Who cares about a strong West Indies?

[Burgey]

We barely have enough strong teams as is right now.

We don't necessarily need a strong WI, but a WI who isn't absolutely pathetic would be nice. Same with Pakistan. We'd like NZ to win more test matches too.

For all the talk about how awesome test cricket is, there aren't enough decent quality outfits. I mean there aren't that many teams in the first place. It shouldn't be too much to ask for all (or at least most) of them to be good ffs.

This.

 

[centurymaker]

I care!
We want more competitive teams!

 

[Jacknife]

We barely have enough strong teams as is right now.

We don't necessarily need a strong WI, but a WI who isn't absolutely pathetic would be nice. Same with Pakistan. We'd like NZ to win more test matches too.

For all the talk about how awesome test cricket is, there aren't enough decent quality outfits. I mean there aren't that many teams in the first place. It shouldn't be too much to ask for all (or at least most) of them to be good ffs.

Spot on, the more quality teams around the better, better teams, means better bowlers, means better batsmen, means higher quality games. Anyone that doesn't want that, can't be much of a cricket fan imo.

 

[GotSpin]

The Windies are unique in cricket, tbf. As nice as it would be to see a strong Pakistan, Zimbabwe or NZ, they all come from geographical areas with other strong test nations. WIndies are the only game in town in the Americas.

They're the mouse that roared; made up of a disparate collection of third world nations who come together for cricket and who ruled the world for a long time. Growing up in the 80s it seemed impossible England could even compete with these giants, far less win a test never mind series. It was only in retrospect looking back I realised how gloriously improbable their dominance was.

Cricket doesn't "need" a strong Windies, but it'd be bloody nice to have them.

Agree with this.

I don't necessarily think all hope is lost yet either. Other countries have spent years in the wilderness before returning a force.

 

[Furball]

We barely have enough strong teams as is right now.

We don't necessarily need a strong WI, but a WI who isn't absolutely pathetic would be nice. Same with Pakistan. We'd like NZ to win more test matches too.

For all the talk about how awesome test cricket is, there aren't enough decent quality outfits. I mean there aren't that many teams in the first place. It shouldn't be too much to ask for all (or at least most) of them to be good ffs.

When does that ever happen though?

Back in the glory days of the 80s world cricket had a dominant West Indies, a very good Pakistan, a competitive New Zealand, an India side that were a tough proposition at home, a minnow Sri Lanka and pathetic England and Australia teams.

During Australia's dominance in the mid 00s, we had a below standard Bangladesh and Zimbabwe but a fairly competitive mid table.

Now we're shaping up to a scenario where England, India and South Africa look to be significantly better than the rest.

 

[Jono]

Never were England and Australia as much of a basketcase as WI and Pakistan are. Strength shouldn't just be interpreted as win/loss performances. Its attitude and interest from players and fans as well.

 

[Xuhaib]

NZL have never been strong apart from few good years here and there.Issue with Pakistan and Windies has been more due to the people who are running the game both produce enough raw material but the processing of the raw material is the main concern which should be addressed.

 

[TumTum]

Every time a team becomes weak, people say 'cricket needs a strong x.' They said the same thing about England, now about Australia, and will say that about every team. I don't particularly buy into any of it.

Really? I thought it was good for cricket that our dominance ended...

 

[Top_Cat]

Personally think people say cricket needs a strong West Indies because if they're strong, the standard of cricket is high and attractive to watch, not because there's more close games.

Never bought into the idea that because Australia were dominating fewer people were into the game. They were winning all the time not because the other teams were crap but because they were so strong and if a team took a Test off them, it was through an outstanding performance. That, for me, is what gets people into the game, close games are meh if they're only close because both teams are average.

 

[benchmark00]

Cheerleaders and DLF maximums is what get people into the game imo.

 

[benchmark00]

Also ghey trumpet noises followed by cheering.

 

[vcs]

Personally think people say cricket needs a strong West Indies because if they're strong, the standard of cricket is high and attractive to watch, not because there's more close games.

Never bought into the idea that because Australia were dominating fewer people were into the game. They were winning all the time not because the other teams were crap but because they were so strong and if a team took a Test off them, it was through an outstanding performance. That, for me, is what gets people into the game, close games are meh if they're only close because both teams are average.

Agree completely there, especially the 2nd para.

 

[Langeveldt]

Cheerleaders and DLF maximums is what get people into the game imo.

the thing is thats exactly what does get people into the game.. It shows people are ****

 

[TumTum]

Never bought into the idea that because Australia were dominating fewer people were into the game. They were winning all the time not because the other teams were crap but because they were so strong and if a team took a Test off them, it was through an outstanding performance. That, for me, is what gets people into the game, close games are meh if they're only close because both teams are average.

Awta.

 

[shivfan]

In the past, in the glory days of Ram and Val, Worrell and Sobers, Lloyd and Richards, etc, West Indian cricket was mroe than just a sport - it bound together the different Caribbean islands, and gave them an identity, something they could be proud of, something at which they could beat the rest of the world. That's why WIndies cricket had sociological and political effects in the Caribbean too, in a way that it probably didn't affect other cricket-playing countries.

But, thanks to the mismanagement of the past decade, that has changed in quite a few Caribbean countries. Athletics has taken over primary status in Jamaica. Athletics always was a big sport in that country, ever since the world-beating quarter-milers of 1948-1952, but that sport took secondary status to cricket in the 1970s and 1980s, because Jamaica's athletes weren't back at the top. They are now, thanks to Don Quarrie in the 1970s, Merlene Ottey in the 1980s, Deon Hemmings in 1996, and the great bunch of sprinters surging to the front now. The Jamaica National Athletics Trials in Kingston from Thursday-Sunday will be ten times better attended than the current Test match at Sabina Park. I believe that cricket has permanently fallen behind athletics in Jamaica now.

Football is now more popular in both Trinidad and Jamaica, since both eteams qualified for the football World Cups in 2006 and 1998 respectively. That means cricket is no longer the number one sport in the two most populous West Indian countries. It's still popular in Guyana, Barbados, and the Lesser Antilles, but those countries alone won't be enough for the WI to be made strong again, so talk about needing a strong Windies is just that - talk.

 

[fredfertang]

The Windies are unique in cricket, tbf. As nice as it would be to see a strong Pakistan, Zimbabwe or NZ, they all come from geographical areas with other strong test nations. WIndies are the only game in town in the Americas.

They're the mouse that roared; made up of a disparate collection of third world nations who come together for cricket and who ruled the world for a long time. Growing up in the 80s it seemed impossible England could even compete with these giants, far less win a test never mind series. It was only in retrospect looking back I realised how gloriously improbable their dominance was.

Cricket doesn't "need" a strong Windies, but it'd be bloody nice to have them.

Spot on Brumbers

One of the great "problems" with the great WIndies sides of the 80s was that it wasn't actually too depressing to be thrashed by them time and again - Marshall, Roberts, Holding, Garner et al were thrilling to watch at any time as, with the bat, were Lloyd, Greenidge and Richards. Decent West Indies teams have always had great entertainers who play the game a different way to anyone else - I'd love to see them back at the game's top table

 

[ponting28]

Strong WI

Hey West India play really well against India. They loose the series by 3-2. But last three match they tried a lot and play good cricket. They bowl really well also fielding. But they loose their match, because their batsman don't play well. Either they can beat any strong team.

 

[shivfan]

This is just the second day of the four-day national athletics trials in Kingston, and already the crowd is far superior to the crowd that appeared on any day at Sabina Park....

YouTube - ‪Jamaican National Trials 2011 M100m Final‬‏

 

[GotSpin]

This is just the second day of the four-day national athletics trials in Kingston, and already the crowd is far superior to the crowd that appeared on any day at Sabina Park....

YouTube - ‪Jamaican National Trials 2011 M100m Final‬‏

Not a very big crowd anyway.

I could be wrong, but I have the feeling that if the Windies team achieved some success the fans would come back to the ground. It must be hard to turn up for 12 years and expect a loss

 

[Uppercut]

Losing the West Indies would be horrible for cricket in the same way that losing the colour blue would be horrible for the world.