*Official* West Indies in Zimbabwe Thread

[Richard]

Originally posted by Mr Mxyzptlk
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]

Originally posted by Mr Mxyzptlk
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]

Originally posted by Richard
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.

Originally posted by Richard
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.

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

Agreed.

Originally posted by Richard
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.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Richard

Originally posted by Richard
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]

Originally posted by Richard
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]

Originally posted by Mr Mxyzptlk
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]

Originally posted by Richard
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.

Originally posted by Richard
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.

Originally posted by Richard

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]

Originally posted by Richard
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]

Originally posted by Mr Mxyzptlk
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]

Originally posted by Mr Mxyzptlk
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]

Originally posted by Richard
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.

Originally posted by Richard
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.

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Originally posted by Richard
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.

Smith and Ganga both have much better technique. Ganga has perhaps the best technique of all West Indian batsmen. His problem is that he bats too defensively for too long.

Campbell's technique is very much imperfect and his footwork is non-existent. He was still a decent player though.

[Richard]

Originally posted by Mr Mxyzptlk
Smith and Ganga both have much better technique. Ganga has perhaps the best technique of all West Indian batsmen. His problem is that he bats too defensively for too long.

Campbell's technique is very much imperfect and his footwork is non-existent. He was still a decent player though.

Adrian Griffith had a defensive technique that was as close to impossible to fault as they come. His problem was that he couldn't play attacking shots too well when the opportunity arose. Often in his last Test-series he'd get out to Half-Volleys and Long-Hops. Just because he played the wrong line or length.
Technique is a vital part of batsmanship but it doesn't matter if you only play 4 or 5 shots if you know when to play them.
Good shot-selection will get you everywhere; good defensive-technique will get you so far, but without the selection of attacking strokes you'll still not score sufficient runs.
Campbell's shot-selection wasn't perfect, but though he only played two shots with real conviction (the rasping cut - never seen anyone play it better; and the whip off the pads) he sure knew when to use them.
He did get out to faulty defensive-shots sometimes, and occasionally trying to drive balls he should have blocked or left (depending on the line) but these were exceptions rather than rules.
For me, Campbell is a better player than Smith and West Indies' best chance of success is to pick him alongside Gayle, who is as established as anyone. I don't rate Ganga and never have - those centuries were scored against nothing bowling (Hogg, Lee, MacGill, Bichel) on typically bland pitches. He's done little else in his entire career, except against Bangladesh.
No, I've never actually seen Smith bat but from what I've read he goes far too hard at the ball, tries to drive practically anything pitched in his own third, and often plays to leg off straight balls.
If he's tried to hone his instincts, full credit to him, but it doesn't appear to have done a massive amount of good. And don't start the "you can't judge on stats" - if a batsman isn't there to score runs, what is he there to do?
His defensive stroke might be inpenetrable, but if he doesn't use it properly I'd prefer someone who has a slightly less impenetrable stroke but knows when to use it and when to use something aiming for runs.

[Richard]

Originally posted by Mr Mxyzptlk
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.

No, no-one can possibly do well in every series, and I'm a great one for denying that ability cannot just disappear because you're getting a bit older, but for Courtney in that series, everything was just hopeless. It wasn't a case of Australia were too good, it was West Indies were too bad. It was painful watching at times. And I don't mean that in a patronising way, I felt so sorry for those who love West Indian cricket and were forced to endure this. Not to mention the players who were doing their best and simply weren't anywhere near good enough.
Courtney did well just to keep his economy-rates below 3-an-over every innings. There was no seam in the pitches, and there was (unless I'm very much mistaken) in those for the South African Tests. Slow and low as ever, but still some seam-movement. And naturally he cashed-in.
Courtney Walsh in his heyday was beaten by no batsman - he conquered the young Tendulkar in India (WI still couldn't win), but he couldn't conquer Ponting, Gilchrist, Slater the Waughs. Make no mistake, all good players, but none quite in the SRT league.
The simple reason was that he wasn't as potent that series as he normally was. Maybe if Curtley had been there, it would all have been different. Maybe it was nothing to do with age. But he couldn't offer the penetration he had done many times in less favourable circumstances (you don't usually take 519 Test wickets unless you can conquer all conditions), whether because he was getting old or because he just had too much to cope with.
But an outstanding bowler, bowling like he can, will prevail in all conditions. If you can move the ball anywhere (in the air or off the pitch), and land it in the right areas, you will defeat batsmen of any ability. Chaminda Vaas is, for me, the best proof of this.
And it's why I don't rate Lillee like some do. He never conquered the subcontinent.

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Richard
[B]Campbell's shot-selection wasn't perfect, but though he only played two shots with real conviction (the rasping cut - never seen anyone play it better; and the whip off the pads) he sure knew when to use them.
He did get out to faulty defensive-shots sometimes, and occasionally trying to drive balls he should have blocked or left (depending on the line) but these were exceptions rather than rules.

Originally posted by Richard
I don't rate Ganga and never have - those centuries were scored against nothing bowling (Hogg, Lee, MacGill, Bichel) on typically bland pitches. He's done little else in his entire career, except against Bangladesh.

...and some unknown named Gillespie is it?

Originally posted by Richard
No, I've never actually seen Smith bat but from what I've read he goes far too hard at the ball, tries to drive practically anything pitched in his own third, and often plays to leg off straight balls.
If he's tried to hone his instincts, full credit to him, but it doesn't appear to have done a massive amount of good. And don't start the "you can't judge on stats" - if a batsman isn't there to score runs, what is he there to do?

Every Indian batsman who scores at 60+ runs per innings should be expected to score buckets at Test level?? You can't judge on stats! West Indies domestic cricketers play far too little cricket every year for you to judge on stats. Out of curiousity, what is your opinion of Tim McIntosh?

Originally posted by Richard
For me, Campbell is a better player than Smith

I'm disregarding that comment on the fact that you've never seen him (Smith) play and you readily admit it.

Originally posted by Richard
I'd prefer someone who has a slightly less impenetrable stroke but knows when to use it and when to use something aiming for runs.

Smith is likely capable of doing so. It's a fool who writes off a young player after 8 Test innings against far and away the best team in Test cricket when he hasn't done all that badly.

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Originally posted by Richard
No, no-one can possibly do well in every series, and I'm a great one for denying that ability cannot just disappear because you're getting a bit older, but for Courtney in that series, everything was just hopeless. It wasn't a case of Australia were too good, it was West Indies were too bad. It was painful watching at times. And I don't mean that in a patronising way, I felt so sorry for those who love West Indian cricket and were forced to endure this. Not to mention the players who were doing their best and simply weren't anywhere near good enough.
Courtney did well just to keep his economy-rates below 3-an-over every innings. There was no seam in the pitches, and there was (unless I'm very much mistaken) in those for the South African Tests. Slow and low as ever, but still some seam-movement. And naturally he cashed-in.
Courtney Walsh in his heyday was beaten by no batsman - he conquered the young Tendulkar in India (WI still couldn't win), but he couldn't conquer Ponting, Gilchrist, Slater the Waughs. Make no mistake, all good players, but none quite in the SRT league.
The simple reason was that he wasn't as potent that series as he normally was. Maybe if Curtley had been there, it would all have been different. Maybe it was nothing to do with age. But he couldn't offer the penetration he had done many times in less favourable circumstances (you don't usually take 519 Test wickets unless you can conquer all conditions), whether because he was getting old or because he just had too much to cope with.
But an outstanding bowler, bowling like he can, will prevail in all conditions. If you can move the ball anywhere (in the air or off the pitch), and land it in the right areas, you will defeat batsmen of any ability. Chaminda Vaas is, for me, the best proof of this.
And it's why I don't rate Lillee like some do. He never conquered the subcontinent.

Courtney Walsh bowled well on that tour of Australia. I trust you saw all five Tests? He was outplayed. The West Indies may have been horrible, but Australia were superb. They played like a true professional team - no mercy.

It is my firm belief that Walsh was more potent in his last year and a half of Test cricket than he ever was throughout his career. I saw him bowl.