Hinds 165

Hinds 165

Post by Kurt » Tue, 23 May 2000 04:00:00


Quote:

> Amazing stuff from Hinds considering he was the first person I would have
> dropped upon Lara's return.  Now it looks like Chanderpaul may have to take
> a backseat, leaving no room for Gayle or Powell (althought Powell, in a
> horrendous oversight, was left out of the test touring team).  So come
> England, at this point my team would have to consist of...

> Campbell, Griffith, Hinds, Lara, Sarwan, Adams, Jacobs, Rose, Ambrose, King,
> Walsh.

> The moment Griffith slips, he slides.  Chanders back in, Hinds to open.

Hinds probably has cemented his place for the first
2 Tests against England at least. We really do have some
fierce competition for the batting slots. The only place
Gayle can get a spot would probably be as opener, replacing
Griffith. Sarwan and Chanderpaul will have to compete for
the lower-order spot. Really going on batting ability alone,
the man who should make way is Adams, which was why I was
opposed to his selection as captaincy. Though I must be the
first to say that he has done a great job as skipper.

Kurt

 
 
 

Hinds 165

Post by Araw » Wed, 24 May 2000 04:00:00


Quote:
>> Amazing stuff from Hinds considering he was the first person I would
>> have dropped upon Lara's return.  Now it looks like Chanderpaul may have
>> to take a backseat, leaving no room for Gayle or Powell (althought
>> Powell, in a horrendous oversight, was left out of the test touring
>> team).  So come England, at this point my team would have to consist
>> of...

>> Campbell, Griffith, Hinds, Lara, Sarwan, Adams, Jacobs, Rose, Ambrose,
>> King, Walsh.

>> The moment Griffith slips, he slides.  Chanders back in, Hinds to open.
>Hinds probably has cemented his place for the first
>2 Tests against England at least. We really do have some
>fierce competition for the batting slots. The only place

Fantastic! That's what we need, plus proof that the selectors will drop a
senior player in poor form for a new player in good form.

I think Grrr should get one more chance to prove that he can bat under
pressure, and if he fails then drop him from the England squad.

Quote:
>Gayle can get a spot would probably be as opener, replacing
>Griffith. Sarwan and Chanderpaul will have to compete for
>the lower-order spot. Really going on batting ability alone,
>the man who should make way is Adams, which was why I was
>opposed to his selection as captaincy. Though I must be the
>first to say that he has done a great job as skipper.

I guess I have to defend Jimmy again.

I think his batting has not let him down, and with the continued lack of
interest in a spinner in the side his bowling has become most important.
Granted, we haven't seen a Test century from Jimmy in er... three innings,
but 34 not out right after 3 or 4 quick wickets is a respectable score, and
it could be argued that his first innings poor score was due to a poor
decision, not bad batting.

I support the idea of dropping him for a better batsman (Sherwin or Ridley
[who may soon lose automatic selection status] could captain), but I think
Griffith and Chanderpaul are higher on the axe list than him at the moment.

Arawak
------------------------------------------------------------------
Visit London Cricket Club's website at http://www.arawak.on.ca/lcc

 
 
 

Hinds 165

Post by Kurt » Wed, 24 May 2000 04:00:00

Quote:

> >Hinds probably has cemented his place for the first
> >2 Tests against England at least. We really do have some
> >fierce competition for the batting slots. The only place

> Fantastic! That's what we need, plus proof that the selectors will drop a
> senior player in poor form for a new player in good form.

Somehow I doubt that will happen. They did not drop either Adams
or Chanderpaul when both had the most dreadful of runs. If they
stick with this policy then Sarwan may well miss out in England
despite the fact that I have already appointed him as FWIC.

Quote:
> I think Grrr should get one more chance to prove that he can bat under
> pressure, and if he fails then drop him from the England squad.

Well, I stuck up for Mclean after the first Test
(though I can no longer defend him after this latest
performance) so I guess I'll do the same for Griffith:
Adrian was really quite unlucky in both innings. In the
first he got a ball just outside leg which he glanced
delicately. Only problem it was just a shade too
delicate  and Moin took a great catch down the legside.
In the second  knock, with the WI giving the impression
that they were actually going for the target he was
adjudged out lbw to a ball that looked to be going
over the stumps. Unfortunate for Griffith though it did
at least have the beneficial result of making that
Kashif fellow look like an absolute idiot.

Quote:
> >Gayle can get a spot would probably be as opener, replacing
> >Griffith. Sarwan and Chanderpaul will have to compete for
> >the lower-order spot. Really going on batting ability alone,
> >the man who should make way is Adams, which was why I was
> >opposed to his selection as captaincy. Though I must be the
> >first to say that he has done a great job as skipper.

> I guess I have to defend Jimmy again.

> I think his batting has not let him down, and with the continued lack of
> interest in a spinner in the side his bowling has become most important.
> Granted, we haven't seen a Test century from Jimmy in er... three innings,
> but 34 not out right after 3 or 4 quick wickets is a respectable score, and
> it could be argued that his first innings poor score was due to a poor
> decision, not bad batting.

Well I did say that "based on batting ability alone" which
precludes consideration of his (most admirable IMO) spinning
qualities. It will take more than his recent ton against a
Streakless Zim, which was put in perspective by the recent
scores at Lords, to convince me that Adams is still a decent
Test bat. You are probably right though that, this season at
least, he has probably done better than Chanderpaul.

Quote:
> I support the idea of dropping him for a better batsman (Sherwin or Ridley
> [who may soon lose automatic selection status] could captain), but I think
> Griffith and Chanderpaul are higher on the axe list than him at the moment.

You're probably right. However, unless Adams is willing to open
he can hardly be preffered to Griffith. I've got no problem with
Adams as skipper for the England tour and really do not want to
see Lara back as skipper but I wonder whether the WI batting can
carry a non-contributing skipper against Australia in 6 months
time.

Kurt

- Show quoted text -

Quote:

> Arawak
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Visit London Cricket Club's website at http://www.arawak.on.ca/lcc


 
 
 

Hinds 165

Post by Mike Holma » Thu, 25 May 2000 04:00:00


decided to opine:

Quote:

[Adams]
>> I support the idea of dropping him for a better batsman (Sherwin or Ridley
>> [who may soon lose automatic selection status] could captain), but I think
>> Griffith and Chanderpaul are higher on the axe list than him at the moment.

>You're probably right. However, unless Adams is willing to open
>he can hardly be preffered to Griffith. I've got no problem with
>Adams as skipper for the England tour and really do not want to
>see Lara back as skipper but I wonder whether the WI batting can
>carry a non-contributing skipper against Australia in 6 months
>time.

I would wonder, though, whether WI's recovery from its recent depths
would be helped or hindered by going to Australia and getting hammered
under a new, young captain.

For obvious reasons, I hope that the WI relaunch stalls on the runway
over the next couple of months because the unstoppable England
juggernaut has finally revved up to take on all-comers. But, assuming
that doesn't quite happen, it's still a stretch to believe that WI
have an awful lot of chance in Oz this winter.

You can't rely on Lara to dispense fatherly advice, assuming he even
tours, so the value of Adams as skipper would be found most in his
keeping the team spirit going. His performance so far seems to have
had the desired effect. I've seen several WI fans talk about how the
side actually looked like a *team* again against Zimbabwe, and giving
credit to Adams for that. I'd say the same about Hussain's effect on
England, who also looked like a *team* against Zimbabwe last week,
rather than a loose collection of vaguely talented players.

Hinds and Sarwan, King and Dillon, Powell, Ganga, Gayle and so on are
obviously the nucleus of the side for some years to come, and the last
thing they need is to be reduced to a disorganised rabble by a
succession of beatings in Australia: a steady hand at the helm now may
be worth an awful lot more for the future than thirty or forty extra
runs a match.

Cheers,

Mike
--

Supporting the World's Second Worst Test Team (According To The Ratings)

 
 
 

Hinds 165

Post by Araw » Thu, 25 May 2000 04:00:00


Quote:
>stick with this policy then Sarwan may well miss out in England
>despite the fact that I have already appointed him as FWIC.

Future West Indies captain? (took me a while)

Maybe. I had said the same for Shiv, but now think that if it happens, it
will be short lived.

My money's on Hinds if he continues to bat in his aggressive mode (that guy
is two totally different batsmen!). Not that I am advocating that (although
he does play for my grandfather's club in Jamaica!), but I expect that a
flamboyant batsmen will get greater consideration.

As far as that goes, I think a batsman in the style Sarwan showed in
Bridgetown is more appropriate for the captaincy. As you pointed out
privately, Adams captains the way he bats, and so by extrapolation I'd say
that a captain who approaches the game the way Sarwan did his batting is what
I want to see in a skipper.

Quote:
>Adrian was really quite unlucky in both innings. In the
>first he got a ball just outside leg which he glanced
>delicately. Only problem it was just a shade too
>delicate  and Moin took a great catch down the legside.
>In the second  knock, with the WI giving the impression
>that they were actually going for the target he was
>adjudged out lbw to a ball that looked to be going
>over the stumps. Unfortunate for Griffith though it did

Okay... I guess if I can excuse Jimmy that way you can similiarly excuse
Grrr.

Quote:
>at least have the beneficial result of making that
>Kashif fellow look like an absolute idiot.

Well, yes... there is that.

Quote:
>You're probably right. However, unless Adams is willing to open
>he can hardly be preffered to Griffith. I've got no problem with

At the risk of joining the Bajan as a stats rat, so far this year:

Griffith
0,0,6,54*,34,4,5 (avg 17.17)

Adams
17,27,101*,x,20,8,34* (avg 51.75)

Granted, an opener cannot be expected to have the same average as a middle
order batsman, however the disparity is simply too great. If you remove
Adams' (match winning yet Streakless) 101*, and therefore Griffith's
(pressureless and Streakless) 54*, you get a more realistic portrayal of each
batsman's current form (35.33 and 8.17) respectively.

I'd have to say that as a batsman Griffith can hardly be preferred to Rose,
let alone Adams.

Still, I want to give him one more chance against Pakistan to show that he
can deliver the goods before I'm forced to remove him from the touring side
for England. <grin>

Quote:
>Adams as skipper for the England tour and really do not want to
>see Lara back as skipper but I wonder whether the WI batting can
>carry a non-contributing skipper against Australia in 6 months
>time.

Well, I think that having a non-contributing skipper and a non-contributing
keeper would be disaster. Hopefully Ridley will regain some form by then. But
I don't think at this stage it is fair to call Adams a non-contributor. Under
contributor compared to other batsmen in the side, perhaps.

England will really show whether he has improved his batting enough for
Australia. That said, batting in English mist and fog against a bunch of
trundlers is no comparison to facing the best in the world on a normal pitch.
(Here Mikey, mikey...)

Arawak
------------------------------------------------------------------
Visit London Cricket Club's website at http://www.arawak.on.ca/lcc

 
 
 

Hinds 165

Post by Araw » Thu, 25 May 2000 04:00:00



Quote:
>For obvious reasons, I hope that the WI relaunch stalls on the runway
>over the next couple of months because the unstoppable England
>juggernaut has finally revved up to take on all-comers. But, assuming

"Unstoppable England juggernaut" - now there's a combination of words you
don't see very often, especially in cricket or football fora (American:
forums).

Quote:
>that doesn't quite happen, it's still a stretch to believe that WI
>have an awful lot of chance in Oz this winter.

I assume it's a 5 Test series, and I expect 4-1 Australia, with the good guys
(West Indies of course!) winning at the WACA. I'd be disappointed with a
whitewash, and happy with anything better than 4-1.

Or course, you have to realise that WI are the underdogs and they and the
rest of the world know it. They haven't that much to lose. Australia on the
other hand will be under tremendous pressure to win so that may help the good
guys out too. Obviously the entrie world outside of Oz will be cheering the
West Indies on too....

Arawak
------------------------------------------------------------------
Visit London Cricket Club's website at http://www.arawak.on.ca/lcc

 
 
 

Hinds 165

Post by Stephen Devau » Thu, 25 May 2000 04:00:00

Quote:

> I think Grrr should get one more chance to prove that he can bat under
> pressure, and if he fails then drop him from the England squad.

Well, as much as I think the policy of selecting the England squad so
early was assinine, I doubt we'll see a change in it.  That means that
both Griffith and Gayle are assured of touring, while Ganga is left out
(what's *with* all these "G" openers?)

If that were not the case, I'd give Griffith the Antigua Test, and if he
fails there replace him with Ganga.  But as Griffith's place is assured,
and he is in poor nick, I think I'd drop him for Antigua and give Gayle
a shot opening with Campbell.

If we *had* to make room right now for Lara in the middle order, I'd
make Chanders open with Campbell and then have Hinds, Lara, sarwan,
Adams.

And what's going on with the backup keeper slot for England, anyway?
Anyone heard anything?

Fraternally in cricket,

Steve the Bajan  
--
http://www.totalprojectcontrol.com/

 
 
 

Hinds 165

Post by Kurt » Thu, 25 May 2000 04:00:00

Quote:

> Hinds and Sarwan, King and Dillon, Powell, Ganga, Gayle and so on are
> obviously the nucleus of the side for some years to come, and the last
> thing they need is to be reduced to a disorganised rabble by a
> succession of beatings in Australia: a steady hand at the helm now may
> be worth an awful lot more for the future than thirty or forty extra
> runs a match.

... and the question is whether we would be more likely to suffer
a "succession of beatings in Australia" with Adams as skipper
averaging 20 with the bat or with an alternative who is worth a
place in side without counting his captaincy skills. With a bit
of luck, Adams will hit form against England and then the above
question will be moot.

Kurt

 
 
 

Hinds 165

Post by Araw » Thu, 25 May 2000 04:00:00



Quote:
>If that were not the case, I'd give Griffith the Antigua Test, and if he
>fails there replace him with Ganga.  But as Griffith's place is assured,
>and he is in poor nick, I think I'd drop him for Antigua and give Gayle
>a shot opening with Campbell.

Agreed.

Quote:
>If we *had* to make room right now for Lara in the middle order, I'd
>make Chanders open with Campbell and then have Hinds, Lara, sarwan,
>Adams.

Gack! Chanderpaul opening? Didn't work in the ODIs, why would it work in
Tests?

Quote:
>And what's going on with the backup keeper slot for England, anyway?
>Anyone heard anything?

Apparently they're hoping some Bajan guy named Devaux will turn up.

Arawak
------------------------------------------------------------------
Visit London Cricket Club's website at http://www.arawak.on.ca/lcc

 
 
 

Hinds 165

Post by David Wheele » Thu, 25 May 2000 04:00:00

Quote:


>> I think Grrr should get one more chance to prove that he can bat under
>> pressure, and if he fails then drop him from the England squad.

>Well, as much as I think the policy of selecting the England squad so
>early was assinine, I doubt we'll see a change in it.  That means that
>both Griffith and Gayle are assured of touring, while Ganga is left out
>(what's *with* all these "G" openers?)

Well, it's obvious, innit, they're just following on from Greenidge and,
er, Gaynes.  Not to mention Gredericks.
 
 
 

Hinds 165

Post by Mike Holma » Thu, 25 May 2000 04:00:00


to opine:

Quote:

>England will really show whether he has improved his batting enough for
>Australia. That said, batting in English mist and fog against a bunch of
>trundlers is no comparison to facing the best in the world on a normal pitch.

Precisely. Couldn't have said it better myself. We're trying to
arrange for some snow to complete the weather picture, and are soaking
the pitches e'en as we speak to deaden them into our customary
puddings. It appears that Martin McCague isn't fit at present, but
we're hoping to get him ready, Peter Martin's bowling fairly
unconvincingly for Lancs, and Devon Malcolm must be ready for a recall
about now, so you can see we're getting the top men in the frame here.
And Salisbury's taken a whole 6 wickets at 36 so far this season, so
we'll have our demon leggie ready to face you too.

Quote:
>(Here Mikey, mikey...)

Why do you need Mr Holding?

Cheers,

Mike
--

"Cricketers are apt to claim, with not too conspicuous modesty, that specially
noble virtues are inherent in and derivable from cricket" - EW Swanton, 1947

 
 
 

Hinds 165

Post by Stephen Devau » Thu, 25 May 2000 04:00:00

Quote:



> >And what's going on with the backup keeper slot for England, anyway?
> >Anyone heard anything?

> Apparently they're hoping some Bajan guy named Devaux will turn up.

Nope.  Could only qualify as captain.

Fraternally in cricket,

Steve the Bajan
--
http://www.totalprojectcontrol.com/

 
 
 

Hinds 165

Post by Araw » Thu, 25 May 2000 04:00:00



Quote:
>>England will really show whether he has improved his batting enough for
>>Australia. That said, batting in English mist and fog against a bunch of
>>trundlers is no comparison to facing the best in the world on a normal
>>pitch.

>Precisely. Couldn't have said it better myself. We're trying to
>arrange for some snow to complete the weather picture, and are soaking

I'm in Canada - would you like me to send some?

Quote:
>And Salisbury's taken a whole 6 wickets at 36 so far this season, so
>we'll have our demon leggie ready to face you too.

Ooooh... tricky... capitalising on the West Indies' known weakness against
spin.

Quote:
>>(Here Mikey, mikey...)
>Why do you need Mr Holding?

I don't... it was Mr. Holmans I was looking for...

Cheers,

Arawak
------------------------------------------------------------------
Visit London Cricket Club's website at http://www.arawak.on.ca/lcc

 
 
 

Hinds 165

Post by Kurt » Thu, 25 May 2000 04:00:00

Quote:

> >Adams as skipper for the England tour and really do not want to
> >see Lara back as skipper but I wonder whether the WI batting can
> >carry a non-contributing skipper against Australia in 6 months
> >time.

> Well, I think that having a non-contributing skipper and a non-contributing
> keeper would be disaster. Hopefully Ridley will regain some form by then. But
> I don't think at this stage it is fair to call Adams a non-contributor. Under
> contributor compared to other batsmen in the side, perhaps.

I did not mean to imply that Adams was currently not
adding anything to the team. I place great emphasis on
results, and you can't argue with Adams's scores this
season. However, he had a dreadful 2 year run before that
so it must be allowed that there is some considerable
risk to him being able to keep up this new-found success
in England. Neither Jacobs or Campbell are really ideal
candidates for the position, though I did argue for Ridley
previously.

Not that I accept that Jacobs is not contributing. He's
maintained his good form behind the stumps, if not in
front of them. He is much more comfortable facing the
quicks than he is against quality spinners. I dare
say he will not see much of the latter in England.

Kurt

Quote:
> England will really show whether he has improved his batting enough for
> Australia. That said, batting in English mist and fog against a bunch of
> trundlers is no comparison to facing the best in the world on a normal pitch.
> (Here Mikey, mikey...)

> Arawak
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Visit London Cricket Club's website at http://www.arawak.on.ca/lcc

 
 
 

Hinds 165

Post by Kurt » Thu, 25 May 2000 04:00:00

Quote:

> I assume it's a 5 Test series, and I expect 4-1 Australia, with the good guys
> (West Indies of course!) winning at the WACA. I'd be disappointed with a
> whitewash, and happy with anything better than 4-1.

I'm not the most optimistic of WI supporters but I think
that their chances in Australia are much better than you
guys think. WI match up well against Australia, in many
ways better than they do against Pakistan. Yep, WI
will be the underdogs but they've always played Australia
tough in the past and I will be dissapointed if they
lose the series by a margin of more than 1 Test.

Kurt

Quote:
> Or course, you have to realise that WI are the underdogs and they and the
> rest of the world know it. They haven't that much to lose. Australia on the
> other hand will be under tremendous pressure to win so that may help the good
> guys out too. Obviously the entrie world outside of Oz will be cheering the
> West Indies on too....

> Arawak
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Visit London Cricket Club's website at http://www.arawak.on.ca/lcc