WI best ever team?

WI best ever team?

Post by i.. » Thu, 02 Sep 1993 20:18:08


This team played against Australia in the second and third tests, 1979/80












Of course the West Indies dominated for a long time.  I chose this
particular team for the batting (six averages over 40) and for the
bowling of Roberts/Garner/Holding/Croft.  In England in 1980 Marshall
came into the team, undoubtedly a greater bowler than Croft, but
he was young then, and Rowe had by then played his last tests (I think
that he had gone to South Africa), and Bacchus proved an inadequate
replacement (test average 26).  If you wait for Richardson to come round
then you have lost Kallicharan too.  I don't know if the West Indies have
ever had such a batting line up since.  You must remember too that
Richards' appetite for runs tailed off later in his career, and so
the earlier you get him the better.

Murray was a pretty good keeper.  I don't know if he was better or not
than Dujon, but his batting was not bad either, so I don't think Dujon
for Murray would necessarily be a necessary change.

Holding and Garner, with Marshall, and possibly Ambrose, must rank
supreme among the last twenty years of West Indies fast bowling.
Each had something special.  Garner's yorker of course, and Holding's
sheer athleticism.  

Although Roberts' figures are a trifle worse, he ranks high in history
because he was the first of the modern band of out and out quicks from
the Caribbean.  When he came into the team in the mid seventies, his
fast bowling colleagues were Holder, Julian, and Boyce, all useful
quicks but not of the sheer speed of this group.

Lloyd of course was the man who masterminded the *** that West Indies
had over that period.  As for how that *** was achieved, I beg
leave to quarrel with it.  I think that on occasion the West Indies tactics
were nothing short of disgraceful, with outrageous intimidatory bowling
that everyone but the umpires could see was a long way outside the Law.  
When West Indies came within danger of losing, the over rate would fall
and fall and fall.  Neither of these tactics was new to the West Indies.
Indeed, when they toured Australia in 1975/6 they fell foul of Lillee
and Thomson at their quickest and most dangerous (at one time three West
Indians were injured in one innings).  And every team used the over rate
to save matches, and still do despite minimum numbers in a day, if the
weather is going to intervene.  But I, personally, find both tactics
reprehensible.  

Having said that, had West Indies played every match with fierce umpires
opposed to intimidatory bowling, and with over limits of 90 overs in a day,
this team would be almost unbeatable because of the high speed and high
quality of their bowling, and their very powerful batting line up.  
(Lloyd, for example, had the nice habit of reserving his centuries for
when they were needed).  

What of the famous West Indian teams of the fifties and sixties?  
Well, in the fifties they had no great fast bowler, while they did
of course have Ramadhin and Valentine.  In the sixties, they had the
bowling attack of Hall, Griffith, Gibbs, and Sobers.  But I was
surprised at the comparatively poor figures of these players.
For example, the career bowling of the main bowlers in England, 1963:






That is to say, the best of these five bowlers had a worse average
than the worst of the above team's four bowlers.  Of course, it again
comes down to era: on a slow turner you would rather have Gibbs and Sobers,
but on the covered pitches of the eighties, I doubt you could do better.

--
Ian Gent

 
 
 

WI best ever team?

Post by j.. » Fri, 03 Sep 1993 07:33:38

Quote:

> This team played against Australia in the second and third tests, 1979/80












> Of course the West Indies dominated for a long time.  I chose this
> particular team for the batting (six averages over 40) and for the
> bowling of Roberts/Garner/Holding/Croft.  In England in 1980 Marshall
> came into the team, undoubtedly a greater bowler than Croft, but
> he was young then, and Rowe had by then played his last tests (I think
> that he had gone to South Africa), and Bacchus proved an inadequate
> replacement (test average 26).  If you wait for Richardson to come round
> then you have lost Kallicharan too.  I don't know if the West Indies have
> ever had such a batting line up since.  You must remember too that
> Richards' appetite for runs tailed off later in his career, and so
> the earlier you get him the better.

> Murray was a pretty good keeper.  I don't know if he was better or not
> than Dujon, but his batting was not bad either, so I don't think Dujon
> for Murray would necessarily be a necessary change.

> Holding and Garner, with Marshall, and possibly Ambrose, must rank
> supreme among the last twenty years of West Indies fast bowling.
> Each had something special.  Garner's yorker of course, and Holding's
> sheer athleticism.  

> Although Roberts' figures are a trifle worse, he ranks high in history
> because he was the first of the modern band of out and out quicks from
> the Caribbean.  When he came into the team in the mid seventies, his
> fast bowling colleagues were Holder, Julian, and Boyce, all useful
> quicks but not of the sheer speed of this group.

> Lloyd of course was the man who masterminded the *** that West Indies
> had over that period.  As for how that *** was achieved, I beg
> leave to quarrel with it.  I think that on occasion the West Indies tactics
> were nothing short of disgraceful, with outrageous intimidatory bowling
> that everyone but the umpires could see was a long way outside the Law.  
> When West Indies came within danger of losing, the over rate would fall
> and fall and fall.  Neither of these tactics was new to the West Indies.
> Indeed, when they toured Australia in 1975/6 they fell foul of Lillee
> and Thomson at their quickest and most dangerous (at one time three West
> Indians were injured in one innings).  And every team used the over rate
> to save matches, and still do despite minimum numbers in a day, if the
> weather is going to intervene.  But I, personally, find both tactics
> reprehensible.  

> Having said that, had West Indies played every match with fierce umpires
> opposed to intimidatory bowling, and with over limits of 90 overs in a day,
> this team would be almost unbeatable because of the high speed and high
> quality of their bowling, and their very powerful batting line up.  
> (Lloyd, for example, had the nice habit of reserving his centuries for
> when they were needed).  

It feels good to think that a bunch of Kiwis using guts and determination as
their main weapons beat this unquestionably great side in a test series and the
one dayer just a few weeks later. I don't think that the windies have lost a
series since. Oh the memories!

Speaking of "best ever teams", I think that a NZ one should be chosen. I
nominate the 1985 team that beat Aust in the 3rd test at Perth to win the Trans
Tasman Trophy (which we lost in 1987 but regained in 1990. Aussies always seem
to forget that we would never have lost that series had last man craig
McDermott been given out LBW in the penultimate over. Even an Australian
commentator admitted that the ball would have missed both off and leg stumps...
and hit the middle. Oh those dodgy aussie umps..)

Sorry, I just had to get that off my chest

Now to the 1985 team.

Wright and Edgar were the openers. 'Nuff said.

John F Reid was an excellent No. 3, with a temprement to match the openers. How
bowlers must have hated facing these three left handers at the start of each
innings. Admittedly some said that he was weak against the quicks and was past
his peak, but he did score a century that year on the fast Brisbane pitch.

By this time Martin Crowe was already a world class performer in great form
(188 in Brisbane, the same score as in the Carribbean earlier that yr.) He
still wasn't at his peak though.

Jeff Crowe was playing about as well as he ever did, and was a solid performer.
He was as safe a first slip...

...As Jeremy Coney was at second. He was also in great form (His three test
innings in NZ that year were all of 93 or better, and rescued his team from
serious trouble.) He is perhaps the greatest specialist No 6 batsman ever.

Richard Hadlee is arguably the greatest bowler of all time, and this tour was
his greatest triumph. He took 33 wickets in the three tests, even managing a 5
wicket bag on a spinner's pitch at Sydney. Has anybody in the world ever bowled
better than he did in this series?

Ian Smith at this time was arguably the best Keeper in the world.

It was on this tour that John Bracewell proved that he was world class.

Cairns and Chatfield were admirable foils for Hadlee throughout their careers,
especially the superhumanly accurate chats. He was also nearing the peak of his
powers, although Cairns hadn't been the same since wasim akram had felled him
the previous season.

Jason.

 
 
 

WI best ever team?

Post by Geoff Bethe » Fri, 03 Sep 1993 07:37:20

Quote:

>What of the famous West Indian teams of the fifties and sixties?  
>Well, in the fifties they had no great fast bowler, while they did
>of course have Ramadhin and Valentine.  In the sixties, they had the
>bowling attack of Hall, Griffith, Gibbs, and Sobers.  But I was
>surprised at the comparatively poor figures of these players.
>For example, the career bowling of the main bowlers in England, 1963:






>That is to say, the best of these five bowlers had a worse average
>than the worst of the above team's four bowlers.  Of course, it again
>comes down to era: on a slow turner you would rather have Gibbs and Sobers,
>but on the covered pitches of the eighties, I doubt you could do better.

>--
>Ian Gent

   I think this just emphasises how the batting line-ups of the West Indies
in the "4-***s" era have been propped up by those self-same ***s.

There weren't quite so many cheap wickets around in the 60s. For a
start, England was very strong in batting at that time. I suspect that the
West Indian pitches were more in favour of batting as well (please confirm,
someone). Also, cricket is more cut-throat these days. Hall & Griffith bowled
in an era when getting wickets with skill was more important than by
intimidating the batsmen. Gibbs & Sobers averages were about right for the
type of players they were. Worrell was not really a bowler.
   It is true that post 1975 WI teams have largely carried all before them,
but much of it has been by dubious methods, particularly slow over-rates.
WI won as often in the 60s, by better cricket, and all above board.

Cheers, Geoff

 
 
 

WI best ever team?

Post by Adam Soudu » Fri, 03 Sep 1993 14:10:21

I reckon the team that toured OZ in 84/85...it was

1. Greenidge
2. Haynes
3. Richardson
4. Richards
5. Lloyd
6. Logie
7. Dujon
8. Holding
9. Garner
10. Walsh
11.Benjamin

I remember quite vivdly being at the the Perth test (the first in the
series)  where, on the first day, OZ had the WI on the ropes at 5/120
and Dujon and Richardson (i think) plundered the aussie attack for about
200.

Then the next day, Holding came out and took 6/21...a most astonishing
and soul destroying experience for a proud Australian like me :)

It was indeed a great pleasure to watch from side on as Holding coasted
in to bowl...

Adam

 
 
 

WI best ever team?

Post by Hibbert Dunc » Fri, 03 Sep 1993 22:23:42

:

:    I think this just emphasises how the batting line-ups of the West Indies
: in the "4-***s" era have been propped up by those self-same ***s.
:
: There weren't quite so many cheap wickets around in the 60s. For a
: start, England was very strong in batting at that time. I suspect that the
: West Indian pitches were more in favour of batting as well (please confirm,
: someone). Also, cricket is more cut-throat these days. Hall & Griffith bowled
: in an era when getting wickets with skill was more important than by
: intimidating the batsmen. Gibbs & Sobers averages were about right for the
: type of players they were. Worrell was not really a bowler.
:    It is true that post 1975 WI teams have largely carried all before them,
: but much of it has been by dubious methods, particularly slow over-rates.
: WI won as often in the 60s, by better cricket, and all above board.
:
: Cheers, Geoff

I think  quality batsmen were in abundance in the 60's as compared to
the 80's and on. Given the WI record, post '75, I don't understand how
slow over rate has helped them to win matches. A win whether on the
3rd, 4th or 5th day is still a win! It might be helpful to compare the
WI rate of score with opponents, there lies the truth of the matter.
Dubious methods?

 
 
 

WI best ever team?

Post by A.M.T. Bell,G2,3123,homepho » Fri, 03 Sep 1993 22:43:26


Quote:

>:

>:    I think this just emphasises how the batting line-ups of the West Indies
>: in the "4-***s" era have been propped up by those self-same ***s.
>:
>: There weren't quite so many cheap wickets around in the 60s. For a
>: start, England was very strong in batting at that time. I suspect that the
>: West Indian pitches were more in favour of batting as well (please confirm,
>: someone). Also, cricket is more cut-throat these days. Hall & Griffith bowled
>: in an era when getting wickets with skill was more important than by
>: intimidating the batsmen. Gibbs & Sobers averages were about right for the
>: type of players they were. Worrell was not really a bowler.
>:    It is true that post 1975 WI teams have largely carried all before them,
>: but much of it has been by dubious methods, particularly slow over-rates.
>: WI won as often in the 60s, by better cricket, and all above board.
>:
>: Cheers, Geoff

>I think  quality batsmen were in abundance in the 60's as compared to
>the 80's and on. Given the WI record, post '75, I don't understand how
>slow over rate has helped them to win matches. A win whether on the
>3rd, 4th or 5th day is still a win! It might be helpful to compare the
>WI rate of score with opponents, there lies the truth of the matter.
>Dubious methods?

Were there more quality batsmen in the 60's as the bowlers were worse then than
now? If we were to put the batsmen of the 60's up against the bowlers of the 80's
and the batsmen of the 80's against the bowlers of the 60's (providing everyone was at
their peak) I think any "quality gap" between the two eras of batsmen would be
reduced by a lot.

I think the "better cricket" over the 60's has been viewed through rose coloured
glasses, there were plenty of boring tests in the 60's which we have forgotten.

Still no doubt in 20 years time everyone will be moaning about the state of world
cricket and harking back to the *good old days* of the '80s :-)

tony bell                  ! keep on running   live long and prosper
serc daresbury laboratory  ! "Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast"

 
 
 

WI best ever team?

Post by Ian Ge » Fri, 03 Sep 1993 23:39:38


# Given the WI record, post '75, I don't understand how
# slow over rate has helped them to win matches. A win whether on the
# 3rd, 4th or 5th day is still a win!

Well, it's a good point!  A slow over rate obviously helps you to avoid
losing a match.  It can also help you to win, because I expect it is not much
less tiring batting for a full day if 72 overs are bowled rather than 90.
However, obviously if you bat all day for 72 overs you will get less runs.
So a slow over rate can be a way of stopping an "on song" batsman from
getting a big score, and so it could help you win a game.

--
Ian Gent

 
 
 

WI best ever team?

Post by Shamim Naq » Sat, 04 Sep 1993 01:46:04

Quote:

> I reckon the team that toured OZ in 84/85...it was

> 1. Greenidge
> 2. Haynes
> 3. Richardson
> 4. Richards
> 5. Lloyd
> 6. Logie
> 7. Dujon
> 8. Holding
> 9. Garner
> 10. Walsh
> 11.Benjamin

You forgot Larry Gomes and Marshall. I do not think Benjamin was in
the side (?).  

Quote:

> I remember quite vivdly being at the the Perth test (the first in the
> series)  where, on the first day, OZ had the WI on the ropes at 5/120
> and Dujon and Richardson (i think) plundered the aussie attack for about
> 200.

Richardson was bowled first ball by Alderman trying to flick.
Richards went for a duck.  Aussie bowlers were unlucky that day.
Lawson bowled well without
reward. The other aussie quick bowler --the name escapes me at the
moment-- also bowled well. And Alderman was moving the ball away
beautifully. Kim Hughes dropped a sitter at short cover.  And Border
dropped something like 4 catches in the slips!  How Border managed to
keep his place in the team after the Perth test is beyond me. Finally,
Hughes simply put Border on third man or something.  It was Dujon who
played a great knock to get the WI to a respectable score. I
think it was the same match in which Dujon got hit on the head and
came back to play a great knock. He got valuable support from
Marshall. Aus dropped a lot of chances and WI held everything that
came their way. Lloyds, I think, had three catches at first slip,
Richardson had two blinders and Holding picked up a thunderbolt at
gully.

Shamim

 
 
 

WI best ever team?

Post by S Govindaraj » Sat, 04 Sep 1993 02:29:21

Quote:

>Lawson bowled well without
>reward. The other aussie quick bowler --the name escapes me at the

        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
It was Rodney Hogg.

Quote:
>moment-- also bowled well. And Alderman was moving the ball away
>beautifully. Kim Hughes dropped a sitter at short cover.  And Border

Both Alderman and Hogg were playing for the first time in years, Alderman
after that terrible injury he sustained from some fan in WI (?). Hogg too,
I think was recalled after recovering from a series of injuries. From the
match reports, both of them were as fast as the WI bowlers. Alderman bagged
6 wickets and Hogg the remaining 4 in that match. In the next match at
Adelaide, Lawson returned with a test best haul of 8 wickets in the 1st
innings.

Quote:
>Hughes simply put Border on third man or something.  It was Dujon who
>played a great knock to get the WI to a respectable score. I

Along with Larry Gomes, who scores around 120 runs. In fact, throughout
that tour and the previous one (Vs Eng), it was Gomes who carried the WI
batting at critical times. Robin Marlar wrote for the Sportstar, "Gomes
is the rock around which the West Indian batting revolves". It is a pity
he is not given the same recognition as Greenidge or Richards.

I also recall Lloyd scoring brillinat 116 in one of the matches. Forgot
which one it was.

Quote:
>think it was the same match in which Dujon got hit on the head and
>came back to play a great knock. He got valuable support from
>Marshall. Aus dropped a lot of chances and WI held everything that
>Shamim

--
S.Govindarajan.                         || 360, Buell Apts,

Composites Lab. Rutgers University.     || Piscataway. NJ
Piscataway, NJ. Ph: (908) 932 5051.     || Ph: (908) 463 7060.
 
 
 

WI best ever team?

Post by WODG » Sat, 04 Sep 1993 09:13:19

Quote:

>I reckon the team that toured OZ in 84/85...it was
>1. Greenidge
>2. Haynes
>3. Richardson
>4. Richards
>5. Lloyd
>6. Logie
>7. Dujon
>8. Holding
>9. Garner
>10. Walsh
>11.Benjamin
>I remember quite vivdly being at the the Perth test (the first in the
>series)  where, on the first day, OZ had the WI on the ropes at 5/120
>and Dujon and Richardson (i think) plundered the aussie attack for about
>200.

No, it was Larry Gomes and Dujon who scored those runs. Gomes batted at no.4
with Richards at 5 Lloyd at 6, and Logie not in the team. Gomes was an
underrated player, who was the perfect foil for the strokemakers, eg his 97*
when Greenidge scored 213* as the Windies scored 1-344 to beat England on the
last day at Lords in 1984.
 
 
 

WI best ever team?

Post by Phil She » Sat, 04 Sep 1993 20:11:45


Quote:

>No, it was Larry Gomes and Dujon who scored those runs. Gomes batted at no.4
>with Richards at 5 Lloyd at 6, and Logie not in the team. Gomes was an
>underrated player, who was the perfect foil for the strokemakers, eg his 97*
>when Greenidge scored 213* as the Windies scored 1-344 to beat England on the
>last day at Lords in 1984.

 I always thought that 84 batting line up was near perfect (all it needed
was Sobers at 8!) with Greenidge and Haynes opening
then Richardson, Gomes acting as that stabilizer before the real
stroke makers in King Viv and the Cat and finally Dujon who was
very consistent and reliable until he too old in the later part of
his career. It was brilliantly balanced and also very good individually.

and 12x50. This was printed in 85 don't know if he played after that.
 
 
 

WI best ever team?

Post by Hibbert Dunc » Sat, 04 Sep 1993 21:54:03

        STUFF DELETED

: :
: :I think  quality batsmen were in abundance in the 60's as compared to
: :the 80's and on. Given the WI record, post '75, I don't understand how
: :slow over rate has helped them to win matches. A win whether on the
: :3rd, 4th or 5th day is still a win! It might be helpful to compare the
: :WI rate of score with opponents, there lies the truth of the matter.
: :Dubious methods?
:
:
: Were there more quality batsmen in the 60's as the bowlers were worse then than
: now? If we were to put the batsmen of the 60's up against the bowlers of the 80's
: and the batsmen of the 80's against the bowlers of the 60's (providing everyone was at
: their peak) I think any "quality gap" between the two eras of batsmen would be
: reduced by a lot.
:
: I think the "better cricket" over the 60's has been viewed through rose coloured
: glasses, there were plenty of boring tests in the 60's which we have forgotten.
:
: Still no doubt in 20 years time everyone will be moaning about the state of world
: cricket and harking back to the *good old days* of the '80s :-)
:
: tony bell                  ! keep on running   live long and prosper
: serc daresbury laboratory  ! "Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast"

In defense of my contention consider some of the leading English batsmen
of the 60's: Peter May, Ted Dexter, John Edrich, Dennis Compton, Ken
Barrington, Tom Gravney. I will venture to say these batsmen were
significantly more accomplished than any group of English batsmen of
the 80's you could list. I have excluded Boycott since most of his batting
was done in the 70's. Also, I don't think there have been a stonger
English bowling team since  Truman, Statham, Laker and Lock. Pretty
rosie glasses uh? I rest my case.

 
 
 

WI best ever team?

Post by Geoff Bethe » Mon, 06 Sep 1993 07:16:00

Quote:

>tony bell writes:

>Were there more quality batsmen in the 60's as the bowlers were worse then than
>now? If we were to put the batsmen of the 60's up against the bowlers of the
> 80's and the batsmen of the 80's against the bowlers of the 60's (providing
>everyone was at their peak) I think any "quality gap" between the two eras
>of batsmen would be reduced by a lot.

   I have a certain sympathy for this point of view, although much of it
is due to the rise of Pakistan as a bowling force, and to the rise of NZ
as a general force to be reckoned with.

Quote:
>I think the "better cricket" over the 60's has been viewed through rose
>coloured glasses, there were plenty of boring tests in the 60's which we
>have forgotten.

  I lived in England during this era, and I remember the media continually
telling us how boring the cricket was. It was the old trick of say something
often enough and folk will believe you eventually. I didn't. Alas the
England selectors DID, and we were treated to the ludicrous "dropped for
slow scoring" decisions on Kenny Barrington and Geoff Boycott. These were
media-inspired moves that, I'm sure, haven't yet been eradicated from the
English scene. What England would give for those two now. Actually I never
found these two boring, let alone Cowdrey, Graveney, Dexter, Milburn, Barber,
Snow, Brown, Knott, D'Oliveira ... etc.
     In the 50s and 60s, touring teams were a bit of an unknown quantity. There
was always the e***ment of evaluating the great players we had heard about
but not seen much of. Now, you don't have that. All the best players play
regularly in county cricket. How's that for boring? That great sense of
occasion has been debased, not only by that but also by the sheer number of
games played. Series don't stand out in quite the way they once did. How's
that for boring? Fortunately, out here in NZ, we have it a bit like it used to
be elsewhere.
     THe WI "4-***s" system does nothing to alleviate the boredom,
although I'd be the first to admit that some of their players would have
graced the 50s & 60s teams (Holding, Roberts, Greenidge, Fredericks, Haynes,
Lloyd, Lara). Of those I've left out, some are not good enough, some don't
qualify on other counts, but I haven't forgotten anybody.

Cheers, Geoff

 
 
 

WI best ever team?

Post by Ible » Tue, 07 Sep 1993 08:58:45

Quote:


> >I think  quality batsmen were in abundance in the 60's as compared to
> >the 80's and on. Given the WI record, post '75, I don't understand how
> >slow over rate has helped them to win matches. A win whether on the
> >3rd, 4th or 5th day is still a win! It might be helpful to compare the
> >WI rate of score with opponents, there lies the truth of the matter.

> Remarkable.
> The slow over rate was indispensable.
> Do you really think that 4 fast bowlers can bowl 100 overs in 6 hours
> and be remotely effective toward the end of that day? No way.
> Bowl 12 overs and hour and you can play 4 fast bowlers and have the

                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Quote:
> batsmen intimidated all day long. This means low run rate, high tension,

  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Quote:
> and next to no chance of losing.

  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Just having four "fast" bowlers does not mean next to no chance of
losing. Look at the 4th Ashes test this summer. England played 4
"fast" bowlers, McCague, Bicknell, Illot, Caddick and lost big. It
just is'nt the number but the quality of the fast bowlers. West
Indies had (and to a large extent still has) a great quartet of fast
bowlers and they use it to the fullest advantage.

I can base my comment on the last 3 series that WI played in
Pakistan. WI had the pace quartet in all these series. Although
in 80-1 Zaheer Abbas got hit on the helmet, in 86-7 Salim Malik
got his arm broken, I did not think that overall the bowling could
be called intimidatory. It was just really good bowling (matched
by Pakistan in 86-7 and 90-1) and produced excellent cricket.
Maybe other nettors can add to this observation based on the series
they may have watched.

Quote:

> >Dubious methods?

> Well not if you accept no responsibility for the health of the game or
> of opposition batsmen.
> After all the ICC didn't have the guts and still doesn't have the guts
> to act effectively against this.

I am not for intimidatory bowling, but IMHO WI has received a lot
of undue criticism.

Nauman Chaudhry
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 "Salim [Malik] bats, as it were, in velvet gloves. No one
  playing the game today,not even David Gower at his best,
  has a greater gift for effortlessness."

     John Woodcock in The Times June 9th,92

 
 
 

WI best ever team?

Post by Brendan Maho » Tue, 07 Sep 1993 08:08:01


Quote:
>I think  quality batsmen were in abundance in the 60's as compared to
>the 80's and on. Given the WI record, post '75, I don't understand how
>slow over rate has helped them to win matches. A win whether on the
>3rd, 4th or 5th day is still a win! It might be helpful to compare the
>WI rate of score with opponents, there lies the truth of the matter.

Remarkable.
The slow over rate was indispensable.
Do you really think that 4 fast bowlers can bowl 100 overs in 6 hours
and be remotely effective toward the end of that day? No way.
Bowl 12 overs and hour and you can play 4 fast bowlers and have the
batsmen intimidated all day long. This means low run rate, high tension,
and next to no chance of losing.

Quote:
>Dubious methods?

Well not if you accept no responsibility for the health of the game or
of opposition batsmen.
After all the ICC didn't have the guts and still doesn't have the guts
to act effectively against this.