Ian Bradshaw retires; Bennett King resigns

[Pup Clarke]

He only started playing domestic cricket at, what, 26 or something?

Criminal.

 

[Richard]

Easy to say, but Liam (Camps) explained it to me pretty well the last time - when you've got the sort of seam-bowlers Barbados have (Collins and Collymore are merely the tip-of-the-iceberg) it's less surprising than it might seem.

 

[LA ICE-E]

Why? Although the WI have some of my favourite players, I don't subscribe to this viewpoint that cricket benifits if there is a strong West Indian team... Let us not forget that the decline of the West Indies team has allowed Australia to flourish, and has coincided with Sri Lanka becoming a dominant force, as well as the return of South Africa and the emergance of Bangladesh..

Teams go up, teams go down, thats the same in any sport, and I don't see why a tear should be shed because some teams happen to be at the bottom..

cause we're trying to get baseball there and they could stop playing cricket eventually if it keeps going down hill.

 

[Richard]

Cricket will never, ever be stopped playing completely.

 

[Matt79]

Yeah, my earlier comment wasn't that I yearn for the Windies to once again be clearly the best team in the world again, or that I think they play inherently more attractive cricket than anyone else either. Its just that their slide from major power to near-minnow has been alarmingly quick and shows little prospect of turnaround at the moment. The reemergence of South Africa at the time the Windies began to slide has compensated largely for this, and Sri Lanka have moved from Test minnow to competitive side, but the sport would be better with another consistently competitive team.

 

[Richard]

Sri Lanka were pretty competetive as soon as they joined the fold, TBH.

I can't conceive there won't be a time when WI slide upwards again - it's easy to forget, but they were God-awful between 1967 and 1973 too. OK, it's been a bit longer this time (a decade now) but still... I've often wondered what the reactions were back then.

 

[Matt79]

Sri Lanka were pretty competetive as soon as they joined the fold, TBH.

I can't conceive there won't be a time when WI slide upwards again - it's easy to forget, but they were God-awful between 1967 and 1973 too. OK, it's been a bit longer this time (a decade now) but still... I've often wondered what the reactions were back then.

Difference is that these days its a professional game with a packed international schedule and not a great deal of time for core team members to play county cricket or what have you. If you look at the support structures teams like Australia and England have, and the ability of the West Indies to match that, as well as the increased prominance of alternative sports like basketball and football, there's plenty of reason to be concerned that the talent that is present in the West Indies may increasingly not make a successful transition onto the world stage.

 

[Richard]

I can't believe things were completely non-pro as recently as 1970.

 

[marc71178]

Sri Lanka were pretty competetive as soon as they joined the fold, TBH.

So the 2 wins in their first 41 Tests (by which point they were averaging 121 less per completed innings than their opponents) isn't true then?

 

[Matt79]

I can't believe things were completely non-pro as recently as 1970.

Well, reading things like Viv Richard's autobiography, it was pretty clear that they were not at all recognisable as the professional game of today.

The full time training and what have you might not necessarily produce a more talented cricketer, but the fitness and skills practice it provides is a necessity when you play the current volume of international cricket without the chance to be preparing through first-class cricket day in and day out...

 

[Matt79]

So the 2 wins in their first 41 Tests (by which point they were averaging 121 less per completed innings than their opponents) isn't true then?

Yeah, I was thinking along those lines, but didn't have the stat handy...

 

[Richard]

So the 2 wins in their first 41 Tests (by which point they were averaging 121 less per completed innings than their opponents) isn't true then?

Their first 21 Tests were more than adaquete for a Test-playing team.

They had a lean period between 1986 and 1991, of all of 16 Tests, but so have many, many others.

 

[Matt79]

Their first 21 Tests were more than adaquete for a Test-playing team.

They had a lean period between 1986 and 1991, of all of 16 Tests, but so have many, many others.

But they just didn't win any games?

 

[Richard]

They won some between 1982 and 1986. Not enough to be up with the best sides in The World, but plenty enough to be considered Test-class.

 

[marc71178]

2 wins from 41 games over 11 years is not competitive.

 

[Richard]

Except that if you
a) look at the particulars (there is one game against Australia which they had won right at the end of that period before the worst collapse in history cost it) and
b) have the sense to realise that that 11-year period was not a single entity but 2 entirely different ones
you'll realise that their record is actually rather better than you give it credit for.

 

[Matt79]

So it could have been a whooping 3 wins in that period - except that they weren't good enough to win the match.

I'm not saying that they were humiliated or embarrassing during that period, but to me "competitive" means that you win games regularly. SL of the period in question = Bangladesh of the last few years - capable of credible performances and even the odd win, but a regularly competitive test outfit, no way.

 

[Richard]

That's crazy IMO - Sri Lanka have never, and I repeat NEVER been as bad as Bangladesh have been their entire Test time. Even between '86 and '91 they were better than that. Bangladesh have been thrashed near enough every single game, never mind drawing or winning.

And as I say - 3 wins in that 11-year period is an extremely simplistic way of looking at it. For one, you can break it down into 2 different periods the first in which they were unquestionably regularly competing, and the second in which they were not good but equally nowhere near as bad as Bangladesh have always been and probably about the same as the West Indies of the last 4 years.

 

[marc71178]

Except that if you
a) look at the particulars (there is one game against Australia which they had won right at the end of that period before the worst collapse in history cost it) and
b) have the sense to realise that that 11-year period was not a single entity but 2 entirely different ones
you'll realise that their record is actually rather better than you give it credit for.

So how come it's now OK to look at games which they've played well in but not won, yet you don't allow that sort of comment if someone praises Bangladesh?

 

[Richard]

I most certainly do - it's just with Bangladesh said games number approximately 3 or 4.

The only 3 that immidiately come to mind are the 1 in Pakistan, the 1 in West Indies and the 1 at home to Australia.