Message Board Archives

Irrespective of what happens:

Bringing on Samuels to bowl at this stage is sheer brainless decision making

I am so frustrated with this crap captaincy

Dont know which match is Jason watching.. But Dwayne Smith is the goto bowler right now

I think he's just trying to prolong this innings. NRR is important too, and Samuels can hurry through his overs

This wicket is for swing and seam.

Pity we didn't have Sammy and had to turn to smith and samwells?

Oh wait?


Very poor bowling,too short ,too many extras and crap captaincy.

In reply to brians_da_best

Exactly. He is trying to protect the NRR. Seems very easy to understand.

We were not going to win. It is the same tactic people complained when they said we should have negatively batted vs SA.

Well don't bowl short and give away 26 extras

Ensure you bat 50 overs.

Bowling smith and samwells was stupid when Jerome Taylor has overs. And what of Sammy.

42M reasons for dem decisions

Worst captaincy I have seen. Frustrated at WI cricket lack of common sense.

In reply to nick2020

What de ass unu talking bour NRR, when we could bowl them out if we were a bit more aggresive??

How de heck bowling Samuels helped with the run rate?

You know what is the best way to reduce your opponents run rate?

Bowl dem out!!

Rubbish argument that

This morning I saw the look of horror on the face of Jason Holder, someone asked what is he smiling about?, another asked, you sure he smiling, that look like a grin to me......well all I could see was a grimace, pain etched all over his face, and I heard the unspoken, why me............this may well end up making him a stronger person, but right now, he looking for a hole.........

cawmere in dem skunt!

In reply to DIEHARD

Samuels was at the time 2 overs for 4 runs.

Now here is my counter:

How de ass we was going to bowl out India?

In reply to cricketest

Holder went to Powen school.

In reply to cherri

Someone told me Holder refused the captaincy twice. And they kept on persisting...

I don't agree with the tactics but clearly Holder was trying to get a few quiet overs in to improve the net run rate. The pacers were more likely to take wickets but were at the time going for runs at a fair clip. Tactic was defeatist though cause an Indian collapse was, though unlikely, still possible.

In reply to jen

Well that was being banded about depending on who you are listening to, let's hope he fares better than the person before him, I hope nobody doan call him a camel not nain so...........cause we are known to create these beasts of burden, we had a donkey, somebody may call he a camel........

Captaincy is not the problem.

Winning the battle is not necessarily winning the war.

If you watched the match and saw that the one man who made stop score batted with a straight bat...

If you remember that Russell was pulling up with cramps/strain...

If you remember that Roach is not fully recovered...

If you managed to consider that we have more match(es) to play...


Perhaps this unsustainable focus on the captaincy might dissipate...


//

If this is the captain thinking in this match then he should not
play much less captain any team.
The match against SA was a different story. They should have batted
with their brains.

In reply to nick2020

I'm not going to quote the laws of the game to you, or list all the possible permuations and combinations that could have led to India being bowled out but something like this

Four very good deliveries,
Four poorly judged shots,
four ill judged quick singles,

or any combination of the above that would get you the four wickets required before they make the 20 runs

And as for Samuels helping with the run rate, in the larger scheme of things, his cheap overs have not benefited us in any great way, really it hasn't, it maybe made the game last an extra over or two, it would have ended sooner had we bowled them out.

I cant be bothered, but you do the math, and tell me the net effect on our NRR that the two additional overs it took India to get the runs had

In reply to cherri

my point is, this is something that WICB dumped on Holder, and Holder shouldn't have to be taking stick for their foolish decision. Its really hard for Holder to lead this team. He's inexperience, just got himself into the team in 2013 permanently. Man still learning the game. He's a good cricketer, he didn't need this burden at this stage.

In reply to jen

Agreed....

In reply to jen

4 wickets to get for winning the match ... All main bowlers have enough overs and the captain bowls a part time spinner...and yuh blaming the selector, who appointed the captain and saying he didnt want the job!!!

Brilliant... Zero Accountability!!!

Welcome to The Caribbean!!

In reply to DIEHARD



cricket is not a linear equation.

In reply to thefacts

I think Jen works in my office...

In reply to Catsoup100

Relevance?

That's relevant to why no effort was made to win?

That's the difference in sport sometimes between winning and losing, self belief, I've seen WI need 1 run off 4 balls with 3 wickets in hand and lose..SA believed they would win, went for the 3 wickets and won.


We need to have a different mentality in close games, the captain as leader is responsible for that

In reply to nick2020

When Sammuels came into the attack India needed 30 Runs off 17 overs with the Bowlers at the crease... If you do not try you do not get it.

Afterall WI might have lost in the 37th over instead of 39th if they had tried. Dont think NRR would have been different much.

But with the way WI batsmen played, this itself is a great performance by the bowlers so no point criticizing them. Holder dosent seem to be effective in the older ball. May be he should complete 10 Overs upfront and keep it as tight as possible.

In reply to Pacy

Bowlers at the crease;I thought a not out batsman remained for India?
30 or 20 runs with wickets in hand is not much for India regardless who bowling.

In reply to DIEHARD



I didnt expect you to see the relevance, when you can't comprehend.

In reply to Scar

Do you guys read before you post? or you started watching cricket yesterday.

In reply to Chrissy

Do u think that u are over the line here

In reply to Chrissy

Do u think that u are over the line here

In reply to Chrissy

Do u think that u are over the line here

In reply to Chrissy

Do u think that u are over the line here

In reply to jen

my point is, this is something that WICB dumped on Holder

Remember Reifer from CCC, the rumour is that the job was offered to Ryan Hinds who refused, see what has happened to his career, he could have taken the money.

Jason will leave this world cup with money he may not have had if he said no.

Roach got his chance during a players' strike, are there any fringe players that will benefit from current impasse?

In reply to Scar

One end was still open Scar. Yes 30 is just a small target but still unless you try you would not know. That is the game. With the Batting line up India should not have lost 6 wickets or taken 40 over to reach the target isnt it?

Still Out Score was below par and there is no reason to criticise the Bowlers. But they could have given a final try.

In reply to thefacts

If you think Jason has shyte for brain then the guys who appointed him captain – what do they have for brain?.........not disparaging the young man – I think in time he could be a formidable captain not not now and not in this WC environment

In reply to Pacy

I went kuntry so I missed this.

Dhoni is not even just a batsman. And Ashwin has a 17 run average in ODI; he is no rabbit.

Look, it is stupid to say he did what he did for no reason. This is the outsider looking in crutch that we know more than these guys and they are clearly doing nonsense. Samuels went for 2 an over and he bowled him again. He was clearly trying to contain and not take wickets. Anyone with a brain cell knows the equation does not call for contain; there are too many balls left.

So say he is a coward. Say he gave up to protect the nrr. But to say he just did that for no reason or actually thought DRS and Helegance were going to bowl them out is clearly silly.

In reply to nick2020

Probablity of WI win was very low. So nothing was lost.

But trying dosent harm.

I am not saying he did for no reason but the reasoning was not completely justifiable is what I am saying. But the problem was not the bowling or that decision. That shot that Russel, Simmo and Carter played when we had to consolidate as completely brainless. that takes the cake for thoughtlessness.

In reply to DIEHARD

Who ever appointed a kid as Cappo is responsible!!!!!!!

Coaches and Mgmt have far more input than most believe.

Anyhow KID Cappo TOP SCORED where were the batsmen?????????

Anything under 300 is NOT enough.

In reply to moneybrain

These monday night quarter backs have a lot of words of wisdom after the fact.

We have a top order that not only failed, their approach was brainless and these guys picking on captaincy decisions that are at best trivial.

If he had bowled the pacers and they got licks, these same people would have said he had no imagination to try Samuels, Gayle or DRS.

West Indians just love to bitch & moan, otherwise they would not be happy.

In reply to thefacts

They were defending only 183 runs and have already smelt blood with India down to 107/5 at 23rd over. Then you have your best 3 bowlers in side, bowling only 5 overs in total from 25th to 40th over ; Should have gone all out attack mode like McCullum versus Aus.

In reply to anandgb

Bingo! go to the top of the class. If Marlon had taken a wicket or two no one would be complaining. Smith came on and took a wicket. If Holder had bowled his seamers out and then India had won, they would all be saying why didn't he try Marlon or Smith, after all Marlon took wickets in the last few matches. We lost this match because of brainless batting nothing more nothing less.

In reply to Catsoup100

Brilliant...if u fail to disclose your flawed argument, then you dont have to defend it...absolute genius..well done

In reply to clifford

You might not be familiar with my posts, but giving Smith an over or two is what I've been calling for all World Cup.

Now to say he was bowling Samuels to take wickets is one thing, and that I would have no problem with.

But the argument being made here by your friends, is that he bowled Samuels to protect NRR...that's inexcusable and cowardly, I don't endorse playing sport like that, and it wasn't warranted under these circumstances.

The thought that our skipper's aim was to delay defeat rather than win is sickening!!

In reply to anandgb
If you on this mb long enough you get to understand that for some folks the best option is always the one that was never tried.

In reply to anandgb

Speak for yourself, if that's what gets your rocks off.

Play the fricking game to win, the lack of effort to win from a position where winning is a possibility no matter how remote..is..sickening

In reply to clifford

In reply to carl0002

You people oversimplifying this thing, but I guess you cant comprehend a winners mentality

In reply to carl0002

Classic. And those peeps are the ones who throw most vitriol around.

In reply to carl0002

Exactly!!1 Hindsight is definitely 20/20

In reply to DIEHARD

On what basis are yo saying there was no effort to win? Because someone here suggested NRR?

All captains try part timers in a hope to buy wickets. He did bring back JT to try and dislodge Dhoni without success.

you need to take a deep breath and calm your anger and then maybe you will see the light.

In reply to anandgb

My argument is with nick, and those who defend his move as a defensive one.

I can't assume Holders intent. I'm not the one who said he has shyte for brains.

I do know him to have a defeatist mentality.

This is the skipper who admitted to not trying to get De Villiers out, but only trying to keep him off strike

THEY DID NOT SCORE ENOUGH RUNS!! End of story! The bowlers bowled pretty good and with say 80 more runs on the board they could have remained attacking. Btw our pacers seem to get niggles once they bowl 8 over or more on they trot and also start bowling wayward.

question for the linear thinkers, you all don't think the Indian batsmen would have used a different approach if they were chasing a bigger total?

In reply to camos

Whats the relevance of this to.."always play for a win and not be a pu$$y?"

Thats all I'm saying.

I dont care what my opponent would've could've or should've done, whatever he does, I will try to counter, in an effort to secure victory

In reply to DIEHARD

Look,

What you are saying is ideal but not practical. We should have played negative cricket and pushed around the ball for as many runs and as many overs as possible because we were not winning vs SA. We missed a trick there.

We decided we were not going to win so we played "lose by as little as possible" cricket. 5 wickets in hand. 30 runs to make.

This did not cost us anything. If we do not make it to the QF it is not because we did not try at the end; it is because of NRR.

You are looking at the tree. There is a forest.

In reply to anandgb

He saved 10 overs from his most effective bowlers - his seamers. What was the logic behind this other than speeding up the over rate?

In reply to dcbreds

That is exactly what I was saying.. But it may not be his fault alone. Sammy, Marlon, Ramdin all could have contributed.

In reply to checkm8

Tell me which village team did u captain, even in the gully

In reply to tc1

The decision to preserve the best 3 bowlers was stupid. But do you solely blame Holder for that ? I give him the benefit of doubt and think it was a collective blunder. He seeks advise from the senior players and he has been open about that.

In reply to checkm8

good ansa but we sometimes second guess the guys that are on the field and much closer to the action.

In reply to dcbreds
silly move based on the score we made , you know we are not bowling more than 38 overs, at that point one team will win.

In reply to nick2020

Ok..I finally did the Math..

Lets say bowling Samuels extended the Indian innings by 5 overs, that improved our run rate by 0.127

We are Pakistan's run rate is currently .317 better than ours.

when Ireland beat Pakistan, you people are going to be left cussing why Holder never went for teh two points, and is me looking at tree and not forest, you worrying about NRR when plenty more games left to play, mad men

In reply to DIEHARD

But seriously...

We were not winning that match. The fundamental issue we have here is you really believe we had a (insert number here) % shot of winning that. And I believe that number was really low.

Remember the end result was we may have saved 5 overs. The intention may have been to slow play 6 or 7 or 8 more overs.

But this is exactly why the NRR is crucial; we will end up tied with someone and the difference is going to be NRR. Of course if you believe that India match was not winnable.

Who knows what we should have done. We suck anyway right?

In reply to tc1

Sounds just like young Holder before they put him to Captain West Indies and in a WC to boot.

In reply to DIEHARD

Holder or no one went so deep in thinking. All this extend and run rate is an after the fact excuse made up by the usual suspects.

He tried to buy Dhoni's wicket instead of bowling out Russel, DSmith, Taylor et al.

Thats said - shyte for brains is too hard on the kid.

In reply to tc1

He is a picks up or jacks kind of fellow or a breadfruit kind of bowler...like de pailing cock who...

In reply to Tagwa1

Agree with it all, Shyte for brains was harsh!!

Not the kids fault, but what is really getting my goat is all this rubbish about..he did it to protect NRR..NRR would have been of no significance if we got the 2 points!!!

In reply to nick2020



The mathematical chance of us winning was as slim as the chance that the 0.127 improvement to our NRR by bowling Samuels is going to be of any benefit in getting that quarter final spot.

Had anybody realised that they would stop putting fwd this NRR as some kind of sophisticated, intelligent, strategic, bigger picture ploy..it wasnt!!

It was cowardly and undid all the good work the skipper did while batting!!

In reply to DIEHARD

So in summary:

I believe the team played for a NRR.
You believe Holder is clueless.

Who knows who right. But you all does give too much credit and responsibility to the captain.

I will now say this with unwavering conviction, 'this young captain will learn, there shouldn't be any former captain(s) 'assisting' him on the field' - done.

Watch the match last night. Ireland was going great guns against the Indian pacers then Dhoni introduced his spinners and makeshift spinners and halted the run flow.

Our coach and management felt Miller should sit down for a four prong...they felt the Irish would be intimidated by fast bowlers bowling short.

In reply to analyst-kid

It is not just that the Irish play spin poorly. But rather the surface was quite suited for spin than pace. During last ODI series, SL employed 37 overs of spin against NZ on the same surface and it costed only ~170 runs.

In reply to checkm8

Nobody in the set up seems to think cricket.

Much less think like winners.

I'll go back again to us feeding AB pace when he loses his wicket most often to off spin

In reply to DIEHARD

We have done the same for years..no offie to OZ, when its proven that they do well.

We are just not data driven. Never was. I just call it Wildness.

It was laughable to hear Lloyd justifying his victimization of Pollard and Bravo because their "numbers" weren't that good. Yet no problem with Carter's low FC average for example.

All smoke and mirrors with our cricket. Its kinda sad actually.

In reply to Tagwa1

Exactly, what is Pybus doing?

Find it hard to believe he actually means well at the FC level, if all this amateurishness exists at the international level.

That beyond his JD?

To get people in or around the team that can help with analysis, the same data and stats that people doing tv commentary have?

Still peeved that Holders plan when AB was going apeshit..was to keep him off strike, that really sums up our cricket

commie ?

In reply to doosra

I threw the stone and all the hawgs present squealed.

My work is done.