The demise of the spinner...

[chaminda_00]

well 4 fast bowlers are their best bowlers

Well if Collins, Best, Edwards and Collymore are fit then yes, but if their not then i don't think there are any quicks better then Dave, Banks or maybe even Miller.

 

[aussie]

Well if Collins, Best, Edwards and Collymore are fit then yes, but if their not then i don't think there are any quicks better then Dave, Banks or maybe even Miller.

well thats true and it shows what a medicre attack the west indies has

 

[SpeedKing]

Collymore is nothing special, he bowls line and length, that all. He gets no movement and bowls doesn't bowl many wicket taking balls. Banks and Mohammed are better bowlers then him.

i do not intend to sound big headed but ''told ya''

Collymore destroyed them 2day

http://www.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2005/PAK_IN_WI/SCORECARDS/frames/PAK_WI_T2_03-07JUN2005.html

i just had to do it.

 

[SpeedKing]

Haha, if Collymore can`t bowl wicket-taking deliveries, how come he got 7?

YEAH!!!!!!!!! ask them

 

[Nate]

well 4 fast bowlers are their best bowlers

You honestly think that? Poo on you. Mohammed and to an extent Hinds haven`t been near tried at international level.

 

[Nate]

YEAH!!!!!!!!! ask them

And now he already has 10.

 

[Richard]

Oops yeah sorry Richard.. My bad... I meant Adam Sandford....

Was just watching "Spanglish" with Adam Sandler and by mistake I typed his name ... and I'm pretty sure Adam Sandler couldn't bowl out Boycotts mum even if she were batting with a walking stick

I'm pretty sure he couldn't bowl-out me, that's for certain!
And as Neil would confirm...

 

[Richard]

not collymore

Guess who's just taken a 10-for (probably become more later today...)
Not like he's not done it before... until he starts taking more 10-fors he's still a poor bowler.

 

[Richard]

I expect it's only because Banks is an offie.

It's because Banks, being a fingerspinner, won't ever become that much of a bowler.
Not just because of that, of course - as fingerspinners go, Banks is still execrably poor, but if Mohammed had got the chance to play at Lord's and Edgbaston where instead Banks wasted two turners, I'm confident we'd only have won by 100 runs rather than 200.

 

[Richard]

he wont get a chance to prove himself since the West indies dont give their spinner much of a chance remember Nagamootoo & Dhanraj?.... only ramnarine who played his last test 3 years ago was give some sort of a run.

Nagamootoo should never, ever have been picked for Tests, doesn't spin it anywhere near enough.
As for Dhanraj... never seen him, and perhaps it's a measure of how low esteem his selection was held that I've never heard him mentioned, by anyone - even Liam.

Dont brag too much about the WI first class competiton since it not anything special

It's not as strong as some domestic competitions - but what the hell does that matter? It's the next level down from Tests - therefore if you haven't done well in it the chances of you making a good Test-player are extremely remote.

 

[Richard]

Hordern, Mailey, Grimmett, O'Reilley, Fleetwood-Smith (not a great Test record) McCool, Benaud, Higgs, Holland, Warne and MaGill.

Their were a few more, but found it hard to break into the Australian side, so played in county Cricket.

Out of those only Grimmett, O'Reilley, Benaud and Warne are Test-class bowlers.
Ranji Hordern, as with so many of his day, played too little to prove much; Arthur Mailey was hardly a brilliant Test bowler, averaging 33 in the 1920s; Fleetwood-Smith... wow, wonderful; Colin McCool was decent, certainly, but not in the top bracket; Jim Higgs, who I'd never even heard of, seems to be in the O'Keefe school; Bob Holland was extremely poor; and MacGill, well, I've said enough about him elsewhere.

 

[Richard]

That simple line and length is too great an ask for most bowlers in this world, Best can spray it around and Collins isn't the most consistent of bowlers either

And the fact is... it's too much for Collymore more often than not.
Sometimes he bowls well, sometimes exceptionally poorly.

 

[Richard]

collins isnt much better?
have you even watched collins bowl?

Yes, and he's certainly got far more potential than most bowlers recently to emerge from West Indies.
Fact is, though, a Test-match average of 40.87 is extremely poor, and yes, he's been better since his return in 2003\04, but he's still sprayed it far too much in between wicket-taking deliveries.

 

[Richard]

Haha, if Collymore can`t bowl wicket-taking deliveries, how come he got 7?

Because, very occasionally, everything goes right and we get an all-time great performance such as the current game. He must have bowled 7 or 8 wicket-taking deliveries this match, a phenominal achivement, but he's done it before.
Most of the time he just gets stacks of play-and-misses.

 

[Richard]

Well if Collins, Best, Edwards and Collymore are fit then yes, but if their not then i don't think there are any quicks better then Dave, Banks or maybe even Miller.

Mohammed, yes, but seriously - Omari Banks, better than Collins, Edwards and Collymore?
I mean, they're all pretty poor, yes, but there's poor and there's Omari Banks.

 

[Richard]

You honestly think that? Poo on you. Mohammed and to an extent Hinds haven`t been near tried at international level.

I like Hinds as a batsman, sure, but a bowler?
He's the epitomy of nothing-special.

 

[Richard]

i do not intend to sound big headed but ''told ya''

Collymore destroyed them 2day

http://www.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2005/PAK_IN_WI/SCORECARDS/frames/PAK_WI_T2_03-07JUN2005.html

i just had to do it.

Like I say... it's not like we haven't seen it before.
Don't count your chickens before they're hatched.

 

[marc71178]

It's because Banks, being a fingerspinner, won't ever become that much of a bowler.

It's sweeping generalisation time!

 

[Richard]

No, it's reliable invariables time... again.

 

[tooextracool]

Yes, and he's certainly got far more potential than most bowlers recently to emerge from West Indies.
Fact is, though, a Test-match average of 40.87 is extremely poor,.

whatever happened pre 2003/04 is irrelevant, because he was of bracken's quality back then.

and yes, he's been better since his return in 2003\04, but he's still sprayed it far too much in between wicket-taking deliveries.

please explain how an average of 30 odd since 03/04 on largely dead flat wickets is as poor as edwards averaging 44 and best averaging 52?
are you high again?