Pup Clarke
Cricketer Of The Year
Criminal.He only started playing domestic cricket at, what, 26 or something?
Criminal.He only started playing domestic cricket at, what, 26 or something?
cause we're trying to get baseball there and they could stop playing cricket eventually if it keeps going down hill.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..
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.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.
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?Sri Lanka were pretty competetive as soon as they joined the fold, TBH.
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.I can't believe things were completely non-pro as recently as 1970.
Yeah, I was thinking along those lines, but didn't have the stat handy...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.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?
But they just didn't win any games?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.
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?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.