How did they ever lose a Test?

[Jono]

No one said Shiv is a great.

Someone said he's been a great servant, someone said he's been great support to Lara, and some mentioned that he'd probably make the great WI team of the 70s or 80s as a batsmen, doesn't mean anyone thinks he's a great batsman.

Case closed really.

 

[silentstriker]

Just to clarify. The WI team I mentioned won 1/3 of their tests not 1/2. They won approx 1/3, lost approx 1/3 and drew approx 1/3.

If that is good enough for you then thats fine. I do where you are coming from. Personally I think it is less than should be expected.

Thinking about it, 5 passengers are quite a bit. Great teams have a couple all time greats, and almost no weaknesses.

 

[Beleg]

Bishop hardly played, Adams was only good for a short period, by the time Richardson was there, i don't think Chanderpaul was in the side. He could have been, but wasn't really playing at a high standard at that time.

Actually, Chanderpaul's average during 94/95 (when richardson was with the team) was very high.

just a small nitpick.

In any case, I think Chanderpaul is a world class player. I wouldn't call him an all-time great, but he's pretty damned close.

 

[tooextracool]

This is the result of a quick investigation brought about by 2 threads. The 'apart from your team, who would you want to win the WC' thread and the Chanderpaul 100th test thread.

Guys like Ambrose were posters on my wall as a kid and I still think he is one of the best I have ever seen, but I cant help think that in many cases people on CW have rose-tinted glasses when it comes to evaluating West Indian talent.

Chanderpaul is a good player but this talk of him walking into the great WI team is, IMO, a little presumtious. Waits for Liam to respond

Right, As far as I can see Lara, Chanderpaul, Ambrose and Walsh (4 Greats according to many on CW) played together in 30 tests.

From my quick check, in those 30 tests with those 4 greats playing in the West Indies side the WI went 11 wins, 10 loses and 9 draws.

Hardly what you would expect from a team carrying such an 'exceptional' core. Also add in the fact that at one time or other they were supported by such very good players as Bishop, Gayle, Adams, Hooper etc.

How is it possible, if they were so good that they had such an average record?

Compare it to Englands last 30 tests, 16 wins, 6 loses and 8 draws and Australia's 21 wins, 3 loses and 6 draws.

OK, my question. How can a team carrying 4 'greats' have such a poor record?

There maybe good answers, so Im interested to see how people respond.

There are actually several reasons, and i will get into them:
First and foremost, the WI wasnt composed of 4 greats. Chanderpaul was extremely new to international cricket during the period which you allude to, and theres no way anyone can just walk into international cricket and become great. It involves years of hard work and improvements to your game. Even now i dont consider Chanderpaul to be great, hes about as great as Azharuddin was(minus the match fixing) because his record is inflated at home and quite ordinary abroad.
Also not long after he made his debut, his short comings as a batsman were clearly exposed- he didnt really have an off side game, and most bowlers realised that considering how dependent he was on leg side shots, all they had to do was keep on bowling on the off side and he wouldnt last very long and this is emphasised by his slump from 97 onwards until 2000(once again coinciding with the period you refer to). Of course teams like India quite clearly seemed oblivious to that, and on their tour to the WI in 96/97 decided that they would be better off by bowling onto his pads and around middle stump and as a result he had his most prolific series of his entire career uptil that point. He has of course since strengthened his offside game and his record as a result has improved dramatically.
Another point of note is that Lara from 96-01 was hardly deserving of the word 'great', in fact the SL tour of 2001 was supposed to have been the rebirth of his career. His average fell from 60 odd in 95 to less than 50 by 2000 or so, and while he still had his moments in the sun it was clear that for whatever reasons his career had gone straight down the barrel.
Also the support players, Hooper was quite good, Richardson played his last test in 95 and even he was past his prime by then, Adams was distinctly ordinary post 96, Bishop barely ever played and on the rare occasions that he did play was not even half the bowler he was when he first came onto the scene and anyone who thinks that Gayle is or has ever been more than acceptable in tests should have their head examined( in fact i doubt hed make too many other test sides other than the WI at the moment). This meant that for the large part WI was represented by Philo Wallace, Stuart Williams, Sherwin Campbell, Nixon Mclean, Mervyn Dillon, a very poor Jimmy Adams, Rawl Lewis, Adrian Griffith and miserable Gayle and Hinds all of whom were either distinctly ordinary or complete crap.

 

[tooextracool]

Hmm, I don't really even consider Dravid or Kumble to be 'great' if that terms means all time players.

Why on earth is Dravid not an all time great? Hes done absolutely everything that any other great batsman ever did, and hes done it better.

 

[tooextracool]

The South African team of the 90s is another example, they had say 6 very good players, but when they came up against a team like Australia and a couple of them failed they really didn't have much back up, to get them home.

so which ones of Kirsten, Kallis, Pollock, Donald, Mcmillan, Cullinan,Cronje, Rhodes and Klusener from the late 90s would you consider wasnt 'very good' then? and this was backed up with the likes of gibbs, boucher, and hudson who arent too shabby either. Remember this the same side that beat India in India and drew with SL in SL before even the Australians managed to. Dont let their performances against Australia fool you, they had at least a very good side and they were only ever missing another opener to back kirsten as well as a great spin bowler.

 

[Goughy]

so which ones of Kirsten, Kallis, Pollock, Donald, Mcmillan, Cullinan,Cronje, Rhodes and Klusener from the late 90s would you consider wasnt 'very good' then? and this was backed up with the likes of gibbs, boucher, and symcox who arent too shabby either.

Cronje, Rhodes and Klusener were ordinary Test cricketers.

Gibbs was poor in the late 90s and only became a decent Test cricketer after 2000.

Symcox was below average,

SA had only 1 cast iron blue-chip cricketer in Donald and possibly Pollock.

 

[tooextracool]

Cronje, Rhodes and Klusener were ordinary Test cricketers.

Im actually quite suprised their averages are so low, but at least Cronje and Klusener were averaging nearly 40 at one point with the bat, while Rhodes was probably worth an extra few runs in the field. They might not have been 'very good' players but they were worthy back ups to the likes of Kirsten,Cullinan and Kallis and Mcmillan.

SA had only 1 cast iron blue-chip cricketer in Donald.

No, pollock was pretty damn good as well, cullinan was better than most, Kirsten was arguably one of the best openers of the 90s, and Mcmillan was probably one of the best all rounders of the era. They had enough quality going around in their side to be not far behind from the best team in the world, and their record against Australia in the 90s isnt really all that bad, in fact all of them were closely fought.

 

[honestbharani]

This is the result of a quick investigation brought about by 2 threads. The 'apart from your team, who would you want to win the WC' thread and the Chanderpaul 100th test thread.

Guys like Ambrose were posters on my wall as a kid and I still think he is one of the best I have ever seen, but I cant help think that in many cases people on CW have rose-tinted glasses when it comes to evaluating West Indian talent.

Chanderpaul is a good player but this talk of him walking into the great WI team is, IMO, a little presumtious. Waits for Liam to respond

Right, As far as I can see Lara, Chanderpaul, Ambrose and Walsh (4 Greats according to many on CW) played together in 30 tests.

From my quick check, in those 30 tests with those 4 greats playing in the West Indies side the WI went 11 wins, 10 loses and 9 draws.

Hardly what you would expect from a team carrying such an 'exceptional' core. Also add in the fact that at one time or other they were supported by such very good players as Bishop, Gayle, Adams, Hooper etc.

How is it possible, if they were so good that they had such an average record?

Compare it to Englands last 30 tests, 16 wins, 6 loses and 8 draws and Australia's 21 wins, 3 loses and 6 draws.

OK, my question. How can a team carrying 4 'greats' have such a poor record?

There maybe good answers, so Im interested to see how people respond.

because of the simple reason that:


4 greats + 7 not so good guys < 11 very good guys


Also, Chanders and Walsh are not exactly great in my book. They will be just a rung below it, IMHO. Lara is a genius and Ambrose is a great, sure, but the others are not as good as you make it out to be.

 

[honestbharani]

There are actually several reasons, and i will get into them:
First and foremost, the WI wasnt composed of 4 greats. Chanderpaul was extremely new to international cricket during the period which you allude to, and theres no way anyone can just walk into international cricket and become great. It involves years of hard work and improvements to your game. Even now i dont consider Chanderpaul to be great, hes about as great as Azharuddin was(minus the match fixing) because his record is inflated at home and quite ordinary abroad.
Also not long after he made his debut, his short comings as a batsman were clearly exposed- he didnt really have an off side game, and most bowlers realised that considering how dependent he was on leg side shots, all they had to do was keep on bowling on the off side and he wouldnt last very long and this is emphasised by his slump from 97 onwards until 2000(once again coinciding with the period you refer to). Of course teams like India quite clearly seemed oblivious to that, and on their tour to the WI in 96/97 decided that they would be better off by bowling onto his pads and around middle stump and as a result he had his most prolific series of his entire career uptil that point. He has of course since strengthened his offside game and his record as a result has improved dramatically.
Another point of note is that Lara from 96-01 was hardly deserving of the word 'great', in fact the SL tour of 2001 was supposed to have been the rebirth of his career. His average fell from 60 odd in 95 to less than 50 by 2000 or so, and while he still had his moments in the sun it was clear that for whatever reasons his career had gone straight down the barrel.
Also the support players, Hooper was quite good, Richardson played his last test in 95 and even he was past his prime by then, Adams was distinctly ordinary post 96, Bishop barely ever played and on the rare occasions that he did play was not even half the bowler he was when he first came onto the scene and anyone who thinks that Gayle is or has ever been more than acceptable in tests should have their head examined( in fact i doubt hed make too many other test sides other than the WI at the moment). This meant that for the large part WI was represented by Philo Wallace, Stuart Williams, Sherwin Campbell, Nixon Mclean, Mervyn Dillon, a very poor Jimmy Adams, Rawl Lewis, Adrian Griffith and miserable Gayle and Hinds all of whom were either distinctly ordinary or complete crap.

I am not sure you can classify the whole of late 95 to 2001 as Lara's fall down, TEC. I suppose statistically it is true, but in terms of impact, I got the feeling that it was only from late 95 till the home series Vs Aus in 99 that Lara was really down. With all the captaincy aspirations and clashes with the board and blokes like Richie Richardson and Walsh, Lara never looked like he really REALLY wanted to be there scoring runs in that period. He was mentally not 100%. That was the whole "cricket is ruining my life" phase, I guess. But I think since the 99 series against Australia, he has looked hungry and 100% committed again. There was a lean trot there in between when his technique seemed to have gone a little awry and also a number of injuries took their toll (he was hardly really fit those days) but I think since 99, mentally, Lara has always been 100% which was not the case during what I consider to be his REAL trough, late 95 to early 99.

 

[Goughy]

because of the simple reason that:


4 greats + 7 not so good guys < 11 very good guys


Also, Chanders and Walsh are not exactly great in my book. They will be just a rung below it, IMHO. Lara is a genius and Ambrose is a great, sure, but the others are not as good as you make it out to be.

Im sure guys like G. Jones and Giles dont deserve to be called very good guys.

Also guys with poor records are being called good backup for South Africa, why not for the West Indies?

 

[Slow Love™]

I think my problem with the question is that it's a bit of a straw man, and there are some unclarified assertions.

Do many people genuinely consider Chanders to be a great? I would think not many at all (in fact, who here does?). So immediately, the question should be revised to three greats, unless the question is solely being asked of the individual concerned (if they exist) that put Chanderpaul up there as a great. Besides this, Chanderpaul's record has likely improved quite a bit since those days anyway.

Also, the "last 30 tests" comparison lacks detail and context. And though Ambrose and Walsh were still a force to be reckoned with at the twilight of their careers (it wouldn't surprise me if their averages improved over this period, in fact), the West Indians' main problem at that stage was likely that they depended far too much on Lara to post healthy scores that they could defend.

Ultimately the incredulity implied in the original post's question is probably a bit off, as the evidence illustrates that you can certainly have three greats in a side and lose tests.

 

[Mister Wright]

Chanderpaul is capable of great things as a batsman, and has played some amazing innings. Anyone who saw his 68* (IIRC) in Brisbane would agree (I consider it one of the best innings I have seen live). He's extremely under-rated, but whether he's a great of the game, that's another thing.

 

[silentstriker]

Why on earth is Dravid not an all time great? Hes done absolutely everything that any other great batsman ever did, and hes done it better.

He doesn't dominate attacks like Lara, Tendy, Richards, etc. Even Ponting can dominate, Dravid doesn't.

 

[Mister Wright]

He doesn't dominate attacks like Lara, Tendy, Richards, etc. Even Ponting can dominate, Dravid doesn't.

Oh Please... The guy has an average of 58, and IIRC averages more away from home than any other Indian to play in the modern era. He is the fastest batsman in terms of innings batted to get to 9000 runs and if he can get another 1000 in 18 innings he will be the quickest ever to 10000 runs. If that is not a case for an all time great I don't know what is.

 

[Goughy]

I think my problem with the question is that it's a bit of a straw man, and there are some unclarified assertions.

Do many people genuinely consider Chanders to be a great? I would think not many at all (in fact, who here does?). So immediately, the question should be revised to three greats, unless the question is solely being asked of the individual concerned (if they exist) that put Chanderpaul up there as a great. Besides this, Chanderpaul's record has likely improved quite a bit since those days anyway.

Also, the "last 30 tests" comparison lacks detail and context. And though Ambrose and Walsh were still a force to be reckoned with at the twilight of their careers (it wouldn't surprise me if their averages improved over this period, in fact), the West Indians' main problem at that stage was likely that they depended far too much on Lara to post healthy scores that they could defend.

Ultimately the incredulity implied in the original post's question is probably a bit off, as the evidence illustrates that you can certainly have three greats in a side and lose tests.

Just to clarify, it wasnt the last 30 tests. Just that Lara, Chanderpaul, Ambrose, Walsh played in a total of 30 tests together in total from 94-00.

 

[silentstriker]

Oh Please... The guy has an average of 58, and IIRC averages more away from home than any other Indian to play in the modern era. He is the fastest batsman in terms of innings batted to get to 9000 runs and if he can get another 1000 in 18 innings he will be the quickest ever to 10000 runs. If that is not a case for an all time great I don't know what is.

He scores runs, but doesn't dominate anyone. Richards inspired fear in the opposing team, Dravid inspires merely respect. That's the difference.

Now, by 'all time great' I mean like the top 10-12 batsman of all time (i.e would be eligible for all time world 1st, or 2nd XI). If you open that criteria to say the top 25 batsmen of all time, then he might make it because then I would open it up a little bit.

 

[Mister Wright]

He scores runs, but doesn't dominate anyone. Richards inspired fear in the opposing team, Dravid inspires merely respect. That's the difference.

Now, by 'all time great' I mean like the top 10-12 batsman of all time (i.e would be eligible for all time world 1st, or 2nd XI). If you open that criteria to say the top 25 batsmen of all time, then he might make it because then I would open it up a little bit.

Maybe, but there's dominating attacks by being attacking and imposing, then there's dominating attacks by scoring big runs when it matters. That is what Dravid does. Just look at his last two series against Australia. His 188 with Laxman in India meant India won the series and his 200 odd in Adelaide meant India didn't lose the series. I'd pick Lara over Tendulkar in my side any day of the week.

 

[silentstriker]

Maybe, but there's dominating attacks by being attacking and imposing, then there's dominating attacks by scoring big runs when it matters. That is what Dravid does. Just look at his last two series against Australia.

Yea, but being imposing is always worse or the fielding captain and team, and ergo, makes you a better batsman.

I'd pick Lara over Tendulkar in my side any day of the week.

Where did that come from in the discussion about Dravid?

 

[Goughy]

The title of the thread was very tongue in cheek.

I know why they lost games and it is because the WI team was not very good.

It was interesting to see how people justified them losing (or not winning as much as could be expected)

I absolutely do NOT buy into the fact of having 4 great players does not make a team. Unless the rest of the side is made up of mushrooms they should still be a good team.

The problem (IMO) is that apart from Ambrose the others mentioned (Lara, Chanderpaul, Walsh) are held in a higher esteem than they deserve and the word great is overused. Something I intentionally added in my posts.

Lara is obviously a great due to the sheer weight of his statistical performance, but has there every been a player in recent times that had been a product of numbers and style over substance?

The thread was in response to what seems to be a fondness for WI cricket (no bad thing) that leads people to not truly evaluate their worth.

WI cricket is on the down and down and it is just as simple as a numbers game (small populations) and poor development (players are no longer able to use English cricket as a finishing school).

It is interesting to read people saying that, apart from the 4 guys I mentioned, all the players were terrible and yet people are still talking of players with promise and ability that will obviously not mature into top class players.

To conclude, I dont dislike WI cricket. It just seems that it is subject of so many delusions and daydreams by cricket supporters around the world.