• 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.

How did they ever lose a Test?

Goughy

Hall of Fame Member
This is the result of a quick investigation brought about by 2 threads. The 'apart from your team, who would you want to win the WC' thread and the Chanderpaul 100th test thread.

Guys like Ambrose were posters on my wall as a kid and I still think he is one of the best I have ever seen, but I cant help think that in many cases people on CW have rose-tinted glasses when it comes to evaluating West Indian talent.

Chanderpaul is a good player but this talk of him walking into the great WI team is, IMO, a little presumtious. Waits for Liam to respond

Right, As far as I can see Lara, Chanderpaul, Ambrose and Walsh (4 Greats according to many on CW) played together in 30 tests.

From my quick check, in those 30 tests with those 4 greats playing in the West Indies side the WI went 11 wins, 10 loses and 9 draws.

Hardly what you would expect from a team carrying such an 'exceptional' core. Also add in the fact that at one time or other they were supported by such very good players as Bishop, Gayle, Adams, Hooper etc.

How is it possible, if they were so good that they had such an average record?

Compare it to Englands last 30 tests, 16 wins, 6 loses and 8 draws and Australia's 21 wins, 3 loses and 6 draws.

OK, my question. How can a team carrying 4 'greats' have such a poor record?

There maybe good answers, so Im interested to see how people respond.
 
Last edited:

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
Your point is valid though. Thats why I have a problem with Dravid-Sachin-Kumble being all time greats. If a team has three all time greats, you ought to be able to win more than what they do.

I mean you can say that Dravid and Tendulkar hit their primes at different times, so thats why. But I think Kumble is a great spinner but he can't be an all time spinner because of his away ability until very recently.
 

adharcric

International Coach
Lara and Ambrose are all-time greats. Walsh is a great. Chanderpaul is simply good.

Even with 3 or 4 greats in your team, you can get owned because of ...

a) inconsistency (Lara)
b) primes of great players not coinciding (Tendulkar, Dravid)
c) poor bowling attacks overall (WI and India)
 
Last edited:

Beleg

International Regular
Pakistan had Wasim, Waqar and Inzamam together at various times. I'd be interested in knowing how many matches they won.

Same goes for Wasim, Imran, Javed, Waqar etc etc.
 

Slifer

International Captain
Because while when WI had these 'greats' other teams had more greats at their disposal. Take Pakistan for example, during the days of Ambrose, Walsh, Lara and Bishop, Pakistan had the likes of Waqar, Akram, Saqlain, Anwar, Inzamam etc. RSA had Donald,Pollock, Kirsten, Kallis. Australia during these times had both Waughs, Slater, Taylor, Mcgrath, Warne, peak Gillespie etc. So while WI may have 4 great players other teams around that time had even more great players. IMO the key during this time was the loss of Ian Bishop. A prime example of what Im talking about can be seen in the WI 2000 tour in England. During that tour, the English batsmen would play out Ambrose/Walsh and when the lesser bowlers came on they would milk their runs from them. HAd Bishop stayed healthy for as long as Ambrose/Walsh did I think the outlook for the WI up to 2001 would have been diff.
 

Goughy

Hall of Fame Member
Slifer said:
Because while when WI had these 'greats' other teams had more greats at their disposal. Take Pakistan for example, during the days of Ambrose, Walsh, Lara and Bishop, Pakistan had the likes of Waqar, Akram, Saqlain, Anwar, Inzamam etc. RSA had Donald,Pollock, Kirsten, Kallis. Australia during these times had both Waughs, Slater, Taylor, Mcgrath, Warne, peak Gillespie etc. So while WI may have 4 great players other teams around that time had even more great players. IMO the key during this time was the loss of Ian Bishop. A prime example of what Im talking about can be seen in the WI 2000 tour in England. During that tour, the English batsmen would play out Ambrose/Walsh and when the lesser bowlers came on they would milk their runs from them. HAd Bishop stayed healthy for as long as Ambrose/Walsh did I think the outlook for the WI up to 2001 would have been diff.
So maybe the word great is overused if so many teams had almost half their team made up of 'greats'?
 

Salamuddin

International Debutant
It's pretty obvious why Pakistan have been more successful at test level than India....we produce much better pace bowlers.
I wouldn't necessarily say we produce the better batsmen - so I can't say the likes of Gavaskar, Dravid and Tendulkar are not 'greats' simply because India couldn't win matches away from home......there's only so much batsmen can do....you need to have a good pace ttack to win regularly away from home.
 

Slifer

International Captain
Perhaps. I think a guy like Chanderpaul would be classed as a very good player (along with the likes of Gillespie, Kirsten, Taylor, Slater, etc.) As far as Im concerned these are the following greats in world cricket:
Lara
SRT
Dravid
Ponting
Kallis ??
Pollock
Mcgrath
Warne
Murali
Gilchrist
Inzamam

If I missed ne one much apologies.
 

chaminda_00

Hall of Fame Member
You don't win too many games relying on just 4 to 6 players. If you look all the great side Windies 70s to 80s, Australia 1948 and Australia 90s to 2000s etc, they all had pretty much 8 to 10 guys that could win you games. Also all these teams had guys on the bench who could fill the role of others quite easierly.

Just look at the current England, a very good team at full strength, but there is still major questions over their depth. The South African team of the 90s is another example, they had say 6 very good players, but when they came up against a team like Australia and a couple of them failed they really didn't have much back up, to get them home.

All the best teams in history have always have backup strength, that turns them from a good team to a great team. It doesn't matter if you have 3 or 4 so called greats, they are always going to fail sooner or later and its the ability of the players around them that make a great side.
 

irfan

State Captain
Top post - Chaminda

It takes more than a core group of exceptional players to win you games, it's the ability to have backup players that will fill the void once the 'great' players are injured/retired and also the rest of the team to contribute siginificantly and not just hope the exceptional players pull through .

This is part of the reason why Australia have been so dominant, their A team has players that could have easily walked in to any other side in the world
 

Goughy

Hall of Fame Member
chaminda_00 said:
You don't win too many games relying on just 4 to 6 players. If you look all the great side Windies 70s to 80s, Australia 1948 and Australia 90s to 2000s etc, they all had pretty much 8 to 10 guys that could win you games. Also all these teams had guys on the bench who could fill the role of others quite easierly.

Just look at the current England, a very good team at full strength, but there is still major questions over their depth. The South African team of the 90s is another example, they had say 6 very good players, but when they came up against a team like Australia and a couple of them failed they really didn't have much back up, to get them home.

All the best teams in history have always have backup strength, that turns them from a good team to a great team. It doesn't matter if you have 3 or 4 so called greats, they are always going to fail sooner or later and its the ability of the players around them that make a great side.
You are referencing great teams. Im pointing out that winning as many games as you lose with Lara, Walsh, Ambrose and Chanderpaul in the team (including games against minnows) is less than you would expect.

The current England team has a far better record and the SA team of the 90s won 29 games and only lost 13. In comparision this supposedly decent WI team has a very poor record.

Also as stated those guys did not have bad support. Hooper and Adams were pretty good players and earlier there was Bishop and later Gayle. Very early there was Richie Richardson.

Out of interest, how good do you think would Bangladesh be if McGrath, Warne, Ponting and Gilchrist were added to their team?
 

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
Goughy said:
Out of interest, how good do you think would Bangladesh be if McGrath, Warne, Ponting and Gilchrist were added to their team?
They would easily be an above average test team. Minimum. Assuming all in their prime.
 

Slifer

International Captain
Salamuddin said:
I can't really see how Kallis can't be considered a great.
I actually consider him a great but there are those who dont hence the question marks
 

chaminda_00

Hall of Fame Member
Goughy said:
You are referencing great teams. Im pointing out that winning as many games as you lose with Lara, Walsh, Ambrose and Chanderpaul in the team (including games against minnows) is less than you would expect.

The current England team has a far better record and the SA team of the 90s won 29 games and only lost 13. In comparision this supposedly decent WI team has a very poor record.

Also as stated those guys did not have bad support. Hooper and Adams were pretty good players and earlier there was Bishop and later Gayle. Very early there was Richie Richardson.

Out of interest, how good do you think would Bangladesh be if McGrath, Warne, Ponting and Gilchrist were added to their team?
I think the point im trying to make is that you need more then just 6 good players to consistantly perform. If you look at the Windies side generally you would have six very good players at one time. Bishop hardly played, Adams was only good for a short period, by the time Richardson was there, i don't think Chanderpaul was in the side. He could have been, but wasn't really playing at a high standard at that time. Its not surprising that a team with only six very good players is only going to win half their games. Occassionly 2 or 3 wont perform and in other games they come up against team with 3 to 4 very good players who have awsome games and outplay their very good players.

If you add those four mentioned in your post to Bangladesh, i think they will win half their games. They will lose a lot of games, cus they wont have the support at the other end, or these guys have bad games, or gun players from other team have good games.

IMO you can't expect any team to win very game unless you have 8 to 10 high quality players. You can get away with 3 passengers, but not 5.
 

Goughy

Hall of Fame Member
chaminda_00 said:
I think the point im trying to make is that you need more then just 6 good players to consistantly perform. If you look at the Windies side generally you would have six very good players at one time. Bishop hardly played, Adams was only good for a short period, by the time Richardson was there, i don't think Chanderpaul was in the side. He could have been, but wasn't really playing at a high standard at that time. Its not surprising that a team with only six very good players is only going to win half their games. Occassionly 2 or 3 wont perform and in other games they come up against team with 3 to 4 very good players who have awsome games and outplay their very good players.

If you add those four mentioned in your post to Bangladesh, i think they will win half their games. They will lose a lot of games, cus they wont have the support at the other end, or these guys have bad games, or gun players from other team have good games.

IMO you can't expect any team to win very game unless you have 8 to 10 high quality players. You can get away with 3 passengers, but not 5.
Just to clarify. The WI team I mentioned won 1/3 of their tests not 1/2. They won approx 1/3, lost approx 1/3 and drew approx 1/3.

If that is good enough for you then thats fine. I do understand where you are coming from. Personally I think it is less than should be expected.
 
Last edited:

Top