Cricket Player Manager
Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 56

Thread: How did they ever lose a Test?

  1. #1
    Hall of Fame Member Goughy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    still scratching around in the same old hole
    Posts
    15,241

    How did they ever lose a Test?

    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 by Goughy; 19-11-2006 at 03:56 PM.
    If I only just posted the above post, please wait 5 mins before replying as there is bound to be edits

    West Robham Rabid Wolves Caedere lemma quod eat lemma

    Happy Birthday! (easier than using Birthday threads)

    Email and MSN- Goughy at cricketmail dot net

  2. #2
    The Wheel is Forever silentstriker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    37,972
    1. Lara
    2. Walsh
    3. Chanderpaul
    4. Ambrose


    Which one does not belong with the other?
    Quote Originally Posted by KungFu_Kallis View Post
    Peter Siddle top scores in both innings....... Matthew Wade gets out twice in one ball
    "The future light cone of the next Indian fast bowler is exactly the same as the past light cone of the previous one"
    -My beliefs summarized in words much more eloquent than I could come up with

    How the Universe came from nothing

  3. #3
    The Wheel is Forever silentstriker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    37,972
    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.

  4. #4
    International Coach adharcric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    San Francisco, California
    Posts
    10,898
    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 by adharcric; 19-11-2006 at 05:16 PM.


  5. #5
    International Regular Beleg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Helsinki, Finland
    Posts
    3,438
    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.

  6. #6
    International 12th Man Slifer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,613
    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.
    Cause Slifer said so.........!!!!

  7. #7
    Hall of Fame Member Goughy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    still scratching around in the same old hole
    Posts
    15,241
    Quote Originally Posted by Slifer
    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'?

  8. #8
    International Debutant Salamuddin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Lakemba, Sydney
    Posts
    2,155
    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.

  9. #9
    International 12th Man Slifer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,613
    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.

  10. #10
    International Debutant Salamuddin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Lakemba, Sydney
    Posts
    2,155
    I can't really see how Kallis can't be considered a great.

  11. #11
    International Coach adharcric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    San Francisco, California
    Posts
    10,898
    Inzy and Hayden are both borderline candidates for me.

  12. #12
    The Wheel is Forever silentstriker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    37,972
    Hmm, I don't really even consider Dravid or Kumble to be 'great' if that terms means all time players.

  13. #13
    Hall of Fame Member chaminda_00's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Murali CG
    Posts
    16,305
    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.
    The man, the mountain, the Mathews. The greatest all rounder since Keith Miller. (Y)

    Jaffna Jets CC (Battrick & FTP)

    RIP WCC and CW Cricket

    Member of the MSC, JMAS and CVAAS

  14. #14
    International 12th Man irfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    1,737
    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

  15. #15
    Hall of Fame Member Goughy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    still scratching around in the same old hole
    Posts
    15,241
    Quote Originally Posted by chaminda_00
    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?

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. The Name Game.
    By yaju in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 1109
    Last Post: 09-12-2011, 08:43 AM
  2. Which Country Will Be The Next Test Nation?
    By albo97056 in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 134
    Last Post: 01-08-2007, 12:36 AM
  3. ***Official*** South Africa in Sri Lanka
    By James in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 540
    Last Post: 18-08-2006, 03:01 PM
  4. Mahmood and Panesar power England to series glory
    By symonds_94 in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-08-2006, 11:11 AM
  5. Replies: 43
    Last Post: 16-07-2006, 08:13 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •