What is so wrong with the West Indies?

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

No, Harmison has never been anywhere near as wayward as Banks.
He can turn the ball on wickets the like of which we won't see very often and he's so wayward he averages over 100 on them.
He needs to improve so much it just seems completely impossible to me that he could manage it.

Omari Banks is not that wayward Richard. Yes, he's lacking control in long spells, but you're exaggerating it. IMO he's bowled quite well since the 1st innings of the 1st Test.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

A very nice bloke, but from what I can remember a pretty negative and unimaginative captain.

Jimmy Adams didn't appear to be mentally strong enough to handle the captaincy. A fine tactician and player IMO, but the way in which his personal performance suffered from the point when the West Indies fell apart at Lord's is testament to his mental strength. All that said, he shouldn't have been sacked as a player.

He was certainly more imaginative and less defensive than Hooper.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

West Indies haven't done much better, they just haven't managed a Harmison to emerge

Reon King was a pretty good bet... then he got injured.

 

[Richard]

Which is why I said Seaman was better before you said anything...

Thus I can only conclude that you're saying Martyn because I said Seaman.

No, I've thought Martyn was the best goalkeeper in England since his outstanding performances in the 1996\7 season. I liked him even before that but Seaman was unquestionably undroppable before Euro 96.

 

[Richard]

Giles has had considerable rough outside the right-hander's legstump to work with. No comparison.

But both of them were turning the ball considerably off the pitch anyway.

 

[Richard]

Reon King was a pretty good bet... then he got injured.

And Harmison didn't.
I always liked what I saw of King - with the exception of what looks like being his final Test, where he sprayed the ball spectacularly and gave Jacobs the hardest session I've ever seen a wicketkeeper get.
But it's palpably obvious from his figures since then that he's not the same bowler.

 

[Richard]

Omari Banks is not that wayward Richard. Yes, he's lacking control in long spells, but you're exaggerating it. IMO he's bowled quite well since the 1st innings of the 1st Test.

Hmm, not totally sure about that one.
It would be pretty tricky for him to bowl any worse than he bowled in that Lord's first-innings, but I still wouldn't say he'd bowled well - otherwise I reckon he'd have got similar figures to Giles.
The fact is, he's not going to get pitches like he's got in these two Tests very often, and he's made no use of them whatsoever.
Surely you must agree that he's got a hell of a lot to do to become a good bowler?

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

But both of them were turning the ball considerably off the pitch anyway.

Banks wasn't turning the ball anywhere near as sharply as Giles because he didn't have the rough to work with. Hence the batsmen could push forward with little concern or insecurity.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Hmm, not totally sure about that one.
It would be pretty tricky for him to bowl any worse than he bowled in that Lord's first-innings, but I still wouldn't say he'd bowled well - otherwise I reckon he'd have got similar figures to Giles.
The fact is, he's not going to get pitches like he's got in these two Tests very often, and he's made no use of them whatsoever.
Surely you must agree that he's got a hell of a lot to do to become a good bowler?

Giles has mainly tormented the West Indian righthanders and that's because he had rough outside the righthanders legstump to work with. It's quite simple Richard - Banks didn't. The two bowlers don't turn the ball the same way because they're two different handedness of bowler.

 

[Richard]

Omari Banks is one of few players in the West Indies who truly cares about his game. He paid his fare to the U.S. to get advice from Gibbs on spin bowling. He's the only West Indian spinner to ever ask Lance Gibbs about spin bowling. That's impressive.

Well, yes, but no matter how much effort you put in or how "mentally strong" you are, you can't change a lack of ability.
From what I've seen and read so far Banks doesn't have sufficient talent to be even close to a Test-bowler but of course you can never be certain about that.
It does seem a little odd to me that someone who has, frankly, done so appallingly in his Test-career to date has the amount of praise he has had from all quarters, from knowledgable cricket viewers like yourself.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

And Harmison didn't.
I always liked what I saw of King - with the exception of what looks like being his final Test, where he sprayed the ball spectacularly and gave Jacobs the hardest session I've ever seen a wicketkeeper get.
But it's palpably obvious from his figures since then that he's not the same bowler.

His last Test was against Zimbabwe from memory, so I doubt you would have seen it. That said, he wasn't anywhere near as good as he was a year or two before.

 

[Richard]

Giles has mainly tormented the West Indian righthanders and that's because he had rough outside the righthanders legstump to work with. It's quite simple Richard - Banks didn't. The two bowlers don't turn the ball the same way because they're two different handedness of bowler.

In Banks' very 1st over at Lord's he troubled Strauss by turning the ball accross him, and twice beat the outside-edge.
It doesn't really matter whether you turn the ball into or away from the batsmen - turn it enough and you'll trouble them all.
IMO Giles has caused more than enough problems for West Indian right- and left-handers.

 

[Richard]

His last Test was against Zimbabwe from memory, so I doubt you would have seen it. That said, he wasn't anywhere near as good as he was a year or two before.

Yes, might well have been, forgot about that.
He certainly played at least ODIs on that tour.
Either way, I meant the Headingley 2000 Test, and he had impressed me up to then.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

In Banks' very 1st over at Lord's he troubled Strauss by turning the ball accross him, and twice beat the outside-edge.
It doesn't really matter whether you turn the ball into or away from the batsmen - turn it enough and you'll trouble them all.
IMO Giles has caused more than enough problems for West Indian right- and left-handers.

Basically what you're doing is discrediting the rough patches on the pitch, which is ridiculous. Those are a big part of cricket, batting and bowling. The fact is that if Banks were to use that rough that Giles used so magnificiently, he would be pitching the ball outside the offstump of the lefthander/legstump of the righthander and turning it further away. That would hardly trouble any batsman and would rather be easy runs.

Giles flighted the ball into the rough and got sharp turn and bounce out of it that had the batsmen pushing forward tentatively. Whether you'd like to admit it or not, Giles had considerably more assistance from the pitch in the first two Tests.

 

[Richard]

Since the end of the 2001 Ashes series, you can discount Sidebottom & Tufnell from that list. Of the others, Silverwood filled in for one test due to injuries, as did Kabir Ali. Most of Johnson's tests were also due to injuries. Ditto Bicknell, who you probably meant to include. IIRC 2 of Saggers 3 tests have been filling in for injuries too.

Flintoff has been in the side since 2001/02, despite taking very few wickets for a couple of years. Hoggard also came in on that tour and has nearly always played when fit, despite being ineffective against the Indians for the last 2 tests in 2002 and Oz the following winter. Jones first appeared in 2002 and has nearly always played when fit. Harmison we all know about. I'm not sure about him being dropped though. He was unfit at Leeds last year and Jones came back at the start of the Ashes tour. And I don't share your guess that he'd have been ditched without those wickets at the Oval. Anderson is regularly in the XII despite several ineffective tests. The other guy who came into the side during 2002 was Tudor, who's been unfit for virtually the whole time since then.

That leaves Ormond (2 tests?) & Kirtley (4?). Kirtley could maybe complain to have been harshly treated, but beyond that you can see a pretty consistent thread that goes well beyond staying in the side only if you perform. The whole point is that Hoggard, Harmison & Giles have had significant periods when they haven't done much, but they're still there and they're doing the job now. Presumably Fletcher & co think Anderson & Jones may do likewise. That is 100% different from what we used to do in the 1980's & most of the 1990's, and it is, IMHO, the main reason for the currenmt spate of results.

Yes, true that far less seamers would probably have played but for injuries.
Yes, I did mean to include Bicknell - now corrected.
Giles isn't doing anything now that he hasn't been doing for the last 4 years, though.
And I simply can't conceive that the patience with Harmison would have lasted forever. He certainly was dropped at Headingley - even if some quarters might have used the slight calf problem as an excuse. And I just can't see that two consecutive very poor series would have been tolerated. England would almost certainly have lost the series but for the 4-33 and Bicknell's 4-for. And if they had, and Harmison had taken a 0-for-50 or 60, his series average would have been 80-odd. I reckon he'd have been left-out on that.
Instead, he got one fluky leg-cutter, one bad decision, two tail-end wickets, a stay of execution, a Bangladesh Test and 9 easy, very cheap wickets, an injury that meant he escaped the Sri Lanka Tests, and we all know the rest.
No-one can be patient forever, and I reckon we'll see that with Jones, Anderson (who I really do not rate at all, he's every bit as awful as he was last year) and maybe even Hoggard, who despite all the insistence that he's bowling really well hasn't done much this summer.

 

[Richard]

Basically what you're doing is discrediting the rough patches on the pitch, which is ridiculous. Those are a big part of cricket, batting and bowling. The fact is that if Banks were to use that rough that Giles used so magnificiently, he would be pitching the ball outside the offstump of the lefthander/legstump of the righthander and turning it further away. That would hardly trouble any batsman and would rather be easy runs.

Giles flighted the ball into the rough and got sharp turn and bounce out of it that had the batsmen pushing forward tentatively. Whether you'd like to admit it or not, Giles had considerably more assistance from the pitch in the first two Tests.

Oh, I've not denied Giles had help from the rough but he didn't use it anywhere near as much as you suggest IMO.
Both him and Banks were turning the ball off the pitch, not out of the rough, from day-one. If you bowl well when the pitch is turning as much as the Lord's one did you'll cause trouble and Giles did. Banks didn't.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Oh, I've not denied Giles had help from the rough but he didn't use it anywhere near as much as you suggest IMO.
Both him and Banks were turning the ball off the pitch, not out of the rough, from day-one. If you bowl well when the pitch is turning as much as the Lord's one did you'll cause trouble and Giles did. Banks didn't.

The fact is that Giles did use it more than Banks because Banks really didn't get to use it to any effect at all.

 

[Richard]

I acknowledge the difficulties of selection and territorial interest in the Caribbean, and I guess that's why you threw in the chairman of selectors when I was talking explicitly about the coach and hadn't brought that up. But really, as you (perhaps unintentionally, because it seemed counter-productive to mention it) clarify further down in your post, it's not as if Australia (and other places) don't have to deal with these issues (and if you've visited Aussie cricket forums, you'll know how vociferous it gets). And obviously, it hasn't prevented them from experiencing prolongued periods of success. I also don't need to point out that the West Indies have always had these issues, and let's not forget they dominated the game perhaps like no other team during the late 70's, all through the 80's, and much of the early 90's. So, I refute your point absolutely that a West Indian can't get the best out of West Indian cricket, and as I said previously, I think it's borne out of a prejudicial assumption. Of course a West Indian can coach this team to success - they just need the right players and the right man.

I'm not sure who the chairman-of-selectors was in the 1970s, but I am sure that coaches had far less influence and importance in those days.
I don't need to visit exclusive Aussie forums to see how vociferous the debate about NSW media's influence on selection is, I can tell that from the Aussies here, plenty of whom get pretty animated about it.
However, it doesn't seem to have adversely affected their performance.
John Goddard, very briefly, and Frank Worrell, for a long time, put an end to these problems and their denegrading influence on West Indies cricket but IMO they have now resurfaced.
I believe the best way to put an end to this is to have non-West Indians at the top of The WICB and a non-West Indian coach and Chairman-of-Selectors (however, John Wright seems to have done fine with Indian selectors around him, and Jagmohan Dalmiya, for his many negatives, is undoubtedly good for Indian cricket IMO).
This was planned with Bennett King. Sadly, WICB handled it so poorly that the opportunity was lost.
It could be Samit Patel, whom I regard very highly as a coach, every bit as well as it could be a Brit, a Tasman or a Southern African.
I don't know that he's in the running, but I reckon if they're going to sack Logie (only a matter of time as far as I can tell) then they should try to get him first. And I'm not just saying that to try to make it look like I'm someone without racial undercurrants, I genuinely believe that. Now you've made me think of it.

If India targeted John Wright because they thought he was the best coach for them at the time (and unquestionably, he's done great), I have no problem with that, or any country for that matter that happens to pick someone from outside the country. What I object to is the presumption that they CANNOT have success until they pick a coach from one of these countries. Because it's condescending, insulting, and simply not true.

I've never made that presumption. It cannot be denied, however, that lots of emphasis always seems to have been placed on former playing ability with regards to coach selection in India, Pakistan and West Indies. Nothing cultural, but more to do with cricketing heritage.
But I do think Kiwis make very good coaches, naturally. Wright, Bracewell, Rixon, a few recent examples. So do Zimbabweans (Houghton, Duncan Fletcher). Of course, you'll get good coaches from everywhere.
IMO, with the exception of Australia, all teams will do best with a foreigner in charge.
Not that I don't think Simons and Bracewell can't take their teams far, because I do.
For some reason, Bracewell seems to be under some pressure. Some Kiwis, who should know, seem to reckon if they don't thrash Bangladesh he might have to go.
I also think Samit Patel would make an excellent replacement there. In the same way that Wright and Leipus' Kiwi grit has harnessed the Indian flair, I think the style and personality of the Kiwi players would blend perfectly with a good subcontinental coach (only reason I keep bringing-up Patel is because he's the only one with any pedigree I can think of immidiately).

Back in relation to the West Indies specifically, the old, well-trodden "lazy" and "uncommitted" slur particularly irks me. An article at cricinfo on black English cricketers has resonance on this issue:

http://aus.cricinfo.com/link_to_database/ARCHIVE/CRICKET_NEWS/2004/AUG/015697_WCM_04AUG2004.html

There is no doubt in my mind that plenty of current West Indian cricketers don't care enough, many conasseurs of the game who have studied the situation have pronounced that. Including a large number of past players who may, of times, conveyed that impression but had thoughts that could not have been more to the contrary.

 

[Richard]

The fact is that Giles did use it more than Banks because Banks really didn't get to use it to any effect at all.

Look, Liam - Banks turned the ball, plenty, more than enough to pose a threat.
Whether he used rough or the pitch, it still turned for him.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Look, Liam - Banks turned the ball, plenty, more than enough to pose a threat.
Whether he used rough or the pitch, it still turned for him.

You can't tell me that a bowler who has the batsman tentative about pushing forward due to the presence of rough is as dangerous as a bowler who doesn't have the batsman in that doubt. Common sense Richard. Common sense.