How do you feel about Shane Warne?

[Son Of Coco]

Iqbal Qasim, Dillip Doshi, Maninder Singh, and maybe a Sri Lankan somewhere too. All superior bowlers to Holland and Border. And while there were indeed a fair few drawn series in the subcontinent, not when WI were involved. Between 1976 and 1986, the period where they flattened all and sundry, West Indies played just a single series each in Pakistan and India, and won them both (1-0 in Pakistan, 3-0 in India, despite being without key personnel on both occasions). Well, actually, they played another in India in 1978/79, but I don't think anyone would suggest that means a thing as it was actually West Indies A playing that series, with the first-team defected to Kerry Packer.

That, to me, is enough to suggest there was no great weakness against spin for West Indian batsmen.

Queen's Park Oval and Bourda have almost never been seam-friendly grounds, and The ARG has rarely offered anything to bowlers of any kind. Generally, spinners had as good a chance as seamers at the aforementioned three. It's only Kensington Oval and Sabina Park that were truly seam-friendly surfaces, and even this hasn't been true in recent years.

No, West Indies haven't had a good Test spinner since Lance Gibbs enjoyed his Indian summer in 1973, 1974 and 1974/75. But that doesn't mean none of their batsmen could play spin.

They didn't "suddenly give-up", but they fairly obviously cared less than they otherwise would have. I may not have watched those games live, but I've seen footage from both of them, and it's fair to say the WI batsmen often looked like they were less than 100% bothered about run-scoring. I believe this would have been different if the games had been live ones earlier in the series.

Obviously they handled quality spin less well than quality seam, but that's not really what's been being suggested - what's being suggested is that all you needed was a half-decent spinner and a turning track and that was automatically game won to you.

I'm sorry, but...

I'll devote more time to a longer answer later.

 

[Richard]

It's not irrelevent if it's contradictory evidence. Obviously if I'm arguing that, say, Hayden is a better bowler than Malcolm Marshall there's no point in mentioning that a burger at McDonalds costs 4% more than it did 7 years ago, which would be irrelevant, but it would be intellectually dishonest to fail to mention the fact that Marshall took 300+ test wickets at an average of about 20, and that Hayden is a crap bowler.

OK, here's another metaphor for you:

I am arguing that Dominic Cork in 1996 bowled better than Andy Caddick in 2000. I am therefore going to mention what Cork did well. I'm not going to mention what Caddick did well - that's up to whoever it is that's arguing Caddick's year was the better one.

See?

 

[Richard]

not at all.... First of all, we are discussing about the greatest spinners of all time and secondly, you were the one who is mostly saying that all you need is 4 quicks with 20ish averages and you will run through anyone anywhere.... And the main point about that whole Windies not caring thing is........ YOU DON'T KNOW!!! You are seeing footage (not complete recordings either) after God knows how many years since the games were played and you are probably trying to compare the intensity levels of today with that age. You must have watched the games then IN THAT ERA to fully even understand what you are talking about. People who have watched cricket and watched a lot of it back then have told that the Windies simply never "let go"... People like Lloyd, Richards and others have said as much in so many interviews over the years. Sorry, your point about them not caring is juz a lot of nonsense.

I never said they didn't give a monkey's. I said they obviously cared less than they would have had that game been live. Less than 100% bothered, is all I said. IE, less than usual. "Less than 100%" does not translate as "40%" (or similar).

And really, there is no intensity difference between 1984/85 and the current time. It's not a different era, by and stretch of the imagination.

 

[Richard]

Yeah but geez, Allan Border took 11 in a match! You're stretching the bounds of credulity when you argue that the WI batsmen weren't any worse than others against spin when a bloke who played on many other far more spin-friendly decks (the SCG turned from ball one but it has always been slow turn and without the uneven bounce that guys like Anil Kumble used to dominate on in India; it was far from being lethal) and was nowhere near as effective.

The explanation for it, though, is that they rarely had any quality spinners to face in domestic cricket and there's nothing wrong with that but pretending they didn't have a problem with good spin in relatively good spinning conditions (as apart from unplayables where ANYONE would struggle) ignores reality. That they did well in other countries against other spinners is just because they were such good, confident players so they'd be expected not to completely drop their bundle. They definitely did struggle, though, against bowlers most other batsmen handled well, spinning conditions or not.

The fact that Allan Border was such a nothing bowler normally only adds to the notion that it could not possibly be due to WI being poor against spin. Border taking 11 in a match is always a freakish case. If someone as poor as him could take 11, that'd mean all you ever had to do to beat West Indies would be to pick 3 spinners and prepare dustbowls. If so, why did no-one do this constantly?

If they struggled once or twice against nothing bowlers like Holland and Border who were mostly handled well elsewhere, that says it's far more likely to have been one-off overconfidence (which itself is far more likely in a dead Test) than any long-term weakness.

Also, have to say, I've heard virtually no suggestions that West Indies were poor against spin from outside Australia. Seems very odd that loads of Aussies try to intimate it while pretty much no-one else does. Also seems to me that people who put it about that said West Indies "killed spin bowling" like the idea that they fell to it every now and then. A nice fantasy and nothing else, IMO.

 

[Top_Cat]

The fact that Allan Border was such a nothing bowler normally only adds to the notion that it could not possibly be due to WI being poor against spin. Border taking 11 in a match is always a freakish case. If someone as poor as him could take 11, that'd mean all you ever had to do to beat West Indies would be to pick 3 spinners and prepare dustbowls. If so, why did no-one do this constantly?

If they struggled once or twice against nothing bowlers like Holland and Border who were mostly handled well elsewhere, that says it's far more likely to have been one-off overconfidence (which itself is far more likely in a dead Test) than any long-term weakness.

So you mention two examples and call them both one-offs? You kid. The Aussies lost quite a few dead rubbers under Taylor too but not against the same type of bowler.

1 ordinary Test spinner taking the WI batting apart = a one-off. Three = a trend, even a short one. And, funnily enough, the WI didn't fall apart in Aus like that again in the 90's, around the same time as players such as Lara, Adams, Chanderpaul (all good players of spin) came into the side, wasn't it?

I'm not a betting man but I'd put my money on a coincidence.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

OK, here's another metaphor for you:

I am arguing that Dominic Cork in 1996 bowled better than Andy Caddick in 2000. I am therefore going to mention what Cork did well. I'm not going to mention what Caddick did well - that's up to whoever it is that's arguing Caddick's year was the better one.

See?

Right, and that's intellectually dishonest. A reasonable way to go about this argument would be "both Cork and Caddick bowled well in the years in question, but here's why I think Cork bowled better, in comparison to Caddick". You do realise that the purpose of discussion isn't actually just to BEAT THE OTHER GUY AT ALL COSTS OMG, it's actually to come to some sort of resolution and better the understanding of both parties?

I mean, to cite your argument from earlier, if you honestly think that it is not "relevant" that Caddick also bowled well to the example you give here, then well... I don't even know what to say. How can the performance of one party be considered irrelevant or not worth mentioning when conparing it to the performance of another party?

 

[DaRick]

So you mention two examples and call them both one-offs? You kid. The Aussies lost quite a few dead rubbers under Taylor too but not against the same type of bowler.

1 ordinary Test spinner taking the WI batting apart = a one-off. Three = a trend, even a short one. And, funnily enough, the WI didn't fall apart in Aus like that again in the 90's, around the same time as players such as Lara, Adams, Chanderpaul (all good players of spin) came into the side, wasn't it?

I'm not a betting man but I'd put my money on a coincidence.

Brian Lara and Shiv Chanderpaul, yes, but Jimmy Adams? Isn't that pushing the bounds of credibility, given his increasing reluctance to even score runs off the spinners as his career progressed?

 

[Richard]

So you mention two examples and call them both one-offs? You kid. The Aussies lost quite a few dead rubbers under Taylor too but not against the same type of bowler.

1 ordinary Test spinner taking the WI batting apart = a one-off. Three = a trend, even a short one.

And another trend is that these games were dead ones. I'm not suggesting there was absolutely no pattern there. In any case, let's not forget Bob Holland and Bruce Yardley also had their glory-days against other opponents around that time. Holland even took another 10-for FFS. Does that mean New Zealand batsmen were all crap players of spin too?

I maintain that there is no trend of significance there, other than the fact both SCG Tests were dead ones.

And, funnily enough, the WI didn't fall apart in Aus like that again in the 90's, around the same time as players such as Lara, Adams, Chanderpaul (all good players of spin) came into the side, wasn't it?

I'm not a betting man but I'd put my money on a coincidence.

And yet amazingly enough, they failed to win convincingly and lost the two series they played in the 1990s... despite these superior players of spin(!)

 

[Richard]

Right, and that's intellectually dishonest. A reasonable way to go about this argument would be "both Cork and Caddick bowled well in the years in question, but here's why I think Cork bowled better, in comparison to Caddick". You do realise that the purpose of discussion isn't actually just to BEAT THE OTHER GUY AT ALL COSTS OMG, it's actually to come to some sort of resolution and better the understanding of both parties?

I mean, to cite your argument from earlier, if you honestly think that it is not "relevant" that Caddick also bowled well to the example you give here, then well... I don't even know what to say. How can the performance of one party be considered irrelevant or not worth mentioning when conparing it to the performance of another party?

FFS. It's not relevant to what I'm saying. If it's relevant to what someone else is saying, it's their responsibility to bring it up. If they do, I'll listen.

I really don't expect to be having these nonsensical arguments with you TBH.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

They're perfectly sensical.

 

[SJS]

Talking of great West Indian batsmen of the 70's and spinners, one of my abiding memories of Richards is of his debut series in 1974.

He had made his test debut in the first test at Chennai (then Madras) and Chandrashekhar made his debut a terrible one getting him very early in both innings for a total of 7 runs !

The second test was at Delhi, where I lived and I will never forget Richard's innings on the second day of the test match. West Indies were 73 for 3 when he came into bat. For some reason that I cant recal, there was no Chandrashekhar in this game but I can never ever forget how Prasanna and Bedi harassed Richards. He looked so terribly out of place and should have got out half a dozen times in the first fifty runs that he scored. But he survived and went onto score 192 not out.

Inspite of those 20 boundaries and 6 sixes, what I remember most of that innings was how inadequate Richards looked. It took quite a few scores around the world before I reconciled to accepting him as an all time great, so great was the impact of that hour and a half on my mind.

He scored just one other fifty (an exact 50 at Bangalore). I have always wondered if his career would have unfolded differently if India had got him cheaply on that winter day at Feroze Shah Kotla.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Talking of great West Indian batsmen of the 70's and spinners, one of my abiding memories of Richards is of his debut series in 1974.

He had made his test debut in the first test at Chennai (then Madras) and Chandrashekhar made his debut a terrible one getting him very early in both innings for a total of 7 runs !

The second test was at Delhi, where I lived and I will never forget Richard's innings on the second day of the test match. West Indies were 73 for 3 when he came into bat. For some reason that I cant recal, there was no Chandrashekhar in this game but I can never ever forget how Prasanna and Bedi harassed Richards. He looked so terribly out of place and should have got out half a dozen times in the first fifty runs that he scored. But he survived and went onto score 192 not out.

Inspite of those 20 boundaries and 6 sixes, what I remember most of that innings was how inadequate Richards looked. It took quite a few scores around the world before I reconciled to accepting him as an all time great, so great was the impact of that hour and a half on my mind.

He scored just one other fifty (an exact 50 at Bangalore). I have always wondered if his career would have unfolded differently if India had got him cheaply on that winter day at Feroze Shah Kotla.

There were many followers of West Indian cricket in the mid-70's who questioned his selection for the ill-fated 1975/76 Tour of Australia. Many thought his place should have gone to the ageing Rohan Kanhai who had been recalled for the 1975 World Cup and had some success. It wasn't until 1976 in England that his greatness became obvious.

 

[Son Of Coco]

and maybe a Sri Lankan somewhere too.

I don't think they played Sri Lanka in a Test match in the 80's. They would have killed someone

 

[Top_Cat]

Brian Lara and Shiv Chanderpaul, yes, but Jimmy Adams? Isn't that pushing the bounds of credibility, given his increasing reluctance to even score runs off the spinners as his career progressed?

That was in line with his general decline as a batsman. Jimmy Adams, although really boring and defensive, was an excellent player of spin in the early days. His first series against India in India is still talked about, so well did he handle the spinners on ripping decks.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Christ, even with Dicko on ignore he still manages to utterly dominate a thread.

Anyhoo without wishing to derail the thread too much:

You do? Wow. I don't know anyone else who thinks that.

I actually think Tom Cruise is a quite underrated actor. As long ago as Rain Man he held his own with Hoffman (who only really got more attention because he was doing the nonhandicapped-actor-playing-handicapped role that the Academy loves) & Born On the Fourth of July was a tour de force in what was, after what Stone did with Platoon, a fairly ordinary film. He's only really unconvincing when he plays a romantic lead & I bet we all suspect as to why that might be.

I think he doesn't get the credit he deserves because he's good-looking in that horrible "tanned, white teeth, big ****-eating grin" American kind of way & because in real-life he's clearly a massive, massive arse who's borderline delusional.

Following Richards logic here's my AT England XI :

01. J.Hobbs
02. H.Sutcliffe
03. L.Hutton
04. G.Boycott
05. G.Gooch
06. WG Grace
07. W.Hammond
08. K.Barrington
09. T.Dexter
10. P.May
11. D.Compton

I guarantee your 4-paced attack could'nt beat this team

TBF you do have some not-awful bowling options there. Hammond & Grace could open the bowling, with Gooch, Lord Ted & Boycs adding seam support and Kenny Barrington could bowl his leggies at one end when the shine's off with maybe a bit of help from Compton's chinamen.

 

[Richard]

Christ, even with Dicko on ignore he still manages to utterly dominate a thread.

 

[bond21]

He was great in Rain Man, A few good men, Born on the 4th of July, and was above average in Mission Impossible.

And yea, he clearly is quite insane, I think thats pretty obvious to anyone who saw his interview about Scientology, but I dont judge his acting negatively because of what hes like, just like I dont negatively judge Warne because hes had a few problems, I judge what he does AT THE CREASE.

 

[Ikki]

They are allowed for anyone and everyone. Obviously, though, it's likely I'll only need to mention it when I'm arguing for someone's case. When I'm arguing against it, why on Earth would I need to mention it?

This is the crux of why I think Richard is a hypocrite with his opinions. There are 1001 excuses for someone he adores (seen here) and just none for those he dislikes (see Hayden). Even seemingly the same criteria is used in different ways for different players.

 

[bond21]

how can you dislike Hayden?

People dislike Sreesanth, Harbhajan, not Hayden.

 

[PhoenixFire]

how can you dislike Hayden?

People dislike Sreesanth, Harbhajan, not Hayden.

I hate Hayden for the same reasons for which I hate Sreesanth and Harbhajan. ****y, arrogant, obnoxious, rude ect.