Mickey Arthur quits

[TT Boy]

South Africa will never be number one if theyre going to continue this current bout of retardism off the field.

Doubt whoevers doing the sacking sees it that way though.

What’s ********? They went 2009 without winning a test series, flopped in the Champions Trophy and choked in the 20/20 WC. National selectors getting sacked is called accountability.

 

[Uppercut]

That's the kind of notion held by someone living in the past imo, i'm talking about the side who had Australia on the back foot in the last two tests the other day, and the last time i checked Gayle and Bravo were not "over 35 year old" , Chanders hasn't been the main man ages now, my view is we've got the best talent coming through our ranks along with some superstars who are already in the side, in the past year we've more than matched both England and Australia for large spells which is more than a lot of other teams can say.

They had a team on the back foot before losing? Hold the phone!

The West Indies have a few players who could turn out very good, as does every other test nation, but if you're looking for a job the fact that they sacked the last guy who held the job for no reason, went for months without paying their players and are notoriously stubborn, difficult to work with and incompetent counts for a lot more.

 

[Uppercut]

What’s ********? They went 2009 without winning a test series, flopped in the Champions Trophy and choked in the 20/20 WC. National selectors getting sacked is called accountability.

they played two!

 

[TT Boy]

Mike Proctor's just confirmed that the entire selection panel has been sacked. This actually rings pretty sinister. There's been nothing, certainly performance wise, to suggest the reasons for a clearout of this magnitude, especially just a few days before a major tour.

CSA also seem rather coy about discussing the reasons behind this, which is ridiculous pretty frankly, something of time scale shouldn't be announced as if it were the tea lady retiring.

Repeat. They went 2009 without winning a test series, flopped in the Champions Trophy and choked in the 20/20 WC. Champions Trophy performances were inexcusable and could have been prevented if the players were not allowed by Arthur five months to chew the fat. It was hallmark of Mickey Arthur's reign that South Africa frequently used the excuse of poor preparation for taking two test matches to get going.

 

[TT Boy]

they played two!

And?

Played 6 test matches (?) and won 1. A dead rubber against the worst Australian side to tour the Republic since readmission.

 

[silentstriker]

Which selections really caused that to happen though? Is it really the selectors fault?

 

[Indipper]

Can't sack the players, sack the selectors.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

That's the kind of notion held by someone living in the past imo, i'm talking about the side who had Australia on the back foot in the last two tests the other day, and the last time i checked Gayle and Bravo were not "over 35 year old" , Chanders hasn't been the main man ages now, my view is we've got the best talent coming through our ranks along with some superstars who are already in the side, in the past year we've more than matched both England and Australia for large spells which is more than a lot of other teams can say.

Getting a bit carried away surely. Chanderpaul hasn't been the main man for a year, at most. Before that he most certainly was the main man. Bravo has never been the kind of impact player that Chanders has been, because he's not consistent enough with bat or ball, hence a low 30s average with the former and a 40s average with the latter.

As for "back foot", I think that's a bit of rose-tinted spectacles on your part. In the second Test we relied heavily on one amazing innings, by Gayle, to get into a position where we wouldn't lose, let alone could win. And in the end we never truly came close to winning. In the third Test I really have wonder what cricket you were looking at, because we played well, but we were gifted a path back into contention. Australia didn't enforce the follow-on. Had they done so, it was almost certainly a comfortable win for them.

 

[Uppercut]

Which selections really caused that to happen though? Is it really the selectors fault?

I suppose not, but if there's ever been a selection mistake that was worth getting fired for, picking Makhaya Ntini ahead of Friedel De Wet for the second test against England was it.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

And the reasons why no self-respecting coach would want to be linked with WI right now have been mentioned before in this thread, but I'll repeat:

- The WICB. When Dyson came in he had all the exciting raw materials you talk about, but was sacked unceremoniously after the team showed definite (if small) signs of improvement under him. Somehow the WICB seem to want a quick fix, when any logical cricket fan knows that's impossible. This ties into...
- Lack of job security. Particularly for a man who's just been sacked by a board with a better track record (let's be real here) this is not something he'd likely be looking for.
- The WICB may or may not pay its players on time. Hungry workers are dissatisfied workers are ineffective workers.
- The pay would be peanuts compared to the rest of the world. It's hard enough to have deal with the WICB at all, but when you're barely being paid to do so...

Anyway, I've been very impressed with David Williams as coach. He was hugely successful with Trinidad and Tobago and has done well with the team in Australia. I mean, surely he had a big part to play in lifting the team from the debacle of the first Test to compete in the 2nd and 3rd. That's a huge achievement IMO. I don't see why people are so obsessed with outsourcing in the Caribbean. Surely we can put some faith in some local talent.

 

[marc71178]

Which selections really caused that to happen though?

Boucher

 

[WindieWeathers]

Getting a bit carried away surely. Chanderpaul hasn't been the main man for a year, at most. Before that he most certainly was the main man. Bravo has never been the kind of impact player that Chanders has been, because he's not consistent enough with bat or ball, hence a low 30s average with the former and a 40s average with the latter.

As for "back foot", I think that's a bit of rose-tinted spectacles on your part. In the second Test we relied heavily on one amazing innings, by Gayle, to get into a position where we wouldn't lose, let alone could win. And in the end we never truly came close to winning. In the third Test I really have wonder what cricket you were looking at, because we played well, but we were gifted a path back into contention. Australia didn't enforce the follow-on. Had they done so, it was almost certainly a comfortable win for them.

Of course Chanders was the main man in the past but imo he's been poor recently, you judge Bravo's stats but the guy has just come back from serious injury and he still was one of the best players on the pitch against Australia, furthermore yes we counted on Gayle in the last two tests but weren't we missing key players in both of those games? you can talk about the "follow on" but the fact is Roach and Tong pushed it right to the end, and when you look at Pakistans recent performances in comparison i'd say we done pretty well, also what about us beating England at home? does that not count now? .

I don't know about you but i'd prefer to look at things in a more positive light, yes we lost 2-0 but the Aussies looked embarrassed in the end because they were made to look ordinary, i'm not calling us "the best team in the world" i'm just saying with the talent we've got coming through we MIGHT rise again, and Arthur might wanna consider us as an option, thats all.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Of course Chanders was the main man in the past but imo he's been poor recently, you judge Bravo's stats but the guy has just come back from serious injury and he still was one of the best players on the pitch against Australia, furthermore yes we counted on Gayle in the last two tests but weren't we missing key players in both of those games? you can talk about the "follow on" but the fact is Roach and Tong pushed it right to the end, and when you look at Pakistans recent performances in comparison i'd say we done pretty well, also what about us beating England at home? does that not count now? .

I don't know about you but i'd prefer to look at things in a more positive light, yes we lost 2-0 but the Aussies looked embarrassed in the end because they were made to look ordinary, i'm not calling us "the best team in the world" i'm just saying with the talent we've got coming through we MIGHT rise again, and Arthur might wanna consider us as an option, thats all.

They only pushed Australia because Australia allowed us back into the match. We never had them on the back foot. Even when Deonarine and Nash were batting well, Australia was still odds on. We pushed Australia, of course, but we never dominated any match in the series. That said, we did outplay them more often than not in the second Test. We beat England at home because of a once-in-a-career genius performance by Jerome Taylor, then some good batting on dead pitches. Even so we had to hang on twice and count on the resilience of Edwards to achieve draws. At what point was England on the back foot?

I look at things in a positive light, and I see the improvements and things to be excited about. But even so, it's impossible to say that West Indies dominated any Test match we played last year, with the exception of Sabina Park. After that WI was dominated more often than not, and competed at best. No opposition was on the back foot, let alone Australia. And since you're admitting that we've played well and pushed Australia most recently, why do you think we need to change coaches? Surely it's an indication that, hey, David Williams did pretty well. I just don't understand the obsession with foreign talent.

I'm not saying that local talent should be preferred because it's local. But it should be considered on equal footing if the local candidates are qualified. And as far as I'm concerned Williams is qualified, knows West Indies cricket thoroughly, and has done a good job so far. Leave him be for now. Unless, of course, he doesn't want the job anymore.

 

[WindieWeathers]

They only pushed Australia because Australia allowed us back into the match. We never had them on the back foot. Even when Deonarine and Nash were batting well, Australia was still odds on. We pushed Australia, of course, but we never dominated any match in the series. That said, we did outplay them more often than not in the second Test. We beat England at home because of a once-in-a-career genius performance by Jerome Taylor, then some good batting on dead pitches. Even so we had to hang on twice and count on the resilience of Edwards to achieve draws. At what point was England on the back foot?

I look at things in a positive light, and I see the improvements and things to be excited about. But even so, it's impossible to say that West Indies dominated any Test match we played last year, with the exception of Sabina Park. After that WI was dominated more often than not, and competed at best. No opposition was on the back foot, let alone Australia. And since you're admitting that we've played well and pushed Australia most recently, why do you think we need to change coaches? Surely it's an indication that, hey, David Williams did pretty well. I just don't understand the obsession with foreign talent.

I'm not saying that local talent should be preferred because it's local. But it should be considered on equal footing if the local candidates are qualified. And as far as I'm concerned Williams is qualified, knows West Indies cricket thoroughly, and has done a good job so far. Leave him be for now. Unless, of course, he doesn't want the job anymore.

In the second test we clearly outplayed them like you said and maybe if we had Taylor and Edwards in the bowling attack we might have bowled them out, the 3rd test we also pushed them all the way imo, if Gayle hadn't of gone early there's a chance we might have won that test, it's all "if's and buts" but at the end of the day we put up a decent performance and we can only improve from here, harping on about shambolic performances of the last two is futile, we've got some serious talent coming through and i believe that the tide is turning, the reason why i wouldn't mind a foreign coach is because they come from an environment that demands high standards and professionalism, Williams hasn't got that background but i have nothing against the guy if he gets the job, but when you're comparing his CV to Arthurs it's night and day isn't it? Dyson done ok but the mistake he made in the ODI against England was schoolboy stuff, a young proven coach like Arthur just might be the man to nurture the talented crop of youngsters we've got coming through right now.