West Indies v Bangladesh, 2nd Test, St George's, July 17-21

Chivalry Augustus wrote:I love Shakib; very talented cricketer. Five 5fers for him now; 2 vs SA, 1 vs NZ, 1 vs WI, 1 vs SL. And his HS in Tests (previous was 96 but a 96 with a * surely betters that). Like I say, best Bangladeshi cricketer ever. Perhaps a genuine all-rounder.

Any way we can get him over here as a Kolpak in order to serve England qualification? He's clearly achieved all he can with Bangladesh now

Shakib is superb and deserves to play for a much better side than Bangladesh tbh.

They won 2-0 but they were extremely unconvincing in conditions that were perfectly suited to them. If they played at Sabina Park and Kensington Oval they would have lost even to this C/D team.

The problems for West Indies cricket are racking up:

1) Worst cricket board in international cricket
2) Slow/low horrible wickets at all but 2 venues
3) Dwindling interest in test cricket, due to pitches and poor results.
4) Crappy selectors even when all players are available.
5) Too many players in FC cricket can't play spin to save their lives.
6) Dreadful local umpires who give batsman out automatically if ball hits pad.

It doesn't matter how much talent we have at our disposal if the above problems aren't sorted soon.

Why are the wickets in the West Indies so dead anyway? Why would they want to do that?

In a lot of cases the soil is not hard and it is difficult to create really quick pitches (Trinidad and Guyana being the most obvious examples). Also the quality of groundsmen outside of Barbados and Jamaica is extremely poor. Prof Edwards should be sent around the Caribbean to show them how its done (though even he doesn't leave enough grass on the wicket sometimes).

WIFAN wrote:In a lot of cases the soil is not hard and it is difficult to create really quick pitches (Trinidad and Guyana being the most obvious examples). Also the quality of groundsmen outside of Barbados and Jamaica is extremely poor. Prof Edwards should be sent around the Caribbean to show them how its done (though even he doesn't leave enough grass on the wicket sometimes).

But that never used to be a problem. What's changed?

Quality of the groundsman is the only explanation. Although the theory that all West Indian wickets used to be fast is not true, a heck of a lot of them were fairly slow and low in the 70's/80's, we just had exceptional fast bowlers.

The pitches that have really slowed down are those in the Leeward Islands such as Antigua. Even the FC pitches used to be rapid their but now they are all slow/low.

Thanks to the WICB Bangladesh has accomplished what no other team in history has accomplished. Even at our lowest points we have always been able to stave off being whitewashed. Even the great Aussie teams of this decade never done it. Even when England had their great run in 2005 we stopped the whitewash. We managed to draw one when SA came but thanks to the WICB Bangladesh became the 1st team to do it. Well done WICB for allowing Floyd Reifer to be able to call himself a former WI captain.

Untidy win ...

Still, good to see them fail to choke, even against this depleted line-up.

WIFAN wrote:Quality of the groundsman is the only explanation. Although the theory that all West Indian wickets used to be fast is not true, a heck of a lot of them were fairly slow and low in the 70's/80's, we just had exceptional fast bowlers.

The pitches that have really slowed down are those in the Leeward Islands such as Antigua. Even the FC pitches used to be rapid their but now they are all slow/low.

But wouldn't that imply you have islands which constantly produce a crop of fast bowlers and others with a steady stream of spinners? WI did produce some good spinners (Lance Gibbs with 300+ wickets @ 29 or even Gary Sobers with 235 @ 34) in the old days. Long before my time but even so, they were wizards with the ball.

Meanwhile, the WICB has announced its squad for the CT in SA in September. Fidel Edwards may have broken ranks. Does that mean the door is closed for its usual players? If I remember right, the final squad can only be selected from the nominated 30, unless there is injury or illness. WI is grouped together with Pakistan, Australia and India. Perhaps they've worked out some exception with the ICC.

Well done Bangars. Well played. They have something for the record books not many sides can claim - and that is whitewashing WI in their own backyard!

Sure the fan may have fallen with the shit, but none of it is really Bangar's fault!

They played well as a team in the end and have shown that they cannot be underestimated anymore and that the temptation to field half strength sides against them in tests must now be resisted lest it ends in embarrasement as well.....

Batman wrote:Well done Bangars. Well played. They have something for the record books not many sides can claim - and that is whitewashing WI in their own backyard!

Sure the fan may have fallen with the shit, but none of it is really Bangar's fault!

They played well as a team in the end and have shown that they cannot be underestimated anymore and that the temptation to field half strength sides against them in tests must now be resisted lest it ends in embarrasement as well.....

PMSL

People who demanded that Zimbabwe be stripped of it's test status should demand the same of WICB if they are truely fair minded!

taipan wrote:

Batman wrote:Well done Bangars. Well played. They have something for the record books not many sides can claim - and that is whitewashing WI in their own backyard!

Sure the fan may have fallen with the shit, but none of it is really Bangar's fault!

They played well as a team in the end and have shown that they cannot be underestimated anymore and that the temptation to field half strength sides against them in tests must now be resisted lest it ends in embarrasement as well.....

PMSL

Some cricket sides had this tendency to select second string squads to face Bangars in the past. It may not work anymore!

Anybody interested enough to explain the difference between the two scenarios?

Batman wrote:

taipan wrote:

Batman wrote:Well done Bangars. Well played. They have something for the record books not many sides can claim - and that is whitewashing WI in their own backyard!

Sure the fan may have fallen with the shit, but none of it is really Bangar's fault!

They played well as a team in the end and have shown that they cannot be underestimated anymore and that the temptation to field half strength sides against them in tests must now be resisted lest it ends in embarrasement as well.....

PMSL

Some cricket sides had this tendency to select second string squads to face Bangars in the past. It may not work anymore!

That was not the joke.

taipan wrote:Anybody interested enough to explain the difference between the two scenarios?

I am not concerned with WI fielding a 4th class side or last class club cricket side. I am merely saying that fielding a weaker side and underestimating the Bangars to not take advantage of it is not advisable. Bangars have of late also learnt to surprise and beat some good sides in JAMODIs. They have now shown that if given a hand, they can do the same in tests and that fielding weaker sides against them could be disasterouss. Is that an issue?

One hopes the stupid WICB wakes up and stops tinkering with the CT side and the upcoming FTP accordingly and make a sensible decision. At this rate they stand the risk of losing their reputation, credibility, fans and also in the long run their test status and may join the Zimboks into obsucrity. If losing 2-0 at home to Bangars can't wake them up, nothing will!

The joke is that you think they are a good test side on the back of this series(?)

taipan wrote:The joke is that you think they are a good test side on the back of this series(?)

That is what you presumed when that was not the point at all. Nowhere have I said they are a good test side. I have said that despite the problems of WICB and the team they fielded, and the fan and shit coming down on them, it wasn't Bangars fault and that they cannot be underestimated in case a weaker test side is fielded against them. That would indeed be the facts. The problem in this case lies with what you have chosen to interpret...

Goodness. In all the Ashes mayhem, I had completely missed the fact that the Bangers had won the series.

Well done them!!

Batman wrote:

taipan wrote:The joke is that you think they are a good test side on the back of this series(?)

That is what you presumed when that was not the point at all. Nowhere have I said they are a good test side. I have said that despite the problems of WICB and the team they fielded, and the fan and shit coming down on them, it wasn't Bangars fault and that they cannot be underestimated in case a weaker test side is fielded against them. That would indeed be the facts. The problem in this case lies with what you have chosen to interpret...

Which is BS, Thay are still carp

taipan wrote:

Batman wrote:

taipan wrote:The joke is that you think they are a good test side on the back of this series(?)

That is what you presumed when that was not the point at all. Nowhere have I said they are a good test side. I have said that despite the problems of WICB and the team they fielded, and the fan and shit coming down on them, it wasn't Bangars fault and that they cannot be underestimated in case a weaker test side is fielded against them. That would indeed be the facts. The problem in this case lies with what you have chosen to interpret...

Which is BS, Thay are still carp

Unless he means that it's extremely difficult to underestimate them - which is true.

The thing is that a 'half strength' West Indies team would have comfortably beaten Bangladesh. In fact, if just one of Gayle, Sarwan, Shiv or Bravo had been there we would have won.

So the temptation for the better test nations to field weakened sides will still be there. They came very close to losing to a West Indies C/D team when most of the test nations routinely thrash us in test cricket.

How is it a West Indies C/D team? Four of those players are probably the best the Windies have got in certain positions, or at least as good as their contemporaries. The likes of Sammy, Roach, Phillips, Richards and Bernard certainly contributed no less than the likes of Smith, Morton, Benn and Powell have when called upon as part of the A team. No doubt a full Windies side would have won, but, to be honest, I don't think this Windies side was that much crapper than the full side is a lot of the time, it was just that Reifer and Walton were so terrible that they brought the level of the team down so much.

Dale Richards - Had just been dropped from senior team
Omar Phillips - Never even played for Windies A
Travis Dowlin - 20/20 specialist, too old for selectors to pick
Ryan Hinds - Just been dropped from the senior team, ignored for A team
Floyd Reifer - Nowhere near any West Indies team, let alone captain ffs
Dave Bernard - ODI specialist, Windies A team member
Darren Sammy - Good bowler but had been dropped from senior team.
Chadwick Walton - Had never played for Jamaica, let alone Windies A
Ryan Austin - Windies A team member
Tino Best - Nowhere near selection, was dropped by Barbados
Kemar Roach - You have a point here.

The bowling attack is only slightly inferior to the senior team and Austin is a better spinner than Benn IMHO. But the batting is a Windies C team at best. Only Sammy, Dowliin, Bernard and Roach stand a serious chance of continued selection to a full strength team once the sillyness is sorted out.

The key difference is that Sarwan, Shiv and Bravo would have played the spinners very well, which would have rendered Bangladesh's attack apart from Shakib as useless even disregarding Gayle.