But that was a raw talent XI. I would have picked Bennett years ago anyway, he is a good bowler. I just happen to believe that Roach is going to be the real deal and has too much talent to ignore while Powell gets a long run taking his wickets at an average of 47.Steups. Some awful bowlers have been able to swing the ball at pace. Bennett is the one who has proven that he can take wickets cheap and often. That's what you pick Test bowlers on. Not on their natural talent.
I'd say Dwayne Smith is more naturally talented than Paul Collingwood. Guess which one is the deserved international...
I have no problems with Jamaicans, in fact my favourite fast bowler is Jerome Taylor and I would rather watch Xavier Marshall bat than anyone else in the Caribbean. Unfortunately there is a bias towards Jamaican players at the moment as Gayle threatened to resign if the selectors and the WICB did not give into his demands, which happen to be that he wants his fellow Jamaicans around him. That is fact unfortunately.This is starting to sound distinctly anti-Jamaican.
I agree that the team is improving and Gayle, Marshall, Nash, Taylor and Miller all belong in the setup. My concern is why Findlay has been selected, and why Powell is persisted with.Jamaica has the best players, it is the reason why they are being selected instead of trinis. This Ja hating won't get lesser talented players from trnidad into the squad. The team has been slowly growing since Chris gayle took over.
I could live with that xi if Powell was replaced. I personally don't rate Benn but a spinner is better than no spinner certainly.I wonder if this is a possibility?
1 Gayle
2 Chattergoon
3 Sarwan
4 Chanderpaul
5 Nash
6 Bravo
7 Ramdin
8 Taylor
9 Benn
10 Powell
11 Edwards
I prefer Chanderpaul at 4, gives him more time.
Let's put aside talent, which we can't really quantify anyway. Bennett is a better bowler. That much seems clear given his performance. Whether he is a better Test bowler or not in the long run, he is a much more reasonable choice for a Test cap right now. You can't honestly be suggesting that Roach get a chance in Tests anytime soon. He's never even played a full first-class season, and what little cricket he has played, he hasn't done well.But that was a raw talent XI. I would have picked Bennett years ago anyway, he is a good bowler. I just happen to believe that Roach is going to be the real deal and has too much talent to ignore while Powell gets a long run taking his wickets at an average of 47.
You know this for a fact? Because AFAIK, it's not a pro-Jamaican stance that Gayle stood up to the board with.Unfortunately there is a bias towards Jamaican players at the moment as Gayle threatened to resign if the selectors and the WICB did not give into his demands, which happen to be that he wants his fellow Jamaicans around him. That is fact unfortunately.
If Gayle is going to be held responsible for West Indies results, as he will be, he should have a big say in who comprises the team IMO.I am not anti-Jamaican in anyway, I am just worried that Gayle has too much of a say in selection. If results continue to improve and Findlay and Powell suddenly perform well I will eat crow, but lets face it that is unlikely.
Tentatively retired, it seems. He was never Test class anyway. Just a hard worker. Marshall is a better bet.Question mark 2: The number 4 spot is a big issue ATM. Losing Samuels was massive. Marshall is no doubt talented but is too raw. Morton looked a bit out of his depth vs AUS & SA last season. Whats up with Sylvester Joseph??.
Collins is still the best bowler in the region (given that he still represents Barbados), so it really is a shame. West Indies carried him to SA last year and didn't play him. I think that was the last straw. Also worth noting that after the last Test Collymore played for West Indies he was ranked number 7 in the world.Question mark 4: Like Samuels @ 4. Losing Collins to ENG as a Kolpak was a HUGE loss also. Powell really is being carried since no better to replace him.
Definitely can't agree here. You don't pick token bowlers. You don't pick a spinner for the sake of it. And there are fast bowlers who are better than Benn about.I could live with that xi if Powell was replaced. I personally don't rate Benn but a spinner is better than no spinner certainly.
While we're at it, let's get someone better than Benn, thanks. Like Miller or Jaggernauth.Benn
Someone better than Powell
Someone better than Baker
Obviously I agree. both of them are miles better than Benn. If they insist on picking him as the spinner though I would prefer having him as a spin option than picking 4 seamers.Definitely can't agree here. You don't pick token bowlers. You don't pick a spinner for the sake of it. And there are fast bowlers who are better than Benn about.
While we're at it, let's get someone better than Benn, thanks. Like Miller or Jaggernauth.
Tbh, I don't mind the inclusion of Adil Rashid, for the England management to have a close look at how he is developing, for him to experience different conditions, and hopefully for his game to grow. The balance of the side obviously looks a little wrong, as you say, three spinners in a 16 man squad when you are not touring the sub-continent is excessive, but that boils down to England not knowing who to play, either Panesar or Swann. The Rashid selection is all about development, and I don't see it does any harm to a player they seem pretty sure will be a future England player.Would absolutely agree with this. Three spinners in a sixteen man squad (effectively 15 because Ambrose isn't playing short of injury)? Hmmm.
Only vague way Rashid makes sense is as a like-for-unlike replacement for Fred if (when?) his ankle goes again.
Yea Joseph did look a bit out of depth vs ENG in 04 over here. But he isn't an opener really is he. Plus he looked pretty organised in that 20 million dollar match the other day.Tentatively retired, it seems. He was never Test class anyway. Just a hard worker. Marshall is a better bet.
Well ell yes 3 innings isn't the best measure. But based on WI standards in this 2000s era that equivalent to an English player being picked after 30 FC matches haha.Also, not sure how Nash is settled after just 3 innings....
Word, if Samuels wasn't banned & Collins was availbale the WI would look fairly good. I heard the Kolpak ruling is changing or sum so maybe some hope for Collins to return in the future.Collins is still the best bowler in the region (given that he still represents Barbados), so it really is a shame. West Indies carried him to SA last year and didn't play him. I think that was the last straw. Also worth noting that after the last Test Collymore played for West Indies he was ranked number 7 in the world.
Hmm, nah, can't take anything away from those innings i'm afraid.But, IIRC, most of his runs came once we were indisputably in the mire and he decided to swing the bat.
True, and I was at Lord's that day and was impressed with the way he took the attack to SA. I agree that if he'd got out for 20 we'd have been in a bit of trouble, and that it was a good knock - but in the context of the match as a whole, his innings wasn't that significant. And if you really want to be picky, he froze up like a rabbit in front of a truck when he got near his 200.
As a final point - if you take out his runs against Bangladesh, his average falls below 40 to 38-ish. I haven't yet done the calc if you take out WI and NZ as well, but I will do soon.
who wrote this ?I don't think this point has been given suitable attention by all:
Before Shivnarine Chanderpaul made a first-ball duck in Napier recently, his previous nine Test scores had been 86* (v Sri Lanka), 118, 11, 107*, 77*, 79*, 50 (all v Australia) and 76 and 126* (v New Zealand). His Test average for 2008 was 101. But then we shouldn't be too surprised: in 2007 he averaged 111. And yet how many people would include him unthinkingly in their World XI? If England think their next six Tests are going to be a breeze, they can think again.