WI DEFEAT (Another poor batting performance)

WI DEFEAT (Another poor batting performance)

Post by Alexis Nathaniel Hobs » Mon, 31 Jul 1995 04:00:00


Congratulations to the English team for a well deserved victory. I think
that they played with character and determination, with most of the
players giving their best effort. The positive thing for the English is
that Illingworths' strategy won't be criticised for a while. The reverse
is true for the WI.

After day four I guess that most WI fans were hoping for the best, knowing
that the odds were firmly in favour of England. Why? WI seldom win
matches because of consistent batting which was required in this match.
Once the bowlers are unable to 'humble' the opponents WI defeat is
virtually inevitable. I was hoping that Lara might have been able to
occupy the crease for a while but that was not to be, apart from Campbell,
the other batsmen were apparently out of the depths.  It was rather
unfortunate that he did not get his maiden test century. Although the
bowling was consistently good (?), there is no excuse for the poor
batting display.

It is clear that changing the batting order is not the solution to our
performances. The opening is not any better than the series with
Australia, albeit good individual performances. Again I will open with
RR, if history is any guide RR has made most of run when he goes to the
wicket early (no excuse for his poor performance in the middle order).
Hooper will remain erratic, the closer to eleven the better. KA is
basically in the same boat as Hooper. Adams not
being able to make big scores, Lara still not showing why he is regarded as
the best with the bat. Murry is apparently out of form ie with the bat, I
think Browne might be a better (not sure about the keeping). I hope that
Kenny will be back for the next test. Will Chanderpaul get a
chance?.....will have to wait and see.

If I can recall correctly, WI batsmen hardly ever get two good score in
the same match. Can one of our statisticians substantiate? this match is
a good example.

The Emperor!

 
 
 

WI DEFEAT (Another poor batting performance)

Post by John Hal » Mon, 31 Jul 1995 04:00:00



Quote:
>Congratulations to the English team for a well deserved victory. I think
>that they played with character and determination, with most of the
>players giving their best effort. The positive thing for the English is
>that Illingworths' strategy won't be criticised for a while. The reverse
>is true for the WI.

>After day four I guess that most WI fans were hoping for the best, knowing
>that the odds were firmly in favour of England. Why? WI seldom win
>matches because of consistent batting which was required in this match.
>Once the bowlers are unable to 'humble' the opponents WI defeat is
>virtually inevitable. I was hoping that Lara might have been able to
>occupy the crease for a while but that was not to be,

87 and 140-odd that he made, wasn't it. You seem to be a hard man to
please!

Quote:
>apart from Campbell,
>the other batsmen were apparently out of the depths.  It was rather
>unfortunate that he did not get his maiden test century. Although the
>bowling was consistently good (?), there is no excuse for the poor
>batting display.

>It is clear that changing the batting order is not the solution to our
>performances. The opening is not any better than the series with
>Australia, albeit good individual performances. Again I will open with
>RR, if history is any guide RR has made most of run when he goes to the
>wicket early (no excuse for his poor performance in the middle order).
>Hooper will remain erratic, the closer to eleven the better.

If Hooper's finger *is* broken, then he could miss the next Test anyway.
Interestingly, West Indies badly missed him as a bowler in the first
England innings. The fast bowlers were bowled into the ground, and
ultimately Richardson had to call on Arthurton and Adams (admittedly,
one motivation may have been to improve the over-rate and minimise the
size of the fine WI would incur).

Quote:
> KA is
>basically in the same boat as Hooper. Adams not
>being able to make big scores, Lara still not showing why he is regarded as
>the best with the bat.

This Test suggested he may be back to his best, which is good news for
WI.

Quote:
> Murry is apparently out of form ie with the bat, I
>think Browne might be a better (not sure about the keeping). I hope that
>Kenny will be back for the next test. Will Chanderpaul get a
>chance?.....will have to wait and see.

>If I can recall correctly, WI batsmen hardly ever get two good score in
>the same match. Can one of our statisticians substantiate? this match is
>a good example.

>The Emperor!

England will have problems for the next Test if Smith's finger, hit in
the second innings, is broken, especially if Stewart is still unable to
return. Emburey did not justify his recall, and if White wasn't
Illingworth's blue-eyed boy his place would also be in doubt. Knight
probably deserves a second chance. If Smith and Stewart *are* both
unfit, I would think Hick would have to return, or otherwise the batting
would be *very* short of experience.
--
  "It's life, Jim, but not as we know it."

 
 
 

WI DEFEAT (Another poor batting performance)

Post by Jinn » Mon, 31 Jul 1995 04:00:00

Quote:

><much deleted>
>England will have problems for the next Test if Smith's finger, hit in
>the second innings, is broken...

Wait a minute!  Someone else posted that he was in the hospital overnight
for observation after being hit in the face.  Was this a double-dipper?
Ouch!  Smith's loss would be a big blow for England and those of us who
admire his courage and application against fast bowling.

Congratulations are due to England for such a rousing comeback after the
Edgbaston disaster.  Someone seems to have gotten that pitch preparation
routine figured out this time.  The game must have been competitive,
absorbing and well fought out.  England have established a pattern they
may not care to see too well established.  Get bowled for less than 100
and come back fighting like mad.  Someone should check this for me, but
it seems like since Barbados on the last WI tour, they have won all the
games subsequent to being bowled out for paltry totals.

Now that Watkinson has delivered as an off-spinner, Emburey should be
sent off into retirement and replaced with either a left-arm spinner or
Gough.  If Hick should return, as it seems likely with Smith's injury,
he could fulfil the backup spinner's role.  Or maybe the main spinner's
role with Emburey's position in the batting order???

 
 
 

WI DEFEAT (Another poor batting performance)

Post by John Hal » Tue, 01 Aug 1995 04:00:00



Quote:
>England will have problems for the next Test if Smith's finger, hit in
>the second innings, is broken,

Ooops. That's what comes of half-listening to the radio whilst on a
picnic. Of course it was Smith's cheekbone that was hit and broken, not
his finger. My apologies for the mistake.
--
  "It's life, Jim, but not as we know it."
 
 
 

WI DEFEAT (Another poor batting performance)

Post by Kenny Gre » Thu, 03 Aug 1995 04:00:00


Quote:

> Congratulations to the English team for a well deserved victory. I think
> that they played with character and determination, with most of the
> players giving their best effort. The positive thing for the English is
> that Illingworths' strategy won't be criticised for a while. The reverse
> is true for the WI.

> After day four I guess that most WI fans were hoping for the best, knowing
> that the odds were firmly in favour of England. Why? WI seldom win
> matches because of consistent batting which was required in this match.
> Once the bowlers are unable to 'humble' the opponents WI defeat is
> virtually inevitable. I was hoping that Lara might have been able to
> occupy the crease for a while but that was not to be, apart from Campbell,
> the other batsmen were apparently out of the depths.  It was rather
> unfortunate that he did not get his maiden test century. Although the
> bowling was consistently good (?), there is no excuse for the poor
> batting display.

> It is clear that changing the batting order is not the solution to our
> performances. The opening is not any better than the series with
> Australia, albeit good individual performances. Again I will open with
> RR, if history is any guide RR has made most of run when he goes to the
> wicket early (no excuse for his poor performance in the middle order).
> Hooper will remain erratic, the closer to eleven the better. KA is
> basically in the same boat as Hooper. Adams not
> being able to make big scores, Lara still not showing why he is regarded as
> the best with the bat. Murry is apparently out of form ie with the bat, I
> think Browne might be a better (not sure about the keeping). I hope that
> Kenny will be back for the next test. Will Chanderpaul get a
> chance?.....will have to wait and see.

> If I can recall correctly, WI batsmen hardly ever get two good score in
> the same match. Can one of our statisticians substantiate? this match is
> a good example.

> The Emperor!

Chanderpaul just killed the argument. He made 100 today (with 20 fours !)
against Somerset and Arthurton scored a duck. He is in. Those who complain
about him not being included need not see no *** plot to keep him out.
How many people in England realise that Lara toured with the WI in 91 ?
They never played him except for a one day match I think. Conservatism
rules with the WI selectors. Interestingly both Muray and Browne are
playing in this match and Browne is keeping in Somerset's first innings.
BTW WI scored 230 all out with Chanderpaul being the only significant
innings besdes 33 fro Richie. I think the keeper's are basically being
told make your claim for the spot.

--
The problem with the rat race is that even if you win you're still a rat.

 
 
 

WI DEFEAT (Another poor batting performance)

Post by Kurt Tools » Fri, 04 Aug 1995 04:00:00


Quote:

>Chanderpaul just killed the argument. He made 100 today (with 20 fours !)
>against Somerset and Arthurton scored a duck. He is in. Those who complain
>about him not being included need not see no *** plot to keep him out.
>How many people in England realise that Lara toured with the WI in 91 ?
>They never played him except for a one day match I think. Conservatism
>rules with the WI selectors. Interestingly both Muray and Browne are
>playing in this match and Browne is keeping in Somerset's first innings.
>BTW WI scored 230 all out with Chanderpaul being the only significant
>innings besdes 33 fro Richie. I think the keeper's are basically being
>told make your claim for the spot.

>--
>The problem with the rat race is that even if you win you're still a rat.

Hi Kenny, I do hope that you are correct about Chanderpaul being in the team.
I did state that I would probably keep Arthurton. However, I was
basing that on the fact that he seemed to be outscoring Chanderpaul in the
games against the counties. Even when Chanderpaul did get a ton, Arthurton
seemed to get one also. This is the first time that Chanderpaul has made such
a powerful case for inclusion. Also I did notice yesterday, that he is topping
the Windies averages, for the tour as a whole.

I am a believer in making people, on the fringe of selection, present their case
by performing well in the non-Test matches. Chanderpaul has now done this, and we
will probably see him in for the next Test.

That still leaves the problem of a second opener. I thought the ploy of using
Hooper was a good one, but he has since gone "off the boil" without contributing
in the Tests. I guess, it is time to bring back Williams.

I would stick with Murray as I think he is better with both glove and bat.
Besides, I like the name. The choice of the fourth bowler is the ***e.
If the wicket is going to be dry then the Windies may be forced to play
Dhanraj. I would resist the temptation, and go with sheer pace.

looking forward to the fifth Test.

Kurt
---
These views are mine, I tell you... mine, all mine!


 
 
 

WI DEFEAT (Another poor batting performance)

Post by Mike Holman » Fri, 04 Aug 1995 04:00:00

<snip>

Quote:
> Chanderpaul has now done this, and we
>will probably see him in for the next Test.

>That still leaves the problem of a second opener. <snip>
> I guess, it is time to bring back Williams.

>Kurt
>---

Forgive me for intruding on the WI selection debate, but why not use
Chanderpaul as the other opener? He's obviously got obdurate technique,
he sticks there, he's difficult to get out, and he's got some good shots
as well.

Williams may be a specialist opener, but he's had a woeful tour, and he
failed against Oz.

In cricket,

Mike

 
 
 

WI DEFEAT (Another poor batting performance)

Post by Kurt Tools » Fri, 04 Aug 1995 04:00:00


Quote:

><snip>
>> Chanderpaul has now done this, and we
>>will probably see him in for the next Test.

>>That still leaves the problem of a second opener. <snip>
>> I guess, it is time to bring back Williams.

>>Kurt
>>---

>Forgive me for intruding on the WI selection debate, but why not use
>Chanderpaul as the other opener? He's obviously got obdurate technique,
>he sticks there, he's difficult to get out, and he's got some good shots
>as well.

>Williams may be a specialist opener, but he's had a woeful tour, and he
>failed against Oz.

>In cricket,

>Mike

Intrude all you wish. I'm sure you can't do a worse job of picking
the team than the selectors. Seriously though, I really do not feel
that the selectors have been doing a bad job (the Haynes incident
aside). They have been somewhat conservative in making changes, but
this is far preferable to the English approach of throwing the "baby
out with the bathwater". My only complaint with the selectors is the
lack of respect with which they treat senior players, nearing the end
of their career.

Your suggestion is one of much merit. My only hesitation, would be,
having witnessed the failure of Hooper, to open with another
non-specialist. Granted, Chanderpaul's temparament does seem
eminently more suited to the task. In addition, Williams
has been an abject failure in his prior Tests. It's a tough call,
but I would go for Williams as the opener, and have Shiv anchor the
equally fragile middle order (replacing Hooper and Arthurton,
respectively).

Kurt

---

 
 
 

WI DEFEAT (Another poor batting performance)

Post by Phil Felt » Sat, 05 Aug 1995 04:00:00


Quote:


> <snip>
> > Chanderpaul has now done this, and we
> >will probably see him in for the next Test.

> >That still leaves the problem of a second opener. <snip>
> > I guess, it is time to bring back Williams.
> >Kurt
> Forgive me for intruding on the WI selection debate, but why not use
> Chanderpaul as the other opener? He's obviously got obdurate technique,
> he sticks there, he's difficult to get out, and he's got some good shots
> as well.
> Williams may be a specialist opener, but he's had a woeful tour, and he
> failed against Oz.

It seems like the WI selection is going to be who's fit plays following the
injury to Adams and Hooper?

Phil.