WI DEFEAT (Another poor batting performance)

WI DEFEAT (Another poor batting performance)

Post by Alexis Nathaniel Hobs » Tue, 01 Aug 1995 04:00:00


(Excuse my earlier repost)

WI latest defeat confirms the fact that our batsmen are unable to win a
match. Once the opposition gets a big score in their first innings a WI
victory becomes a daunting tasks. But then can we be surprised when the
middle order continues it's pathetic display and the selectors are
apparently afraid to make the necessary changes. However, while it is
good that Lara got a ton it might have been too little to late, given the
current circumstances. In short, WI problems rest with the batsmen.

S Campbell: Has done well thus far on the tour and often plays with more
maturity than his chronological superiors.

C Hooper: What can one say except that his injury might be a blessing in
disguise. IMO, since he has to play (once fit) he should be the official
#6 batsman. WI can either invest in Williams or ship him home and give
another player a chance, most likely R Samuels (Jamaica). Hooper has not
justified his often unjustified place in the WI team.

B Lara: Usually, gets a good score but so far has been unable to win a
match for the Indies. His good performance in the 4th test may be a sign
of things to come.

J Adams: His illustrious average supersedes his recent performance. IMO,
he is a bit overrated and need to score runs against challenging bowlers.
When he batted at six many argued for him to bat at #4, now that he bats
at number four he simply has fewer not outs.

R. Richardson: Has seen better days, with 16 centuries under his belt he
may  be able to recover from his dispair. IMO, he might have to open and
lead from the front rather than hiding down the order where he always bat
when his team is already in trouble.

K Arthurton: Has obviously over stayed his welcome and most likely be
replaced by Chanders in the fifth test. However, if Hoopers' injury keeps
him out the selectors will want to persist with him. However, Hooper
aside, I doubt if there is a more careless batsman. It is hard to believe
that KA is a make shift opener.

J Murry: He is obviously out of touch with his batting. However, in an
era where good keepers are scarce I doubt if he will be replaced in the
near future. Maybe C Browne can hope for an injury before the start of
the 5th test.

The bowlers are generally more consistent than the batsmen.

The Emperor!

 
 
 

WI DEFEAT (Another poor batting performance)

Post by Hamish La » Wed, 02 Aug 1995 04:00:00


Quote:
>B Lara: Usually, gets a good score but so far has been unable to win a
>match for the Indies. His good performance in the 4th test may be a sign
>of things to come.

There is only so much one batsman can do. If there isn't enough support anyone
will struggle to win a match by themselves. I mean Lara's lowest series
average ever is in the mid 30's which isn't too bad, against Aus he still
averaged 40 and it didin't have one big score to drag it up. He does typically
seem to struggle to get to 100 from 50 but once he gets there look out, if he
can get over the hurdle of the 50's not being converted he'll go down as one
of the top few bats ever, he's so far probably just outside the 2nd tier of
greats.

 
 
 

WI DEFEAT (Another poor batting performance)

Post by Alexis Nathaniel Hobs » Wed, 02 Aug 1995 04:00:00

X-Newsreader: Turnpike Version 1.06 <TuylwEmRMlayUwDKpXQPgeINHk>



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.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your comments are relevant and appreciated, unfortunately this was an
accidental re-post from the close of the second test.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 Kenny Gre » Sat, 05 Aug 1995 04:00:00


Quote:

> (Excuse my earlier repost)

> WI latest defeat confirms the fact that our batsmen are unable to win a
> match. Once the opposition gets a big score in their first innings a WI
> victory becomes a daunting tasks. But then can we be surprised when the
> middle order continues it's pathetic display and the selectors are
> apparently afraid to make the necessary changes. However, while it is
> good that Lara got a ton it might have been too little to late, given the
> current circumstances. In short, WI problems rest with the batsmen.

> S Campbell: Has done well thus far on the tour and often plays with more
> maturity than his chronological superiors.

> C Hooper: What can one say except that his injury might be a blessing in
> disguise. IMO, since he has to play (once fit) he should be the official
> #6 batsman. WI can either invest in Williams or ship him home and give
> another player a chance, most likely R Samuels (Jamaica). Hooper has not
> justified his often unjustified place in the WI team.

Funnily enough WI have announced that they have patched up things with Des
Haynes and that he is first reserve for any batting injuries.

Quote:
> B Lara: Usually, gets a good score but so far has been unable to win a
> match for the Indies. His good performance in the 4th test may be a sign
> of things to come.

> J Adams: His illustrious average supersedes his recent performance. IMO,
> he is a bit overrated and need to score runs against challenging bowlers.
> When he batted at six many argued for him to bat at #4, now that he bats
> at number four he simply has fewer not outs.

Adams is showing classic cases of exhaustion in the ways that he gets out.
The first innings dismissal at Old Trafford though he could not avoid. His
injury now puts him out of the series.

Quote:
> R. Richardson: Has seen better days, with 16 centuries under his belt he
> may  be able to recover from his dispair. IMO, he might have to open and
> lead from the front rather than hiding down the order where he always bat
> when his team is already in trouble.

Richardson is a number four. Whether he needs the captaincy is another
point though.

Quote:
> K Arthurton: Has obviously over stayed his welcome and most likely be
> replaced by Chanders in the fifth test. However, if Hoopers' injury keeps
> him out the selectors will want to persist with him. However, Hooper
> aside, I doubt if there is a more careless batsman. It is hard to believe
> that KA is a make shift opener.

Adams injury might earn him a reprieve. This is near to the end of his career.

Quote:

> J Murry: He is obviously out of touch with his batting. However, in an
> era where good keepers are scarce I doubt if he will be replaced in the
> near future. Maybe C Browne can hope for an injury before the start of
> the 5th test.

Conservatism will keep him in for now.
Quote:

> The bowlers are generally more consistent than the batsmen.

Always have been, thank God. However, the shift may come soon when we need
our batsmen to start dominating opposition attacks rather than expecting
the bowlers to pull us out of every hole they dig.

Quote:
> The Emperor!

--
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 Alexis Nathaniel Hobs » Mon, 07 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.

>(deleted)

> 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.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree with the first part of the argument. However, I think that WI
selectors are trying too much where it is not needed. Back in the
Caribbean both Williams and Campbell failed in the first test, Campbell
was dropped and Richie was put to open. IMO, it was not a case where the
openers alone failed but virtually the whole team. KA was included ahead
of Chanderpaul and Holder to hopefully stabilise the middle order. The
strategy failed miserably.

In England Hooper was promoted to open. I doubt if anybody is surprised
that Hooper also failed as an opener. What the selectors must realise is
that that playing the chronologically senior players is no solution to
our batting woes. While Williams has failed thus far, I think that he might
have been an investment for the future. The alternative would have been
to send home Williams and allow Samuels to open with Campbell. The case
for Chanderpaul has been made several times before. In short, established
players with a history of mediocrity cannot rejuvenate WI batting,
conversely, there is hope yet for 'untested' players.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Emperor!

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 Stephen Devau » Tue, 08 Aug 1995 04:00:00


Quote:
(Alexis Nathaniel Hobson) writes:

>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.

Hm.  I think this was written a while ago, but it only just reached me
with a date of Aug 6.  However,..

Lara toured in '91, and would undoubtedly have played since WI actually
had to send for an additional batsman (Clayton Lambert) during the
tour.  Lara was hurt just at the point at which he would have moved
into the side (I believe before the tour was half over).  Doesn't alter
your point, just your example...

Quote:
>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.
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
------
>I agree with the first part of the argument. However, I think that WI
>selectors are trying too much where it is not needed. Back in the
>Caribbean both Williams and Campbell failed in the first test,
Campbell
>was dropped and Richie was put to open. IMO, it was not a case where
the
>openers alone failed but virtually the whole team. KA was included
ahead
>of Chanderpaul and Holder to hopefully stabilise the middle order. The
>strategy failed miserably.

>In England Hooper was promoted to open. I doubt if anybody is
surprised
>that Hooper also failed as an opener. What the selectors must realise
is
>that that playing the chronologically senior players is no solution to
>our batting woes. While Williams has failed thus far, I think that he
might
>have been an investment for the future. The alternative would have
been
>to send home Williams and allow Samuels to open with Campbell. The
case
>for Chanderpaul has been made several times before. In short,
established
>players with a history of mediocrity cannot rejuvenate WI batting,
>conversely, there is hope yet for 'untested' players.

There are two additional problems.

1.  An insistence on selecting players with significant technical
flaws, viz. Sim***s and Nureyev Williams.  The latter's footwork is
glaringly bad.  In Kingston earlier this year, Clive Lloyd told Chico
Khan and myself that he could not believe that a player could reach
that level without such a flaw being noted and either corrected or the
player not selected.

2.  An insistence on sticking with players who ain't doing it.  The
formula seems to be:

1.  GLARING TECHNICAL FLAW:  10 - 25 Tests if average approaches 20 -
25. (Sim***s, Nureyev)

2.  NO GLARING FLAW (lack of concentration or patience, a flaw as
stubborn as any technical error):  30 - 60 Tests if average hovers
around 30.  (Hooper, Arthurton)

Fraternally in cricket,

Steve the Bajan

 
 
 

WI DEFEAT (Another poor batting performance)

Post by Joshua Saunde » Sun, 13 Aug 1995 04:00:00


: (Alexis Nathaniel Hobson) writes:
: >
: >
: >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.

: Lara toured in '91, and would undoubtedly have played since WI actually
: had to send for an additional batsman (Clayton Lambert) during the
: tour.  Lara was hurt just at the point at which he would have moved
: into the side (I believe before the tour was half over).  Doesn't alter
: your point, just your example...

Going even further on the same point, and the same example, Lara was 12th
man for all 5 Tests when Australia played WI 90/1. Perhaps Qadir was some
use after all :-)

(Qadir for the uninitiated, got Lara on debut for not much, just before
the Aus series, which was itself just before teh England v WI series)

Josh
--

The Bachelor's Guide to the Internet #1. There is no point getting off the
modem to ring your gf. She just wants to harangue you for spending so
much time on the 'Net.
IRCnick: rogan                                                          

 
 
 

WI DEFEAT (Another poor batting performance)

Post by Sadiq Yus » Wed, 16 Aug 1995 04:00:00


Quote:

>Going even further on the same point, and the same example, Lara was 12th
>man for all 5 Tests when Australia played WI 90/1. Perhaps Qadir was some
>use after all :-)

>(Qadir for the uninitiated, got Lara on debut for not much, just before
>the Aus series, which was itself just before teh England v WI series)

        The match was played on a minefield, at Lahore - Lara was making
his debut, as you say. He came in with the score at 37/3 - Greenidge 21,
Haynes 3 and Richie 5 the batsmen out. He scored a very polished 44,
putting on 95 runs with the much maligned Hooper (who got 134 - more
than twice what anyone else got in the match). Qadir did get Lara,
though. However, when one takes into account the fact that those 44 runs
were the 2nd highest scored by any batsman on either side in the first
innings, one cant really say it "wasnt much" :-) (Pakistan replied to
the WI's 294 by scoring 122 all out).

        The scores of the first 6 batsmen on either side in the first
innings :
Greenidge 21
Haynes 3
Richie 5
Lara 44
Hooper 134
Logie 16

Aamer Malik 3
Shoaib 0
Zahid Fazal 13
Rameez Raja 6
Salim Malik 8
Imran Khan 17

                Sadiq [ Hooper is King :-) ] Yusuf

Quote:
>Josh
>--

>The Bachelor's Guide to the Internet #1. There is no point getting off the
>modem to ring your gf. She just wants to harangue you for spending so
>much time on the 'Net.
>IRCnick: rogan                                                              

--
Sadiq Yusuf

 
 
 

WI DEFEAT (Another poor batting performance)

Post by Astorre Isaiah Moden » Wed, 16 Aug 1995 04:00:00


Quote:

>There is only so much one batsman can do. If there isn't enough support anyone
>will struggle to win a match by themselves. I mean Lara's lowest series
>average ever is in the mid 30's which isn't too bad, against Aus he still
>averaged 40 and it didin't have one big score to drag it up. He does typically
>seem to struggle to get to 100 from 50 but once he gets there look out, if he
>can get over the hurdle of the 50's not being converted he'll go down as one
>of the top few bats ever, he's so far probably just outside the 2nd tier of
>greats.

2nd tier of greats, that's a bit harsh...
Do you have to wait until he's compiled a careers worth of runs and
averages before you can make a judgement on a player (and beleive you me,
if he stays fit he's gonna post some pretty big numbers before he quits).
Wathching his century in this last test (Trent Bridge) was a delight, he
has such an incredible sweep of the bat, backlift and follow through,
right from the first ball he faces, it is the kind of thing you just
wouldnt teach someone to do unless they're playing an attacking shot (and
you wouldnt teach someone to attack from the first ball of a test match).
And the incredible thing was even with the incredible backlift his timing
never seems to be affected by the pace of the pitch. TB had one of the
slowest test match pitches I've ever seen (poor old Courteny Walsh could
barely get his bouncers to carry to the keeper, never mind get head
height) and yet BL seemed "in" from the first ball he faced.
And anyway the guy has world record test match (375) and 1st class
innings (501) already, no matter how poor the opposition, isnt that good
enough for you to consider him a little above 2nd tier....

PS OK so he didnt score a century against Aus but if I remember rightly
he was well on the way in the first test until Steve Waugh did something
(for the sake of not being flamed, cant quite remember what)....

 
 
 

WI DEFEAT (Another poor batting performance)

Post by Hamish La » Fri, 18 Aug 1995 04:00:00


Quote:

>Subject: Re: WI DEFEAT (Another poor batting performance)
>Date: 15 Aug 1995 17:57:11 GMT
>2nd tier of greats, that's a bit harsh...

1st Tier of greats is BRADMAN
2nd tier is (summarised) Hobbs, Sutcliffe, Hammond, Sobers, Pollock, ........

Quote:
>Do you have to wait until he's compiled a careers worth of runs and
>averages before you can make a judgement on a player (and beleive you me,
>if he stays fit he's gonna post some pretty big numbers before he quits).

I agree that he should but he has to learn not to get himself out so often. I
saw a lot of the Aus tour of the windies and I did not see him beaten by the
bowlers _once_. Everyone stuffs up occaisionally but he was getting himself
out too often when he was in control to be a truly great bat.

Quote:
>Wathching his century in this last test (Trent Bridge) was a delight, he
>has such an incredible sweep of the bat, backlift and follow through,
>right from the first ball he faces, it is the kind of thing you just
>wouldnt teach someone to do unless they're playing an attacking shot (and
>you wouldnt teach someone to attack from the first ball of a test match).
>And the incredible thing was even with the incredible backlift his timing
>never seems to be affected by the pace of the pitch.

I rate Lara as the best bat to watch I have seen in test cricket. The best bat
to watch that I have ever seen was Greame Pollock who played in a testimonial
match for Dean Jones (I think) about a year ago and was just sheer magic to
watch. However if looking good was the criteria for a great bat then Hooper
and Dipak Patel would be up there as well.

Quote:
> TB had one of the
>slowest test match pitches I've ever seen (poor old Courteny Walsh could
>barely get his bouncers to carry to the keeper, never mind get head
>height) and yet BL seemed "in" from the first ball he faced.
>And anyway the guy has world record test match (375) and 1st class
>innings (501) already, no matter how poor the opposition, isnt that good
>enough for you to consider him a little above 2nd tier....

Lara has the potential and the ability to be in the top couple of bats of all
time but he needs to stop getting himself out so often. If he does that he
will produce the results to justify his place in the 2nd tier and may create a
tier 1.5

Quote:
>PS OK so he didnt score a century against Aus but if I remember rightly
>he was well on the way in the first test until Steve Waugh did something
>(for the sake of not being flamed, cant quite remember what)....

He scored a lot of 50s and failed to convert one of them, not good enough.
 
 
 

WI DEFEAT (Another poor batting performance)

Post by Hamish La » Fri, 18 Aug 1995 04:00:00

Quote:


>>Going even further on the same point, and the same example, Lara was 12th
>>man for all 5 Tests when Australia played WI 90/1. Perhaps Qadir was some
>>use after all :-)

If I recall what was said correctly, and if they got it right what cost Lara
his place was that in one warm-up match for the Aussies he came in to face
Peter Taylor and went down the pitch and drove the first ball for 4, and the
second and then was stumped for 8 in 3 balls.
Probably a case can be made that Taylor won any matches that we got in the
series for Australia with that over.
 
 
 

WI DEFEAT (Another poor batting performance)

Post by Mike Holman » Fri, 18 Aug 1995 04:00:00


Quote:


>>There is only so much one batsman can do. If there isn't enough support anyone
>>will struggle to win a match by themselves. I mean Lara's lowest series
>>average ever is in the mid 30's which isn't too bad, against Aus he still
>>averaged 40 and it didin't have one big score to drag it up. He does typically
>>seem to struggle to get to 100 from 50 but once he gets there look out, if he
>>can get over the hurdle of the 50's not being converted he'll go down as one
>>of the top few bats ever, he's so far probably just outside the 2nd tier of
>>greats.

>2nd tier of greats, that's a bit harsh...

You have to remember that Hamish's hierarchy is one of these peculiar
Australian things which says that the first tier of greats consists of
Bradman and nothing else.

Not being old enough to have seen Bradman, I can't comment, but Lara is
certainly the best batsman I have ever seen.

No doubt a good run against England will not convince any Aussie of his
quality, really, and neither will WI's next two Tests v NZ. Come the end
of the WI tour of Oz in 1996-7, there might be a more solid case either
way.

Mike

 
 
 

WI DEFEAT (Another poor batting performance)

Post by Andy McPhe » Fri, 18 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.

> >(deleted)

> > 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.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> I agree with the first part of the argument. However, I think that WI
> selectors are trying too much where it is not needed. Back in the
> Caribbean both Williams and Campbell failed in the first test, Campbell
> was dropped and Richie was put to open. IMO, it was not a case where the
> openers alone failed but virtually the whole team. KA was included ahead
> of Chanderpaul and Holder to hopefully stabilise the middle order. The
> strategy failed miserably.

> In England Hooper was promoted to open. I doubt if anybody is surprised
> that Hooper also failed as an opener. What the selectors must realise is
> that that playing the chronologically senior players is no solution to
> our batting woes. While Williams has failed thus far, I think that he might
> have been an investment for the future. The alternative would have been
> to send home Williams and allow Samuels to open with Campbell. The case
> for Chanderpaul has been made several times before. In short, established
> players with a history of mediocrity cannot rejuvenate WI batting,
> conversely, there is hope yet for 'untested' players.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> The Emperor!

> 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 Hamish La » Sun, 20 Aug 1995 04:00:00


Quote:
>You have to remember that Hamish's hierarchy is one of these peculiar
>Australian things which says that the first tier of greats consists of
>Bradman and nothing else.

Hey it's mine all mine. Many australians seem to have forgotten him entirely.

Quote:
>Not being old enough to have seen Bradman, I can't comment, but Lara is
>certainly the best batsman I have ever seen.

Lara has the most potential of any batsman I've ever seen as well. I watched
just about every ball of his 277 in Sydney a few years ago despite the fact
that it was in the middle of exams. Actually Hooper looks similarly good but
he doesn't manage to do it for long, the best partnership to watch that I've
ever seen (apart from Edmonds & Embury in 85 when they put on 100 or so for
the last wicket) was Hooper and Lara in the first test of the Aus tour of the
windies. They had Warne so frightened that his first ball pitched about a
metre outside leg stump, and Hooper still hit it for 4.

Quote:
>No doubt a good run against England will not convince any Aussie of his
>quality, really, and neither will WI's next two Tests v NZ. Come the end
>of the WI tour of Oz in 1996-7, there might be a more solid case either
>way.

I don't think that he can be called an all time great until he akes bowlers
work to get him out rather than always giving away his wicket. He's an
aggressive batsman and so will always get himself out occaisionally and I want
to see him keep attacking but he's at the stage where he doesn't make the
bowlers work enough.
Quote:
>Mike

 
 
 

WI DEFEAT (Another poor batting performance)

Post by Harish Chandramou » Sun, 20 Aug 1995 04:00:00

[...]

HL> Lara has the most potential of any batsman I've ever seen as well. I
HL> watched just about every ball of his 277 in Sydney a few years ago
HL> despite the fact that it was in the middle of exams. Actually Hooper
HL> looks similarly good but he doesn't manage to do it for long, the
HL> best partnership to watch that I've ever seen (apart from Edmonds &
HL> Embury in 85 when they put on 100 or so for the last wicket) was
HL> Hooper and Lara in the first test of the Aus tour of the windies.

HL> They had Warne so frightened that his first ball pitched about a
HL> metre outside leg stump, and Hooper still hit it for 4.

Heh, was it THAT bad Hamish ? :-) Well Josh - what does thou say now ?
Surely not the standard, 'he was just out of form' I hope  ? :-)

Cheers,
Harish[who can't wait till the Ozzies tour India]