Will the West Indies ever rise again?

[andyc]

Of course they will. Australia did, England are, etc. etc. Sooner or later they will, although they will need to sort out some internal problems like others have said.

 

[MoxPearl]

Unfortunatly, I was in the area for about a month, just last month. And, I can tell you, most people are much more interested in Basketball than cricket these days.

And why not? The top basketball stars can make $20-$30 million per year in salary alone, not counting endoresments. Even a backup player in the NBA can make as much as a Brian Lara.

Add to that, Basketball is more glamorous. Kids watch cricket stars toiling away for 8 hours a day, and on the other hand watch basketball stars hit slam dunks, drive expensive cars and singing rap songs in their free time. There is more money, more advertising, and more *** appeal in the NBA/NFL then there is in cricket. Basketball is about fun, cricket is about discipline.

When I went over there, I naturally asked people about cricket. About half of them barely knew the rules, and most of them couldn't name anyone besides Lara, but they could name all the starters and backups of their favorite NBA team.

From my limited experience, its a slowly but surely dying game in the Carribean. I predict that in fifteen to twenty years, there will be serious questions as to the feasability of West Indies being able to stay a Test nation.

Whether we like it or not, Cricket is a shrinking sport. The collapse is slow and though standing from within the heart of the subcontinent it may look impregnable, the edges are definatly rotting.

I find it really sad that you think its all about money..... and you obviously agree with it aswell as you said "And why not?"

Cricket is *not* the most popular sport in New Zealand.. Australia... South Africa... or England..... yet we do fine.... our cricket players get paid less than alot of Super 14 players... and i imagine far far less than being a All Black....

The problem with the WI is a internal one.. they need to just get a whole new lot running the show... which sadly imho wont happen any time soon

 

[Blaze]

I don't buy the stuff about basketball taking over etc.

Look at the population of NZ, look at how low our player numbers are compared to the rest of the world, yet we still compete with the rest of the cricketing world and have some success.

It is all in the management and inferstructure IMO...

 

[chekmeout]

And as for claims of cricket dying out world over.. Thats rubbish!
Cricket's here to stay.. and from a global perspective, growing from strength to strength..

 

[GotSpin]

And as for claims of cricket dying out world over.. Thats rubbish!
Cricket's here to stay.. and from a global perspective, growing from strength to strength..

Agree. And will continue to grow with such countries as China entering the fray.

Probably been mentioned but this is an article talking about cricket in China

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2006/03/03/1141191849511.html

Plus, Basketball is an American sport, and slowly and surely America will lose its global influence meaning that Basketball will no longer be as popular.

 

[Goughy]

And why not? The top basketball stars can make $20-$30 million per year in salary alone, not counting endoresments. Even a backup player in the NBA can make as much as a Brian Lara.

Add to that, Basketball is more glamorous. Kids watch cricket stars toiling away for 8 hours a day, and on the other hand watch basketball stars hit slam dunks, drive expensive cars and singing rap songs in their free time. There is more money, more advertising, and more *** appeal in the NBA/NFL then there is in cricket. Basketball is about fun, cricket is about discipline.

Well there is currently only 1 NBA player from a cricketing playing country. Adonal Foyle from St. Vincent and Grenadines. A average NBA player who is at my fav. team the Golden State Warriors. The same number of players as NZ have.

England have been more produvtive in producing bball players and the game is a near irrelevance there.

Look at the results from the Commonwealth games. Aus, Nigeria, NZ and England are in the semis. No WI team is that good at basketball and to say they now concentrate on bball either means a) they try but suck or b) it is an exageration.

The basketball issue is a white elephant. A factor but not a massive one.

As for the apathy towards cricket on the islands I would suggest it is to do with the lack of success of the current team. Any success in the future would be rewarded with more interest. I refer to my earlier post for a more detailed explanation regarding the decline of WI cricket and why it is difficult to come back to the top.

As for bball being more glamerous. Anyone who knows the game knows how insanely structured the sport is and the lack of flexability given to the players. Coaches are far more involved and a players individuality is subjugated to the plays a coach calls.

Dunks happen but they are part of a structured game plan or when a play breaks down. Cricket is far more about individuality as coaches as not determining what a player does at each turn.

 

[andyc]

Probably been mentioned but this is an article talking about cricket in China

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2006/03/03/1141191849511.html

This might seem far-fetched for a country that does not have even one cricket pitch yet, where the game is not shown on TV and where cricket is the almost exclusive domain of expats in Beijing and Shanghai.

There was a synthetic one! Surely that counts!

 

[Hasib]

Well ofcoarse one day they will rise up back to their former glory again... such a team can't possibly struggle forever. But I don't see them doing that for a long long time

 

[Lillian Thomson]

[*]Despite possessing quality players, the WI didn't become "Great" until Clive Lloyd made the decision to dispence with a spinner. This near revolutionary act put the West Indies at a competetive advantage and put them playing a futuristic style of cricket in the 1970s when the rest of the world were left with old traditional selectoral opinions.

This supposedly monumental decision was forced upon him. Lance Gibbs had retired in early 1976 and the West Indies arrived in England with Padmore and Jumadeen. Neither were anything like Test quality and Padmore bowled about three overs at Old Trafford. Lloyd decided that there was no point in playing a spinner for the sake of it and just decided to pick their best four bowlers and use Richards and/or Fredericks to fill in. Had a bowler of Lance Gibbs quality been available he would have played, as it transpired only the very average Roger Harper emerged during that period and his 25 Tests over a ten year period was testament to the dearth of spin bowlers available to the West Indies. It would be easy to say in hindsight that no spinners appeared because all youngsters wanted to be fast bowlers, but this would conveniently overlook the fact that Lance Gibbs at that time was the leading wicket taker in Test Match history (having taken the record from Fred Trueman in Australia) yet no one it seems was inspired to successfully follow him.

 

[Goughy]

This supposedly monumental decision was forced upon him. Lance Gibbs had retired in early 1976 and the West Indies arrived in England with Padmore and Jumadeen. Neither were anything like Test quality and Padmore bowled about three overs at Old Trafford. Lloyd decided that there was no point in playing a spinner for the sake of it and just decided to pick their best four bowlers and use Richards and/or Fredericks to fill in. Had a bowler of Lance Gibbs quality been available he would have played, as it transpired only the very average Roger Harper emerged during that period and his 25 Tests over a ten year period was testament to the dearth of spin bowlers available to the West Indies. It would be easy to say in hindsight that no spinners appeared because all youngsters wanted to be fast bowlers, but this would conveniently overlook the fact that Lance Gibbs at that time was the leading wicket taker in Test Match history (having taken the record from Fred Trueman in Australia) yet no one it seems was inspired to successfully follow him.

Nothing you said really contradicts anything I said. However, the monumental decision was not born on the England tour but as a response to the embarrassment of the 5-1 defeat against Australia in 75/76.

It was never forced upon them. Still at that time the traditional view for a balenced team was to have 2 spinners and sometimes depending on conditions you could go in with one only. No matter how poor the options avaliable were a spinner was seen as essential. Dispencing with this mentality was tantamount to ripping up the Book of Cricketing Common Wisdom.

Being beaten into the ground by a team that played Gilmour, Walker and Lillee and Thompson made Lloyd beleive that a marginal spinner had no place in a Test team and that if 4 good-great fast bowlers were avaliable that this was always a preferable option. It WAS a revolutionary decision.

The rest of the world is still catching upto to Lloyds philosophy hence the career of Salisbury, Batty, and many other spinners who are not there because they are better than the fast bowling options but there as a spinner because the selectors beleive one must play.

 

[Richard]

He was also saying crowds at internationals and domestic games have been poor the past couple of years, and media coverage is lacking.

If so, that's a very worrying and recent development.
Domestic crowds have never really been anything, though, so I don't know that them going down from 500 to 200 is too much to worry about.

 

[Richard]

Let's hope that WC2007 stimulates some enthusiasm amongst the kids.

Sounds familiar...
I seem to remember something like that being said in, oh, must've been... 1999?

 

[Richard]

This supposedly monumental decision was forced upon him. Lance Gibbs had retired in early 1976 and the West Indies arrived in England with Padmore and Jumadeen. Neither were anything like Test quality and Padmore bowled about three overs at Old Trafford. Lloyd decided that there was no point in playing a spinner for the sake of it and just decided to pick their best four bowlers and use Richards and/or Fredericks to fill in. Had a bowler of Lance Gibbs quality been available he would have played, as it transpired only the very average Roger Harper emerged during that period and his 25 Tests over a ten year period was testament to the dearth of spin bowlers available to the West Indies. It would be easy to say in hindsight that no spinners appeared because all youngsters wanted to be fast bowlers, but this would conveniently overlook the fact that Lance Gibbs at that time was the leading wicket taker in Test Match history (having taken the record from Fred Trueman in Australia) yet no one it seems was inspired to successfully follow him.

To suggest that no Test-quality spinners emerged would be simplistic.
Much more accurate would be to say that the seamers who emerged, many, many of them, were far better.

 

[Richard]

The rest of the world is still catching upto to Lloyds philosophy hence the career of Salisbury, Batty, and many other spinners who are not there because they are better than the fast bowling options but there as a spinner because the selectors beleive one must play.

Salisbury and Batty\Dawson\etc. are not remotely comparable.
Salisbury quite clearly had (had until 2001) ability any fingerspinner never has.
Just lacked the temperament for Test level.

 

[Richard]

Unfortunatly, I was in the area for about a month, just last month. And, I can tell you, most people are much more interested in Basketball than cricket these days.

And why not? The top basketball stars can make $20-$30 million per year in salary alone, not counting endoresments. Even a backup player in the NBA can make as much as a Brian Lara.

Add to that, Basketball is more glamorous. Kids watch cricket stars toiling away for 8 hours a day, and on the other hand watch basketball stars hit slam dunks, drive expensive cars and singing rap songs in their free time. There is more money, more advertising, and more *** appeal in the NBA/NFL then there is in cricket. Basketball is about fun, cricket is about discipline.

When I went over there, I naturally asked people about cricket. About half of them barely knew the rules, and most of them couldn't name anyone besides Lara, but they could name all the starters and backups of their favorite NBA team.

From my limited experience, its a slowly but surely dying game in the Carribean. I predict that in fifteen to twenty years, there will be serious questions as to the feasability of West Indies being able to stay a Test nation.

Whether we like it or not, Cricket is a shrinking sport. The collapse is slow and though standing from within the heart of the subcontinent it may look impregnable, the edges are definatly rotting.

We heard the same thing with England in 1998-1999 sort of time.
Only in the subcontinent is cricket the number-one sport anywhere. Sure, there are places where it's more and less popular, but that popularity goes in cycles.
Popularity will always be obvious with success, less so without.
Even in the Champions Trophy 2004 final, West Indian cricket fandom was perfectly evident.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Two years on and the West Indies are still going nowhere.

 

[roseboy64]

Kind of a stupid question though. Still, considering the lack of will to really change anything.........Basically most of the WICB needs to be replaced with people who are not there just for the perks and who are willing to accept change and make change.

 

[andruid]

Cynical as it may sound here goes

Zimbabwe and West Indies down, New Zealand barely hanging on, just 7 Test Class teams left .

 

[Xuhaib]

Cynical as it may sound here goes

Zimbabwe and West Indies down, New Zealand barely hanging on, just 7 Test Class teams left .

NZL has mostly been in this position since their entry in test cricket.

 

[Richard]

Well, yes and no. NZ were virtual Bangladesh equivalents for 30 years - they shouldn't have been playing Test-cricket in the 1930s or 1950s. From the 1960s to the current day they've mostly (with the exception of the period from the late-1970s to late-1980s when the likes of Coney, Wright, Hadlee, Crowe, Jones etc. etc. were around) been a side who haven't played as much as they might and not often performed extraordinarily well, but unquestionably been capable of beating most teams at most times.