What is so wrong with the West Indies?

[marc71178]

He doesn't go in for that sort of thing Liam - he proclaims and no matter what you say will have any effect.

 

[Craig]

I personally think, generally, that all sides do best with a foreigner in charge - IMO Duncan Fletcher, regardless of the fact that he is from an "Anglo" background, is the best coach England have had since the coach took-on the role it has today. I also think that the Englishman Bob Woolmer did a fantastic job with South Africa.

Why?

John Bracewell is a Kiwi and the only thing that will save his jobs is because of his appointment that he has got us to second spot on the ODI table. And Eric Simons isn't doing too bad of a job as coach of SA.

Of course New Zealand has to give credit to Steve Rixon who can be the man responsible in turning NZ cricket around when he was able to get the best out of Chris Cairns and co and turned them into a more competitive outfit.

Unless he doesn't want the job I can't see why John Wright will not coach New Zealand when his time with India is up and the NZ coach spot is vacant.

 

[wpdavid]

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.

No, you're dead right that selectors can't be patient forever, and I wouldn't want them to. Nor would I want players to get complacent about being picked even if their performances are mediocre. Without going into the merits of the current English attack, which has been discussed to death elsewhere, all I was saying that under Fletcher there has been far more patience with players adjusting to test cricket or going through a poor spell than I have seen at any time. I'm probably pushing my luck a bit to make comparisons with the WI, and others will know far more about them than I do, but my impression is their selection of bowlers has been far more hit & miss and I'm suggesting that they have been unable to identify talent, nuture it and stick with it.

 

[Richard]

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.

No, I'm not saying that.
I'm saying Giles had batsmen tentative about pushing forward due to turn both off the pitch and out of the rough, most importantly due to accuracy, and that Banks could have attained a similar uncertainty but failed to due to a lack of accuracy.

 

[Richard]

No, you're dead right that selectors can't be patient forever, and I wouldn't want them to. Nor would I want players to get complacent about being picked even if their performances are mediocre. Without going into the merits of the current English attack, which has been discussed to death elsewhere, all I was saying that under Fletcher there has been far more patience with players adjusting to test cricket or going through a poor spell than I have seen at any time. I'm probably pushing my luck a bit to make comparisons with the WI, and others will know far more about them than I do, but my impression is their selection of bowlers has been far more hit & miss and I'm suggesting that they have been unable to identify talent, nuture it and stick with it.

Well, Edwards has survived a very, very long period of mediocrity - Collymore's still in the side on the evidence of a couple of decent Test-matches 2 years ago - Dillon played Test-matches almost without break for God-knows-how-long despite virtually no good performances.
But it is true that they have been far more inconsistent with selection, though they have had some share of injuries. I just can't see that any players have put their hands up and said "pick me", though.

 

[marc71178]

No, I'm not saying that.
I'm saying Giles had batsmen tentative about pushing forward due to turn both off the pitch and out of the rough, most importantly due to accuracy, and that Banks could have attained a similar uncertainty but failed to due to a lack of accuracy.

So when it suits you finger-spinners can turn it like anything, yet at other times they can't?

Giles had a huge area of rough to aim at. Banks did not.

The uncertainty in the batsman's mind (although I'm sure you'll now argue that in good batsmen that doesn't exist either) was caused as much by the rough as anything since it was so much more likely to land in it and turn more (or is Banks now going to be able to contradict your previous statements about fingerspinners?)

 

[Richard]

No, not when it suits me, when the pitch suits them.
Giles was turning the ball dangerously out of the rough and off the pitch. Banks, who quite clearly spins it no less than Giles, was also spinning the ball of the pitch.
Because Giles' accuracy is massively superior to Banks', Giles is a very dangerous bowler on surfaces such as these. Banks, because he is so incredibly wayward, isn't.
Of course a good batsman is going to be made uncertain by rough, you'd be rather stupid not to, because of that precise thing - unpredictability. If you're sensible, you are made uncertain by unpredictability.
But if there was no real rough at all, Giles would still have been a big danger, albeit he mightn't have taken some of the more spectacular wickets he did.

 

[marc71178]

So if Banks quite clearly spins it less than Giles, how come he was turning it less?

 

[wpdavid]

Well, Edwards has survived a very, very long period of mediocrity - Collymore's still in the side on the evidence of a couple of decent Test-matches 2 years ago - Dillon played Test-matches almost without break for God-knows-how-long despite virtually no good performances.
But it is true that they have been far more inconsistent with selection, though they have had some share of injuries. I just can't see that any players have put their hands up and said "pick me", though.

There was a letter in the WC the other month suggesting that the reason for the decline of WI cricket was the quality of pitches over there during the 1980's & 1990's, which were deliberately poor to make life easy for their quicks. The result was that hardly any world class batsmen have emerged since the 1970's (only Richardson & Lara) and bowlers haven't had to learn their craft. I'm not sure I agree with the writer that it's the main reason, but it may be a factor.

 

[tooextracool]

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

so im assuming you didnt watch the first test either then? there was no 'considerable' turn of the pitch, all the turn was from the rough. the fact that giles got more turn than banks had more to do with the fact that he had more rough to work with. once again you make inane comments about games that you know nothing about.

 

[Richard]

So if Banks quite clearly spins it less than Giles, how come he was turning it less?

Except that Banks doesn't quite clearly spin it less than Giles - they both spin it the same amount, and that amount is as much as a human can spin the ball with his fingers.
They were turning it the same amount.

 

[marc71178]

Oh really?

 

[roseboy64]

I don't see what the big gripe about Lara's captaincy is for.YOu get Sarwan to replace him and pretty soon Sarwan's going to be replaced and the that guy and then over and over again until the players improve.Fleming's success with New Zealand isn't due to him alone.The players were fairly good and he made them better to be pretty good.Lara's trying to make his team just fairly good.Not much sense to berate him when no captain since Richie Richardson has done well.That should make you notice that it's not all about the captain when the WI have struggled post-Richardson.

 

[Richard]

Oh really?

Really.

 

[Andre]

Well, we have an interesting selection on our hands here. Courtney Browne has been selected as keeper for the Champions Trophy, and a captain hasn't yet been named. Perhaps he will be specialist captain? It seems strange that he has all of a sudden leapfrogged Jacobs and Baugh.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Well, we have an interesting selection on our hands here. Courtney Browne has been selected as keeper for the Champions Trophy, and a captain hasn't yet been named. Perhaps he will be specialist captain? It seems strange that he has all of a sudden leapfrogged Jacobs and Baugh.

Courtney Browne is neither of international standard as a 'keeper or batsman.

 

[Andre]

See the suggestions earlier in the thread of a specialist captain.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Well, Edwards has survived a very, very long period of mediocrity - Collymore's still in the side on the evidence of a couple of decent Test-matches 2 years ago - Dillon played Test-matches almost without break for God-knows-how-long despite virtually no good performances.
But it is true that they have been far more inconsistent with selection, though they have had some share of injuries. I just can't see that any players have put their hands up and said "pick me", though.

Edwards has played 4 series Richard (excluding this one) and had 3 good ones and 1 poor. Is that a long period of mediocrity? His poor performance in South Africa is understandable given his slight frame, his young age, his inexperience, his task of leading an international bowling attack, his task of getting top-quality batsmen out. There are many aspects to this game of cricket Richard. You just seem to ignore most of them.

Dillon on the other hand has not been as poor as you express either. He was certainly the West Indies best bowler over the time he played as a front-liner. In Australia he bowled very well until injury hit him. He's also generally bowled well in the Caribbean (Australia excluded) and put in good work on the subcontinent, albeit without much harvest. In South Africa he was better than his figures showed and looked genuinenly like taking wickets. His last year or so of cricket surely can't be taken as his best as he's been dropped every other Test and hasn't been allowed to find any rhythm at Test level.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

See the suggestions earlier in the thread of a specialist captain.

The wicketkeeper is too important a position to have someone playing purely for captaincy reasons.

 

[Andre]

Hard to say. It's just about all I can draw anyway - he can't have jumped Jacobs and Baugh without playing any cricket.