Team West Indies 1998-2008

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

A (potentially) more difficult task than picking an English XI, due to the need to sort through enormous waves of mediocrity. And not a task that I'd expect many to be interested in, so perhaps this thread is more for a niche audience. Nevertheless, here's my attempt at it.

CH Gayle (c)
WW Hinds
RR Sarwan
BC Lara
S Chanderpaul
CL Hooper
RD Jacobs (wk)
CEL Ambrose
M Dillon
D Ramnarine
CA Walsh

Chris Gayle walks in as the most effective West Indies opener in better than a decade. Never pretty, but effective. Waiting for Richard to point out that Wavell Hinds was out of position, but the fact is that his career was better than anyone else (bar Gayle) for WI in that position. And more than half his Test runs were scored there. Besides, the other options are Campbell (who I liked, but was poorer after 1997), Wallace (rubbish), Ganga (sadly rubbish), Griffith (rubbish, unless you're NZ), Garrick (cut shot and nothing else) etc.

Sarwan, Lara and Chanderpaul pick themselves as far as I can see. Jimmy Adams, one of my favourite players, was well past his peak and thoroughly cracked under the pressure of the captaincy, after a very bright start. I'd have loved to include him ahead of Sarwan, but he doesn't deserve it.

Carl Hooper's return as captain was often exceptional in terms of batting, even though he faded. He certainly made better use of his immense talent in the 2000s, though he should have still comfortably averaged over 50. He keeps Bravo out of the team.

Ridley Jacobs. Legend. His last Test pair was unfortunate.

Ambrose and Walsh are obvious, but Merv Dillon was the clear next best. He got a lot of harsh treatment when really he was mishandled in his formative years and given much too much responsibility, out of necessity, when Ambrose and (then) Walsh left. He still managed some decent figures, which are quite good considering the attack he was in and the batting support it would receive.

The last spot goes to Dinanath Ramnarine, who could have been a superstar. So what if he only played 12 Tests? He averaged close to 4 wickets per match in that time and was as close to a world class spinner as WI has had since Lance Gibbs. The Hooper incident is unfortunate.

My pick for captaincy may be a bit controversial, but firmly the best choice AFAIK.

 

[Richard]

SL Campbell
CH Gayle
WW Hinds
BC Lara (c)
S Chanderpaul
JC Adams
RD Jacobs (w)
CEL Ambrose
NEM McLean
D Ramnarine
CA Walsh
IMO.

Yes, I'd never remotely consider Wavell (or Ryan, but that's by-the-by) Hinds as an opener. Campbell IMO was a wasted talent, and not wasted by himself, but by the selectors. It's ridiculous that he didn't get back in in 2001/02 after he missed 2001 with injury. His record was up-and-down all career, same as Marvan Atapattu's, and I'd say it's only poorer post-1997 the way it's also poorer at other times. Obviously the likes of Wallace and Lambert are nonos.

Don't rate Sarwan as far as I can throw him and never have, Hinds and Adams (the only time he was really poor was the last 9 Tests, which again would IMO have very probably have been reversed had he not been dropped for Marlon Samuels ) are better for mine. Hooper, I suppose you could argue but I always thought Adams was a more rounded player. Hooper I also resent coming back into the team at all in 2001 - he shouldn't have, he left them in the lurch and should not have been welcomed back. So that impacts on my thoughts.

Obviously Ambrose and Walsh pick themselves, Ramnarine does as well IMO (and that Camps appears to agree comforts me somewhat), and of the others the choice is basically between McLean and King for mine - Dillon in the longer game I also never rated as far as I could throw him. I always rather liked McLean TBH - was never quite sure why but he had a good action and bowled quickly without giving the impression of Franklyn-Rose-esque carelessness. Reckon that had he had more time as a backup bowler rather than being expected to lead the line he might just've been a damn good bowler.

Hinds and Adams to bowl part-time seam and spin respectively and Gayle to bowl the latter as well. All of them were pretty decent as part-timers went, so you've essentially got a seven-man attack.

And I also vaguely like the fact that two to ten are left-handers. All my life I've associated West Indian batsmanship with left-handedness because almost all the best of my time have been lefties.

What's a tragedy is that that team isn't merely one for the ages, but one that (Ambrose and Walsh aside) could very easily have had 5 or 6 years playing together.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Campbell IMO was a wasted talent, and not wasted by himself, but by the selectors. It's ridiculous that he didn't get back in in 2001/02 after he missed 2001 with injury. His record was up-and-down all career, same as Marvan Atapattu's, and I'd say it's only poorer post-1997 the way it's also poorer at other times. Obviously the likes of Wallace and Lambert are nonos.

As I said, I'm a big fan of Campbell. He really did suffer (statistically) from a largely disastrous tour of Australia in his penultimate series. And yes, I think he had some good cricket left in him when he was essentially forced into retirement.

Don't rate Sarwan as far as I can throw him and never have, Hinds and Adams (the only time he was really poor was the last 9 Tests, which again would IMO have very probably have been reversed had he not been dropped for Marlon Samuels ) are better for mine.

Sarwan is constantly wasting clear talent and apparently an arrogant brat to boot. But his performance, even factoring in Bangladesh and Zimbabwe, would pip Hinds and Adams I believe. Adams is one of my all-time favourite players and I used to pattern my (right-handed) batting style after him, when I was at my defensive-minded best. However, I disagree with your assessment. He really only looked the player of his clear ability in one period in 2000, until the captaincy ruined him. Before that point he had problems with injury and match fitness IIRC. I don't think he merits a place, sadly.

Hooper, I suppose you could argue but I always thought Adams was a more rounded player. Hooper I also resent coming back into the team at all in 2001 - he shouldn't have, he left them in the lurch and should not have been welcomed back. So that impacts on my thoughts.

The biggest contribution of Hooper to West Indies cricket- forcing Ramnarine out. I'll never forgive him for that.

Obviously Ambrose and Walsh pick themselves, Ramnarine does as well IMO (and that Camps appears to agree comforts me somewhat), and of the others the choice is basically between McLean and King for mine - Dillon in the longer game I also never rated as far as I could throw him.

Dillon did as best as could be expected of him, AFAIC. He was a Tim Henman talent. He was a moderate talent, capable of occasional greatness, asked to be great more often than not. He suffered from playing in the footprints of Walsh and Ambrose. But taken for what he was, he was the best fast bowler since the two. All my opinion, of course.

I always rather liked McLean TBH - was never quite sure why but he had a good action and bowled quickly without giving the impression of Franklyn-Rose-esque carelessness. Reckon that had he had more time as a backup bowler rather than being expected to lead the line he might just've been a damn good bowler.

McLean was infuriating. Such an obvious talent and he showed it consistently in first-class cricket around the world. However, he often seemed clueless as to how to actually take Test wickets.

Reon King is another one of my favourites. And I'm convinced that he would have been an excellent bowler if he hadn't been injured when he was. His stats are also tarnished a bit by an ill-advised recall. Smooth action, good pace, decent accuracy and a good head on his shoulder. A great talent lost. As for Rose, he possessed phenomenal talent, but was a phenomenal idiot.

What's a tragedy is that that team isn't merely one for the ages, but one that (Ambrose and Walsh aside) could very easily have had 5 or 6 years playing together.

It would certainly have been a much better squad to apprentice young players in and things could have been slightly different today.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Jeez. I should really be doing my essay for Uni now, not writing essays on CW.

 

[aussie]

Richard, Hooper has to be that WI team of that period no questions asked.

Where is Kenneth Benjamin? he played when England where their in 98, in that test match where Hooper & David Williams took WI to victory if my memory serves me correctly.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Benjamin played 2 Tests in 1998 and averaged over 55.

 

[aussie]

LOL, that bad huh, well i only 9 then but i remember seeing him & was the "best looking" faster bowler i've seen form WI behing the two Big C's.

BTW Liam, what problem Hooper & Ramnarine had post SRI 2001 i'd presume. Never heard aboUt it?

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I can't remember the specifics, but the short story is that they fell out and Hooper allegedly stated that Ramnarine would never play for West Indies again as long as he was captain. Sure enough he never did.

He's presently a hugely popular president of the Players' Association, though. A necessary constant thorn in the WICB's side. Worth noting that it was his involvement with WIPA that discouraged the selectors from picking him after Hooper departed. Childish, all of it.

 

[aussie]

LOL, that bad huh, well i only 9 then but i remember seeing him & was the "best looking" faster bowler i've seen form WI behing the two Big C's.

BTW Liam, what problem Hooper & Ramnarine had post SRI 2001 i'd presume. Never heard aboUt it?

. Dang, i sure make alot of typos..

Interesting that Liam. Since the Hooper period as WI captain, i always felt the younger players was really playing for him & even Lara. His axing as skipper, after the WC was just crazy.

 

[roseboy64]

I can't remember the specifics, but the short story is that they fell out and Hooper allegedly stated that Ramnarine would never play for West Indies again as long as he was captain. Sure enough he never did.

He's presently a hugely popular president of the Players' Association, though. A necessary constant thorn in the WICB's side. Worth noting that it was his involvement with WIPA that discouraged the selectors from picking him after Hooper departed. Childish, all of it.

A member of the WICB now though.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Interesting that Liam. Since the Hooper period as WI captain, i always felt the younger players was really playing for him & even Lara. His axing as skipper, after the WC was just crazy.

I don't know about that. A lot of reports suggested that Hooper was a genuinely nice guy throughout his final coming, but I lost a lot of respect for him after the Ramnarine incident. He had a big role to play in denying and very good, potentially excellent, legspinner from having a proper Test career. One that, quite likely would be going strong today. It's a definite influence on my view of Hooper, as I've never forgiven him for that.

 

[NUFAN]

1 S Campbell
2 C Gayle
3 R Sarwan
4 B Lara
5 S Chanderpaul
6 C Hooper
7 R Jacobs
8 J Taylor
9 C Ambrose
10 M Dillon
11 C Walsh

I'm pretty happy with this team. If spinning needs to be done Hooper and Gayle can do it.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

A member of the WICB now though.

As representative of the players though. He's raging against the machine from within the machine... like Rage Against The Machine...

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

1 S Campbell
2 C Gayle
3 R Sarwan
4 B Lara
5 S Chanderpaul
6 C Hooper
7 R Jacobs
8 J Taylor
9 C Ambrose
10 M Dillon
11 C Walsh

I'm pretty happy with this team. If spinning needs to be done Hooper and Gayle can do it.

Picking Jerome Taylor on potential? Because Ramnarine was a better bowler. Heck Cameron Cuffy was a more complete Test bowler.

Sure Taylor is looking good for the future, but he's not there yet.

 

[NUFAN]

Picking Jerome Taylor on potential? Because Ramnarine was a better bowler. Heck Cameron Cuffy was a more complete Test bowler.

Sure Taylor is looking good for the future, but he's not there yet.

I figure that if Taylor didn't have to carry the attack and had Ambrose and Walsh and to a lesser extent Dillon to support him, his average would go down.

 

[aussie]

Picking Jerome Taylor on potential? Because Ramnarine was a better bowler. Heck Cameron Cuffy was a more complete Test bowler.

Sure Taylor is looking good for the future, but he's not there yet.

Taylor > Cuffy right now for easily. Heck even Edwards.

Cuffy was good fairly ok during that period, i'd say 2000-2002. When the WI used him in the then Carlton & United series as a stock bowler to bowl 10 overs right at the top & then in the shock home series win vs IND though.

 

[roseboy64]

As representative of the players though. He's raging against the machine from within the machine... like Rage Against The Machine...

That was done more to silence him since he can't disclose anything now unless he's given permission to.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I figure that if Taylor didn't have to carry the attack and had Ambrose and Walsh and to a lesser extent Dillon to support him, his average would go down.

I agree. But there's nothing to back that up with certainty. That's like including King over Walsh, considering that he had potential to be as good if not better... except for his injury.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Taylor > Cuffy right now for easily. Heck even Edwards.

Cuffy was good fairly ok during that period, i'd say 2000-2002. When the WI used him in the then Carlton & United series as a stock bowler to bowl 10 overs right at the top & then in the shock home series win vs IND though.

Cuffy was comfortably better than Edwards. Edwards at his best is a more potent bowler, but he's not remotely convinced that he's capable of reaching his best more frequently than once in a while. Cuffy was an accurate, consistent bowler who could get a bit of bounce. He only played a few Tests, but he was always keeping pressure with his accuracy and often chipping in with a couple of wickets.

In the period in question (he was recalled in 2001) he averaged 3 wickets a match at less than 32 and an economy rate better than 2.50. At their best, sure Taylor and Edwards are better, but while they're off being fast and erratic more often than not, Cuffy was consistently doing a job. But as I said, Taylor will almost certainly become the better bowler.

That was done more to silence him since he can't disclose anything now unless he's given permission to.

Silence him in the public sphere, sure. But trust that he's still serving the heck out of the players' interests.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Also up for consideration, Corey Collymore took 92 Test wickets in 29 Tests after his debut. Considering that he was not ready for selection at the time of his debut, of course. He got injured and transformed from a fast bowler into an accurate fast-medium bowler who did a very good job often for West Indies.