What is so wrong with the West Indies?

[Son Of Coco]

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.

I think what you're saying is true as far as the getting lots of plays and misses and not conceding many runs being the difference between a class bowler and someone who is distinctly average. A good bowler will be patient enough to accept that it'll come eventually and keep on the same line, and average bowler will try to force something to happen and overpitch/pitch short and then the runs start to flow.

However, as far as not getting any nicks and getting lots of plays and misses is concerned, I don't think this necessarily means that you're bowling poorly. You have to rely on more things that simply being a good bowler to get wickets, and let's face it there's a good chance that at most around 30-40% of good balls will actually result in a wicket. You've got to look at who you're bowling at firstly, the batsman has to be good enough to get an edge, and then when he does it has to go to a fielder and that fielder has to actually catch it. It's also much easier to bowl to somebody with a technique than it is to bowl to the lower order (in my opinion anyway - unless they're completely hopeless) as they tend not to get close enough to edge it in the first place.

You can have some extremely unlucky days where batsman play and miss a lot, swing wildly and the ball lobs just over the fielder's head on a number of occasions, but not actually get any edges and your figures look pretty poor - but then, this shouldn't be happening on a number of occasions in a row really if you're bowling well.

 

[Richard]

You've got to look at who you're bowling at firstly, the batsman has to be good enough to get an edge, and then when he does it has to go to a fielder and that fielder has to actually catch it.

Personally I find bowling at tail-enders much easier!
I don't discredit a bowler for having a catch dropped off a good ball - I count that as a wicket. It's not the bowler's fault if the fielder isn't good enough.
But equally, airial edges that miss the fielder are just similar to play-and-misses. Bad luck, mate - try again. If they go straight to ground, meanwhile, the batsman deserves some credit for that.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Personally I find bowling at tail-enders much easier!
I don't discredit a bowler for having a catch dropped off a good ball - I count that as a wicket. It's not the bowler's fault if the fielder isn't good enough.
But equally, airial edges that miss the fielder are just similar to play-and-misses. Bad luck, mate - try again. If they go straight to ground, meanwhile, the batsman deserves some credit for that.

haha, well I used to, back at home in Oz it's not that hard but I found some in England to be a real pain in the ****. Mind you, the fact that there wasn't a lot of bounce in too many of the wickets I played out took away the short ball if they wanted to be pesky and stay around. It's not so much rank tailenders I find to be a problem in the UK as the type of batsman who just shuts his eyes and swings across the line. But anyway, enough of that.....

Aerial edges and play and misses though do deserve some credit. If you've beaten the batsman all ends up or induced an edge that's flown over/wide of slips that is a very good delivery. It's good luck on the batsman's part, and bad luck on the bowler's. If a false shot goes straight to ground, again this is just good luck on the batsman's behalf as if he wasn't in control of the shot it could have gone anywhere. As a bowler I'd hate to think that the times I beat the bat and induced edges that didn't go to fielders all added up to nothing. Sometimes when you're bowling not all the wickets you get go down under your name.........

 

[Neil Pickup]

Sometimes when you're bowling not all the wickets you get go down under your name.........

Uh-oh, don't know what you've let yourself in for now...

Which league did you play in in England?

 

[Son Of Coco]

Uh-oh, don't know what you've let yourself in for now...

Which league did you play in in England?

haha, I thought I might have to explain that one, I just thought I'd see how many people got it before I had to start typing.

I played in the Devon League, I played in B Div though as I had no idea what was what when I came over. It was.........unique. haha Premier Div there would be most like what we play at home (or maybe a mix of the top players in A and the average players in Premier as there were a few state players there - it's hard to judge though as there was so many different levels of player in the one team) but I am well aware that I wasn't playing in the strongest cricketing area in the UK! haha In our Division there were guys who could hardly hold a bat playing against (in one case) a guy who'd had a season with Glamorgan I think, it was a strange mix.

 

[Richard]

haha, well I used to, back at home in Oz it's not that hard but I found some in England to be a real pain in the ****. Mind you, the fact that there wasn't a lot of bounce in too many of the wickets I played out took away the short ball if they wanted to be pesky and stay around. It's not so much rank tailenders I find to be a problem in the UK as the type of batsman who just shuts his eyes and swings across the line. But anyway, enough of that.....

Well, I tend to just aim way outside leg, at the base of the popping-crease, and magically enough it often swings onto off.
Great to be able to do, and it comes in useful sometimes.

Aerial edges and play and misses though do deserve some credit. If you've beaten the batsman all ends up or induced an edge that's flown over/wide of slips that is a very good delivery. It's good luck on the batsman's part, and bad luck on the bowler's. If a false shot goes straight to ground, again this is just good luck on the batsman's behalf as if he wasn't in control of the shot it could have gone anywhere. As a bowler I'd hate to think that the times I beat the bat and induced edges that didn't go to fielders all added up to nothing. Sometimes when you're bowling not all the wickets you get go down under your name.........

Of course aerial edges and play-and-misses deserve some credit, but not as much as a wicket. As I say, "well bowled, bad luck - now try again".
Any wicket that goes against anyone's name must be considered - any wicket that wasn't taken with a good, wicket-taking ball IMO shouldn't count for much when assessing the bowler's ability.
And if you're getting loads of play-and-misses and no nicks, yes, it's bloody annoying! It's happened to me quite a bit this season (Neil can even confirm as such, he played in one of the games), but I haven't kidded myself that I deserved more wickets than I got, however many times people have said to me that I did.
I'm perfectly happy to bowl a tidy 6 or 7-over spell, go for 3-an-over and take no wickets. Wickets are simply a bonus in limited-over games - play-and-misses are dot-balls, and that's what counts.

 

[Aylott]

The windies attack are far to inconsistent its like the pacemen are all James Anderson. Have they not anyone else to turn to what happened to King and McLean

 

[luckyeddie]

The windies attack are far to inconsistent its like the pacemen are all James Anderson. Have they not anyone else to turn to what happened to King and McLean

Both would be a backward step, but I do see your point. Youth and experience - that's probably where Collymore and Collins come in as the stabilising influence to the 'wild young things'.

Personally, I think that there is more potential in the West Indies side than I have seen for a long time - but they need to learn how to play together and support one another - and that's where the senior pro's come in.

 

[Aylott]

Personally, I think that there is more potential in the West Indies side than I have seen for a long time - but they need to learn how to play together and support one another - and that's where the senior pro's come in.[/QUOTE]

I agree there in all the tests the senior players didn't stand up and be counted apart from chanderpaul no senior players took the fight to England. Far to many times did the windies batsmen throw their wicket away instead of constructing an innings like Graeme Thorpe and Rob Key did in the third test

 

[Son Of Coco]

Well, I tend to just aim way outside leg, at the base of the popping-crease, and magically enough it often swings onto off.
Great to be able to do, and it comes in useful sometimes.

Of course aerial edges and play-and-misses deserve some credit, but not as much as a wicket. As I say, "well bowled, bad luck - now try again".
Any wicket that goes against anyone's name must be considered - any wicket that wasn't taken with a good, wicket-taking ball IMO shouldn't count for much when assessing the bowler's ability.
And if you're getting loads of play-and-misses and no nicks, yes, it's bloody annoying! It's happened to me quite a bit this season (Neil can even confirm as such, he played in one of the games), but I haven't kidded myself that I deserved more wickets than I got, however many times people have said to me that I did.
I'm perfectly happy to bowl a tidy 6 or 7-over spell, go for 3-an-over and take no wickets. Wickets are simply a bonus in limited-over games - play-and-misses are dot-balls, and that's what counts.

Doesn't a wicket taken with an average ball kind of make up for the times you cut a batsman in half with a ball that's too good and get absolutely nothing? I don't think the number of wickets I've gotten from average to bad balls even comes close to the number of play and misses. If you tie up a batsman, have him playing and missing, but don't actually get him out does this mean you've bowled badly? I've bowled to guys, hit them in the ribs, jagged balls back over middle, beat them outside off, but not ended up getting them out, and then turned round and watched a part-time spinner at the other end bowl him all ends up - and this is what i meant when i said that not all the wickets you get go down under your name. By tying up one end you effectively putting pressure on the batsman to score off the other bowler - if that bowler is bowling well and doing the same there's a fair chance you'll get more than your fair share of wickets, if the bowler is of a lesser quality, but still ok then there's a fair chance that he too is going to benefit from your line and length.

Play and misses are dot balls, but dot balls build pressure on the batsman. When a batsman plays and misses he's more than a little aware that you have the wood on him (possibly only for that delivery), if it's a regular occurance then the bowler is gaining an important advantage. THere's a big difference between a dot ball that is simply left by the batsman (a dot ball on a good length that is let go is good judgement by the batter) and a dot ball that is played at and missed. To say that a dot ball is a dot ball is a dot ball and there's no difference in the effect they have on the batsman or bowler is not quite correct.

 

[Richard]

Doesn't a wicket taken with an average ball kind of make up for the times you cut a batsman in half with a ball that's too good and get absolutely nothing? I don't think the number of wickets I've gotten from average to bad balls even comes close to the number of play and misses. If you tie up a batsman, have him playing and missing, but don't actually get him out does this mean you've bowled badly? I've bowled to guys, hit them in the ribs, jagged balls back over middle, beat them outside off, but not ended up getting them out, and then turned round and watched a part-time spinner at the other end bowl him all ends up - and this is what i meant when i said that not all the wickets you get go down under your name. By tying up one end you effectively putting pressure on the batsman to score off the other bowler - if that bowler is bowling well and doing the same there's a fair chance you'll get more than your fair share of wickets, if the bowler is of a lesser quality, but still ok then there's a fair chance that he too is going to benefit from your line and length.

Play and misses are dot balls, but dot balls build pressure on the batsman. When a batsman plays and misses he's more than a little aware that you have the wood on him (possibly only for that delivery), if it's a regular occurance then the bowler is gaining an important advantage. THere's a big difference between a dot ball that is simply left by the batsman (a dot ball on a good length that is let go is good judgement by the batter) and a dot ball that is played at and missed. To say that a dot ball is a dot ball is a dot ball and there's no difference in the effect they have on the batsman or bowler is not quite correct.

Well I can only speak for myself but I never credit myself for any wicket that doesn't come off a ball I consider deserved it. No matter what I've done in the interim, I don't place any importance on it.
Good batsmen, in limitless-over cricket (which I don't play) don't worry about what's gone before, the scoring-rate, or anything like that - a dot-ball is a dot-ball, a play-and-miss is a play-and-miss - but it's all in the past, and what matters is the next delivery, nothing else.
Nor do I place anything on this "get a wicket at the other end" stuff - if you're good enough to get wickets, eventually you'll get them. If the batsman worries about you and gets out to some rubbish at the other end, that's his problem and it's certainly no credit to the respective bowler.
If you can't get wickets for yourself, either by not bowling well enough or by bowling partly too well and partly too poorly (ie interspersing play-and-miss with harmless short-ball or easy-leave-ball) then, equally, that's your problem. It didn't bother people like Curtley Ambrose - the number of times he made batsmen play-and-miss on his final tour to England - for the series I wouldn't be surprised if it exceeded 150 (an average of 30 per Test) - but for all the "he's unlucky"s, the fact is, it happened, it had happened throughout his career the way it happens throughout everyone's career and he still came out averaging 18 from that series - because he was good enough to just keep putting the ball there, keep hitting the seam, and eventually comforting himself in the nick that inevitably came.
So many inferior bowlers are incapable of doing such, and hence they don't deserve credit for a Long-Hop which is slammed to cover. And it's no coincidence that good batsmen don't often give them it - mostly, if you make a good batsman play-and-miss lots, then bowl him a couple of bad balls, they'll go to the boundary and the moment will have passed.