Will Jerome Taylor solve the West Indies Fast Bowling crisis?

[Pup Clarke]

With the windies struggling to find a replacement for Ambrose and Walsh has Taylor put his hand up and is now the leader of the windies attack.Been very impressed with him and he seems to have pace and control something which is lacking for the likes of Tino Best and Fidel Edwards.Can he be a truly great west indies bowler and along with Dwayne Bravo is the future looking bright for the West Indies?.

 

[silentstriker]

I really rate Taylor. Whenever I see him, he looks to be bowling well. I hope he does well, as a strong WI would be fantastic. Really, you want as many evenly matched sides as possible in order to ensure the highest level of interest.

 

[shortpitched713]

Isn't Taylor short for a fast bowler? That might hurt him, like it has hurt other quick bowlers lacking height ie Sami, Best.

 

[silentstriker]

*COUGH* Marshall, Trueman *COUGH*.

Height helps, but its not impossible to overcome.

 

[Pup Clarke]

Ah,but he has control over the likes of Best and Sami who are very wayward.Very promising start to his career and a hat trick against Australia

 

[Richard]

What's hurt Sami and Best is their utter rubbishness...

Even now Taylor looks better than they ever were.

But in answer: no one bowler will solve a problem. There was a time when West Indies had 13 top-class seamers in the space of 15 years (Roberts, Holding, Garner, Daniel, Croft, Clarke, Marshall, Walsh, Patterson, Gray, Benjamin, Ambrose, Bishop). There needs to be a few more Taylors (if, of course, he even kicks-on, which is something many have failed to do since 1991) before we can even think about that.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Taylor is not the answer. But he is part of it.

The likes of Lawson, Collins and Collymore have to maintain fitness and Edwards needs to be refined, ideally by playing domestic cricket. There's a lot of fast bowling talent in the West Indies. More so than batting talent. The problem is that the talent is mishandled by too early exposure to international cricket and poor fitness.

 

[Richard]

And has been since 1991 (how many apparently-promising young seamers have knocked around since then?... besides the McLeans and Kings who actually went some way towards fulfillment)

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

The difference is that now, apparently under Bennett King, the fast bowlers are starting to develop better from talent to production. When all are fit and match fit, there are at least 6 bowlers battling for 3-4 seam bowling spots in a given West Indies Test team. That wasn't the case until recently. About a year and a half ago I practically wrote off Jerome Taylor due to the injury he suffered in his first year of international cricket. I think I even made a post stating that I'd be very surprised if he played Test cricket again. But he fought his way back into the side and has been brilliant since. There's something much more encouraging about this new generation of fast bowlers.

 

[Richard]

And I might suggest, though in the end it sadly came to nothing, Reon King's rehabilitation from a similar catastrophe.

If Bennett K really is the answer, it sort of begs the question... why on Earth has someone appointed before now not managed to do what... whoever was in charge in the 1970s and '80s... did?

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Reon King has never been the bowler he was before his injury. His return to international cricket brough moderate success but was largely poor and completely expected as such by myself. I've seen King bowl several times since his injury and he has never looked the bowler he once was.

He has lost pace. His accuracy is far from the pinpoint standard that it once was and he doesn't do much with the ball. I'm not sure what the reasons for these things are, but I consider Reon King and Jimmy Adams to be two of the most unfortunate injury victims as far a playing career is concerned. I'm not considering death, btw.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

If Bennett K really is the answer, it sort of begs the question... why on Earth has someone appointed before now not managed to do what... whoever was in charge in the 1970s and '80s... did?

Bennett is not the answer. He's part of it.
He's brought various levels of discipline and an idea of team to the West Indies that were previously absent. However, there are many things that need to change that are out of his control. Many of the problems with West Indies cricket exist at a grass roots level. Recently the likes of Trinidad and Tobago and other islands have been placing more focus on the grassroots of cricket, attempting to produce better rounded cricketers at the national level, to supply to a healthier first-class competition and therefore produce better international cricketers.

Regarding the 1970s and 1980, the coaching was not the main reason for success at the time. Cricket was far more fashionable then, and therefore there was a larger talent base to choose from. Added to that, fitness regimes at regional level were better and therefore the domestic tournament was stronger. Then there were several players playing cricket in England and improving their game immeasurably. Several factors contributed to the success of that era. Coaching at the international level was one of the least of them.

 

[Richard]

Reon King has never been the bowler he was before his injury. His return to international cricket brough moderate success but was largely poor and completely expected as such by myself. I've seen King bowl several times since his injury and he has never looked the bowler he once was.

He has lost pace. His accuracy is far from the pinpoint standard that it once was and he doesn't do much with the ball. I'm not sure what the reasons for these things are, but I consider Reon King and Jimmy Adams to be two of the most unfortunate injury victims as far a playing career is concerned. I'm not considering death, btw.

.......

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

.......

And?

Seeing him bowl in the President's Cup recently he looked a lot closer to his old self than he has at any time since the injury. Pace, corridor location, aggression."

I noted he looked "a lot closer to his old self". I never once said that he was bowling as he did before the injury.

I think he's in with a good shot to go to Australia

True, no? After all, he did go to Australia.

I was reading an interview a while back where he said he thinks that between now and next year's Carib Cup is his last opportunity to break back into maroon. Still, he's not taking anything for granted and seems to have a very good head on his shoulders.

What does this have to do with how well he was bowling?

I really don't see what your point is, Richard.

 

[Richard]

I noted he looked "a lot closer to his old self". I never once said that he was bowling as he did before the injury.

OK, fair enough, you came pretty close, mind.

 

[Slifer]

Reon King has never been the bowler he was before his injury. His return to international cricket brough moderate success but was largely poor and completely expected as such by myself. I've seen King bowl several times since his injury and he has never looked the bowler he once was.

He has lost pace. His accuracy is far from the pinpoint standard that it once was and he doesn't do much with the ball. I'm not sure what the reasons for these things are, but I consider Reon King and Jimmy Adams to be two of the most unfortunate injury victims as far a playing career is concerned. I'm not considering death, btw.

I would also include Ian Bishop in that list. Can u imagine what might have been if Bishop had been able to push on for a few more years than he did?

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I would also include Ian Bishop in that list. Can u imagine what might have been if Bishop had been able to push on for a few more years than he did?

The difference with Bishop is that injury ultimately forced him into retirement. He's only due to be 40 this year. He retired at 31 I think.

With Adams and King, they continued playing after the injury but were never the same players. They achieved a measure of success, but barring injury, both could have been great cricketers.

 

[Slifer]

I really dont c the difference because if i recall Bishop had more than his fair share of injuries throughout his career (which ultimately led to his early retirement). Bishop too missed several series after injury but he came back. In the end his body could take it no more and thats why he retired.

 

[Richard]

Had Bishop been able to have an injury-free career IMO he might be a possible up there with Marshall and Ambrose.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I really dont c the difference because if i recall Bishop had more than his fair share of injuries throughout his career (which ultimately led to his early retirement). Bishop too missed several series after injury but he came back. In the end his body could take it no more and thats why he retired.

After Bishop's first return from injury he still had some potency and took 30 wickets in his next 7 Tests. He then broke down again and returned to take 66 wickets in his next 17 Tests at an average in the mid20s. Injuries forced him to retire at the age of 31 some 3 series later.

Adams and King returned from their injuries and never had that sort of success. They were completely different, like Bishop, but unlike Bishop, they were extremely ineffective for the most part.