*Official* West Indies in Zimbabwe Thread

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

My feature article

15 men and Ravi Rampaul

 

[Richard]

I don't know what it is about the West Indian selectors recently, but they just seem to have gone teen-crazy, if you know what I mean.
Or at least inexperience-crazy. It's a problem the Pakistani and Sri Lankan selectors have had for decades; bringing players in too young risks ruining potentially good ones, and naturally bringing in those who have played hardly any domestic cricket can mean false impressions are given. Any player with a poor domestic record who gains international selection is very unlikely to do well.
There aren't many proven bowlers in that squad and of course there is the one who is proven RUBBISH yet continuously gains selection. Mervyn Dillon is the only bowler who approaches international standard ATM IMO.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Who is the proven rubbish bowler?

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I just researched these and added them into my feature article...

Interesting facts...

1/ In Ganga, Gayle, Samuels, Sarwan, Collymore, Taylor, Edwards, Baugh, Banks and Rampaul the West Indies have a total of ten (10) players who are 25 years or younger and thirteen (13) players who are under the age of 30, with Lara, Drakes and Jacobs being the exceptions.

2/ The average age of the squad is 25.25 years and the average of those under 30 is 23.4.

3/ The West Indies bowling attack poses an average age of 24. They have played just 48 Tests between them with Dillon having played 34 of those Tests - 70.8%. Those 48 Tests are exactly half of what Brian Lara (96) has played in his career. The six-prong pace attack averages 24.5 in age.

4/ Five (5) cricketers - Collymore, Edwards, Taylor, Baugh and Banks - played either their first or second Test this year. Rampaul is the lone debutant.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Any player with a poor domestic record who gains international selection is very unlikely to do well.

That's not the way it works with West Indies cricket. We don't play enough cricket (<10 FC games and 4-6 OD games per year) to judge players on stats.

 

[Craig]

That was a very predicatable side really. Except Ravi Rampaul. I read on a West Indies cricket website about fixing Ravi Rampaul's bowling action.

 

[Richard]

That's not the way it works with West Indies cricket. We don't play enough cricket (<10 FC games and 4-6 OD games per year) to judge players on stats.

And maybe, just maybe, that's beginning to catch-up with you.
West Indies were the best side in The World with few breaks from the '50s to the early '90s, but they've been going from bad to worse since about 1997, no matter how many optimistic reports are received.

 

[Richard]

Who is the proven rubbish bowler?

That great champion of the irrelevant Vasbert Drakes.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

And maybe, just maybe, that's beginning to catch-up with you.
West Indies were the best side in The World with few breaks from the '50s to the early '90s, but they've been going from bad to worse since about 1997, no matter how many optimistic reports are received.

I don't think you can deny the fact that we now have some good young talent coming through, especially in the bowling department. I'm not expecting anything radical, but I believe that we will be a much much better team by the time 2007 comes around.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

That great champion of the irrelevant Vasbert Drakes.

Drakes may not be an awe-inspiring bowler, but he certainly isn't rubbish. He bowled quite well against Australia and I would say that he was our best bowler in the Tests, bar Banks and probably Lawson. Drakes had little luck, but very few of the West Indian bowlers did!

 

[Richard]

I don't think you can deny the fact that we now have some good young talent coming through, especially in the bowling department. I'm not expecting anything radical, but I believe that we will be a much much better team by the time 2007 comes around.

Young talent?
Banks - an average fingerspinner. No more. Most runs ever conceded on Test debut. Just about sums him up.
Lawson - yet to see him bowl, hopefully will soon have the chance, but apart from one seven-for and one hugely fortuitous hat-trick he's done little in proper Test-cricket. Looks a reasonable one-day bowler.
Edwards - one Test. Heard some decent reports, but you really can't judge someone on two First-Class games.
Taylor - one ODI with a decent performance. Nothing in Tests.
Powell - not much of an international record.
Some others have included Best, Stuart, Black, and one or two other rubbish excuses. Just like Ian Butler. An inexplicable fuss about a quite useless bowler.
As for batsmen:
Hinds - OK when batting at three, but for some reason they keep making him open.
Gayle - decent enough player.
Ganga - useless.
Samuels - useless
Sarwan - brilliant most of the time, one critical weakness. No, two - the nervous 80s and 90s, and leg-stump Yorkers.
Smith - useless. Far, far too aggressive for a Test opener.
I would like to see Sherwin Campbell recalled, he got a very raw deal after his injury kept him out of the SA home series, and James Adams given another chance.
Reon King is another who has all but disappeared. He looked quite some bowler on the NZ tour 4 years ago. Nixon McLean has lost the plot recently. Franklyn Rose looks a far better bowler than he was 3 years ago, but he's probably too old at 31.
My Best WI XI:
Campbell
Gayle
Hinds
Lara
Chanderpaul
Adams \ Sarwan
Jacobs
Ramnarine (only decent spinner WI've had for ages)
?
King
Lawson?
If Hooper wants to be awkward, that's his choice, and skin mostly off his nose.

 

[Richard]

Drakes may not be an awe-inspiring bowler, but he certainly isn't rubbish. He bowled quite well against Australia and I would say that he was our best bowler in the Tests, bar Banks and probably Lawson. Drakes had little luck, but very few of the West Indian bowlers did!

See a pattern?
No-one has much luck against Australia, and no-one deserves luck. It distorts the truth.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Young talent?
Banks - an average fingerspinner. No more. Most runs ever conceded on Test debut. Just about sums him up.

You've no right to judge him as you didn't see him bowl against Australia. You can't judge based on stats.

Lawson - yet to see him bowl, hopefully will soon have the chance, but apart from one seven-for and one hugely fortuitous hat-trick he's done little in
proper Test-cricket. Looks a reasonable one-day bowler.

You can't judge based on stats.

Edwards - one Test. Heard some decent reports, but you really can't judge someone on two First-Class games.

Agreed.

Taylor - one ODI with a decent performance. Nothing in Tests.

You've not seen him bowl. He bowled quite well without much luck. He got hit and he looked raw, but he kept his head and continued to try his best, which wasn't that bad.

Some others have included Best, Stuart, Black, and one or two other rubbish excuses.

1/ Best was clearly still raw and exposed to Test cricket too early. It's stupid to trash him after one Test.
2/ Stuart was quite a good bowler a couple of years ago, but he's just lost it all in the last couple of years. He doesn't seem to be enjoying cricket anymore.
3/ Black hasn't bowled that badly in his Test career thus far. He bowled quite well in his last outing and was promptly dropped.

I notice that I've had to repeat one statement over and over. You simply can't look at stats. I've seen them bowl. You've not. Stats lie all the time.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Hinds - OK when batting at three, but for some reason they keep making him open.
Gayle - decent enough player.
Ganga - useless.
Samuels - useless
Sarwan - brilliant most of the time, one critical weakness. No, two - the nervous 80s and 90s, and leg-stump Yorkers.
Smith - useless. Far, far too aggressive for a Test opener.

Hinds - I agree.
Gayle - I think he's a very promising young batsman.
Ganga - I wouldn't say he's useless. He can't be that bad to score two hundreds against Australia. That said, he's definitely not 1st choice for my money.
Samuels - He needs to sort out his head, but he is very talented.
Sarwan - agreed. He also is a compulsive hooker (player of the hook shot :P)
Smith - What??? If he showed nothing in his debut series against Australia it's that he can curb his natural aggression and bat for a long time.

 

[Richard]

You can't judge based on stats.

No, with bowlers, you can't judge EXCLUSIVELY on stats - but to get another's analysis of what you haven't seen is enough. Wicket-taking balls that take wickets (or create chances is enough - a chance dropped off a good ball is not the bowler's fault) are a must for Test bowlers.
From what I've heard and read, Banks certainly and possibly Lawson don't move the ball sufficiently to be Test standard bowlers. Most of their Test wickets have come from poor strokes, and at poor economy-rates (which are generally - not always, but generally - an accurate indication of how accurately you've bowled).

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I would like to see Sherwin Campbell recalled, he got a very raw deal after his injury kept him out of the SA home series, and James Adams given another chance.

Campbell is past his best and he was sacked IMO, although the WICB will deny it. Adams was ruined by the captaincy. That said, he has a keen cricketing brain.

Reon King is another who has all but disappeared. He looked quite some bowler on the NZ tour 4 years ago. Nixon McLean has lost the plot recently. Franklyn Rose looks a far better bowler than he was 3 years ago, but he's probably too old at 31.

Re: King. If I had a quarter for every time I have had to say this...
King got injured and was out for a year. Since he has returned, he hasn't been the same bowler he was. His action has been changed due to his injury and he doesn't have the pace or accuracy he once had. He was IMO the best young pace bowler in the world when he went down. It's sad.

Re: Rose. Rose has a seriously crap attitude and will never play for the West Indies again. If he does, I will support Australia for life.

Re: McLean. Useless.

My Best WI XI:
Campbell
Gayle
Hinds
Lara
Chanderpaul
Adams \ Sarwan
Jacobs
Ramnarine (only decent spinner WI've had for ages)
?
King
Lawson?
If Hooper wants to be awkward, that's his choice, and skin mostly off his nose.

My XI....

DS Smith
CH Gayle
RR Sarwan
BC Lara
S Chanderpaul
OAC Banks
RD Jacobs then CS Baugh or D Ramdin
D Mohammed
M Dillon
FH Edwards/JJC Lawson/JE Taylor
CD Collymore

Backup: WW Hinds, I Bradshaw, D Ramnarine...

Corey Collymore hasn't been half bad for the West Indies and he's still just 25.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

No, with bowlers, you can't judge EXCLUSIVELY on stats - but to get another's analysis of what you haven't seen is enough. Wicket-taking balls that take wickets (or create chances is enough - a chance dropped off a good ball is not the bowler's fault) are a must for Test bowlers.
From what I've heard and read, Banks certainly and possibly Lawson don't move the ball sufficiently to be Test standard bowlers. Most of their Test wickets have come from poor strokes, and at poor economy-rates (which are generally - not always, but generally - an accurate indication of how accurately you've bowled).

Banks is an offspinner, so turn is more accurate.

He does spin it a bit and is certainly as much a spinner of the ball as most spinners in the world.

Lawson is young. Give him time.

Re: Economy rates. Banks debuted against Australia!!!! ... on a dead track!!! Lawson has played 4 Tests against Australia and hasn't been all that bad.

You say that bowlers will take wickets if the bowl wicket-taking balls, but there's the other side of the coin too. Batsmen will score runs if they choose their shots correctly and execute them well. Some teams (eg Australia, India at home) are just too good batting sides for a bowler to have consistent success against. Walsh struggled mightily in Australia last time 'round. He was a moderately ok-ish bowler.

 

[Richard]

Banks is an offspinner, so turn is more accurate.

By movement, I include turn. No bowler is good without movement. For a spinner, that's turn and drift; for a seamer, swing, seam and cut.

He does spin it a bit and is certainly as much a spinner of the ball as most spinners in the world.

Yes, exactly, he spins it a bit - about as much as any fingerspinner. No fingerspinner spins it enough to be a Test class bowler IMO. That may sound harsh (and to be fair fingerspinners can be good bowlers in West Indies and the subcontinent) but I just don't see the point in bowling fingerspin if you've international ambition. Ramnarine is a much better bowler, I'd even prefer have Nagamootoo (Mahendra, obviously) than Banks. Banks can bat better than Ramnarine, but that doesn't anywhere near make-up for the disparity in bowling ability IMO.

Re: Economy rates. Banks debuted against Australia!!!! ... on a dead track!!! Lawson has played 4 Tests against Australia and hasn't been all that bad.

You say that bowlers will take wickets if the bowl wicket-taking balls, but there's the other side of the coin too. Batsmen will score runs if they choose their shots correctly and execute them well. Some teams (eg Australia, India at home) are just too good batting sides for a bowler to have consistent success against. Walsh struggled mightily in Australia last time 'round. He was a moderately ok-ish bowler.

The bowler has the ball in his hand and therefore controls the game. Outstanding bowlers prevail in all conditions. Courtney by that series was sadly not the bowler of his magnificent prime - still deadly in typical English conditions (34 in 5 Tests) but he'd lost his edge in conditions that didn't suit seam. Still didn't go at 3-an-over once, mind.
Plenty of bowlers of today don't stand a chance in Australia, India or even Sri Lanka sometimes, because they can't exploit the typical conditions the way their predecessors could. And most of the batsmen don't give their wickets away without scoring at least 70 first.
Lawson is no worse than most of the bowlers going around today but in typical West Indian conditions against decent batting he is going to struggle.

 

[Richard]

Campbell is past his best and he was sacked IMO, although the WICB will deny it. Adams was ruined by the captaincy. That said, he has a keen cricketing brain.

Re: King. If I had a quarter for every time I have had to say this...
King got injured and was out for a year. Since he has returned, he hasn't been the same bowler he was. His action has been changed due to his injury and he doesn't have the pace or accuracy he once had. He was IMO the best young pace bowler in the world when he went down. It's sad.

Re: Rose. Rose has a seriously crap attitude and will never play for the West Indies again. If he does, I will support Australia for life.

Re: McLean. Useless.

Nixon has been rather so in his county season. Took a few wickets, but just look at his figs against a UCCE (can't remember which one).
Rose; fair enough.
King; fair enough. Should have looked into it.
As regards Campbell, if he was sacked from his contract that's most unfair - he scored 71 and 51, then didn't play for 2 years! And when he did he got one Test at three! Possibly a little old now, but still better than Smith if you ask me. And Ganga.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I'd even prefer have Nagamootoo (Mahendra, obviously) than Banks. Banks can bat better than Ramnarine, but that doesn't anywhere near make-up for the disparity in bowling ability IMO.

Nagamootoo does not spin the ball and couldn't even look like he was capable of taking wickets against Bangladesh! Banks is also a much better batsman and I think that the West Indies will play him at 6 and use him as a 5th bowler.

The bowler has the ball in his hand and therefore controls the game. Outstanding bowlers prevail in all conditions. Courtney by that series was sadly not the bowler of his magnificent prime - still deadly in typical English conditions (34 in 5 Tests) but he'd lost his edge in conditions that didn't suit seam.

Then he returned to the seam friendly wickets of the West Indies and took 25 wickets in 5 games at 19.68 apiece and an economy of 1.86 against a good South African side. :rolleyes: Right...

Courtney Walsh was as potent as he ever was when he retired. The reason he struggled in Australia is because Australia were just too good in that series. No matter how great a bowler is, he or she cannot possibly do well in every series.

I see your point, but I wholeheartedly disagree.