What is so wrong with the West Indies?

[honestbharani]

I think the biggest problem with the Windies is a lack of professionalism. They are just too lazy, plain and simple. It is probably the lifestyle of the caribbean but modern day cricket demands its players to be fit, brisk and hardworking and I think those are the three things missing with the Windies. Bashing Lara is not a solution. I don't think he is the best captain but I don't think he is that bad either. After all, a captain can only do so much. He is probably a little too unorthodox for a side which is as mediocre as this bunch is, but beyond that, he has tried a lot. Maybe a new captain might make a difference, even to Lara so that he can concentrate on his batting and fielding alone and contribute more because of that.



And as far as foreign coaches are concerned, I think the main reason teams like Ind, SL, Pak and WI need foreign coaches is because these are the places where team selections are looked at with sceptism and there are allegations of the quota system. Therefore, with a foreign coach, people will know that the guy won't be favouring a player because of where he comes from but because of how good he is. I am not saying that this quota system happens but atleast the allegations will tone down with a foreign coach.

 

[Richard]

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.

Edwards has had 8 poor games, 4 good ones and 1 reasonable one. The reasonable one was against the substandard Zimbabwe of 2003\04 and so was one of the four good ones.
I've never said there should be no mitigation for his failures, but the fact is, he averages at present 45 (though of course that's almost certain to go either up or down in the present match) and that's very, very mediocre.
He's been maintained because the selectors see potential in him.

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.

This sort of making excuses causes problems IMO.
A good bowler will hold down a place and if he is in and out will take the chances he's given.
And it's very, very hard to bowl better than your figures suggest. Unless you get lots of dropped catches off good deliveries.

 

[roseboy64]

Lara has been named as captain.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Edwards has had 8 poor games, 4 good ones and 1 reasonable one. The reasonable one was against the substandard Zimbabwe of 2003\04 and so was one of the four good ones.

You've seen how many of these Test matches?

 

[roseboy64]

I'm guessing not many.But the stats are available.

 

[Richard]

You've seen how many of these Test matches?

For the record, 6, but it is not possible to bowl really well and get poor figures, as I've said God-knows-how-many times. If you're expensive and don't get many wickets, unless you've had two or three catches dropped off good balls, you haven't bowled very well.
Of course, in the matches where he got good figures it's no gurantee he bowled well - perhaps I should have said "got good figures in" rather than "bowled well in".

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I'm guessing not many.But the stats are available.

Stats aren't a good indication.

Besides, Richard's initial comment suggested that Edwards has been bowling poorly for a long time now, when he bowled very well just a short while ago, when England toured the West Indies. How quickly memories fade.

 

[marc71178]

For the record, 6, but it is not possible to bowl really well and get poor figures, as I've said God-knows-how-many times.

And no matter how many times you say it, it's still no more correct.

 

[Richard]

So you're saying that you don't have to take wickets to bowl really well in First-Class (limitless-over) cricket?
If someone keeps bowling at 2.3-an-over, beating the bat, making batsmen look uncomfortable, etc. - but hardly getting any wickets. And this happens for 3 or 4 matches in a row. Is that still bowling really well? Isn't it just a bit of a coincidence that no wickets have fallen for such a long time.

 

[Richard]

Stats aren't a good indication.

Besides, Richard's initial comment suggested that Edwards has been bowling poorly for a long time now, when he bowled very well just a short while ago, when England toured the West Indies. How quickly memories fade.

No, not at all.
But he subsequently bowled very poorly against the might of Bangladesh.
And yes, I did watch that.
2 good matches out of 7 aren't much of an achievement that demands continued selection.
Edwards has been persevered with because the selectors believe he has potential, not because he has made himself undroppable with good performances.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

No, not at all.
But he subsequently bowled very poorly against the might of Bangladesh.

...when he was not fully fit as evidenced by the fact that he was withdrawn from the England ODI series immediately after.

 

[marc71178]

So you're saying that you don't have to take wickets to bowl really well in First-Class (limitless-over) cricket?
If someone keeps bowling at 2.3-an-over, beating the bat, making batsmen look uncomfortable, etc. - but hardly getting any wickets. And this happens for 3 or 4 matches in a row. Is that still bowling really well?

Yes it is.

People go through spells of bad luck, no matter how well they play.

It's the same as someone like SRT during his recent run of low scores.

He wasn't playing badly, he was just getting out on low scores.

 

[Richard]

...when he was not fully fit as evidenced by the fact that he was withdrawn from the England ODI series immediately after.

All right, we'll mitigate him for that one.
Still, he's had more poor games than good and reasonable ones put together.

 

[Richard]

Yes it is.

People go through spells of bad luck, no matter how well they play.

It's the same as someone like SRT during his recent run of low scores.

He wasn't playing badly, he was just getting out on low scores.

If he wasn't getting lots of RUDs (which he might well have been in New Zealand) he was playing poorly.
However, a few poor innings (which is all it was - "a year" was very, very misleading) doesn't mean anything when preceded by the rest of Tendulkar's career.
And as he showed afterwards, too, class is perminant.
If someone has 5 or 6 successive games where they beat the bat, bowl economically and bowlers look threatening, but hardly get any wickets, then they, quite simply, have to be doing something wrong.

 

[marc71178]

If someone has 5 or 6 successive games where they beat the bat, bowl economically and bowlers look threatening, but hardly get any wickets, then they, quite simply, have to be doing something wrong.

That something wrong being not getting the rub of the green - it happens.

Just look at Bravo today - 6 wickets, but he will bowl a lot better than that and not pick up any.

 

[Richard]

Bravo got 2 wickets with very good balls, 2 with reasonable ones, 1 with a poor decision and 1 with a good catch.
If he bowls lots of balls that got Vaughan and Strauss' wickets he'll almost certainly get wickets with at least half of them.
If you aren't getting nicks and are getting lots of play-and-misses, you are doing something wrong - not being unlucky with the rub-of-the-green. Usually pitching too short.
Because good bowlers will get lots of play-and-misses and a few nicks. In the meantime, they'll not concede many runs.
For example, Ambrose in 2000 got so many play-and-misses it's untrue. But he still proved his greatness by averaging 18 in the series.
Corey Collymore in 2003\04 had a similar number of play-and-misses, in much less seam-friendly conditions, and ended with a much higher average.
Thus the difference in class.

 

[marc71178]

No-one's denying a difference in class between Collymore and Ambrose, but Collymore bowled very well without luck.

And if Strauss' was such a good ball how come it needed a couple of deflections?

Bowlers can bowl well without taking wickets - it happened a hell of a lot to Flintoff last summer.

 

[Richard]

And in the summer before that, IIRR. IMO it can't happen for long before you have to realise the bowler is actually doing something wrong.
Strauss' ball would have hit the stumps anyway without either deflection, or with the first only.

 

[marc71178]

Yes it did happen to Flintoff - a fact pointed out by many of the pundits watching, or have you now decided they don't know anything again, having used them to try and back yourself the other day?

 

[Richard]

Oh, he could have had wickets many a time.
But I don't agree that having a catch dropped off a Long-Hop is unlucky - it's poetic-justice as far as the bowler is concerned.
Very rarely did Flintoff have catches dropped off good balls and the number of play-and-misses he instigated diminished as both summers wore on. And yes, I know he was injured at Headingley in 2002 but it didn't make any difference before then.