Team West Indies 1998-2008

[Athlai]

I've never yet heard a convincing explanation as to why this should be held against a batsman, or why it somehow invalidates / undermines his batting average.

Did you see him play in England? As his career goes on this won't be a problem but consider that he has barely played any Test cricket (16 innings) and already has racked up 5 not outs has his average at 42.81. While he has shown some fair amount of potential this figure does not reflect the current Daniel Flynn and is only that high due to a few early innings where he stuck around for not very much.

After he plays a few more Tests any effect that the not outs have should begin to dissipate though.

 

[Athlai]

Styris really declined towards the end, but he was quite a good Test batsman for a decently long period. McMillan despite often batting like an idiot certainly achieved much more than Ryder in the period in question - hell, even Sinclair, Marshall, Vincent etc did because he simply didn't play enough games to be worthy of consideration here.

I'd be surprised if Ryder didn't finish his Test career as a better bat than all of them (bar perhaps Styris) but as it stands, he shouldn't be picked ahead of them.

I believe I did mention that I chose him purely on raw talent. And not on what he's done at Test level, yet what he is currently equipped with the ability TO DO. Though I'd be happy with any of Ryder McMillan Taylor or Styris depending on who's in the best nick.

 

[tim#7]

Gayle
Hinds
Lara
Hooper
Chanderpaul
Adams
Jacobs
Bravo
Ambrose
Edwards
Walsh

 

[Prince EWS]

I believe I did mention that I chose him purely on raw talent. And not on what he's done at Test level, yet what he is currently equipped with the ability TO DO. Though I'd be happy with any of Ryder McMillan Taylor or Styris depending on who's in the best nick.

What he could do or even what he will do is irrelevant to the team for the period of 1998-2008.

 

[Prince EWS]

I've never yet heard a convincing explanation as to why this should be held against a batsman, or why it somehow invalidates / undermines his batting average.

In general, particularly over a long career, I agree. However, it's a bit different with Flynn. Firstly, one of his not-outs was in fact a "retired hurt" after he got a severe workover from James Anderson and eventually getting hit in the face - for mine he was essentially dismissed. Secondly, he's rarely shown the ability to go on - along with his not-outs he's had a lot of starts which he hasn't converted: that shows to me that he has a concentration issue and that his not-outs were more than likely to have flattered him rather than preventing him from getting big hundreds.

 

[Athlai]

What he could do or even what he will do is irrelevant to the team for the period of 1998-2008.

Not at all as he has already shown it, its hardly like he has failed thus far in the period?

As he is NOW he warrants a spot in the team. Which is inside this period, it doesn't matter that he hasn't played much cricket just that he's good enough inside that period of time.

 

[Prince EWS]

Not at all as he has already shown it, its hardly like he has failed thus far in the period?

As he is NOW he warrants a spot in the team. Which is inside this period, it doesn't matter that he hasn't played much cricket just that he's good enough inside that period of time.

Totally DWTA, but I've been through this with 5 others already so I'm over debating it.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I really don't think I can be bothered to go through every single one of these - and there's undoubtedly a few worthy knocks in there, of course (especially in the last 12 months) - but suffice to say I disagree about several of them and at the very least one (the 59* at Headingley) there were let-offs involved. Others came in dead Tests so I can't really attach massive significance to them, albeit West Indies (harsh though it may seem) have had a propensity to play a good few dead Tests of late.

That's essentially a concession, for mine. Because no one should be bother to debate with someone who can't be bothered to rebut the points laid in front of him. This is not an argument of baseless opinions.

 

[Jigga988]

Just now saw this thread which is a shame for me but none the less this is my team:

C Gayle
S Campell/D Bravo
BC Lara
S Chanderpaul
R Sarwan
J Adams
C Hooper
R Jacobs
C Ambrose
C Collymore
C Walsh

Considering Bravo just because of what he adds to the field as well as giving Ambrose and Walsh a rest, not much bowling there but Ambrose and Walsh being the workhorses they are would've been able to handle a large percentage of the work load. Yes there's no frontline spinner but depth in the batting is needed due to some quite mediocre batters in there, besides Ramnerine, although not having seen him clearly didn't play that much for the Windies therefore it would be slightly unfair if he was picked. Think Collymore is a lot better than Lawson or Dillon or whoever else has been mentioned, was ranked in top ten in test cricket for quite a while and always had consistency. Ronnie Sarwan is quite proven against good sides, not quite sure what Richard was talking about, quite close between Sarwan and Hinds but will give Sarwan the nod just for his natural talent. BTW could be some people I have missed or got wrong due to my age.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Ramnerine, although not having seen him clearly didn't play that much for the Windies therefore it would be slightly unfair if he was picked.

But he did well in those few matches, whereas Adams, who you've picked, averaged under 30 in Tests in the period in question. And Bravo is being considered for a position that he never batted in?

 

[Jigga988]

But he did well in those few matches, whereas Adams, who you've picked, averaged under 30 in Tests in the period in question. And Bravo is being considered for a position that he never batted in?

He has batted there and the most recent time he did - Sri Lanka he made around 70, obviously that isn't something to really go by, just saying he has played there. Anyway, don't see why he couldn't does good against the swinging ball, that was made evident the last time he was in England, played well considering the rest of the team, I actually think Bravo looks more likely to get out to spinners because he tries to attack the hell out of them.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

He has batted there and the most recent time he did - Sri Lanka he made around 70, obviously that isn't something to really go by, just saying he has played there. Anyway, don't see why he couldn't does good against the swinging ball, that was made evident the last time he was in England, played well considering the rest of the team, I actually think Bravo looks more likely to get out to spinners because he tries to attack the hell out of them.

When I say "hasn't batted there", I mean enough to give any reasonable indication that he's worthy of a place in a decade-long team. He's only opened the batting once, and scored 80odd IIRC.

 

[Richard]

That's essentially a concession, for mine. Because no one should be bother to debate with someone who can't be bothered to rebut the points laid in front of him. This is not an argument of baseless opinions.

As I say - you can consider Sarwan a moderate batsman if you wish. I consider him a relatively poor one. I'm exceptionally unlikely to change your mind, and thus going through each and every one of those innings would be a waste of my time. And I think I've explained why I consider him a relatively poor batsman well enough without going through all those innings'.

 

[Jigga988]

As I say - you can consider Sarwan a moderate batsman if you wish. I consider him a relatively poor one. I'm exceptionally unlikely to change your mind, and thus going through each and every one of those innings would be a waste of my time. And I think I've explained why I consider him a relatively poor batsman well enough without going through all those innings'.

Can't wait to see Sarwan smash a couple centuries against England, see if that will change your mind...

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Except that I proposed those innings as facts directly disproving your statement, that Sarwan only scores runs when the going is easy. It, in fact, suggests that his scores tend to come with the team in trouble (as WI usually are). You're refusing to acknowledge my side of the argument, which is based on actually performance, so I'll take it to mean I've won this debate. Cheers.

 

[Richard]

Can't wait to see Sarwan smash a couple centuries against England, see if that will change your mind...

Doubt it, England's attack is highly unlikely to be any great shakes.

 

[Jigga988]

Except that I proposed those innings as facts directly disproving your statement, that Sarwan only scores runs when the going is easy. It, in fact, suggests that his scores tend to come with the team in trouble (as WI usually are). You're refusing to acknowledge my side of the argument, which is based on actually performance, so I'll take it to mean I've won this debate. Cheers.

Sound logic there...

 

[Richard]

Except that I proposed those innings as facts directly disproving your statement, that Sarwan only scores runs when the going is easy. It, in fact, suggests that his scores tend to come with the team in trouble (as WI usually are). You're refusing to acknowledge my side of the argument, which is based on actually performance, so I'll take it to mean I've won this debate. Cheers.

I'm saying that I don't consider said performances to be what you consider them to be. I've not, actually, suggested Sarwan only scores runs when the going's easy, merely that more of his runs than not have come under circumstances where run-scoring was not particularly difficult. I could go through every innings of his career if I wanted to, but I think I'd probably lose the will to live first. I honestly don't care about the matter enough to do so. You can win this debate if you wish to; it's not a debate of the utmost importance to me TBH.

 

[garage flower]

I'm saying that I don't consider said performances to be what you consider them to be. I've not, actually, suggested Sarwan only scores runs when the going's easy,

merely that more of his runs than not have come under circumstances where run-scoring was not particularly difficult

. I could go through every innings of his career if I wanted to, but I think I'd probably lose the will to live first. I honestly don't care about the matter enough to do so. You can win this debate if you wish to; it's not a debate of the utmost importance to me TBH.

So - in essence - you're denigrating Sarwan for finding it easier to score runs when run scoring is easier?

Would it be fair to say that debates that aren't of the utmost importance to you tend to be the ones you're not winning?

 

[grant28]

Chris Gayle
Wavell Hinds
Ramnaresh Sarwan
Brian Lara
Shiv Chanderpaul
Carl Hooper (c)
Ridley Jacobs (w)
Dwayne Bravo
Curtley Ambrose
Corey Collymore
Courtney Walsh