*Official* West Indies in New Zealand - Nov/Dec 2020

[Prince EWS]

He's just not any good but he keeps getting by because of that century was England 2 years ago.

It didn't save Shai Hope, whose failures are really much more surprising.

For Chase it's the fact that he bowls reasonable spin IMO. Like I'd honestly rather keep picking Chase but bat him below Holder than recall Permaul. Cornwall is certainly more worth a go though if they want the "bat a bit, bowl a few offies" type selection.

 

[Pup Clarke]

Thing is, I really like Roston, comes across as a really chill guy and even-tempered. I just wonder if the coaching staff have the courage to tell some home truths? Feel that might be what's required

 

[Beamer]

Thing is, I really like Roston, comes across as a really chill guy and even-tempered. I wonder if the coaching staff have the courage to tell some home truths? Feel that might be what's required

Phil Simmons won't be shy to do that. They just aren't good enough. It's not a small sample size, they've had 4 or 5 years worth of guaranteed selection. Roston used to be our man for a crisis. Now he saunters around the field like he owns it, doesn't bother chasing balls to the boundary etc.

I don't care who they choose to replace them, they just need to try something different or they will lose all the fans. Even I'm considering whether it's worth staying up late to watch this lot. I don't feel they are deserving of our support.

 

[Flem274*]

the batting issues are a symptom of the wider issue that won't solve itself overnight despite recent improvements (windies fc hating batsmen for 20 years).

the fielding is ridiculous though. reflex catches are talent based but diving to save a boundary isn't.

 

[Prince EWS]

Phil Simmons won't be shy to do that. They just aren't good enough. It's not a small sample size, they've had 4 or 5 years worth of guaranteed selection. Roston used to be our man for a crisis. Now he saunters around the field like he owns it, doesn't bother chasing balls to the boundary etc.

I don't care who they choose to replace them, they just need to try something different or they will lose all the fans. Even I'm considering whether it's worth staying up late to watch this lot. I don't feel they are deserving of our support.

This is devil's advocate a bit, but I do kind of disagree with this attitude, at least without more context. If I'm a selector, the replacements absolutely do matter. I'd never drop a guy just because "he deserves dropping" because it presumes a standard of depth that might not exist.

For example - I reckon Sean Williams is Zimbabwe's best ODI bat right. He averages 35 and strikes at 82. I'd probably pick the guy in an all-time Zimbabwe ODI XI. Against decent teams I believe his record is slightly worse, but it's similar. However, especially given the bloke is 34, England and India would probably consider this "proven mediocrity" and drop him (and probably rightly so given their options). If Zimbabwe did this they'd drop the whole team and eventually all their replacements too - repeatedly. Different teams are going to have different standards, and part of the job of a selector is to kind of get a grasp on what standard to expect. To use an example more radical than Zimbabwe, Germany wouldn't be dropping a player the calibre of Sean Williams of Roston Chase, even if they had a brutal examination against New Zealand and he averaged 5.

As a coach the standard will be different as you'd demand each player fulfill his potential, but as a selector he should really only have to better than what you'd expect of the next guy. Dropping people to set the standard only works if you're realistic about what the standard is. Dropping Grant Flower because you're frustrated he's not as good as Damien Martyn should just get you fired IMO.

Now I actually agree with you that Chase should be dropped. I mentioned it before the Test. But if Cornwall didn't exist I'd be more hesitant; I'd probably just boot him down the order to "send the message". You ultimately do have to actually pick your best team to try to win games. Setting an unrealistic standard given your depth may make you feel like you're *doing something* about bad performances, but it doesn't actually raise the standard.

 

[Flem274*]

This is devil's advocate a bit, but I do kind of disagree with this attitude, at least without more context. If I'm a selector, the replacements absolutely do matter. I'd never drop a guy just because "he deserves dropping" because it presumes a standard of depth that might not exist.

For example - I reckon Sean Williams is Zimbabwe's best ODI bat right. He averages 35 and strikes at 82. I'd probably pick the guy in an all-time Zimbabwe ODI XI. Against decent teams I believe his record is slightly worse, but it's similar. However, especially given the bloke is 34, England and India would probably consider this "proven mediocrity" and drop him (and probably rightly so given their options). If Zimbabwe did this they'd drop the whole team and eventually all their replacements too - repeatedly. Different teams are going to have different standards, and part of the job of a selector is to kind of get a grasp on what standard to expect. To use an example more radical than Zimbabwe, Germany wouldn't be dropping a player the calibre of Sean Williams of Roston Chase, even if they had a brutal examination against New Zealand and he averaged 5.

As a coach the standard will be different as you'd demand each player fulfill his potential, but as a selector he should really only have to better than what you'd expect of the next guy. Dropping people to set the standard only works if you're realistic about what the standard is. Dropping Grant Flower because you're frustrated he's not as good as Damien Martyn should just get you fired IMO.

Now I actually agree with you that Chase should be dropped. I mentioned it before the Test. But if Cornwall didn't exist I'd be more hesitant; I'd probably just boot him down the order to "send the message". You ultimately do have to actually pick your best team to try to win games. Setting an unrealistic standard given your depth may make you feel like you're *doing something* about bad performances, but it doesn't actually raise the standard.

plus i don't think beamer is being harsh enough on the bowling. a stat today was in their past 4 tests they've conceded some serious totals, and yesterday had potential for sub 100.

the catching didn't help but the bowling unit is going through a mini-slump.

for batsmen i think i'd just select from the A side, make runs on A tour or **** off since fc cricket can only recently be remotely trustworthy.

 

[Prince EWS]

for batsmen i think i'd just select from the A side, make runs on A tour or **** off since fc cricket can only recently be remotely trustworthy.

Making runs in FC cricket there is actually reasonably realiable, as long as:
1. They're serious runs, and you're not just "topping the charts" but averaging 36; and:
2. You're not Devon Smith

Combining #1 and #2 is actually pretty rare though. I'd be thinking more along the lines of "our pitches suck but if a bloke with talent scores some serious A-team runs on two consecutive tours then he's worth a go".

They do a pretty good job actually selecting their A-teams as well IMO; a good mix of prodigious talents and blokes who "topped the charts" averaging 36.

 

[Beamer]

plus i don't think beamer is being harsh enough on the bowling. a stat today was in their past 4 tests they've conceded some serious totals, and yesterday had potential for sub 100.

the catching didn't help but the bowling unit is going through a mini-slump.

for batsmen i think i'd just select from the A side, make runs on A tour or **** off since fc cricket can only recently be remotely trustworthy.

Yep the bowling hasn't been at 100% over the last 3 tests. But here they would have bundled NZ out of the fielding had been up to it. We have quite a few excellent quicks in the wings tbh, I'm really not worried about that.

The batting is s crippling problem and all of our energy needs to go into sorting it.

 

[Beamer]

This is devil's advocate a bit, but I do kind of disagree with this attitude, at least without more context. If I'm a selector, the replacements absolutely do matter. I'd never drop a guy just because "he deserves dropping" because it presumes a standard of depth that might not exist.

For example - I reckon Sean Williams is Zimbabwe's best ODI bat right. He averages 35 and strikes at 82. I'd probably pick the guy in an all-time Zimbabwe ODI XI. Against decent teams I believe his record is slightly worse, but it's similar. However, especially given the bloke is 34, England and India would probably consider this "proven mediocrity" and drop him (and probably rightly so given their options). If Zimbabwe did this they'd drop the whole team and eventually all their replacements too - repeatedly. Different teams are going to have different standards, and part of the job of a selector is to kind of get a grasp on what standard to expect. To use an example more radical than Zimbabwe, Germany wouldn't be dropping a player the calibre of Sean Williams of Roston Chase, even if they had a brutal examination against New Zealand and he averaged 5.

As a coach the standard will be different as you'd demand each player fulfill his potential, but as a selector he should really only have to better than what you'd expect of the next guy. Dropping people to set the standard only works if you're realistic about what the standard is. Dropping Grant Flower because you're frustrated he's not as good as Damien Martyn should just get you fired IMO.

Now I actually agree with you that Chase should be dropped. I mentioned it before the Test. But if Cornwall didn't exist I'd be more hesitant; I'd probably just boot him down the order to "send the message". You ultimately do have to actually pick your best team to try to win games. Setting an unrealistic standard given your depth may make you feel like you're *doing something* about bad performances, but it doesn't actually raise the standard.

I guess Im just frustrated, because you make good points. I just don't see what we have to lose by sticking Hety and Pooran in there and saying you're ridiculously talented, the previous lot hot a long run and did nothing, so here's 10 tests to prove yourself. Hety was an opener at youth level, I say let's ask him to do it because we have no other options.

Agree on the batting in FC cricket, if you average in the high 30s in our cricket with our umpiring, it's a good effort. The obvious opener to replace Campbell is now Shayne Mosely, who has had two seasons averaging around 40 and has got some big scores. I personally think he's vulnerable outside off but there's no doubt he deserves a pick next. He certainly has a better temperament for tests than Campbell.

Other options who've scored middle order runs are limited. Brandon King was scoring lots of runs but for the last year he's been playing T20s and not any FC cricket. So for me I'd bring in Pooran and Hety and give Bravo a longer run, at least he's done it before. Kyle Mayers has been superb at number 5/6 for Barbados also.

My test squad for Bangladesh would be:

Mosely (opener)
Hety (opener)
Brooks/Bravo
Pooran
Blackwood
Da Silva
Holder
Cornwall
Spinner 2
Roach
Gabriel

Reserves:
Alzarri
Chemar
Brooks/Bravo
Mayers

 

[Moss]

Same with Kraigg. He used to be a test quality opener but the reality is he had been awful for over 3 years now.

Yeah I’m most surprised by his decline, he was one of the few batting successes for the Windies in the first half of the decade. How did a guy who played those innings in the UAE 4 years ago come down to this level? There was a period of time when I thought he was the standard Latham should aspire to.

 

[Beamer]

Yeah I’m most surprised by his decline, he was one of the few batting successes for the Windies in the first half of the decade. How did a guy who played those innings in the UAE 4 years ago come down to this level? There was a period of time when I thought he was the standard Latham should aspire to.

Latham is a good comparison tbh. He was that sort of opener. But he is a walking wicket at the moment and neither takes the shine off the ball or puts pressure on the opposition.

 

[Prince EWS]

Latham is a good comparison tbh. He was that sort of opener. But he is a walking wicket at the moment and neither takes the shine off the ball or puts pressure on the opposition.

He is ultimately a good comparison, but if you look through the archives (@TheJediBrah won't be helping, lol you kid), Kraigg's strength was always his temperament, whereas that was Latham's weakness - his technique got him through the hard stuff and then he threw it away.

I think it might ultimately be a good case study in the way my Bravo/Chandimal vs Root post was, too. This is why the West Indies are occasionally competitive at U19 50-over level (even if they have to mankad Zimbabweans - yeah still salty) but lose it between, IMO. It's not because the selectors or the coaches are **** (and don't get me wrong, sometimes they are), but that the pathways and development opportunities on the way are dispicable.

I used Zimbabwe 2020 as an example of re: dropping Sean Williams. West Indies 2025 could be Zimbabwe 2020, easy (Zimbabwe 2025 will probably be whole other level of basket case and probably lapped by Oman unless they convince 40 year olds to play, but that's a different circus to own).

 

[Beamer]

He is ultimately a good comparison, but if you look through the archives (@TheJediBrah won't be helping, lol you kid), Kraigg's strength was always his temperament, whereas that was Latham's weakness - his technique got him through the hard stuff and then he threw it away.

I think it might ultimately be a good case study in the way my Bravo/Chandimal vs Root post was, too. This is why the West Indies are occasionally competitive at U19 50-over level (even if they have to mankad Zimbabweans - yeah still salty) but lose it between, IMO. It's not because the selectors or the coaches are **** (and don't get me wrong, sometimes they are), but that the pathways and development opportunities on the way are dispicable.

I used Zimbabwe 2020 as an example of re: dropping Sean Williams. West Indies 2025 could be Zimbabwe 2020, easy (Zimbabwe will be whole other level of basket case and probably lapped by Oman unless they convince 40 year olds to play, but that's a different circus to own).

There's no doubt our administrators don't help our players develop, rather they usually get in the way.

I think Jimmy Adams has done a lot of work behind the scenes to change this over the last 5 years, but the current team obviously did not benefit from that. We'll see the benefit of his work from around 2025 IMHO. I've given up on this generation of batsman.

 

[trundler]

The only hope is Hety and Pooran learning on the job, as you say. Holder needs to understand he's basically a top 6 batsman too. Away from home, he has to take on more responsibility. Ideally, Hope would git gud and we'll see Hope/Pooran/Hetmyer which could be distinctly less dross.

 

[Beamer]

The only hope is Hety and Pooran learning on the job, as you say. Holder needs to understand he's basically a top 6 batsman too. Away from home, he has to take on more responsibility. Ideally, Hope would git gud and we'll see Hope/Pooran/Hetmyer which could be distinctly less dross.

If you watch the a team video scorecard and see Poorans boundaries, it is like chalk and cheese. That is proper batting and getting forward to lean into a drive. I no longer care about experience, let's just take a punt.

Fully agree that Jason needs to take more responsibility with the bat.

 

[Frost]

WI remind me so much of nz a few years ago, hopefully they make some changes similar to the way nz have turned it around

 

[straw man]

Yeah they've even taken our Spirit of Cricket 'prize'.

NZ's batting was a wasteland of nothingness after the core Fleming/Astle/Richardson/McMillan/Styris had all retired, it was year zero, start from scratch. Only regular runs came from McCullum at 7 and Vettori at 8. Luckily from the many many batsmen tried one stood up, and the entire rest of his career the batting lineup has been built piece by piece around Ross Taylor. It's a sloooow process though.

So, uh, find a Ross Taylor?

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

Kraigg looks like a tailender here

 

[straw man]

I'd drop Chase but retain Brathwaite for a bit longer.

 

[straw man]

Southee's had a great start to the season. Fortunate too - I can imagine the conversation if the new tall right arm swing bowler was taking bags of wickets and Southee wasn't.