West Indies Tour of England - May to June 2012

[barmyarmy]

Against Australia and India this batting lineup was posting 600+ scores. Do the West Indies really have better bowlers?

 

[zimrahil]

No, I just think England are still a bit mentally scarred from the winter. The confidence of most batsmen took a hit

 

[War]

Against Australia and India this batting lineup was posting 600+ scores. Do the West Indies really have better bowlers?

The absolutely do have a better bowling attack than India no question.

AUS pace stocks are slightly better, but in Narine, Shillingford and Bishoo thats better spin stocks than Lyon/Beer.

 

[sifter132]

The below shows we don't need five bowlers to take wickets and win matches, something I've known for years.

England Away (2000-)

Five bowlers : P41 W10 D13 L18 (Won 24.39%) Took 20 wkts = 29.27%
Four bowlers : P31 W13 D8 L10 (Won 41.94%) Took 20 wkts = 51.61%

England Home (2000-)

Five Bowlers : P41 W24 D9 L8 (Won 58.54%) Took 20 wkts = 65.85%
Four bowlers : P43 W25 D10 L8 (Won 58.14%) Took 20 wkts = 55.81%

I'd be interested to know if those numbers changed if you take out the 'easy' Tests eg. Bangladesh, WI, NZ - maybe SL and Pak at home as well.

Numbers aside, I just think England needs someone in the top 7 who can bowl a bit. I expressed my concern last Test that Broad and Anderson were doing a lot of work, and if one of them picks up a knock in a match, you're going to be seeing a lot of Jonathon Trott. Whether that guy is Bresnan at #7 or a more specialist batsman at #6 or higher, I just think it's worth considering, especially versus stronger batting teams.

 

[barmyarmy]

Ideally one of our batters would be a genuine all rounder rather than just a filler bowler. There aren't many around like that anymore. I guess Watson and Kallis are the only two I can think of who bat high up.

 

[WestIndian]

It's time WICB, get down on there knees and bring back in c Gayle and Sarwan At least if they don't want anyone else. Those two along Barath, K Edwards and Daren Bravo could strength the batting, Then only thing left is to kick out Sammy in Test Cricket tell him retire from Test and Pick an extra Bowler.

I share your pain and is one of the reasons I sometimes avoid these forums! We will not see that call coming from the WICB because they play politics with our cricket and lacks the testicular fortitude to be boldface and make such a call. They will continue with the BS and at the end of the 3rd move into the ODIs and pretend like the 3 test never happened, life goes on for the Board. You know what Hunte, Hilaire and Sammy have in common all 3 are from St. Lucia Hunte is a former politician (once a politician, always a politician) if every he and Hiliare played cricket it was after school, now am I starting to form a picture of where our cricket is currently and who is running it? So Sammy stays not because he can command a place like Sarwan but because of the politics, countryman crap. Now I have nothing against Shillingford, he is from my conutry Dominica, he took 10 wickets in his back yard, great for him is not like we won the match. Do we have better than him hell YES, will we see Narine play soon we can't say. Sammy as a 3rd bowler is laughable and all of the cricketing world knows that and those we are playing against and will play against would love it to remain this way. So until such time that we are free and rid of the current commanders, we may never see a change anytime soon!

http://www.caribbean360.com/opinion/577118.html#axzz1wCvzOOgF

Interesting stuff to read.

 

[westindies2007]

I share your pain and is one of the reasons I sometimes avoid these forums! We will not see that call coming from the WICB because they play politics with our cricket and lacks the testicular fortitude to be boldface and make such a call. They will continue with the BS and at the end of the 3rd move into the ODIs and pretend like the 3 test never happened, life goes on for the Board. You know what Hunte, Hilaire and Sammy have in common all 3 are from St. Lucia Hunte is a former politician (once a politician, always a politician) if every he and Hiliare played cricket it was after school, now am I starting to form a picture of where our cricket is currently and who is running it? So Sammy stays not because he can command a place like Sarwan but because of the politics, countryman crap. Now I have nothing against Shillingford, he is from my conutry Dominica, he took 10 wickets in his back yard, great for him is not like we won the match. Do we have better than him hell YES, will we see Narine play soon we can't say. Sammy as a 3rd bowler is laughable and all of the cricketing world knows that and those we are playing against and will play against would love it to remain this way. So until such time that we are free and rid of the current commanders, we may never see a change anytime soon!

Ernest Hilaire should be serious about making the West Indies great again - Caribbean360

Interesting stuff to read.

It time for me to do de same thing, like what did in de past, When the old players were playing back then. which really disappointment me, great player and we failing, now with this new team we had Sri Lanka series drawn n Pakistan series Draw I started to get back faith, even India tour to wi may have been a weak India team still had faith in this young side, then again our top 5 score 50 run each which haven been done by WI in a long time, again still have Faith, but than I realize with aussie n now England series same mistake again n again n again. Sammy do not n cannot be in a test team. His pace is like a schoolboy. His batting may have improve, but again isnt any good n cant depend on. Our young opener cant blame them they dont have an experience player which can keep de pessure off them. time to wi wake I going bck to my shell away from wi discussion, because since Lara quit we cricket totally gone.

until i dont see a Progressing West Indies with or without the senior player, i wouldnt bother to waste my time now. Not even caring about de last Test.
For ODI if they bring back Gayle, since bravo, Pollard and Narine will play. i may watch that and comment on that. but Test for WI, Have like a Million Miles to go.

 

[Owzat]

I'd be interested to know if those numbers changed if you take out the 'easy' Tests eg. Bangladesh, WI, NZ - maybe SL and Pak at home as well.

And Australia..................? I'll take out WI, BAN and NZ, but the rest remain - this does go back to when Pakistan and Sri Lanka were decent sides.

England Away (2000-)

Five bowlers : P33 W6 D10 L17 (Won 18.18%) Took 20 wkts = 24.24%
Four bowlers : P21 W7 D6 L8 (Won 33.33%) Took 20 wkts = 47.62%

England Home (2000-)

Five Bowlers : P29 W15 D7 L7 (Won 51.72%) Took 20 wkts = 62.07%
Four bowlers : P29 W13 D8 L8 (Won 44.83%) Took 20 wkts = 41.38%

Certainly still supports playing four bowlers away from home, five would only work when you have a Flintoff and in his element - his batting average at home was 35.35 compared to 28.80 away.

But if you want by opposition :

Win% - since 2000

vs Australia : Five = 22.22%, Four = 41.67%
vs India : Five = 16.67%, Four = 57.14%
vs South Africa : Five = 41.67%, Four = 25.00%
vs Pakistan : Five = 16.67%, Four = 53.85%
vs Sri Lanka : Five = 50.00%, Four = 20.00%

vs Sri Lanka with four bowlers includes six draws so only two defeats, while we won five with five bowlers we lost three and three of those wins were at home, two when we just about won in Sri Lanka in 00/01.

South Africa includes the series win in South Africa, one of two big
contribution series by Flintoff (23 wickets that series) and the 2-2 in England.

Crunch stat is with four bowlers we've not lost more Tests than we've won against any given opponent, with five bowlers we've lost more Tests than we've won against Australia, India and Pakistan who you might deem strong enough sides since you've not asked me to remove two of them and one was a maybe (at home)

----------

Against Australia and India this batting lineup was posting 600+ scores. Do the West Indies really have better bowlers?

There are at least two other factors to consider, one is complacency. Against India and Australia you work harder and don't relax, you play less silly shots knowing that big scores are the way to beat the sides.

India were poor in 2011 in England, by the time we put 710/7 on the board they were 0-2 down and probably thinking about their next IPL contract

The other factor is pitches/suitability. Is England closer in types of pitch to India or West Indies? I think we made good use of the aussie tracks, they didn't. And once you've conceded a big score it changes the complexion of the match. When we last played Australia in England our highest total was 435 in five Tests, only seven more than we scored here this Test/series - the aussies scored 674/6 which was over 200 bigger.

 

[Sureshot]

Bang on, whilst I think they could/should have got another 50 in the first innings here, hardly a bad effort. Rampaul and Roach are pretty good bowlers when they aren't bowling no-balls. Agree that this WI attack is better than India too.

 

[angryangy]

There a lot to be said for a group of bad players operating as a decent team. Particularly of the Ashes team and the side India sent to Australia, the most pertinent thing you can say of the entire bowling attack is that they have to bowl better. The West Indies have a habit of not being able to sustain their batting often enough to prevent defeats, but with their bowling, at least they try to keep the pressure on.

 

[barmyarmy]

I have to say that while I reckon Onions, Finn and Tremlett could be the attack in the third test and we'd still win what's the point? There's a long gap after this to the SA series anyway and it won't tell us anything we don't really know already.

 

[Owzat]

There a lot to be said for a group of bad players operating as a decent team. Particularly of the Ashes team and the side India sent to Australia, the most pertinent thing you can say of the entire bowling attack is that they have to bowl better. The West Indies have a habit of not being able to sustain their batting often enough to prevent defeats, but with their bowling, at least they try to keep the pressure on.

It's hard for bowlers to sustain pressure with no runs to bowl at, in fact batsmen put pressure on their own bowlers.

But as I've said a few times before, this kind of mismatch series doesn't really benefit either side so we need tiered cricket.

 

[angryangy]

Getting 250 still got them a day to bowl well. Getting 350 got them a day as well as a second new ball before they were neck deep. The additional pressure comes from not being able to bowl the opponent out for 300 odd orl less. If they had more runs and fewer collapses, they'd still face this problem, it's just that they wouldn't have lost the series yet. I mean, even a side that makes well over 400 is striving to bowl the other team out quickly and get a lead. Bowlers that need 3 new balls to feel confident are simply not as good.

 

[Papa_Smurf]

Against Australia and India this batting lineup was posting 600+ scores. Do the West Indies really have better bowlers?

I'd say so. Just 2 summers ago, England had the same problems against Asif, Aamir and Ajmal.

 

[barmyarmy]

Those were very bowler friendly conditions. Lord's and Trent Bridge have been batsman-friendly 600+ decks.