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

[GIMH]

People exaggerate about the bad weather. Cold and cloudy but dry on Merseyside. Perfect weather. You can keep your "very nice."

It's not in Wirral, or Liverpool. Bloody woolybacks, getting all the good weather

 

[wpdavid]

Better?

Yes. Thank you for translating.

 

[GIMH]

Will 150 be the follow-on limit now that it's a 4 day game?

 

[wpdavid]

Will 150 be the follow-on limit now that it's a 4 day game?

Probably - it was in 2001 when we played Pakistan at Lord's.

 

[Poker Boy]

No surprise - except maybe a correct weather forecast - and yes unless they have changed the rules since 2001, 150 will be the follow on (that rule definately made winning that 2001 Tesr easier for us)

 

[GIMH]

Doubt we'll get a result anyway if forecasts are to be believed. Shame

 

[Perm]

Grr, there better be some play tomorrow.

 

[GIMH]

Grr, there better be some play tomorrow.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Will 150 be the follow-on limit now that it's a 4 day game?

Yep. Will be reduced to 100 if Saturday is rained off as well I believe.

Oh and the weather is still absolutely atrocious here.

 

[Perm]

Haha, very good call.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Seriously chucked it down today, massive rivers flowing through my garden and down the main street. Not surprised in the least it was cancelled.

 

[GIMH]

as long as the sun comes out for my bbq i'll be happy

 

[grecian]

Well, seaming, swinging conditions, in a weather-hit match.

Does anyone think it would be a wise and brave move to leave Monty out.

Scaly, I know your answer, btw.

 

[simmy]

Well, seaming, swinging conditions, in a weather-hit match.

Does anyone think it would be a wise and brave move to leave Monty out.

Scaly, I know your answer, btw.

Brave? yes. Wise? **** no..

 

[Tom Halsey]

Seriously chucked it down today, massive rivers flowing through my garden and down the main street. Not surprised in the least it was cancelled.

Meanwhile, in Essex, it was glorious.

 

[roseboy64]

just browsing through some records, what do you make of richard kelly and andrew richardson? They both seem to have impressive FC records(although they've both struggled on A tours) but do you think they should have what it takes to succeed at the international level? I know richardson for one plays for Jamaica so you might know a bit more about him?

Both have been mentioned as potential international quality players with Kelly more linked to ODIs. Richardson's had some injury problems so despite his good seasons he hasn't stayed fit long enough to push for a callup. Kelly's been linked to playing ODIs and wouldn't mind him having been called up instead of Austin Richards. In any case I think he was in the provisional squad for the WC so I think he's in the thoughts of the selectors and another good season should see him playing for the WI.

 

[roseboy64]

What are you talking about?

Cheeky.

 

[roseboy64]

Marlon Samuels has a big attitude problem and often doesn't apply himself to a situation like he could, but he definately has the potential to be a better batsman than both Joseph and Deonarine who have fairly modest First Class records.

Actually Deonarines overall record in FC cricket is about as good as Marlon Samuels, and his recent record is even better:

2004-05 (West Indies) 12 638 45.57
2005-06 (West Indies) 7 381 38.10
2006-07 (West Indies) 6 401 57.28

That is far superior than almost anyone else in the WI side. I've only seen Deonarine bat in his debut and only series at the international level, and i have absolutely no understanding of why he was dropped because he showed superior technique in difficult conditions. Hes certainly deserved far more opportunities than Samuels has got who IMO simply does not have the technique(his footwork is ordinary) or the attitude to succeed in international cricket.

I see, I was using cricinfo as a source because usually it is more reliable. He does have some fairly impressive figures and without knowing him too much about either him or Sylvester Joseph then I would have to say that Deonarine is a better batsman, and his record over the last few years seems to back that up. I think it is very unfair to compare his performances to Gayle, Sarwan and Samuels to Deonarine because they have all been playing ODI cricket and have had little opportunity to play domestic cricket.

His attitude and temperament can be quite disappointing at times, although you could've said something similar about Runako Morton and look how responsibly he batted in the 3rd Test against England, even though he only made 50. However Samuels has the ability to turn into a very good Test and ODI batsman, especially if he gets a coach or mentor who can help him turn his attitude problems around. I've always thought he has a pretty good technique, and being a fairly tall batsman will help him with the short pitched bowling as well.

http://www.cricketarchive.com/Archive/Players/10/10106/f_Batting_by_Season.html

That is my source which seems to be more complete. I rather cheekily removed his performances in SL, thinking that they were merely his international performances in SL(on sticky wickets) which dont constitute his domestic performances, but then realized that he had played 2 games on the A tour to SL. Regardless, i think those figures appear to be quite impressive over the last 3 years. As far as the comparison with the rest of the WI side is concerned, i was referring to his last 3 years which is 40.41 when you include his international committments, which is far better than gayle, sarwan and smith have managed although it might be an unfair comparison since they have all played at the international level.

As far as Samuels is concerned, i cant see how he can be anything other than an ordinary test match player(he might be a very good ODI player) but his test record is representative of both his technique, temperament and attitude and i dont see it improving at any time in the near future.

AFAIK he doesn't have an attitude problem. Most likely had one up to a few years ago but he seems to have corrected that. He's early to training and does what's asked of him from reports. Can't get away from his past it seems as there was a newspaper report recently where it was written that he was absent from training yet he was there. Rubbed some people the wrong way int the past and people aren't forgetting it and he doesn't know how to react i.e if he's serious he's not a team player, too happy he's a joker, etc. At the least that's what I've gotten from all the angles I've heard.

 

[Richard]

It isn't up to you though, the ICC have classed Zimbabwe and Bangladesh as Test sides, regardless of whether they are Test standard or not, they are still Test sides.

Exactly. You can have your opinions on it, but at the end of the day, you have to recognise what the actual classifications are. By all means, remove dire teams from stats when comparing players, but as far as milestones and the like go - if we all just went by our own personal opinions on it, there'd be no consistency and we'd never truly know when a player did cross a milestone. Richard is not intrinsically right on which teams are test standard, even though I generally agree with him on the matter.

There's much I don't recognise I$C$C on, and definition of Test and ODI teams is one of them.

I recognise what I$C$C's classifications are, but I don't have to accept or swallow them.

 

[Richard]

And WTF Austin Richards? What the heck has he done to be selected. Played two games and averaged 29.50. Oh wait must be his FC average of 60+. But that was only of two games with a high score of 183 I think against the worst team in the competition by the stats. Ah now I see....He's from Anitgua. That's the only plausible reason for his inclusion. My )*^&%&*$&*$ word! At least Joseph has decent figures. I hope he dopesn't get a game. Seriously....WOW!!!!!

Rant over.

Haha, that'll do.

Bookmark SajAward.