Cricinfo - Blogs - Different Strokes - Wake up call for West Indies

England are only now recovering from the self-deception which followed that Ashes win; West Indies will make more progress faster if they don’t allow an upset victory to distract them from the serious business of building their side.

A year or so ago, West Indies ambushed a complacent South Africa in the First Test of a series which they went on to lose as the home side recovered their true form. This time, after mugging an equally complacent and ill-prepared England in the first match, they were able to hang on and stave off defeat in the other games and thus take the series. It was not pretty to watch - but then rearguard actions never are, however much honour and even glory we bestow on defenders like those at Thermopylae or Rorke’s Drift.

Ramnaresh Sarwan’s magnificent performance would have come as no surprise to someone who had seen his early forays in Test cricket back in 2000 and then gone to live on the moon until now. Back then, the 19- and 20-year-old newcomer looked very much like a superstar in the making. His poise, style, and elegance of technique evoked memories of the teenage Tendulkar playing for Yorkshire, when the future Little Master made no centuries but exuded class. That the mature player should become a run machine reeling off ton after ton was surely only to be expected.

His progress has not been inexorable, however. There have been some highs but also plenty of lows; just before Christmas in New Zealand he was hanging on to a spot by the fingernails of reputation, batting as though he were late for an important appointment. It’s been simple to build a case that he is a flat-track bully – a case for which these performances could be used as further evidence. But he is only 28, so likely to be still short of his peak: time will tell whether he has now graduated to the ranks of top batsmen or merely had an amazing purple patch.

The big surprise was Brendan Nash. A few weeks ago I wrote that replacing Chanderpaul was going to be the most difficult problem any side in world cricket faced, a prediction now shown to be hopelessly wrong by Nash’s excellent impression of a limpet. He doesn’t punish bad balls as effectively as the Guyanese barnacle, but he is as resolute a crease-occupier as you could wish for. The trouble is that he was only supposed to be a stand-in for Dwayne Bravo, whose return to fitness now causes a problem. Bravo, Chanderpaul and Nash all want to bat at six, and putting one of them down to seven effectively commits to a strategy of playing for draws. One of them will really have to fill one of the holes currently being papered over by Smith and Simmons at two and four.

The problem remains that the bowling attack lacks penetration. While much attention was focused on England’s inability to bowl West Indies out twice at the ARG and Queen’s Park Oval, the sobering fact is that in neither match were West Indies able to bowl England out even once. When you take the 'Borebados batathon' into account, Andrew Strauss was able to declare six innings on the trot.

Jerome Taylor and Fidel Edwards have become dangerous bowlers, but there is not a lot else. Suleiman Benn was successful at Sabina Park when England had persuaded themselves that his height made him an extremely awkward customer but ineffective and easily frustrated into bowling rubbish when England changed their minds and played him as if he were mediocre. Daren Powell’s resistance with the bat at the ARG was as irrelevant to whether his bowling merits a place as Robert Croft’s in similar circumstances in 1998, and Lionel Baker’s early showings give little cause for optimism.

It was a mighty effort of collective will for West Indies to hold firm and win the series. They have successfully reached “hard to beat” status, making them at least a competitive side. But this is only base camp; a lot more will be required of them if they are to scale any nearby summits.

Well said.

Here's the side I'd like to see go to England:

Gayle
Simmons
Sarwan
Nash
Chanderpaul
Bravo
Ramdin
Taylor
Benn/Another spinner
Edwards
Collymore

Collymore's still around in the inter-island comp I think, and he's a much better run-saving and wicket-taking option than Powell. Although Kemar Roach looks a promising prospect.

Devon Smith's not a Test-class opener- when he's only averaging 24-odd and 30s and 40s seem to be at the very edge of his capabilities, then he's got to go. Lendl Simmons should be given the opportunity to establish himself (although I'm sure the Windies selectors are really starting to regret their shoddy treatment of Wavell Hinds).

I'd also like to see them persevere with a spinner. There are plenty taking wickets at first-class level, and playing an all-pace attack has rarely worked for them.

Collymore? Really? You think recycling old mediocrity is better than trying for young untested potential? Two of Roach, Baker and Sammy should tour England, as well as Benn and Wallace/Miller/Jaggernauth as a spin combo. Thats two trial quicks and two spinners on tour. Bravo provides the necessary batsman/bowler option in the middle. It is important that he does not do BOTH, however. The batting is acceptable, especially that there is still much potential coming through the ranks. There might be hope for the bowling in three years or so (hint,hint) but for now, we need to test out what we have on the only team we can realistically beat. Neither Collymore nor D. Powell (there is a batsman K. Powell to come) are worth re-investing in.
As for Benn, Mike, his danger is not due to turn, but bounce, just like a quick. He was negated in ARG, Kensington and QPO for the same reason as Broad. Mark my words, wait till the juicy tracks on offer in England. I think he'll get ten wickets in total.

Riverlime

I think that's a little harsh on Collymore, who's really been their most reliable wicket-taker in the last few years. Check out his record compared to Collins, Powell, Edwards or even Taylor- he matches up pretty well.

You say that Bravo shouldn't bat AND bowl. I respectfully disagree. He's an allrounder. He can score runs at 6 and take wickets, so IMO it's important that he DOES do both- otherwise Windies are stuck with four bowlers, which isn't any good unless you're trying to draw.

You say that "there might be hope for the bowling in three years or so (hint, hint)." Well, play Roach then. He could be a good Test player for them, BUT he shouldn't be thrown in too early. Taylor and Edwards both were, and they were too ineffectual in their earlier Tests (despite Edwards' debut- he's only recently started performing consistently). In the meantime, Collymore has the experience and the record, and I think he's the best bet as the third seamer.

Tyrone,
Miller(or Jaggernauth or Wallace) won't be picked because WICB still think that pace can win a game. That only worked for WI when the game was as yet new to ODI-influenced batting and fielding. The four pronged pace attack was successful in its own era. That time has gone but WICB can't see that as yet. The fact of the matter is that only two of the top TEN bowlers in this year's first-class tournament are pacemen. The only paceman in the top five is Gavin Tonge with 29 wickets at 20. (Miller has 34 wickets at 16.)
Marcus, if you think Collymore should be given another chance then why not Collins, who has a better track record. Or Best, who still has some fire in his belly? (SR of 27 balls per wicket vs Collymore's SR of 47). Even Roach has taken more wickets than Collymore.
For me the backbone of the team is
Gayle
Sarwan
Chanders
Nash
Bravo
Ramdin
Taylor
Edwards
The second opener's position and the two remaining bowlers are open for young blood.

[Mike: I'm enjoying this debate very much, guys. What puzzles me is which of Bravo, Nash and Chanderpaul ought to bat at four. Shiv obviously hates going in higher than five, Nash is surely far too limited to be a four, and Bravo also seems less than ideal to go in that high.]

Riverlime the truth is number four is the position that has given the WI the most problem since the Lara retired, i think the best man for the job honestly is Marlon Samuels, as he is the only one to have any sucess in the position and i think when he returns he will be so hungry for a chance to play that he will be a revelation. However i think we are clutching at straws when we talk about bringing back Best, while we're at it lets check out Franklyn Rose too, sorry gentlemen but that ship has sailed, we need to get the young guys into the frame of mind that this current team is in that is fighting and giving their everything for the maroon and gold and that is not Best. Colleymore, or Collins maybe, they have played some county cricket they know the conditions,they could help to guide the younger guys over there give them a shot.

Riverlime

I would have suggested Collins, but he's signed as a Kolpak player, and I don't think he'll be back in national colours. And Tyrone's right, the Best ship has sailed. He looked second-rate when he started and I can't imagine how he could have improved enough to warrant selection.

Tyrone- I think that Collymore is simply a better bowler than Drakes was, so I doubt that he'll suffer the same fate as Drakes did. Roach is only 19 or 20 though- compared to Australia's crop of young pacemen, Johnson was 25-26 when first given a serious go, Siddle was 23-24, Hilfenhaus was 24-25. I don't see why Roach can't wait a few more years. Apart from anything else, he seems to be quite expensive, and with Taylor and Edwards already in the side, I think a bowler like Collymore who can keep it tight would make a better fit.

Mike, Nash used to open the batting for Queensland, so I don't see why he can't go in at 4.

[Mike: If Nash has experience of opening, then let him replace Smith. Problem solved.]

I agree that on paper England are the better side after all they are ranked 6th and the West Indies 7th. But as the series showed cricket is not played on paper.
I think we have to look at the 2 teams in the context of their performances since 2007 .England in my mind are still hinding behind their success between 2004-2007. However since 2005 England have gone from 2nd best in the world to 6th best.The only team (ranked in the top 6 in the world) that England has defeated since summer 2007 has been South Africa in a dead rubber.The West Indies have defeated South Africa , Sri Lanka and now England in a test in the past 2 years.
In the last 5 series played by England, the result were WWLLL while the West Indies LDLDW. Very similar results despite the West Indies playing tougher opposition ( Eng, NZ, Australia, Sri Lanka and SA) where as England played NZ twice.
England is still the stronger team but that might change in the near future if England do not arrest their current slide.

My West Indies team for the tour of England would be:
Gayle
Simmons
Sarwan
Nash
Chanderpaul
Bravo
Ramdin
Benn/Juggernauth/Miller
Taylor
Edwards
Roach/Baker/Tonge
Bringing back Pedro Collins or Corey Collymore or even Tino Best for that matter,would be a step backwards rather than moving forward.Nash appears to be technically correct and is solid in his defense as has been demonstrated in the recently concluded test series.He can prove to be an asset at No.4.Chanderpaul is reliable as usual at No.5 and Bravo provides depth to the batting at No.6. as an added advantage he is a more than useful bowler and can supplement the frontline bowlers in an able manner.The selectors should invest in the future by giving Kemar Roach a chance at the international level.I am also interested in tracking the progress of Jermaine Lawson and Omari Banks.I still remember Lawson's 7/78 against Australia in 2003 when he had shown a lot of promise.

Riverlime makes a excellent point about the extended domestic season, with more games we can see who are the real performers and who are the flash in pan folks. I am all for Kemar Roach but the longer season has shown him up, he started well, got injured and went off the boil, obviously his body is still getting use to the rigors of first class cricket. Colleymore on the other hand has been a consistent performer for B'dos, but he is also a kolpak player would he be willing to give up his contract to play for the WI? He would make an interesting selection for the English tour but my point is there are a few options, I forgot to mention Ravi Rampaul who is back from injury and bowling well, the Windies have options its for the selectors to shine the light on these options and give them their chance. I know we can get to atleast 4 in the current rankings but we have to get the team balance right and maybe Colleymore could add to that balance, maybe.

I thoroughly agree that England were far the better team in the Test series. They routinely piled up huge totals against this WI attack, albeit on helpful wickets, but still. The West Indies, for their part were quite lucky to barely survive 2 matches that could easily have gone the other way, what with the referral system and all. There have been several comments that England failed to bowl the Windies out, and that is true, so England needed just one more bowler or one or 2 referrals to go the other way and the Empire would celebrate. The West Indies were not interested in pressing home any advantages until the last possible moment, by which time the last possible moment was actually too late. Instead, they opted for defence and stonewalling. Given the scores after the English collapse in the first Test, we can safely call 51 all out nothing more than a fluke helped along by one really good bowling spell. Strauss deserved to win this series, the Windies lucked out & held on.

Chris,
Your idea that England were the better team will fade into nothing more than sour grapes with the passing of time. By the time the all-important(to England; not WI or even Aus) Ashes come around, all that will be remembered is that England failed to take 20 wickets in a Test against the "warm-up team". Woulda, coulda, shoulda, but didn't. England lost. Wake up and smell the Blue Mountain coffee!
Johnathan, you sound like you have ideas. I agree that Smith and Hinds have had their chance, and there are suitable replacements. Whom do you suggest as replacements for Simmons and Ramdin, though? WI need a new opening partner for Gayle and good glovemen are few and far between in the region.
Eddy, as for Jermaine Lawson, he hasn't even played in the regional tournament this year, so he is a non-starter. However, you are right about Powell. He is past his peak and still not performing. He will get worse with time. Better a youngster with his average who will eventually improve.

My WI 1st XI

Gayle
Barath
Sarwan
Simmons
Chanderpaul
Nash
Bravo
Ramdin
Taylor
Benn
Edwards

Edwards and Taylor as the opening bowlers, Bravo and Nash take the 3rd and 4th seamer role. With one frontline spinner in Benn and Gayle as the part time off spinner.

Bravo returns to test cricket at number 7 with no immediate pressure as a batsman, where I feel the West Indies really missed him is as a bowler, he was often the man with the golden arm, i.e. partnership breaker.

The WI XI in England have to be 'batsman heavy' because of the swinging ball & green pitches in May.

Barath has to play, I think it is hard to 'fluke' having a FC batting avg of near enough 50 after 17 FC matches. Australia have blooded Hughes and he has coped well, get Barath established while Sarwan, Gayle & Chanderpaul are still around.

Simmons' place is on the shakiest ground, in other situations you may want 5 bowlers with Bravo as the 4th seamer and Nash as the 5th - if Bravo averages 35+ he can bat at 6.

Chris sounds like sour grapes:

"They (England) routinely piled up huge totals against this WI attack"

Somehow Chris must have missed the WI innings - WI twice surpassed England's first innings and once only fell short by two runs. Only once did WI fall well short of England's innings, so I don't see how "piling up huge totals" is even remotely relevant. Which team was it that scored 392 and 749/9d? And which team was it that made all of 51?

"so England needed just one more bowler or one or 2 referrals to go the other way and the Empire would celebrate."

This is even more hilarious. England already have FIVE bowlers (and five, six or seven bowlers wouldn't have helped in Kensington). So now England need 6 bowlers in order to get all 20 wickets from a side ranked below them? If that's the case then England might as well play 8 bowlers for the Ashes to stand a chance.

A number of comments seems to focus on how WI weren't able to bowl out England (although they did bowl them out twice when it really counted whereas England never took 20 wickets even once).

Sure WI didn't bowl out England after Sabina Park, but they nearly did so twice at the ARG (taking 9 wickets and then 8 wickets - just as England nearly did at ARG and Queen's Park). And at Kensington it wasn't even worth it - Kensington could have gone on for 10 days and the match still wouldn't have finished. At Queen's Park WI didn't even try so how can one determine how effective the WI attack was if it wasn't even really being used? England missed the trick by not setting the pace in their first innings at Queen's Park - they went along too slow and then in their second innings they went along too fast and set a score that wasn't really chaseable except in Strauss' fantasy land.

I am not saying that Nash is an all-rounder but I think at the very least he can bowl 10 overs a day if required. i don't think that WI have a proper option for a 3rd seamer who is not a rabbit. The value of tail end runs is often a difference maker between sides and in the not too distant past we have seen the likes of Taylor, Vaas, Broad, Steyn and Mitchell Johnson having game changing knocks.

If Nash bats at 4, Chanderpaul 5, Bravo 6 with Ramdin and then Taylor there is too much risk - Nash is trying to establish himself (in this case @ no 4), Bravo is returning after a long gap and Ramdin (whom I like as a cricketer) boasts only 1 century with the bat. 9/10/11 will not last longer than 20 balls each on seaming wickets, hence my suggestion to stack the batting and Taylor batting at 9.

What is the view here on Bravo's bowling? Is his brand of lively medium pace a genuine Test match 1st change bowler i.e. 3rd seamer? Or does he need the support of 3 other specialist seam bowlers?

I will agree on playing kemar Roach but if he is given a year or two more to develop that will be better for him. He is a talent, which is gud news that there is talent waiting to come in.
I feel that Ramdin is not giving windies enough options with the bat and should be dropped. Jermaine lawson is the answer to windies bowling line up right now.He is tall and fast and will provide bounce,like morkel does for S.A.
My team according to talent:
gayle
marshall
sarwan
samuels
chanderpaul
bravo
ramdin/baugh
taylor
edwards
lawson
benn
This a line up that can bring windies to the top.
looking at this team you have w.c batting line up that on talent alone will match anyone.As for the bowling u got Taylor,Edwards and Lawson firing and bravo being the fourth seamer. The frontline bowlers with pace & aggression can match any line up in the world,and bravo's quality medium pacer will give added variety. What do your'll think of my team?

Leon,
In place of Simmons, Nash, Ramdin and Baker you have Marshall, Samuels, Baugh and Lawson? Tell me how they have performed for Jamaica recently. Apart from Baugh's batting, none has any RECENT form. And Baugh is a candidate for Human Polo Mint of the Year. Not good for a keeper.
Lawson was fast at one time, until WICB pulled him from Test cricket when they realised that he was chucking, and no doubt his speed has eloped with his bent elbow. That's why he is no longer even playing first class matches.
The old West Indian bugbear of inter-island parochialism is rearing its head in your post. Lets hope the WICB selectors are not as easily swayed by blind patriotism.
And by the by, there is no permutation of current WI players that will make them "match any line-up in the world". We are at best 4th, but there is hope that attitudinal changes will be longlasting and perhaps it is THAT which will propel WI cricket back to its rightful No. 1 spot.

Leon i dont know if you have been paying attention to regional cricket but Marshal was dropped from the Jamaican squad, Lawson has not even been included in Jamaica's trial squads for almost three years. Why are we even discussing Lawson? I had great hopes for the lad too after he took that 7/78 against Australia but since then he has had problems with his action and his fitness and that has cost him. Some blame for this should go to the Windies board that totally abandoned him, but some of the blame is his as he should be hungry to fight for a place in the team. Secondly I am Jamaican and I don't care if there are no Jamaicans or 11 Jamaicans in the West Indies team i just want the best group of players to wear the maroon cap and do well, the problem that has destabilised us for too long has been our inter island rivalries which can be good at times, but should have no place in deciding who are the best players in the region.

I wouldn't consider it sour grapes to say England were the better team. I celebrated when my Windies won the series, but I also knew that if they'd SERIOUSLY tried to win any of the matches after the first, England could have probably bowled them out to take 2 matches and the series. Even the commentators were griping about the Windies' negative cricket, playing for draws. The WI first innings leads took forever to come about leaving them to hope for another England collapse. England, on the other hand, tried to win and the WI tried to hold on to a 1-0 lead, even when they had strong positions. Personally, I'd have preferred the series end tied 1-1 after WI pushed for a second win than 1-0 after holding on for dear life following a fluke collapse. At least we'd know that both teams, not just one team, fought for the Wisden trophy.

"Even the commentators were griping about the Windies' negative cricket, playing for draws."

The whole "negative cricket" thing comes from commentators who seem to belive that teams should really be playing exhibition matches as opposed to what has been happening in reality since 1877 (if they belive teams haven't played for draws before then they are more stupid than I thought). If you don't want teams to play for draws then don't have series and don't ascribe a result to the match - if people want to see "positive cricket" then ensure that the individual rewards are greater than the team rewards. So ensure that they are only one-off test matches and that the draw is no longer a result and that extravagant prizes are given out for those with the highest strike rate (batting and bowling), most runs, most wickets, most catches, most maidens, most sixes, most fours, etc. Then and only then will the commentators get to see the "positive cricket" they are unrealistically clamouring for.

"England, on the other hand, tried to win and the WI tried to hold on to a 1-0 lead, even when they had strong positions."

England tried not to lose at ARG and Queen's Park by getting leads that were really unchaseable (except in Strauss' mind) and would ensure they couldn't lose. West Indies' strong positions only came about at Kensington where the nature of the pitch made anything but a draw nearly impossible. Queen's Park was basically honours-even for first innings so WI would not have had any "strong position" from which to exploit a win. If England don't give the other team an incentive to play shots (and thus pick up wickets) when they are 0-1 down in the series then England, as much as WI were not trying to win but rather ensuring they couldn't lose. Strauss couldn't seriously believe that any team was going to chase 120 runs (as opposed to 100) per session on a final day with a series win and a trophy on the line. It's not like one-day cricket with fielding restrictions.

"Personally, I'd have preferred the series end tied 1-1 after WI pushed for a second win than 1-0 after holding on for dear life following a fluke collapse. At least we'd know that both teams, not just one team, fought for the Wisden trophy."

Again, if this is what people want they the nature of sport itself has to change. Sports teams are looking for ways to win matches and to win series with series taking priority over matches. To expect teams to gamble on a series in favour of a match is like expecting someone to gamble on passing a course in favour of one exam or for a general to gamble on losing a war in favour of winning a battle - to do so would rightly be considered foolish and if we don't like it then we need to do away with series and trophies and only have meaningless exhibition matches. And why is that by not fighting for a win, WI were not fighting for the Wisden Trophy? That's a rather narrow view of it. WI did fight for the trophy, just not in overambitious way.

Chris,
Just accept the fact that the reason England couldn't bowl out WI in those two Tests was because Strauss was a coward. He took too long to declare on both occasions,because he didn't want WI to try for a gettable target. Now THAT'S negative cricket.
Remember,with the teams all square after the first QPO innings,he gives WI 240 to make and gives his bowlers two sessions to bowl them out. Had he never played competitive cricket before? Of course WI were going to say "that's not worth chasing". Especially since the series was already won and another win was not worth risking a series draw. England should have taken a gamble: all or nothing.Instead they allowed KP to go for glory and lost the chance to bowl at WI before lunch.
As for negative bowling;three batsmen had a score of ~160.
Strauss faced 278 balls in 346 mins
Collingwood, 288 balls in 340 mins
Ramdin , 268 balls in 424 mins.
That's 20 fewer balls in 84 more minutes than Collingwood.Who's negative now?

Again I pose the question of what Bravo's role in the team is? He averages 32.73 in Test matches with the bat and 39.58 with the ball.
For me his current average suggests that he cannot be viewed as a specialist batsman and should come in at 7. Looking at his high bowling average he looks to be a 4th seamer.
So if Bravo bats and 7 with Ramdin at 8, there are only 3 bowling slots left.
In some situations that is fine choose 3 seamers plus Bravo and Gayle can be the part-time spinner. The issue will be when you want 3 seamers and a spinner and it is felt that Bravo cannot be the 3rd seamer.
Bravo, statistically at least cannot make the side as a specialist batsman nor a specialist bowler!
The West Indies also don't have a Gilchrist/Sanga as a keeper who could competently bat in the top 6.
With Bravo it is difficult to identify his strengths on paper, whilst watching him on TV I think he is better served going the Flintoff route as opposed to the Kallis route, WI need bowlers!