**Official** Australia in West Indies

[Laurrz]

Talk in the paper today that Haddin may bat at 6, with Symonds promoted to 5 and Noffke slipping into the side.

If that did happen I could understand your pain, given I thought Love was a shoe-in for a batting spot on the last Windies tour and was hijacked by the supposed need for 5 bowlers and Bichel batting at 7.

would have mixed reactions with that

Would mean our bowling attack would be incredibly strong..

but then again, possibly too strong... Steve Waugh once said if you can't bowl a team out twice with 4 bowlers you wont with 5.. or something like that.. didnt know what he meant when i first heard it but with time i understood what he meant

 

[roseboy64]

Samuels possibly banned for 2 years, being found guilty of one of the bribery charges and Chattergoon injured for 3 weeks.

 

[roseboy64]

Samuels found liable

 

[howardj]

Nope, hate the idea. Batting looks weak with a mere 4 specialist batsmen....I, along with most people, am still not entirely convinced by Symonds and both Noffke and Haddin are unproven quantities at Test level...I would rather Noffke took Johnson's place if anything.

God, not the five bowler thing again! Fair enough when BCL was in the team last Windies tour, but surely you don't need five guys to knock over this current bunch of Windies. Plus, the 5th bowler only ever gets six or seven overs anyway - is that really worth sacrificing a specialist batsman for? Does my head in, the five bowler theory!

I can understand it, sort of, if you need to win the final Test of a series - and simply have to take 20 wickets to retain the trophy. However, to go in with five bowlers in the 1st Test of a series, against a pretty ordinary batting lineup, is simply silly.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Samuels possibly banned for 2 years, being found guilty of one of the bribery charges and Chattergoon injured for 3 weeks.

Devon Smith and Runako Morton likely to be drafted straight in for them. This could get messy. Would much prefer to see Ryan Hinds given a shot at the middle order.

 

[roseboy64]

Hinds is ahead of Morton.

 

[pasag]

God, not the five bowler thing again! Fair enough when BCL was in the team last Windies tour, but surely you don't need five guys to knock over this current bunch of Windies. Plus, the 5th bowler only ever gets six or seven overs anyway - is that really worth sacrificing a specialist batsman for? Does my head in, the five bowler theory!

I can understand it, sort of, if you need to win the final Test of a series - and simply have to take 20 wickets to retain the trophy. However, to go in with five bowlers in the 1st Test of a series, against a pretty ordinary batting lineup, is simply silly.

Awta.

 

[Burgey]

Bingle's old man passed away today (rIP). Word is clarke will miss the first test.

Katich to ton up, Symonds to miss out and be replaced by Clarke, and by next year Watson will be the Test all rounder.

 

[sideshowtim]

Bingle's old man passed away today (rIP). Word is clarke will miss the first test.

Katich to ton up, Symonds to miss out and be replaced by Clarke, and by next year Watson will be the Test all rounder.

Sad about Bingle's dad, Pup has done the right thing by staying back IMO.

I would like to see Watson in the Test team soon too. He offers so much more with bat and ball than Symonds does IMO.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Hinds is ahead of Morton.

How can you speak with such authority?

 

[roseboy64]

That's just based on the fact that Hinds did reasonably well in the last Test he played. Plus he provides a bowling option. Even for WI selection policies I'd find it difficult to see how they would pick Morton over Hinds.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I can comfortably see them picking Morton ahead of Hinds, actually. I don't think they rate Hinds as a batsman, but rather as an allrounder. I'm not certain that they're confident of Hinds batting in the top 5, which is what he would have to do.

IMO Hinds is a fine batsman, who should get the chance to prove whether or not he can handle Test cricket. He's a batsman first and a bowler a distant second. I'd easily slot him in at number 5.

CH Gayle *
DS Smith
RR Sarwan
S Chanderpaul
RO Hinds
DJ Bravo
D Ramdin +
JE Taylor
DB Powell
A Jaggernauth
FH Edwards

That's probably the best team we can put out right now.

 

[roseboy64]

Would agree with that team except Sammy for Powell. The latter no longer makes it as anywhere decnt in Test cricket. In ODI cricket he's good value so far but he shouldn't be selected for Tests unless there's an injury. Fast bowler ranking for me :

Taylor
Collins
Edwards
Lawson(depending on how he goes in this County season he might drop down the list)
Sammy
Rampaul
Powell
Collymore
Bennett
Emrit
Dillon
Best

Dillon and Best are probably finished though.

Spinners:

Jaggernauth
Mohammed
Miller
Benn
O. Brown
Banks
Lewis

Some good prospects for the future overall in Davendra Bishoo, Kemar Roach, Simon Jackson, Leon Johnson, Amit Jaggernauth, Adrian Barath, Nelon Pascal, Gavin Wallace, Nekoli Parris, Xavier Marshall, Kieran Powell, William Perkins and Kieron Pollard.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I don't see any benefit in picking Sammy ahead of Powell, considering that he doesn't bowl very often, and he's a lesser version of Bravo anyway. Both Bravo and Sammy are stock bowlers, but Bravo has more variations with more likelihood to take wickets. You simply cannot have 2 specialist fast bowlers and Sammy your main seam attack.

If one of Jerome Taylor or Fidel Edwards were to get injured, West Indies would need someone to take the new ball. Powell is very erratic these days, but he's still more likely to take wickets with the new ball than either Sammy or Bravo.

And Collymore is comfortably better than all of those on that list, except for Taylor and Collins. He was rated in or around the top 10 when he last played for West Indies. But Collins is ineligible due to his Kolpak deal. I'm not sure about the specifics of Lawson's and Collymore's Kolpak deals. Worth noting too that Dillon was a lot better than people give him credit for. If he was still playing regularly for T&T, he would be a lot higher up that list. Certainly above Sammy. Best is ICL.

 

[roseboy64]

Yeah I know Best is ICL. Don't see Dillon getting picked but he's done enough to be in contention which is why I put him there. Almost the same for Collymore. Powell's wildness ranks him below Sammy IMO and he does bowl often. Agreed Powell's more likely to take wickets but that after giving away buckets of runs. If he could consistently bowl more good spells I'd have him there no doubt but he'll have one good spell per match.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

You don't pick bowlers to bowl economically in Test cricket. Especially not fast bowlers. Yes, economy is a good thing - it builds pressure. But strike bowlers are picked to strike, not to hope that batsmen get frustrated and give their hand away. Australians don't typically do that.

I don't rate Powell as a Test bowler, but there is no way that Sammy should be picked ahead of a specialist fast bowler. Particularly not to face Australia. He may get picked and do very well, now that I've said that, but I very much doubt it.

Powell is always going to be more likely to take wickets. And that's the bottom line. A specialist seamer is picked to take wickets. Every single time. We're not going to restrict Australia to draws.

If you want to make a case against Powell, you have to make a case for another fast bowler. Not for Sammy.

 

[roseboy64]

Three strike bowlers are necesary when Bravo bowls to take wickets as well and Jaggernauth is an attacking spinner?

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Bravo bowls to take wickets? Which Bravo are we referring to here? The Bravo who averages 40 in Test cricket? Bravo is nowhere near being a strike bowler. And Jaggernauth is uncapped, unproven and a fingerspinner. So yes, three strike bowlers are needed.

EDIT:

And just to clarify, I know Powell's record is worse than Bravo's in Tests. But it's not about Bravo. It's about Sammy or Powell. And having seen a lot of both bowlers, I don't think there's any justification for Sammy as a strike bowler, while there is, marginally, some for Powell. Powell is at least capable of using the new ball and, on occasion, is a potent strike bowler. Those occasions are rare, but are bound to come more often than Sammy.

 

[roseboy64]

Doesn't Powell average around 40 too? Never said Bravo was a strike bowler but a containing bowler I think not. What is he then?

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Bravo is a fifth bowler. Whether or not he's picked as one, he is just that. He's a workhorse when needed and to chip in with wickets here and there. He used to be a very handy wicket-taker, but has not worked on his bowling in ages, and it is showing progressively more. He's not a wicket-taking bowler.

He's not a strike bowler, and therefore should not be justification to pick just two strike bowlers. Not in a Test match. Not in a Test match against Australia. Not with the injury history of practically every West Indian fast bowler.

And...

EDIT

And just to clarify, I know Powell's record is worse than Bravo's in Tests. But it's not about Bravo. It's about Sammy or Powell. And having seen a lot of both bowlers, I don't think there's any justification for Sammy as a strike bowler, while there is, marginally, some for Powell. Powell is at least capable of using the new ball and, on occasion, is a potent strike bowler. Those occasions are rare, but are bound to come more often than Sammy.