*Official* West Indies in Zimbabwe Thread

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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?

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?

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.

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]

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.

 

[Mister Wright]

Richard...a question:

How can you knock bank after his first test series?

I seem to remember one Shane Warne being taken to the cleaners on his test debut 1/150. And never really cemented his spot in the Aussie team until the Sri Lankan tour (a weak team at that stage). So to say he is not test class yet, is a bit of a joke!

 

[Richard]

Richard...a question:

How can you knock banks after his first test series?

I seem to remember one Shane Warne being taken to the cleaners on his test debut 1/150. And never really cemented his spot in the Aussie team until the Sri Lankan tour (a weak team at that stage). So to say he is not test class yet, is a bit of a joke!

Easy to answer that one - Banks is a fingerspinner, Warne is a wristspinner. Wristspinners are always worth a bit more of a try than fingerspinners.
IMO Banks shouldn't have been selected in the first place. Simply because he is a fingerspinner and there are few places for fingerspinners in international cricket any more.

 

[Richard]

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.

I didn't see every day of the 2000\01 Worrell Trophy, but I saw more of it than I missed. I saw just about all of the Fourth Test (had a broken leg, lay in bed watching TV), missed one day of the Fifth and Third Tests, saw the first and second days of the first two Tests. Walsh bowled, for me, as well as he bowled in England and against South Africa (I saw every significant moment of both these series, missed only 8 hours' worth of live play in the Wisden Trophy and not much more in the home SA series).
I wouldn't disagree for a minute that Walsh was more penetrative in his last year-1\2 than in most of the preceding time, but only on seaming pitches. He was less so on pitches less responsive to seam.
If the Australians had prepared wickets that offered all that much seam for the Worrell Trophy, Walsh would have had more wickets and a better average, I am sure.

 

[Richard]

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?

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

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.

It's a fair enough comment - you very probably know more about Devon Smith than me.
I've never heard of Tim McIntosh - I'll look him up.
Please stop this "you can't judge on stats". What you mean is "you can't judge on domestic stats". You can judge a Test player on nothing except his stats in Test-cricket. If a batsman doesn't score runs, he cannot be classed as up-to-standard. Likewise bowlers if they don't take enough wickets. Both these facts are reflected in stats.
It may be a fair enough point that West Indian domestic cricket is so sparse it's not of much use as to indication of international standard; the same may be true of Zimbabwe.
However, for me the best idea would be steps to correct this, not just blind acceptance.

...and some unknown named Gillespie is it?

He can only bowl so many overs. I seem to remember he dismissed Smith for a pair at some time. Anyway, Gillespie doesn't offer much penetration - good batsmen will still score runs on pitches like those in that series. They'll just have to score them slower than they would against the rest of the rubbish.

 

[luckyeddie]

One thing in test cricket (highly significant in my opinion) can never be measured by statistics - that is the effect one player can have on another. Some bowlers (no names) can greatly assist in dismissing batsmen for the guy at the other end - and I'm sure that some batsmen with high averages can be real dogs to bat with (Inzy)

 

[Richard]

One thing in test cricket (highly significant in my opinion) can never be measured by statistics - that is the effect one player can have on another. Some bowlers (no names) can greatly assist in dismissing batsmen for the guy at the other end - and I'm sure that some batsmen with high averages can be real dogs to bat with (Inzy)

To be fair, Inzy's not run that many people out in the last 3 or 4 years. Certainly by his previous standards. I reckon about as many as most people do.
It is a fair point that some bowlers scare batsmen (of not especially high standard - generally) but in my view the other bowler doesn't deserve credit for his wicket unless he's earned it.
For me, it's simple - judge batsmen on one statistic (their first-chance average) and bowlers on a combination of their economy-rates and the number of wickets they have taken with good deliveries.
Selection can be done on nothing, NOTHING, but scorebook batting and bowling averages.
It is as simple as that. Standing of players cannot be judged on most common statistics (scorebook batting and bowling averages), but selection can be done on nothing but. It's just not possible to argue with success.
When I say cannot, I mean unless they concur with the assesment you make by the method I have listed.

 

[Neil Pickup]

If you keep saying it, then maybe we'll believe it, right?

 

[Mister Wright]

Oh...come on Richard. You can only do what is presented in front of you. If you get dropped, you keep batting, if you don't your out. It is as simple as that, you can't judge a batsman on the amount of times he gets dropped. I wonder what Bradman's average would have been had he never got dropped? If we go by your logic - a tailender and top order batsman can be rated the same a tailender and top order batsman get dropped on three, the top order batsman goes on to score 164 without giving another chance, but the tailender only scores 8. By your logic they are the same, but infact the top order batsman was better because he put it behind him and went on. He is the better batsman with more skill and was able to do it. In the long run over a career the averages give a true indication of the batsman's ability during their era.

As far as bowlers go, u can't just say to a bowler "you've just bowled a bad delivery - that doesn't count for your record." Bowlers will get wickets on bad deliveries just as batsman will get out playing good shots, it happens, and is one of the great things about our game. Just like a bolwer may not get a wicket on a good delivery and a batsman can get four runs off a bad shot.

The game of cricket is a highly statistical game, one of the biggest that I can think of, let's not add more statistics by having a career average and a career average - if player had of not been dropped and career average for only good deliveries bowled.

 

[luckyeddie]

Selection can be done on nothing, NOTHING, but scorebook batting and bowling averages.

Complete and utter codswollop. You seem to be the only person who believes it. I presume therefore that it would be more appropriate to have automatic selection to representative sides based on a formula based entirely on statistics, thus doing away with selection committees entirely?

This is cricket we are talking about, not baseball or some other plagiarised statistics-oriented 'sport' .

By your method, England's test side would include...

Mark Ramprakash
Jonathan Batty
Matthew Wood
Ryan Sidebottom
and Graeme Swann

So you're a Ramprakash fan, eh?

 

[Richard]

Complete and utter codswollop. You seem to be the only person who believes it. I presume therefore that it would be more appropriate to have automatic selection to representative sides based on a formula based entirely on statistics, thus doing away with selection committees entirely?

This is cricket we are talking about, not baseball or some other plagiarised statistics-oriented 'sport' .

By your method, England's test side would include...

Mark Ramprakash
Jonathan Batty
Matthew Wood
Ryan Sidebottom
and Graeme Swann

So you're a Ramprakash fan, eh?

You seem to slightly misinterpret me (though you are right about one thing - I rate Ramprakash far higher than most do).
The main point I am attempting to make is that as far as selection is concerned, you can't argue with stats garnered at that level of the game. So for Test selection you can't argue with Test statistics. For ODI selection you can't argue with ODI statistics. For selection at Club First XI level, you can't argue with Club First XI statistics.
It is less true (although nowhere near as much as some seem to like to believe) when selecting someone who hasn't played in the last match at that level. I will use the example of domestic-First-Class to Test as a don't-complicate-things-further-than-neccesary thing.
For selecting a Test side, if you have a vacant berth, you need to look at two things when considering a player. First - has he played much Test-cricket before? If he has and he's failed, you need to think twice about selecting him. If he hasn't played at Test level, you can only judge him on his domestic-First-Class statistics - of the past two seasons especially.
I really don't know why a statistics-based selection would include Graeme Swann - not one of the most impressive performers, nor what anyone would call consistent. Wood even worse - one season he's averaging over 50, next less than 20. He's never strung two decent seasons together. Sidebottom has a very good dFC record, but I really fail to understand how he's got it. I fully expect it to change after leaving Headingley.
You must differentiate between "statistics"and "one good season". In the case of many who are in the "the selectors don't trust county cricket" brigade, the latter is the case and their exclusion is entirely justifiable to me.
The term "statistics" is bandied-around far too often. It can cover virtually anything. All too often, people seem to fail to acknowledge that Test averages are in fact statistics, even though this is a logic-baffling argument.
I am not saying anyone really thinks that, just that some terminology often used suggests this.
As for selection - while selection should be done on statistics, you still need someone (ie - a human-being) to sort it all out. The notion of abolishing selection comittees is a bizarre one.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

And yet, for some strange reason, the seletors take it upon themselves to go to the games and watch the players play....

 

[Richard]

And yet, for some strange reason, the seletors take it upon themselves to go to the games and watch the players play....

Yes, and it's a good idea.
However, it's far fairer to judge a player on the happenings of a season than one or two games when you happen to have had the opportunity to watch.

 

[luckyeddie]

<many chunks snipped>

You seem to slightly misinterpret me (though you are right about one thing - I rate Ramprakash far higher than most do).

For selecting a Test side, if you have a vacant berth, you need to look at two things when considering a player. First - has he played much Test-cricket before? If he has and he's failed, you need to think twice about selecting him.

As for selection - while selection should be done on statistics, you still need someone (ie - a human-being) to sort it all out. The notion of abolishing selection comittees is a bizarre one.

Three related points. I've tried not to take things out of context. The second highlighted paragraph complements the first, at least as far as test cricket and Ramprakash is concerned. He's a tremendous player (like Hick) at the lower grade of cricket and with one or two notable exceptions, failed to make the grade in tests. I'm actually very surprised that he did not get one final fling (see Devil Duckys passim).

Regarding the third highlighted paragraph (and some of the bits I snipped re Sidebottom, Wood etc), it just seemed to be a logical extension to the way the argument was progressing. As one who maintains that selectors sometimes 'see' or perceive some attribute within a player which is not necessarily backed up with statistics at that time (see Alec Stewart), I advocate that they act upon these 'hunches' as often as they see fit - that's what they are there for. Otherwise, we would probably have not seen James Anderson in test cricket for another 3 or 4 years - if ever.

 

[Top_Cat]

As one who maintains that selectors sometimes 'see' or perceive some attribute within a player which is not necessarily backed up with statistics at that time (see Alec Stewart), I advocate that they act upon these 'hunches' as often as they see fit - that's what they are there for. Otherwise, we would probably have not seen James Anderson in test cricket for another 3 or 4 years - if ever.

We certainly wouldn't have seen Steve Waugh, Glenn McGrath and CERTAINLY Shane Warne if the ethos of adhering strictly to statistics was followed (I think Warnie's average for Victoria is STILL above 30). It's ludicrous to use stats exclusively judge a player. It's like using the clock speed of a CPU to judge how fast the overall chip is. I.e., it doesn't tell the whole story.

 

[Richard]

Three related points. I've tried not to take things out of context. The second highlighted paragraph complements the first, at least as far as test cricket and Ramprakash is concerned. He's a tremendous player (like Hick) at the lower grade of cricket and with one or two notable exceptions, failed to make the grade in tests. I'm actually very surprised that he did not get one final fling (see Devil Duckys passim).

Regarding the third highlighted paragraph (and some of the bits I snipped re Sidebottom, Wood etc), it just seemed to be a logical extension to the way the argument was progressing. As one who maintains that selectors sometimes 'see' or perceive some attribute within a player which is not necessarily backed up with statistics at that time (see Alec Stewart), I advocate that they act upon these 'hunches' as often as they see fit - that's what they are there for. Otherwise, we would probably have not seen James Anderson in test cricket for another 3 or 4 years - if ever.

I too am surprised that Ramprakash didn't get a final "fling". His only failures in his last 9 series were against New Zealand; his average in that time (when excluding the times he was forced to open) is 37.
I don't think acting on one- or two-man hunches is a good idea at all - very few players have better Test records than overall First-Class. A few do, yes, but not very many. For me, players should earn international selection by performing on the domestic scene. Those with whom the selectors have tried to be clever (some recent examples: Dawson, Foster, Harmison, Jones, McGrath, Schofield, Afzaal) have generally failed.
Alec Stewart ended-up with a better First-Class record than his Test one, and Anderson's First-Class average is excellent.