Holding, Garner, Roberts, Marshall, Ambrose, Walsh... You could stick three or four of them in any all time XI and not have to fight hard to justify it
Those days hurt. It's nice to be on top now though
Agreed, though I'd rather have a strong WI test team in the mix.
Bizarrely they don't take the new ball after 80 overs
Is that because it would be too easy to see, serious question.
I doubt there was any thought behind the decision, which was quickly reversed by the coaching staff sending someone onto the pitch with a stern message!
Back in their heyday the grounds were were packed with West Indian fans, seems like like they have given up on them.
There haven't been large number of West Indian fans for ages probably since the 80s
I don't think the "second generation" are that interested in cricket nowadays, could you imagine in the 70s a Windies series with no Test played at the Oval?
Bloke was discussing that on TMS. Reckons there are tons of passionate west indies fans, but they just don't want to go and watch their team because they are crap (I paraphrase...). I appreciate that in the WI young sportsmen want to become athletes and footballers and basketballers before cricketers now, but T20 is still big there. A lot has to be said for the WI administration, it sounds awful
Disappointed that Cook in particular bit also Root slowed down right when the ball amd the conditions were supposed to be at their easiest. The ball was old and not moving but hadn't completely deteriorated and it was the middle session, 2 set batsmen, should be time to cash in before the next new ball and fading light. But they slowed down. It's not a major issue but as I said above the reports are that this pink ball is very tough to bat against for 10-15 overs then gets much easier. You have to cash in when the going gets easier otherwise you make it much harder when the next new ball appears.
Overall pretty happy though. If we can see off the new ball and Stokes/ Bairstow can have a go tomorrow we should pass 550 then stick them in. Give our swing bowlers (Jimmy and TRJ) the new ball and hope to have them 4 down early.
Now I wasn't alive to watch the Windies teams that were most successful but I have read a lot about them and watched a lot of footage and spoken to people who did watch them. There is one gripe that people had with them and slightly tarnishes the success they had for me.
Now I wasn't alive to watch the Windies teams that were most successful but I have read a lot about them and watched a lot of footage and spoken to people who did watch them. There is one gripe that people had with them and slightly tarnishes the success they had for me.
They were a brilliant team, but sometimes overstepped the mark in terms of hostile (and dangerous) bowling, with a barrage of bouncers at times, not controlled by the umpires (there weren't the restrictions there are now)
Now I wasn't alive to watch the Windies teams that were most successful but I have read a lot about them and watched a lot of footage and spoken to people who did watch them. There is one gripe that people had with them and slightly tarnishes the success they had for me.
They were a brilliant team, but sometimes overstepped the mark in terms of hostile (and dangerous) bowling, with a barrage of bouncers at times, not controlled by the umpires (there weren't the restrictions there are now)
Agreed but it didn't bother Brian Close too much in the sixties though, no helmets in them days, as he advanced down the wicket to a raging bull named Wes Hall charging in from the ropes, as much to say come on then Wes, let's Ave It.
Now I wasn't alive to watch the Windies teams that were most successful but I have read a lot about them and watched a lot of footage and spoken to people who did watch them. There is one gripe that people had with them and slightly tarnishes the success they had for me.
Whoops meant to save as a draft rather than post...
My gripe is, and this is probably one for only the purest of cricket fans, their over rate. Now before you laugh hear me out.
They had a deliberate tactic (some of them have said as much in books and interviews) to slow the over rate right down. They aimed to bowl 10-15 overs less than they should in a day. This was because of the make up of the team. They played with 6 batsmen a keeper and 4 quicks. No 5th bowler except for the odd part timer amongst the batsmen. So they deliberately slowed the over rate down so they could bowl their four quicks in pairs for long spells and wouldn't have to use a 5th bowler. A deliberate tactic. And in my eyes cheating. At the very least it's against the spirit of the game.
One of the beauties of cricket (in my eyes) is that the balance of the side can change and aides do things differently. Unlike in rugby where you select one player for each role or football where it's the same with slightly different formations. But to take this to the extreme and to find a way to abuse this to your advantage doesn't feel right to me.
For me all the truly great sides have had either a very good spinner, who can both take wickets and hold an end, enabling you to play 3 seamers. Or they have had a very good all rounder. This side had neither.
Disappointed that Cook in particular bit also Root slowed down right when the ball amd the conditions were supposed to be at their easiest. The ball was old and not moving but hadn't completely deteriorated and it was the middle session, 2 set batsmen, should be time to cash in before the next new ball and fading light. But they slowed down. It's not a major issue but as I said above the reports are that this pink ball is very tough to bat against for 10-15 overs then gets much easier. You have to cash in when the going gets easier otherwise you make it much harder when the next new ball appears.
Overall pretty happy though. If we can see off the new ball and Stokes/ Bairstow can have a go tomorrow we should pass 550 then stick them in. Give our swing bowlers (Jimmy and TRJ) the new ball and hope to have them 4 down early.
I know what you mean .. BUT .. remember the Ozzies are next up and our batsmen have been .. a) slated for lack of 'test match' application and b) getting out to frivolous strokes/mediocre bowlers .. I would hope that Capn and VCapn were out to set a good example of not giving it away unnecessarily even against bowlers who'd find it hard to get into a decent standard league club side .. I hate to say it, but this series should act as a good set of practice matches/morale boosters for the trip down under .. and Westley, Malan and Stoneman still need to prove that they are 'real' test quality
Will we ever see a pace attack like the one the windies had from the 70s and 80s again?
they would not get away with such intimidation nowadays .. they made 'bodyline' look tame and friendly .. despite this, they were all terrific bowlers and spurred one another on with an in-team contest of who's best and nastiest
Now I wasn't alive to watch the Windies teams that were most successful but I have read a lot about them and watched a lot of footage and spoken to people who did watch them. There is one gripe that people had with them and slightly tarnishes the success they had for me.
Whoops meant to save as a draft rather than post...
My gripe is, and this is probably one for only the purest of cricket fans, their over rate. Now before you laugh hear me out.
They had a deliberate tactic (some of them have said as much in books and interviews) to slow the over rate right down. They aimed to bowl 10-15 overs less than they should in a day. This was because of the make up of the team. They played with 6 batsmen a keeper and 4 quicks. No 5th bowler except for the odd part timer amongst the batsmen. So they deliberately slowed the over rate down so they could bowl their four quicks in pairs for long spells and wouldn't have to use a 5th bowler. A deliberate tactic. And in my eyes cheating. At the very least it's against the spirit of the game.
One of the beauties of cricket (in my eyes) is that the balance of the side can change and aides do things differently. Unlike in rugby where you select one player for each role or football where it's the same with slightly different formations. But to take this to the extreme and to find a way to abuse this to your advantage doesn't feel right to me.
For me all the truly great sides have had either a very good spinner, who can both take wickets and hold an end, enabling you to play 3 seamers. Or they have had a very good all rounder. This side had neither.
Read up on our introduction of 'bodyline' bowling. It could be argued we were the first to overstep the mark and use a strategy not in the spirit of the game.
Malcolm Marshall not a big guy but FAST and hostile RIP
I met and chatted to Malcolm Marshall a few times .. off the field, a real gentleman, Mr Hyde, on the field of play, a real demon, the complete Dr Jekyll .. pity he died so young, he had a lot to give
Malcolm Marshall not a big guy but FAST and hostile RIP
For me MM was the best of the lot - followed by Roberts, Holding and then Garner. Croft was a great bowler also. After that group followed the deadly duo of Courntney and Curtly. The Windies were certainly blessed with scary fast bowlers!
Now I wasn't alive to watch the Windies teams that were most successful but I have read a lot about them and watched a lot of footage and spoken to people who did watch them. There is one gripe that people had with them and slightly tarnishes the success they had for me.
Whoops meant to save as a draft rather than post...
My gripe is, and this is probably one for only the purest of cricket fans, their over rate. Now before you laugh hear me out.
They had a deliberate tactic (some of them have said as much in books and interviews) to slow the over rate right down. They aimed to bowl 10-15 overs less than they should in a day. This was because of the make up of the team. They played with 6 batsmen a keeper and 4 quicks. No 5th bowler except for the odd part timer amongst the batsmen. So they deliberately slowed the over rate down so they could bowl their four quicks in pairs for long spells and wouldn't have to use a 5th bowler. A deliberate tactic. And in my eyes cheating. At the very least it's against the spirit of the game.
One of the beauties of cricket (in my eyes) is that the balance of the side can change and aides do things differently. Unlike in rugby where you select one player for each role or football where it's the same with slightly different formations. But to take this to the extreme and to find a way to abuse this to your advantage doesn't feel right to me.
For me all the truly great sides have had either a very good spinner, who can both take wickets and hold an end, enabling you to play 3 seamers. Or they have had a very good all rounder. This side had neither.
Read up on our introduction of 'bodyline' bowling. It could be argued we were the first to overstep the mark and use a strategy not in the spirit of the game.
Ohh I know I'm not debating that. All I'm saying is that in my view the opinion of that team as one of the greats is a little tarnished. They employed a deliberate tactic that in today's game would be considered cheating and theyvwould be penalised for.
Malcolm Marshall not a big guy but FAST and hostile RIP
For me MM was the best of the lot - followed by Roberts, Holding and then Garner. Croft was a great bowler also. After that group followed the deadly duo of Courntney and Curtly. The Windies were certainly blessed with scary fast bowlers!
Even the ones who couldn't get into the team were world class. Wayne Daniel or Sylvester Clarke would be been first choice for most countries!
Comments
I don't think the "second generation" are that interested in cricket nowadays, could you imagine in the 70s a Windies series with no Test played at the Oval?
As a Charlton and Surrey fan I know where you are coming from
Overall pretty happy though. If we can see off the new ball and Stokes/ Bairstow can have a go tomorrow we should pass 550 then stick them in. Give our swing bowlers (Jimmy and TRJ) the new ball and hope to have them 4 down early.
My gripe is, and this is probably one for only the purest of cricket fans, their over rate. Now before you laugh hear me out.
They had a deliberate tactic (some of them have said as much in books and interviews) to slow the over rate right down. They aimed to bowl 10-15 overs less than they should in a day. This was because of the make up of the team. They played with 6 batsmen a keeper and 4 quicks. No 5th bowler except for the odd part timer amongst the batsmen. So they deliberately slowed the over rate down so they could bowl their four quicks in pairs for long spells and wouldn't have to use a 5th bowler. A deliberate tactic. And in my eyes cheating. At the very least it's against the spirit of the game.
One of the beauties of cricket (in my eyes) is that the balance of the side can change and aides do things differently. Unlike in rugby where you select one player for each role or football where it's the same with slightly different formations. But to take this to the extreme and to find a way to abuse this to your advantage doesn't feel right to me.
For me all the truly great sides have had either a very good spinner, who can both take wickets and hold an end, enabling you to play 3 seamers. Or they have had a very good all rounder. This side had neither.