*Official* West Indies in Zimbabwe Thread

[marc71178]

Harmison has got a poor county record and if you take out his performances against Zimbabwe and Bangladesh, his Test record is quite appauling.

And if you take out games played on flat wickets in 2002 or against Australia, he has a good record.

After you say discount those games, I defy you to say that Johnson has a good Test record until he's had to play against similar batting line-ups on similar wickets.

By the way, in this time when he was appaling, he averaged 42.96, compared with 47.27 from the rest of the team, so taken in context, why is his head the first to be called for?

 

[gibbsnsmith]

Well please accept my heartfelt apologies for not stipulating Test's, even though all along we've been talking about First Class Cricket, I can see how you got confused and dragged in smash bang wallop Cricket into it.

Are you trying to kill me? Or What? :!(


And Neil!!! "crap" is a swear word...:rolleyes:

 

[luckyeddie]

By the way, in this time when he was appaling, he averaged 42.96, compared with 47.27 from the rest of the team, so taken in context, why is his head the first to be called for?

Simple - Rik doesn't like him. No other reason is necessary.

Let's all talk about West Indies in Zimbabwe, eh?

 

[marc71178]

Here's to Lara regaining his record!

 

[Neil Pickup]

And Neil!!! "crap" is a swear word...:rolleyes:

Is it ****

If Children's BBC can get away with it, then I certainly can!

 

[gibbsnsmith]

**points out Childrens BBC are a bunch of ******


Can someone who breaks the record please set it much higher than the last now.


364-375-380-400+


Go Lara +co

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

And Neil!!! "crap" is a swear word...:rolleyes:

Any word is a swear word depending on how you use it. :P

 

[Richard]

We've established that Ramprakash is crap. You'll have as much success convincing anyone that he isn't as I would in convincing anyone that I'm worthy of starting in Chittagong on Wednesday.

And so, in "establishing" in your own herd, that Ramprakash is crap, you deny a basic fact that he has improved massively in his last 4 years as a Test-player.
You, and many others, may deny that this is of any significance, but believe it or not, there are people who differ from the herd.
No, they're not the majority, but they do exist.

And Crawley may be averaging 50, but he sure as hell took his time over it...

So what? Better to score the runs slowly than not score them at all, which is what most of our batsmen have been doing in the time. No-one has been as consistent as he has been.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Ramprakash was still inconsistent when he was last sacked. He certainly wasn't the successful comeback that Butcher was,

 

[Craig]

My predicated West Indies XI (likely):

DS Smith
CH Gayle
WW Hinds
*BC Lara
MN Samuels
RR Sarwan
+RD Jacobs
OAC Banks
VC Drakes
M Dillon
FH Edwards

12th man likely to be Taylor.

Agree or disagree on my side?

 

[luckyeddie]

And so, in "establishing" in your own herd, that Ramprakash is crap, you deny a basic fact that he has improved massively in his last 4 years as a Test-player.

Mark Ramprakash's test scores following his last century

19, 17, 28, 37, 19, 58, 31, 11, 24, 9, 2

You've convinced me!

 

[Rik]

Simple - Rik doesn't like him. No other reason is necessary.

Let's all talk about West Indies in Zimbabwe, eh?

Oh the value of an open mind! You of all people, Eddie, I thought would be grown up enough not to resort to petty insults, but I was wrong.

I do not dislike Harmison, but everything I have seen, read, every stat I read, everything I've seen points to the fact that he's a goose who gets a free ride in an England team who arn't strong enough to do what Australia do and pick a young quickie just for the hell of it, regardless of results.

It's interisting how everyone is either ignoring or trying to patch-up the fact that against Test-Class nations he's been dreadful.

 

[Rik]

And if you take out games played on flat wickets in 2002 or against Australia, he has a good record.

After you say discount those games, I defy you to say that Johnson has a good Test record until he's had to play against similar batting line-ups on similar wickets.

By the way, in this time when he was appaling, he averaged 42.96, compared with 47.27 from the rest of the team, so taken in context, why is his head the first to be called for?

Quite simply you can't rule out the games in Australia because the Australian bowlers didn't have any problems with them, and when he actually woke up, so did Caddick. The flat wickets? Can't remember Pollock, Ntini, et al having problems...oh and the case of James Kirtley playing in his 1st 2 test matches, yes he really had a problem didn't he, 6-34 on debut, appauling!

You can, however, rule out the results against the 2 weakest teams, since they arn't even County Standard...

As for his head to be called for, this arguement is getting boring Marc, very very boring, since you can't even variate your answer...please please please I've explained exactly why you have found that stat over and over again, and as Richie would say, it's an "optical illusion", ie it doesn't tell the full story. But since you keep finding the need to use it, I'll have to give you the reason again. I just hope next time you decide to toss the coin to decide on which side you'll take, it lands on it's side and rolls away so you will have to think up original arguements for once.

You know exactly why the England team average is worse than his, it is because we picked players like Dawson, Giles who averages 70-odd per series, Flintoff who trundles in without any penetration, Anderson who was shattered...

And if you try and say an average of 42 is acceptable in Test Cricket, I'll show you Giles, then the men in the white coats.

 

[Richard]

Ramprakash was still inconsistent when he was last sacked. He certainly wasn't the successful comeback that Butcher was,

No, no, not at all.
I just think he's been far better than most give him credit for.

 

[Richard]

My predicated West Indies XI (likely):

DS Smith
CH Gayle
WW Hinds
*BC Lara
MN Samuels
RR Sarwan
+RD Jacobs
OAC Banks
VC Drakes
M Dillon
FH Edwards

12th man likely to be Taylor.

Agree or disagree on my side?

I certainly hope Hinds gets the opportunity to bat at three, but I'd say Sarwan is likely to bat above Samuels.
Chanderpaul? Can't remember if he's in the squad. Prefer him to either of the above. Get him in at five, the top five are all lefties. That's clearly good, based on the recent Australia series.

 

[Richard]

Mark Ramprakash's test scores following his last century

19, 17, 28, 37, 19, 58, 31, 11, 24, 9, 2

You've convinced me!

Yes, all right, Eddie, there aren't enough half-centuries in there. I never actually said "I have enormous qualms about Ramprakash being dropped when he was" - you can't expect to go through an entire series without a fifty and keep your place in the side out-of-hand.
The basic point is, though, while he should have made more fifties, his only series' where he averaged less than 30 since his first century (at Kensington) were against New Zealand (and where he had to open - which for reasons already discussed I think should be discounted).
Both series were on bowler-friendly pitches where the batsmen struggled, but because none of the dismissals (in either series) were the result of realistically-unplayable deliveries I don't seek to use that as an excuse.
In the time stipulated, he scored 2 centuries and 7 halves. Not enough, no, but the average is good and I just don't think enough people give him credit for that.
The notion that "he was a failure all his career" simply isn't true, and hence I try to exclude him from discussions of this nature.

 

[Richard]

Which is good until you notice it was played almost exclusively on flat wickets against extremely weak bowling attacks. As for Ramprakash, you cannot discount things just because they don't suit your purpose - he was opening in FC Cricket at the same time, so he cannot claim to have been just thrown into it (unlike the Judge)

Flat wickets, yes, but you've still got to score the runs - most of the England side didn't in Australia, they collapsed in the face of big totals and accurate bowling.
It doesn't matter whether he was opening in FC-cricket at the time he opened in Tests - I have never claimed the problem sprung from inexperience of the position, simply the fact that he was batting in a position which he has never been suited to.
Surely you can understand that it is not "to suit my purpose" just to attempt to give a more accurate reflection. Someone batting in a position which is not theirs doesn't deserve discredit for their failures if you ask me.

 

[Top_Cat]

The notion that "he was a failure all his career" simply isn't true, and hence I try to exclude him from discussions of this nature.

Maybe the problem is that he was touted as a future great when he first came into the side and so compared to where everyone thought he was going to end up, his career has been very disappointing.

Technically, there doesn't seem to be much wrong with Ramprakash's batting but for some reason he never kicked on. Weird.

 

[Craig]

Can Andre, Neil or whoever with some sort of magical powers on here start delating posts that have nothing to do with this topic?

 

[Top_Cat]

WI could pick a team comprised of the Barbados Beach XI, all of them bat with their opposite hand and bowl nothing but tripe and they'd still murder the Zim's. There you go.

I guess this shows the folly of starting a thread about a series well before the series in question; if the teams are mis-matched, no-one is going to have anything to talk about until the action starts.

I think you'll find, Craig, that when the series actually starts, there'll be a little more to talk about relevent to the topic at hand.