks in first 3 innings) , Kallis , Cairns , McGrath , Warne , Healy , Hick (probably dosent amount to 1/8 of Steve Waugh :P) , Vaughan , and Im sure many more countless test class players have endured starts to their carears just as , if not more Innocuous than the one Devon Smith had.

Well, you've doubtless seen more of him that I have, but I have seen him play some good innings against accurate bowling (eg SCG, 2000\01). And he played for a long time; surely there must have been more?

I must agree that the innings at the SCG was pure class , however you clearly didnt watch the rest of the series , because as times in 2000/01 watching him bat was really quite funny , as Ian Chappell put it "he's hanging around for ages then just getting out" , his footwork problems were a joke , his judgement outside off was shocking & he has a few other glaring technical flaws , he frequently closes the face on his drives & defensive shots , thus a lot of leading edges (McGrath exposed this nicely in the above mentioned series).
Hinds may not be much of an opener but he's a darn sight better than Campbell , as for the Ganga - Campbell comparisons thats just ridiculous , Ganga is as close to technically perfect as you will find , Campbell is a sub standard player.

 

[Richard]

To those who accused me of ignoring the rest of the Worrell Trophy 2000\01, of course I didn't, nor did I ignore the previous 2 Tests, in England. It was 12 innings without a half-century, then he got two in the same game.
I wasn't saying these Tests should be ignored, simply that he has played well and giving an example. His average shows quite clearly that while he's played well sometimes, he hasn't played well often enough.
His average is still better than Ganga, though. Technique isn't everything. It's fine to criticise something if it's constantly getting you out cheaply, but if it's not, don't worry about it. And picking someone because they have a perfect technique, like Ganga, isn't a great idea if they keep failing to score runs. Ganga's shot-selection is poor if you ask me, and yes, I have seen him, both in the above-mentioned Worrell Trophy and in the South Africa First Test.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

His average shows quite clearly that while he's played well sometimes, he hasn't played well often enough.
His average is still better than Ganga, though. Technique isn't everything. It's fine to criticise something if it's constantly getting you out cheaply, but if it's not, don't worry about it. And picking someone because they have a perfect technique, like Ganga, isn't a great idea if they keep failing to score runs. Ganga's shot-selection is poor if you ask me, and yes, I have seen him, both in the above-mentioned Worrell Trophy and in the South Africa First Test.

Ganga didn't do a whole lot wrong against South Africa in the first Test, except how he got out.

You put way too much emphasis on averages, however, I shall humour you.

Ganga has played 44 Test innings to date, for 1146 Test runs at 26.04. However, using you Mark Ramprakash defence...

In his most recent stint in Test cricket, when he has not batted out of position (some seem to believe that he's not a natural opener...), he has averaged 33.16 with 2 centuries against Australia and a fifty. Sherwin Campbell averages 32.38 and 32.82 when not batting out of position.

Now I'm not claiming Ganga is a genius or a tremendous batsman, but surely he's at least as competent as one Sherwin Campbell and can do the job at hand for the West Indies.

 

[Langeveldt]

Daren Ganga deserves his place at the top of the WI order because he has one of the best techniques in cricket... If he is on form, he has the ability to score runs against the very best (As 2 centuries against Aus shows) Unfortunatly some of the guys who may terrorize weaker attacks, will be found wanting against the big boys (Smith i fear falls into this category) However Ganga if handled correctly should prosper..

 

[Richard]

Ganga didn't do a whole lot wrong against South Africa in the first Test, except how he got out.

You put way too much emphasis on averages, however, I shall humour you.

Ganga has played 44 Test innings to date, for 1146 Test runs at 26.04. However, using you Mark Ramprakash defence...

In his most recent stint in Test cricket, when he has not batted out of position (some seem to believe that he's not a natural opener...), he has averaged 33.16 with 2 centuries against Australia and a fifty. Sherwin Campbell averages 32.38 and 32.82 when not batting out of position.

Now I'm not claiming Ganga is a genius or a tremendous batsman, but surely he's at least as competent as one Sherwin Campbell and can do the job at hand for the West Indies.

Ramprakash's average of 33.16 since 1998 includes the innings in which he has batted out of position. Excluding them it is over 37.
Ganga, however, scored some pretty cheap runs against Bangladesh and 2 centuries in 2 innings against Australia. I dread to think what his average is if you get rid of the Bangladesh games.
Personally I believe people have set too much stall by those centuries against Aus. While the attack included Gillespie, it wasn't much of an attack on the wickets that series was played on. A century is a century (2 centuries are 2 centuries...) but just because they were against the team called Australia doesn't mean they were especially better than against any other competant nation (ie Bangladesh excluded).
Ganga did OK in the First Test against South Africa but really, his Test-career is nothing special. If he fails in the next 3 Tests there must, surely, be serious questions over whether he ever plays a Test again.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Ramprakash's average of 33.16 since 1998 includes the innings in which he has batted out of position. Excluding them it is over 37.
Ganga, however, scored some pretty cheap runs against Bangladesh and 2 centuries in 2 innings against Australia. I dread to think what his average is if you get rid of the Bangladesh games.
Personally I believe people have set.

His average would plummet to 24.88.

Daren Ganga has not been an outstanding success, but surely if you can give Mark Ramprakash that much time and still come out saying he was not a Test failure you can give a thought to Ganga.

 

[Craig]

Hey what's up with Sarwan? He is very talented yet he hasnt preformed to his ability just at the moment.

He must be lacking in confidence or needs time to mature.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I don't think anything's wrong with Sarwan. He's just in a bit of bad form. Remember that only 6 innings ago he scored 80odd which helped the West Indies to a series win over Sri Lanka.

2 innings before that he scored a century which helped the West Indies chase 418 v Australia.

Yesterday he scored a very much assured 71 not out against Border. I wouldn't be too worried. He still has a pretty good average in both forms and just needs to get a good score to get back on track I think. He was unlucky in the first Test with an unplayable ball in the first and a ball that kept very low in the second.

 

[Craig]

You think he is starting mature? because IMO I think he might be.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Lol. You didn't see that shot he played against Zimbabwe did you?

Seriously, I do think he is maturing and I have a couple of signs of some sort of maturity.

1/ Matchwinning unbeaten knock against India in horrible light with a troublesome crowd. Played tremendously well in that series.
2/ Hit on the head by Fernando. Went off the field to the hospital for treatment. The West Indies plunged into trouble and he returned and hit 2 fours and a six in an unbeaten 47 (?).
3/ Chasing a near impossible total with Lara out 250odd runs short, he played a glorious innings of 105 (?) in a crucial part to a famous victory.

Ever since he batted so well with Lara in Sri Lanka in 2001 you could tell that he is capable of being very mature. However, like all West Indians, he loses it sometimes.

 

[Craig]

No I didnt see a ball against Zimbabwe.

 

[Richard]

His average would plummet to 24.88.

Daren Ganga has not been an outstanding success, but surely if you can give Mark Ramprakash that much time and still come out saying he was not a Test failure you can give a thought to Ganga.

Personally I wouldn't have given Ramprakash the last chance he got in 1997; it was just pot-luck that he got into the Sixth Test with several injuries and axings due to poor returns (nothing new there for England against Australia) and happened to score what turned-out to be a crucial 48 in the second-innings. Since then, he hasn't looked back, except for the opening saga and when he's played New Zealand. Twice, series' against the Kiwis have seen him fail badly enough to be axed, despite his consistent form against everyone else.
I can't actually remember Ganga's First-Class record but I doubt it's as impressive as Ramprakash's always has been, and we can fairly safely say it's not so extensive (given that we play about 4 times the games here than you do in The Caribbean). I maintain what I said above; Ramprakash was lucky to get the chance he got in 1997, but you can see why they kept going back to him. Is the same true of Ganga? (genuine question, no sarcasm)

 

[iamdavid]

Off the top of my head Ganga averages about 34 in first class cricket.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I maintain what I said above; Ramprakash was lucky to get the chance he got in 1997, but you can see why they kept going back to him. Is the same true of Ganga? (genuine question, no sarcasm)

Ganga was lucky to get back into the team (injury to Sarwan and Hooper backing out), but he then scored back-to-back hundreds. Since the the West Indies selectors have been going bacl to him due to his domestic form and the fact that he will give you the odd good score - like Ramprakash.

I can't actually remember Ganga's First-Class record but I doubt it's as impressive as Ramprakash's always has been

It's hard to maintain an average of 50 when you play 7-9 games in 2 months and then have a 10-month break from domestic FC cricket.

Ganga avges 40.91 outside of Test cricket, with 3682 runs, 10 hundreds and 18 fifties. That's quite good as West Indian averages go.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Off the top of my head Ganga averages about 34 in first class cricket.

36 to be exact. 41 minus Tests.

 

[Richard]

The one minus Tests is the most significant if you ask me. As Liam says, 45 for a West Indian is probably about equivalent to 50 for an Englishman, so 41 is pretty impressive. That, and his copybook technique, is presumably the reason he has got as many chances as he has.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Mr. Smith knocked up a good 118 not out against Jamaica today. Good to see that he's not too troubled by the folly of the selectors.

 

[iamdavid]

A chance to open against England if Hinds dosent find some form soon one would think , I hope he gets a run , a chance to prove himself at the top level.
Mind you scoring runs against Harmison , Giles & Anderson on featherbeds wont be awfully difficult.

 

[Craig]

So Ganga will bat in the middle order?

Sarwan at 3, Lara at 4.