***Official** West Indies in England***

[Arrow]

Yes, but they've sucked (and so have other teams) before, and things have always got better eventually. Cricket is a cyclical game.

When did it get better before? It seems they have been steadily declining year after year.

 

[Goughy]

Yes, but they've sucked (and so have other teams) before, and things have always got better eventually. Cricket is a cyclical game.

You cant underplay how bad it is though. In the last 5 years they have player 46 Tests (non Bang or Zim) and won 3

They have lost their last 10 series (3 or more games) winning 1 game in those 10 series.

They have one of the worst batting to bowling deficits for the last 5 years in history.

Im not saying this to have a go at them as we all know they are poor. Its just that they have been bad for a while. Certainly far more than the last year.

As for cyclical, there is a little bit of that but mainly cricket is a product of good, stong systems and processes. That well would indicate there is a long road before the WI are any good again. Its not just a matter of waiting for it to turn itself around.

 

[roseboy64]

Definitely need a better system to turn it around. A poduct of the board at the time when WI were dominant not being forward thinkers and just expecting everything to fall into place.

 

[Gloucefan]

This is why I thought that he was playing club cricket, very odd.

I want the next test to start

Me too. I hate it mid-series when there is a break of more than a few days, even when the result is as clear as this one.

 

[Goughy]

Definitely need a better system to turn it around. A poduct of the board at the time when WI were dominant not being forward thinkers and just expecting everything to fall into place.

Yeah, when the WI were top of the World they led the cricketing nations in a number of development areas. Increasingly other countries have over taken them in terms of their development systems and they have been left behind.

If you stand still you go backwards and the WI board were just no pro-active enough.

 

[Perm]

Seems as though Matthew Hoggard will miss the 3rd Test which is a darn shame.

 

[Richard]

When did it get better before? It seems they have been steadily declining year after year.

You cant underplay how bad it is though. In the last 5 years they have player 46 Tests (non Bang or Zim) and won 3

They have lost their last 10 series (3 or more games) winning 1 game in those 10 series.

They have one of the worst batting to bowling deficits for the last 5 years in history.

Im not saying this to have a go at them as we all know they are poor. Its just that they have been bad for a while. Certainly far more than the last year.

As for cyclical, there is a little bit of that but mainly cricket is a product of good, stong systems and processes. That well would indicate there is a long road before the WI are any good again. Its not just a matter of waiting for it to turn itself around.

What was their record in the 5-and-a-half years between January 1968 and June 1973? P31, W2. Lost 5 series out of 7 (the only 2 draws being against the weakest of their 5 possible opponents, New Zealand).

This is no worse than their last 5 years. They've played (and so lost) far more games, due to the schedule differences. But the crux of the issue is the same - a weak team. A very weak team. I suppose there are some differences, as the side in that period still had Roy Fredericks, Rohan Kanhai and Clive Lloyd, as well as for some of the time Garfield Sobers, Seymour Nurse, Basil Butcher, Deryck Murray, Charles Davis, Alvin Kallicherran, Lawrence Rowe, Lancelot Gibbs, Vanburn Holder and Keith Boyce. But it's easy to forget there have been some fair cricketers to play Tests for West Indies in the last 5 years, too, and that's outside the obvious of Lara and Chanderpaul.

Now, of course, it's undoubtedly the case that more needs to be done to turn things around than it did then, because the game is different. Liam's given me enough examples of the incompetent nature of the WICB down the years - it's not a case of if Junior Murray had played that fateful game, taken that fateful catch and WI had not lost in such dramatic style that they'd still be riding high - they'd been on the decline for 9 years before losing that series to Australia. Mistakes have been made.

Trouble is, there's no magic bullet. Promising seamers have been many (King, McLean, Stuart, Dillon, Collins, Collymore, Lawson, Taylor, Edwards) but something, somewhere, has always managed to go wrong.

Simply saying "the organisation's not what it should be" is too simplstic - if you're going to say that, you have to say what you'd change.

 

[roseboy64]

First off, the Academy needs to be restarted. The WICB seems to be doing that. Also, the FC season needs to be longer. 5 games isn't enough. Thirdly, the structure needs to be more professional with cricket being an occupation. Currently most FC players don't get paid enough to focus solely on cricket. Ian Bradshaw was an accountant before getting selected and he's not alone. Barring players who feature regularly in WI squads, every player who's over 20 has a 9 to 5 job or is in school. Can't improve if you don't get paid enough to focus fully on cricket and also when you don't play enough games. Also, there's the case of players performing well at junior level then not being heard of again in a couple years.

 

[pasag]

Besides all the structural problems, from an outsiders viewpoint, the WICB looks woeful and incompetent and filled with politics, egos and infighting. I could be totally wrong though.

 

[Perm]

Besides all the structural problems, from an outsiders viewpoint, the WICB looks woeful and incompetent and filled with politics, egos and infighting. I could be totally wrong though.

Certainly what it looks like to me.

 

[Goughy]

What was their record in the 5-and-a-half years between January 1968 and June 1973? P31, W2. Lost 5 series out of 7 (the only 2 draws being against the weakest of their 5 possible opponents, New Zealand).

Simply saying "the organisation's not what it should be" is too simplstic - if you're going to say that, you have to say what you'd change.

Ive detailed where I think the WI problems to be at length in the past. The crux being is that they were at the forefront of a number of areas and were competing against teams run by amateurish Boards. These Boards became more professional and business like and the WI stood still and their systems became out dated in the professional modern administrative cricket world.

Also the period you mention isnt quite the same as now. Mainly because during the 5 year period you cherrypicked the WI only had a losing percentage of 32%. The team over the last 5 years has had a losing percentage (including Bang and Zim) of 58% witch goes up to 65% taking Bang and Zim out.

Thats a huge difference in losing culture.

Also just to show that this WI decline has not been a recent dip but a progressive downward slope.

Richards et al retired in 1991. Since he has retired WI have won 37 games and lost 69.

In their last 100 Tests they have won 20 (7 against Bang and Zim included) and lost 56.

and going back to 2005 they have not won any of their last 18 Tests (losing 12) despite playing against 6 different opponents.

 

[Poker Boy]

But in the era Richard mentioned, all they lacked was fast bowling. They had the batting, and they had Sobers and Gibbs. Put say Roberts and Holding in that team and they would have won Test matches. Put Roberts and Holding into this current team and England would not score 500 every first innings as they have done so far but the batting would still be poor so they would still lose a lot of matches (as in 2000 here where they had Ambrose and Walsh and still lost because of awful batting). And that era lasted five years. They've been hopeless away from home since Pakistan beat them 3-0 in 1997 and the decline was first noticed (until then only Australia had beaten them).

 

[Manee]

They've got the MCC 50/3. They would really shut up the critics if they upset England at Old Trafford. It is a long way away, but trialing all their five pacers against England seems to be the right option, hopefully they can find a good combination to make their matches against England more than one sided contests.

 

[Richard]

Ive detailed where I think the WI problems to be at length in the past. The crux being is that they were at the forefront of a number of areas and were competing against teams run by amateurish Boards. These Boards became more professional and business like and the WI stood still and their systems became out dated in the professional modern administrative cricket world.

That comment about people saying "there are problems" without stating what wasn't especially aimed at you, BTW, though I haven't read your posts on the matter before now.

Also the period you mention isnt quite the same as now. Mainly because during the 5 year period you cherrypicked the WI only had a losing percentage of 32%. The team over the last 5 years has had a losing percentage (including Bang and Zim) of 58% witch goes up to 65% taking Bang and Zim out.

Thats a huge difference in losing culture.

Indeed. The game is more result-orientated at the current time than it was in the early 1970s. That period wasn't cherry-picked, though - it was at the end of a successful era and just before another successful one.

Also just to show that this WI decline has not been a recent dip but a progressive downward slope.

Richards et al retired in 1991. Since he has retired WI have won 37 games and lost 69.

In their last 100 Tests they have won 20 (7 against Bang and Zim included) and lost 56.

and going back to 2005 they have not won any of their last 18 Tests (losing 12) despite playing against 6 different opponents.

West Indies' decline started even before 1991 - 1986\87, when Imran and Qadir bowled them out for 46, was the starting point. The losses then were Holding and Garner; obviously the biggest en-masse loss was 1991 with first Greenidge, then Richards, Dujon and Marshall. But as PB said, the only team who beat them until 1997 was Australia. Since 1997 they've been in freefall, getting worse still as they lost Ambrose, Walsh and now Lara.

In that way it is indeed different to the 1968-1973 period in that there have been, probably, 4 stages of decline (1986\87 when they ceased to be capable of beating Pakistan and New Zealand, 1991 when they probably became about equals with Australia, 1997 when the started losing away to everyone, 2001 when they started losing everywhere to everyone), whereas that one, as I say above, was more of a straightforward on-off thing.

Xavier (roseboy64) also makes some valid points.

 

[Poker Boy]

They've got the MCC 50/3. They would really shut up the critics if they upset England at Old Trafford. It is a long way away, but trialing all their five pacers against England seems to be the right option, hopefully they can find a good combination to make their matches against England more than one sided contests.

I don't think having this MCC team in trouble means anything and they've fought back to 129-4 anyway - but it has to be said we are such generous hosts .Imagine WI were touring Australia. Would Australia give them a game like this to try and help them find their feet? No. IMO this game should be against England A with the best players outside the Test XI playing to try and keep them down.

 

[Prince EWS]

I don't think having this MCC team in trouble means anything and they've fought back to 129-4 anyway - but it has to be said we are such generous hosts .Imagine WI were touring Australia. Would Australia give them a game like this to try and help them find their feet? No. IMO this game should be against England A with the best players outside the Test XI playing to try and keep them down.

On the flip side, one could argue that giving them a game against weak opposition lets them know little about how their players are really travelling in comparison to a match against an A side.

 

[Manee]

I don't think having this MCC team in trouble means anything and they've fought back to 129-4 anyway - but it has to be said we are such generous hosts .Imagine WI were touring Australia. Would Australia give them a game like this to try and help them find their feet? No. IMO this game should be against England A with the best players outside the Test XI playing to try and keep them down.

Yes I know, but some people were slating them so bad that you'd think they couldn't beat this young MCC XI.

 

[Nishant]

Yes I know, but some people were slating them so bad that you'd think they couldn't beat this young MCC XI.

true...beating this team, even convincingly would not mean that WI are out of all their probs...but it may give them a bit of confidence to suggest that not all is bad!

 

[GIMH]

On the flip side, one could argue that giving them a game against weak opposition lets them know little about how their players are really travelling in comparison to a match against an A side.

Yeah, definitely agree with this. I'd rather face NSW than, um, a Redfern XI

 

[Richard]

Hiding from thy problems never did any good, and all that.

It's better to lose to a strong NSW XI than play a Redferns XI, because if you win convincingly that's just and-so-you-damn-well-should, and if you do poorly - even if you win ITE - it's still "they even struggled against a Redferns XI".