Calypso kings or Collapso kings

Calypso kings or Collapso kings

Post by M1 » Tue, 21 Dec 1999 04:00:00


What a comedown - Windies...

How could they lose being 276 for no loss and 282-1 on the 1st day.

Lara, I'm afraid, has to take a major portion of the blame.
The turnaround started half-an-hour before lunch on the 2nd day..
WI 336-3 and Lara playing with ease (24 in 19 balls).
Then arrogance got the better of him and from 336 for 3 WI collapsed to 365
all out.

In the 2nd dig, after recovering from 1 for 3 (Lara again playing a loose
shot in the first few overs), WI recovered substantially to 78-4..
and then collapsed to 97 all out.
1st inns - Last 7 wkts for 29;  2nd inns - Last 6 wkts for 19 runs.

Of course, Cairns deserves credit for his bowling, but WI could have stopped
NZ from winning, had they played a calm and steady 1st session on the final
morning.

Alas the Calypso kings have become Collapso kings (not just this test, but
for the past few years.)

 
 
 

Calypso kings or Collapso kings

Post by guptarak.. » Tue, 21 Dec 1999 04:00:00



Quote:
> What a comedown - Windies...

> How could they lose being 276 for no loss and 282-1 on the 1st day.

> Lara, I'm afraid, has to take a major portion of the blame.

it seems lara did take the blame unlike other captains who would blamed
on batsmen or bowler or pitch or voodoo!!!

Quote:
> The turnaround started half-an-hour before lunch on the 2nd day..
> WI 336-3 and Lara playing with ease (24 in 19 balls).
> Then arrogance got the better of him and from 336 for 3 WI collapsed
to 365
> all out.

> In the 2nd dig, after recovering from 1 for 3 (Lara again playing a
loose
> shot in the first few overs), WI recovered substantially to 78-4..
> and then collapsed to 97 all out.
> 1st inns - Last 7 wkts for 29;  2nd inns - Last 6 wkts for 19 runs.

> Of course, Cairns deserves credit for his bowling, but WI could have
stopped
> NZ from winning, had they played a calm and steady 1st session on the
final
> morning.

> Alas the Calypso kings have become Collapso kings (not just this test,
but
> for the past few years.)

even india can not match this type of collapse!!! or did they do it
in the past?  they are certinly capable of doing it in the future!!!

rakesh

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

 
 
 

Calypso kings or Collapso kings

Post by Raja Venkateswara » Tue, 21 Dec 1999 04:00:00

Just when u think that WI can't perform worse than they did in SA or in the
first test against Aussies, they remind u painfully that they can outdo
themselves. Looking at the test match, it looked like the first wkt
partnership was an aberration considering the way WI played afterwards. They
have to do some serious thinking about their commitment -- their batsmen are
talented alright, but there seems to be no sincerity/application/commitment in
approach. There is a mental rot in the WI attack.

I dont see many batting options -- I dont think Ganga is any better than the
rest.

And for God's sake, sack this Rose guy for the next test and bring in Dillon
(or Collins -- anybody but Rose)

If WI cant beat a moderate NZ attack on a placid track, then God save WI

--Raja
(A re-disillusioned WI fan)

Quote:

> What a comedown - Windies...

> How could they lose being 276 for no loss and 282-1 on the 1st day.

> Lara, I'm afraid, has to take a major portion of the blame.
> The turnaround started half-an-hour before lunch on the 2nd day..
> WI 336-3 and Lara playing with ease (24 in 19 balls).
> Then arrogance got the better of him and from 336 for 3 WI collapsed to 365
> all out.

> In the 2nd dig, after recovering from 1 for 3 (Lara again playing a loose
> shot in the first few overs), WI recovered substantially to 78-4..
> and then collapsed to 97 all out.
> 1st inns - Last 7 wkts for 29;  2nd inns - Last 6 wkts for 19 runs.

> Of course, Cairns deserves credit for his bowling, but WI could have stopped
> NZ from winning, had they played a calm and steady 1st session on the final
> morning.

> Alas the Calypso kings have become Collapso kings (not just this test, but
> for the past few years.)

"The distinction between past, present and future is only an illusion, even if
a stubborn one" -- Albert Einstein

 
 
 

Calypso kings or Collapso kings

Post by Autism » Tue, 21 Dec 1999 04:00:00

Quote:

>In the 2nd dig, after recovering from 1 for 3 (Lara again playing a loose
>shot in the first few overs), WI recovered substantially to 78-4..
>and then collapsed to 97 all out.
>1st inns - Last 7 wkts for 29;  2nd inns - Last 6 wkts for 19 runs.

Be fair, WI are improving. It's better than they did in RSA
 
 
 

Calypso kings or Collapso kings

Post by Harish Chandramou » Tue, 21 Dec 1999 04:00:00


Quote:


>>In the 2nd dig, after recovering from 1 for 3 (Lara again playing a loose
>>shot in the first few overs), WI recovered substantially to 78-4..
>>and then collapsed to 97 all out.
>>1st inns - Last 7 wkts for 29;  2nd inns - Last 6 wkts for 19 runs.

>Be fair, WI are improving. It's better than they did in RSA

You seem to be enjoying this a whole lot more than you're letting on.
Something the rest of us ought to know? :-)

Harish
--
Indian tours should be for 1 year, so that they (the players) can get
used to the conditions -- "lele", on #cricket.
---

 
 
 

Calypso kings or Collapso kings

Post by Autism » Wed, 22 Dec 1999 04:00:00


Quote:
(Harish Chandramouli) writes:
>>>In the 2nd dig, after recovering from 1 for 3 (Lara again playing a loose
>>>shot in the first few overs), WI recovered substantially to 78-4..
>>>and then collapsed to 97 all out.
>>>1st inns - Last 7 wkts for 29;  2nd inns - Last 6 wkts for 19 runs.

>>Be fair, WI are improving. It's better than they did in RSA

>You seem to be enjoying this a whole lot more than you're letting on.
>Something the rest of us ought to know? :-)

20 years of the boring bouncer stuff for hour on end, 12 overs an
hour (going down to 8 on one occasion). I'm going to enjoy this.

I think WI are going to get worse, not better, as well. I'm not
impressed by the bowling attack ; it is still too reliant on Amby
& Walsh. Even if they aren't taking the wickets, they are "still
there", so to speak.

 
 
 

Calypso kings or Collapso kings

Post by Harish Chandramou » Wed, 22 Dec 1999 04:00:00


Quote:

>20 years of the boring bouncer stuff for hour on end, 12 overs an
>hour (going down to 8 on one occasion).

What would you advocate they have done? ***ed Hooper as a 12-year
old for his offspin, just to keep up with over-rates? As i choose to
see it, they picked the 4 best bowlers they thought would win them
games. Not any different to the policies of most other teams around,
then, or even now.

Quote:
>I think WI are going to get worse, not better, as well. I'm not
>impressed by the bowling attack ; it is still too reliant on Amby
>& Walsh. Even if they aren't taking the wickets, they are "still
>there", so to speak.

Its tough to see how they're going to get worse. They've lost their
last 9 tests abroad now, and thats not a record even we Indians could
match, I suspect.

Harish

 
 
 

Calypso kings or Collapso kings

Post by Kenn » Thu, 23 Dec 1999 04:00:00

Quote:
>>You seem to be enjoying this a whole lot more than you're letting on.
>>Something the rest of us ought to know? :-)

>20 years of the boring bouncer stuff for hour on end, 12 overs an
>hour (going down to 8 on one occasion). I'm going to enjoy this.

Its amazing how cricket fans are selective. When Aus had Lillee and
Thompson they werent any different really. Hell...all sides that have
a homogeneous attack that works..can be boringly efficient. Guess
what...even in this era of faked entertainment based on the value
system that says 90 overs being bowled means that it HAS to be better
cricket that WI side would thrash anyone, as would that mid 70`s Aus
team too...

I have seen alot of cricket, and I can honestly say that the
standards...and the entertainment level have not improved one iota
because of the bouncer rule, and over limits. This WI team right now
would lose with both of these in place, because they would play badly.
And they wouldnt be entertaining either. But each to their own...

What you could say is that the level is much more uniform resulting in
closer run tests, and much more home series wins for each of the test
teams on their own patch.

Quote:
>I think WI are going to get worse, not better, as well. I'm not
>impressed by the bowling attack ; it is still too reliant on Amby
>& Walsh. Even if they aren't taking the wickets, they are "still
>there", so to speak.

Most great bowlers retire...they are hardly dropped when their
averages are still good and their performances still matching this.

Walsh is a great case  in point. His average has actually gotten
better recently which makes it difficult for the selectors to suddenly
drop him. That doesnt indicate that he is a liability or there isnt
anyone else, but it does indicate that he is actually performing.

Again...its your opinion why you enjoy this so much and you are
certainly entitled to have a good time for howvere long it lasts. I`d
like to think its not Ad infinitum....you think it is. Neither of us
have a crystal ball.

Kenny

 
 
 

Calypso kings or Collapso kings

Post by Autism » Thu, 23 Dec 1999 04:00:00


Quote:
(Harish Chandramouli) writes:
>20 years of the boring bouncer stuff for hour on end, 12 overs an
>>hour (going down to 8 on one occasion).

>What would you advocate they have done? ***ed Hooper as a 12-year
>old for his offspin, just to keep up with over-rates? As i choose to
>see it, they picked the 4 best bowlers they thought would win them
>games. Not any different to the policies of most other teams around,
>then, or even now.

I don't think at that time they were doing anything other than picking
4 quick bowlers. It wasn't just that ; it was a combination of very slow
over rates and lots of short pitched stuff.

Quote:
>>I think WI are going to get worse, not better, as well. I'm not
>>impressed by the bowling attack ; it is still too reliant on Amby
>>& Walsh. Even if they aren't taking the wickets, they are "still
>>there", so to speak.

>Its tough to see how they're going to get worse. They've lost their
>last 9 tests abroad now, and thats not a record even we Indians could
>match, I susp

A forerunner (potentially) of what's to come might have been RSA's
2nd Innings in the 5th test. No Ambrose, no Walsh.
 
 
 

Calypso kings or Collapso kings

Post by Autism » Thu, 23 Dec 1999 04:00:00


Quote:

>Its amazing how cricket fans are selective. When Aus had Lillee and
>Thompson they werent any different really.

Well.... no. The Australian attack would have been something like
Lillee/Thomson/Walker/Mallett with Walters as a back up. I'm actually
English, and the only times we have played four ***s (except
somewhere like Headingley - i.e. seaming pitches) we've been slaughtered.
It didn't work in 32/3 either.

Quote:
>Hell...all sides that have
>a homogeneous attack that works..can be boringly efficient. Guess
>what...even in this era of faked entertainment based on the value
>system that says 90 overs being bowled means that it HAS to be better
>cricket that WI side would thrash anyone, as would that mid 70`s Aus
>team too...

>I have seen alot of cricket, and I can honestly say that the
>standards...and the entertainment level have not improved one iota
>because of the bouncer rule, and over limits. This WI team right now
>would lose with both of these in place, because they would play badly.

Well maybe its a good thing then. If all they can do is bowl bouncers
and slow the game down as a tactic, we're better off without them.

I'm fascinated that you think the WI attack was entertaining. It was
as boring as hell.

It isn't sour grapes about losing. We get regularly stuffed by the
Aussies, but I could watch Shane Warne bowl all day just for
pleasure (sadly, with the current batting line up this doesn't often
happen).

Quote:
>>I think WI are going to get worse, not better, as well. I'm not
>>impressed by the bowling attack ; it is still too reliant on Amby
>>& Walsh. Even if they aren't taking the wickets, they are "still
>>there", so to speak.

>Most great bowlers retire...they are hardly dropped when their
>averages are still good and their performances still matching this.

>Walsh is a great case  in point. His average has actually gotten
>better recently which makes it difficult for the selectors to suddenly
>drop him.

I don't think that is the problem. I don't know what Amby & Walsh
think of their batsmen. Not much, I suspect. I don't know how
much longer Courtney will go on after he passes 431 wickets,
especially if the batting keeps performing like it has done
recently. I felt sorry for them in RSA ; they kept hauling their team
back into the game and then the batters threw it away again.
 
 
 

Calypso kings or Collapso kings

Post by Kenn » Fri, 24 Dec 1999 04:00:00


Quote:
>Well.... no. The Australian attack would have been something like
>Lillee/Thomson/Walker/Mallett with Walters as a back up. I'm actually
>English, and the only times we have played four ***s (except
>somewhere like Headingley - i.e. seaming pitches) we've been slaughtered.
>It didn't work in 32/3 either.

Does it matter the actual makeup of the Aus attack ? The fact
is...Lille and Thompson blasted most of the opposition bats away. Not
done with any aesthetic that was any different from the WI. And if you
chose too, there was alot to admire about the actual difference
between the quartet of WI bowlers. But as they say the antelope sees
the meal with the lion from a particularly painful point of view.

Quote:
>>Hell...all sides that have
>>a homogeneous attack that works..can be boringly efficient. Guess
>>what...even in this era of faked entertainment based on the value
>>system that says 90 overs being bowled means that it HAS to be better
>>cricket that WI side would thrash anyone, as would that mid 70`s Aus
>>team too...

>>I have seen alot of cricket, and I can honestly say that the
>>standards...and the entertainment level have not improved one iota
>>because of the bouncer rule, and over limits. This WI team right now
>>would lose with both of these in place, because they would play badly.

>Well maybe its a good thing then. If all they can do is bowl bouncers
>and slow the game down as a tactic, we're better off without them.

Well that argument is spurious. It is following that Nazi style edict
passed down by the former editor of Wisden David frith that the WI
team of the 80`s were ONLY good at that. It is also the biggest case
of sour grapes I have ever heard. Fact is that team were great however
they decided to take wickets or make runs, and it is misleading and
dishonest to suggest that is all they were about. Now tell me that you
actually think that they werent actually better than the other teams
of that era.

England regularly played with  ***spinner at that time....Emburey.
They did not deserve to win because they bowled more overs quicker, or
because they had an offie playing, they simply played worse than WI.
Same with Aus or any other team. And this WI team is losing...because
it has played crap...even if they played two right arm quicks a leftie
and a leggie which they could do. I can hear the purists purring as
they whistled through their overs and showed the full gamut of
cricketing combinations.  Duh...

Quote:
>I'm fascinated that you think the WI attack was entertaining. It was
>as boring as hell.

>It isn't sour grapes about losing. We get regularly stuffed by the
>Aussies, but I could watch Shane Warne bowl all day just for
>pleasure (sadly, with the current batting line up this doesn't often
>happen).

I`m afraid I find this an equally amusing argument. Warne wasnt and
isnt there in the Aus lineup because of some demand to provide balance
and variety in the act. He is there because he is a great bowler. Now
Wi during that era had two or three spinners of note. Rangy Nanan,
Clyde Butts and Roger Harper, with Javan Ettiene featuring for one
season or so in the late 80`s. None of these were comparable to the
fast bowling alternative.

The fact that Warne is good to watch is a bonus, but that is not some
desired outcome of selecting him for Australia. And whether England
play Salisbury, or NZ play Brooke Walker, or India play Joshi is a
case of whether they are good enough and it is patently obvious...in
the case of Salisbury for example...that they arent. And Salisbury
bowls crap...legspin and all.

I really hate this argument. Another Frith and that old English prat
Robin Marlars favourite hobby horse. If in the new millenium Aus
decide Brett Lee, Gillespie, Mcgrath and Fleming is their best bet to
continuing their domination, do you think people will argue over the
aesthetic of their victories ? Would people miss Warne ? Of course
they would, but they would miss him more if they lost than for variety
for variety`s sake.

For what its worth...the English team of the mid 80`s was stronger and
more entertaining than this crop...and so were the WI....by a long
way. And anyone who tells me that the two teams on top of world
cricket right now, Aus and SA are not ruthlessly efficient rather than
flamboyant batting or bowling sides is well...thats your opinion. One
great legspinner does not change that.

I know where that mentality stems from, and I tell you I saw so much
of this hypocrisy in the 80`s and in the early 90`s but it actually
takes someone like Trueman usually by accident to reveal the reasoning
that one method applied by himself and others with ruthless precision
(and hell some aesthetic....Truemans runup...Tysons et al were
worshipped as art forms in themselves) seemingly becomes a blunt and
crude weapon in the hands of others.

We differ...and always will

Kenny

 
 
 

Calypso kings or Collapso kings

Post by Keith Brewe » Fri, 24 Dec 1999 04:00:00


obalnet.co.uk> desists from theorising about Cartesian Dualism in order
to pronounce:

Quote:
>. Fact is that team were great however
>they decided to take wickets or make runs, and it is misleading and
>dishonest to suggest that is all they were about. Now tell me that you
>actually think that they werent actually better than the other teams
>of that era.

Nobody in their right mind would argue that the West Indies did not have
the  most awesome collection of fast bowling talent available to them,
as well as an impressive batting line up. There was no need for a
spinner,and there was no need for the skipper to be a brilliant
tactician because he had the firepower at his disposal to blow sides
away. There was also variety within the generic term 'fast bowler'
Marshall with his skiddy style, Garner with his height etc., etc.,
This variety was enough to prevent batsmen settling in against them and
therefore why pick an average spinner for the sake of balance.

However when a team does not have this depth and variety then a spinner
begins to look an attractive option, particularly if trying to winkle a
side out on a flat pitch. South Africa IMHO could have beaten England in
the 2nd test if Adams had played because England got comfortable against
the 2nd string bowlers and a spinner might have made them think about
it.

For what it is worth I considered the WI side of that era to be great to
watch, even if the over rate crawled at 12 an hour and for the sake of
world cricket would love to see them competing at that level again.
--
Keith Brewer
Wisden Cricket Almanacks.
See my Website at http://www.huttpharmacy.demon.co.uk

 
 
 

Calypso kings or Collapso kings

Post by Mike Holma » Fri, 24 Dec 1999 04:00:00


(Kenny) decided to reply to Keith Brewer:

Quote:

>>For what it is worth I considered the WI side of that era to be great to
>>watch, even if the over rate crawled at 12 an hour and for the sake of
>>world cricket would love to see them competing at that level again.
>>--

>No they wouldnt. Dont kid yourself.

Keith only said that *he* would love to see them, and I doubt you can
actually contradict him on that one.

Quote:
>But to many English supporters esp, it never was interesting because
>it was a long procession of numbing defeats, by the same people doing
>the same things. It was ironic that those same players would play
>county cricket and seemingly become flamboyant, and exciting
>proponents of the same game.

Yes, it was depressing. Bascially because we didn't have the bowlers
to trouble the stellar array of bats that WI had. That's why the
series against Pakistan was so much more evenly matched - Pakistan had
dangerous bowlers who could restrict WI to manageable totals, whereas
we had to wait for them to declare at 600/7.

I think, though, that there was an underlying point about the "boring"
accusation which you've missed. A lot of us were afraid that the
overwhelming success of WI's pace quartet would lead *every* country
to follow their lead and play four pacers, and Test cricket would lose
its variety and become exceedingly monotonous, in much the same way as
men's singles tennis now consists almost entirely of big serves.

Quote:

>Probably its me...but I enjoyed seeing Hadlee working over a
>batsman...almost mentally dissecting him, I enjoyed seeing Jimmy
>Amarnath batting vs WI with almost a crazy abandon, and I damn well
>enjoyed watching Border dig Aus out of holes. Test cricket is
>enjoyable I think because of competition, and the enjoyment and
>appreciation of WI cricket of that era was very limited because of the
>lack of competition.

Most of it is competition, but there is also the variety factor. One
reason why a lot of us don't get very e***d about ODIous cricket is
that it's so samey - once you've seen half a dozen ODIs, they all
blur.

Series involving WI in the 80s got tedious because virtually every
match consisted of WI getting a large total with a couple of the bats
getting sizeable tons, surrounded by the other team struggling to
match the total in two innings. It didn't really matter where the game
was held, the plot was always the same. This was also true of the TV
series "Charlie's Angels", and I have to say I found them somewhat
easier on the eye.

Quote:
>I just think to sum up that team as simply a bouncer and slow over
>team is misleading. Fact is they were the most watchable team of that
>decade, and they would look even better if the competition was better.

It's laughable, actually. You have a team with one of the most
powerful batting line-ups ever assembled and all people go on about is
their pace bowlers.

Quote:
>This era is possibly getting a better deal than it deserves simply
>because the level of mediocrity between many of the teams allows
>matches to be close...ie the same competitive quotient. Except for Aus
>and India I would say all the other test teams were stronger in the
>80`s...

I would say that Sri Lanka's current Test side is better than their
80s one, and then there's RSA and Zimbabwe, who didn't have a Test
side in the 80s at all.

Cheers,

Mike

--

Supporting the World's Second Worst Test Team

 
 
 

Calypso kings or Collapso kings

Post by Rachel-Fiona Harla » Fri, 24 Dec 1999 04:00:00

Quote:
>A forerunner (potentially) of what's to come might have been RSA's
>2nd Innings in the 5th test. No Ambrose, no Walsh.

Was that the innings where Jonty scored the rapid ton?

Rach.

A reasonable man adapts himself to suit his environment. An unreasonable man
persists in attempting to adapt his environment to suit him. Therefore, all
progress depends on the unreasonable man.
-George Bernard Shaw.