-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
West Indies
- Thread starter luffy
- Start date
I feel that if the west indies had the bowlers like courntey walsh and curtley ambrose now they would be the best team in the world of cricket. They have the best opener in cricket (Chris Gayle) but he needs someone with him. but their bowlers are not up to scratch but i agree if they had the bowlers the would be a force
stumpski
International Captain
West indies' strength is their middle order: Lara, Chanderpaul, Sarwan and Bravo. But they could do with a settled opening pair. Devon Smith should get a run in the side, he seems a good player. They're missing a Test class spinner as well, but then they've managed without one since Lance Gibbs retired.
Goughy
Hall of Fame Member
West Indies are a poor team. No doubt the bowling is weak but the batting is made out to be far stronger than it actually is. There is the tendancy to get rolled over and, whilst the batting is stronger than the bowling, the batting is weaker than most nations. I honestly think that apart from Lara it is very debatable whether any batsmen would make it into other test teams (Zim & Bang excepted).
Just a case in point-
Team batting average in the 2000s
Australia- 43.2
South Africa- 38.2
India- 36.9
Sri Lanka- 34.9
England- 34.7
Pakistan- 34.7
New Zealand- 33.5
West Indies- 29.6
As can be seen apart from Aus at the top and WI at the bottom the rest are pretty much a much of a muchness. It shows that WI batting has been a serious weakness since 2000 and that it is unfair to just criticise the bowling.
It is all aspects of the team that have been in decline.
Just a case in point-
Team batting average in the 2000s
Australia- 43.2
South Africa- 38.2
India- 36.9
Sri Lanka- 34.9
England- 34.7
Pakistan- 34.7
New Zealand- 33.5
West Indies- 29.6
As can be seen apart from Aus at the top and WI at the bottom the rest are pretty much a much of a muchness. It shows that WI batting has been a serious weakness since 2000 and that it is unfair to just criticise the bowling.
It is all aspects of the team that have been in decline.
Beleg
International Regular
Gayle
Kamran
Inzamam
Sarwan
Younis
Yousuf
Chanders
Rana/Nazir
Shoaib
Kaneria
Asif
Trescothick
Strauss
Cook
Sarwan
Bell
Chanderpaul
Flintoff
Read/Jones
Hoggard
Harmison
Jones
Gayle would walk into the England ODI team but I agree he isn't a better player then Trescothick or Strauss.
Collingwood and Pieterson are unproven compared to Sarwan and specially Chanderpaul. I would have Chanders ahead of anyone in the current Pakistani team except Inzamam.
Swervy
International Captain
so when is the cut off point of when someone has proven themselves..30 tests, 40tests, what is it????...KP has now performed vs Australia, Pakistan and Sri lanka at home, and did pretty well in India and scored a hundred in Pakistan as well...he has gone past 50 in 10 of his 32 innings, and scored 5 hundreds as well.Beleg said:
So he has shown he can perform vs the best in the world, shown he can cope well on the subcontinent and has shown he can perform vs the two greatest spinners of all time.
Don't get me wrong, I really like Sarwan, but I think it is pretty evident that KP is the better batsman of the two...Sarwan has struggled vs the best teams in the world....he has only really excelled vs South Africa and Bangladesh...so has Sarwan really proven himself anyway????
Chanderpaul has a stronger case, but I would still be inclined to pick KP over him as well, as I think he is simply a better batsman
Beleg
International Regular
Hmm, misguided? I'll be interested in hearing why you consider Yousuf and Younis to be better players then Chanders? I have watched him play a fair deal and I simply have more faith in his batting then either Yousuf or Younis. He might not be as cutesy or as flashy but he is reliable.
Beleg
International Regular
32 innings is not a big enough sample, compared with Sarwan. Give him a couple more years before comparing him with much more experienced players. There might be a significent decrease in his average - it has happened to players before him. He still hasn't played in Australia, South Africa, Sri Lanka or New Zealand. His average outside England is pretty poor. (though that too can change - the sample size is way too small to make any concrete predictions at this stage) At the risk of sounding Richardesque, he gives away more chances then most players I have seen. Anyway, it was a question of choosing between Cook and him and I picked Cook because I like his playing style a lot more and feel he is a much more solid bat.
Pretty evident to you, maybe - Sarwan is more talented. I agree that Sarwan's stats don't stand up to scrunity if you were comparing him to, say, Younis or Chanderpaul. However, you cannot realistically compare a sample size of 32 innings to more then 100 without major extrapolations - a sample size of 32, which I might add, is good but not spectecular by any means.
Last edited: