Message Board Archives

They both need to be spoken to seriously. Get them back in line and focused on the team.

In reply to voiceofreason

Samuels gone...he done with this tournament

In reply to Narper

I really do not understand the wisdom in selecting Samuels. Missed the first game, played the next, missed the next one and then played this one. That is not good for team chemistry. I hope he gone for good this time.

In reply to voiceofreason

I heard Dujon say he was leaving for somewhere after this game

In reply to Narper

Yes I heard that too. I know he is supposed to do some tests on his action but it is mystifying why they have been so accommodating to him.

In reply to voiceofreason

Maybe Kenny Banjamin don't have patience for him....he prefers him to go...

Before the tournament started ,Benjamin said that this team is not going to be a 'Samuels only' team

Unfortunately it has become a "Powell and Hodge" only team

In reply to Narper

Actually it was the Head coach Reginald Benjamin who said that but I just cannot understand why they are allowing him to walk in and out of the team at his own leisure. Almost seems like that he is so important that they have to work around his schedule that sounds like a 'Samuels only' team to me. One radio commentator in the last game I believe it was Kennie was saying that he was bothered and perplexed with the arrangement.

Actually Powell, Hodge and Cornwall have all done some work with the bat. Hamilton had one game off and I believe he will come good and our bowling is very potent with Zhari, Tonge, Cornwall and Campbell.

Samuels is still a mystery.

In reply to voiceofreason

Samuels had a plane to catch, thats why he was in a hurry

In reply to voiceofreason

Steupss, blame Samuels and Bonner when they fail, but if they perform it's because of the "Leewards environment".

Weren't you saying you weren't gonna rely on Samuels?

In reply to CricketLuva4

li environment mek bonner

nuh li environment dat>?

In reply to openning Yup, Marlon was sent to England earlier this week for his bowling action by WICB (in the middle of the LI games) and now he's off to play PSL. He basically played these two LI matches to qualify for WI ODI's and it shows in the attitude. Prima donna as always

In reply to voiceofreason

You can't blame Samuels and Bonner every time the Leewards lose. That's like Trump blaming Mexicans and Muslims for all of America's problems.

People only wait fuh we to lose and then comedy start,when we beat somebody is tears all the way back home,what is even worse we winning wid a substitute team.

In reply to Fivestar

When was the last time I blamed them for a loss? I am simply blaming their poor shot selection for last night's loss and I am not the only one who feels that way. The captain without singling out anyone, said the middle order failed and so did Dujon.

Samuels wanted to play at least two games to be eligible for West indies selection. Very selfish of him but what is new. Good riddance!

In reply to voiceofreason

Mate, the skipper also played an unwarranted terrible shot to start the slide.

He was the set batsman.

In reply to CricketLuva4

Who is relying on Samuels? 115/0 the foundation was set all that fool had to do was put up a likkle 20-30 but he got out dancing down the track and holing out to long off. I blame Management for allowing this joker to abuse the selection process.

It is called a TEAM effort.

In regards to Bonner, the REVO is not a miracle worker. Bonner has improved since joining the Leewards but in the last three innings he appears intent on reverting to his pre-REVO days. We will try our best to prevent his backslide.

In reply to Courtesy

That is not true Courtesy, The Skipper came down the track and the bowler pushed the ball wide of him. It was sensible bowling by the bowler.

Also, the Skipper contributed 50 in 115 run opening stand...The other batsmen needed to step up.

Cricinfo report:

That is what I saw.

In reply to voiceofreason

But I do wholeheartedly agree that Samuels was a bad investment.

We know he only performs in finals, LI not mekkin any final.

In reply to doosra

... now that's a doosra, I am cleaned bowled

In reply to voiceofreason

... and the ball nuh bowl yet evidenced by that statement. Mmmmmm

Haven't seen the score, but based on VOR bitching, Lwrds lost.

In reply to CricketLuva4

We will see about that.

In reply to voiceofreason

All I can say: he was stumped looking like an ass, when shot selection and not leaving the job for anyone else was crucial.

He is the captain and he set the tone with his unwarranted shot.

The other batsmen just continued with the jolly impulsiveness.

In reply to Courtesy

LHM

In reply to Discourse

Thank you sah. If VOR has posted this, then I missed it.

In reply to Courtesy

Figured

In reply to Discourse

I figured that VOR missed it as well.

In reply to Courtesy

In reply to Courtesy

Easy now Courtesy. Not meaning to be picky but...

Powell was using his feet all the time to the spinners or did you miss that part. There is nothing wrong with using your feet, but there is little one could do when a bowler drags it wide of you.



I did not miss it but that is exactly what happened. 115/0 to 212 all out is a slide, no one is disputing that. What I would dispute is if his wicket caused the slide well that would be saying that this is a one /two man TEAM and the others don't have roles to play after such a solid foundation.

Are you saying that Samuels and Bonner who did not even pass 10 were right to use their feet and make an ass of themselves that early in there innings. One thing if you are well set and going after the spinner but they just came to the wicket.

In reply to voiceofreason

I am happy that you are not thinking like the Cricinfo staffer...that would have made you (VOR) thinking like de Courtesy.

That makes VOR the odd one.

In reply to Courtesy

It is good to be an independent thinker.

In reply to voiceofreason

This only applies when that independent thinker churns out wisdom.

In reply to Courtesy

The independent thinker may well be churning out wisdom but a lot depends on the ability of the individual to interpret and apply that wisdom.

In reply to voiceofreason

Well so far two persons have interpreted the captain's poor dismissal and its consequence as opposed to VOR's solitary thought.

Two persons cannot be wrong as opposed to one.

In reply to Courtesy

No Courtesy not so fast...

Again, are you saying that the other batsmen cannot think for themselves and play their role in the team? The Captain just came off of two tons and scored a 50 and would have expected the other batsmen to step up and capitalize on a solid foundation of 115/0. So England were 119/3 and ended up 127 all out should we blame the failure of the batting lineup on Root and Morgan? Is Cricket no longer a team game?

In reply to voiceofreason

Refer to my earlier posts. You're fast becoming a bad representative for "independent thinkers".

I may very well introduce you to the role of leadership and how it influences a team or organisation.

Think Dave Cameron.

In reply to Courtesy

Leadership? I myself am a leader of my own business and well respected by peers in my Industry. Yes I have a lot to learn but I believe I have a fair understanding of the role of leadership and how it can influence an organization.

Now back to the issue at hand. Kieran Powell scored two back to back centuries where he basically batted through the innings and set the foundation for his team to record two emphatic victories. He basically laid the foundation for the other players to follow his lead and it was expected of the other players that once called upon they were to deliver just like their captain did in the previous games. They failed, not the captain.

I hope this clears it up for you. You see you are a myopic and one dimensional in your thinking, hence instead of looking at the entire picture your focus just like Crackinfo was on one match.

In reply to voiceofreason

In cricket, when you are in as a batsman, stay in Let the bowlers pry out your wicket...do not leave it to batsmen coming after you. You can never predict what is going to happen down the road.

To compound it all, there was no scoreboard pressure which would necessitate such a careless shot.

If you recall, when he attempted to run down the wicket previously, the bowler did not release the ball.

As a batsman, the thinking should be: the bowler is waiting for the slightest opportunity to throw the ball wide when I get down the pitch.

This is not rocket science for a thinking batsman not forgetting he is the leader of the pack.

.............

Now, I have deliberately pulverized this post to facilitate easy assimilation.

...my very last attempt at...

In reply to Courtesy

I was heading home when his dismissal so I only saw the replay of his dismissal not what happened prior. Yes that was a bad decision by KP but everybody makes mistakes. He realized that Pierre was bowling well to the righties and that he was a threat and being a leftie it was imperative that he get him off his game.

My point remains that a TEAM is not one PLAYER, the Captain led from the front in two consecutive innings and it was expected that the other players would step up if he fell short which based on the law of averages that must happen.

In reply to voiceofreason

They really missed Chesney!

When all is said and done Powell must take the blame for still thinking like a little child,why in the world did he had to go and do such a dumb thing to a bowler he is not too familiar with, he and Hodge was going well picking up the one and 2s and putting the bad balls to the fence, all of a sudden he had to do something silly like he often does.

In reply to cricketfreak
He was using his feet all night long ...Nothing wrong with that. The LHB will should be attacking the LHS. My only issue is that he knew the spinner saw what he was up to and should have done better.

So no blame lies on the backs of Marlon Samuels and Bonner? Marlon Samuels who has played 200 plus international matches and who was just playing his second game with the team to be eligible for selection?

In reply to voiceofreason

Check your thread title...you land no blame on Powell, the captain.

A more reasonable and balanced view would have the captain sharing the mortal sin.

The three batsmen should be sharing equal fevor or vehemence...not just two.

In reply to Courtesy

Well excuse me if I missed it but I never heard you say once that Samuels, Bonner or any of the other batsmen were to blame for the loss.

On another note I have always questioned why one should be allowed to get stumped off a wide delivery? A wide is an illegal delivery so how can it lead to a legal dismissal?

In reply to voiceofreason

For obvious reasons. You sought to denigrate the two, while absolving your captain of any sin.

I would never give Bonner and Samuels a bly.

I only sought to share the responsibility for losing the match which was badly skewed by you.

In reply to voiceofreason

Illegal? Not sure I agree with this...I see it as merely a judgement call when the batsman does not hit the ball.

In reply to Courtesy

Very much in agreement with you....VOR quarelling about de legality of the delivery but his team still took de extra run from de wide called....One thing dem use to teach yuh early, "Do not left your crease too early, you will get stumped and its all due to your fault"....KP try to intimidate de spinner and got stranded!

In reply to WestDem

The young bowler was always on the look out for Powell leaving his batting crease early.

He outfoxed Powell and should be credited.

In reply to WestDem

What extra run? There was no wide called he was out via stumping.

In reply to Courtesy
So why should a batsman be allowed to be stumped off a delivery going wide down legside?

In reply to voiceofreason

Because it is permissible under the laws of the game.

Unless it is changed by the ICC, it remains legit.

In reply to Courtesy

I see independent thinking is not your strong suit. Lol.

I know it is legal under the laws of the game but did you ever wonder what was the reasoning behind that? Why with a wide delivery which is an illegal delivery and must be re-bowled that one can have a legal dismissal? Does that not encourage bowlers to bowl wide to get stumpings?

In reply to voiceofreason

This so shortsighted and dichotomous. You are surveying your own plot of land.

You say: "I know it is legal under the laws..."

And the very next sentence "... Why with a wide delivery which is an illegal delivery..."

Simple: The act of stumping a batsman with what you refer to as an illegal delivery is not illegal under the laws of the game.

Your comment is not befitting of a man who considers himself an independent thinker.

In short, the penalty for a wide delivery is an extra run. And unlike a no ball, it does not include the forfeiting of a wicket via the stumping route with that wide ball.

You cannot apply your own latitude to what should be a strict penalty phase arising out of the infringement.

yes i saw the game. samuels n bonner to blame. that's glaringly obvious.

In reply to voiceofreason

The hullmark of shortsigtedness.



No...as a batsman, I would allow the bowler to bowl one hundred wides and the keeper would not stump me...not a problem for me...a problem for his captain...yes.

And bowlers don't bowl wides consistently to get batsmen stumped.

In reply to Courtesy
The penalty for a wide is an extra run but it also does not count as a legitimate delivery. Lord have mercy. A no ball is an extra run too and does not count as a legitimate delivery. What I am saying is if it is not considered a legitimate delivery how unlike a noball can one be dismissed from it?

In reply to Courtesy

Mate. I trying hard with you. He can bowl regular deliveries and then signal to the wicketkeeper that he will throw the ODD one down legside just to cause the batsman to overbalance and bam...Stumped. Just like a surprise bouncer a surprise wide ball. I am not saying to throw every single ball wide??

In reply to voiceofreason

Hehehehehehehe!!!

I am loving this. The law makes it so.

The bolded part above is binary thinking VOR.

Make some representation to the Cricket Committee of the ICC if you want the law changed.

I have had enough fun.

In reply to Raggs

Not to Courtesy and the rest of these Jokers.

I gone.

In reply to voiceofreason

...Hope it's forever.

In reply to Courtesy

Forever? Tough luck.

God bless, VOR will be around long long time from now just to make your life miserable.

In reply to Raggs

Enter the next combatant:

And are they the only ones to blame?

In reply to voiceofreason

In your mouth. A binary thinker and small fry like you.

Care to rephrase the above VOR, to reflect your latter thought?


Limbo dancing or just contortions?

In reply to Courtesy

There is a point where a winning position can turn the opposite a losing one. Bonner n Samuel took a win and helped it nicely to a lost.

In reply to Raggs

Repeat: are Bonner and Samuels the only ones to be blamed?

In reply to Courtesy

The main ones.

In reply to Raggs

Thank you sah.

Now, please tell VOR, that there were other contributors to the loss so he could amend the title of his thread appropriately.

[b]In reply to Courtesy

Just like Raggs said they were the main culprits to blame hence the reason I singled them out.
Skin teeth time:


Talk done lol:

In reply to voiceofreason

You may want to check the meaning of "single out" before you skin your teats.

Since when "single out" means it's is done fairly.

Singling it out (done fairly): "Bonner and Samuels among others facked it up".

Your headline emphatically states that it was only Bonner and Samuels who facked up.

You is a small fry.

In reply to Courtesy

You may want to check the meaning of " facked up" before we continue.

Urban Dictionary please. Let me help you.... 'Facked up' is a gigantic mess up caused by reckless behavior. Their mess up was so colossal and so significant that it was the main and most significant reason why we lost.

To answer your question...yes it was only Samuels and Bonner who facked up.

Small axe cut down big tree.

In reply to voiceofreason

Geez, you are a hub of confusion.

This:

Then this:

Make up your mind or try to extricate yourself from the maze of confusion which has engulfed you.

...............

A minimum of three batsmen played reckless shots...not two. And one of them includes the cappo.

In reply to Courtesy

Again look up fack up and come back to me...Colossal and major blunder. If you cannot understand what I am trying to say then you are hopeless. Let me put it another way Powell's error in judgment was a minor hiccup in the grand scheme of things as it should have been easily overcome by the other batsmen as the foundation was already set at 115/1. Instead Marlon Samuels and Bonner facked up with two outrageous dismissals that caused the loss.

Percentage wise: 97% blame must be attributed to Samuels and Bonner while the other 3% should be attributed to Tonge's poor second run, Powell's error in judgment, Management not sending in the left handed Hosein to thwart Pierre. 3 percent does ot equate to a fack up.

I hope this clears it up for you.

In reply to voiceofreason

And who determines that Powell's error in judgement was a minor hiccup? Isn't this subjective?

It was a major hiccup as far as I am concerned. He was the set batsman and he is the cappo.

Powell and indeed other batsmen must learn when you are in, especially the player who is likely to use the most balls to get set, stay in.

The opposition must pry your wicket...not grant it on a platter.

Powell had the new batsmen coming in with the pressure of not wanting to increase the run rate and they are not set.

Why am I not blaming the other opener?...reason...he did not gift his wicket away.

The cappo's indiscretion set the tone for his team.

I repeat, a minimum of three players played reckless shots and you are blaming only two of them.

There must be reason for blaming two players. I hope in time I can figure out why.

Lesson: Powell needed to finish the job. When in stay in. Don't leave the work for players coming after you.

You would have needed a crane to get Shiv Chanderpaul out in these circumstances and this is what separates the men from the fools masquerading as batsmen.

In reply to Courtesy

His foundation set the tone for the team. If he had played that shot on 5 runs with the team on 20 runs, then sure I would give that to you.



It is objective looking at the grand context of the innings and based on the fact that he laid the foundation and the game should have been an easy win for the Leewards at 115/1 with only 111 needed and 9 wickets in hand.

In reply to voiceofreason

Would you agree that Powell played a reckless shot...a yes or no will suffice?

By the way, my "grand context" is the overall objective of the game and that is winning the match.

I go beyond laying the foundation...finish the building with aplomb.

Your perspective is not surprisingly limited as this conveniently dovetails with your agenda for starting this thread.

And in that context, Powell's shot was reckless (jolly impulsive) and deserves all the flack from de Courtesy.

In reply to Courtesy

In reply to Courtesy

brilliant counter

i love me some good philosophical ramblings

In reply to voiceofreason

now u are back to doo doo


u can go hot and doo doo in the minute

#trumpet

In reply to doosra

Krishnamurti... the great Indian philosopher.

In reply to Courtesy

No.



I like the use of the word dovetails.

In reply to voiceofreason

Courtesy:

VOR:

Earlier VOR:
...including Samuels and Bonner.

...says it all. Have a great day.

In reply to Courtesy

Bad decision does not make it a reckless one.

Reckless: : marked by lack of proper caution :

Have a good day my friend.

In reply to voiceofreason

You have a heart to post this:

Reckless =

You duncy. That's right.

Powell gave no thought to the consequences of getting out, at a time when his team was not under any pressure with him in and in no any danger of losing.

And especially the day after England lost 8 wickets for 8 runs. Lack of match awareness.

Reckless you call it. The rest is history.

In reply to Courtesy

Yes I have the heart to. Again Powell's shot was not a reckless one where he was careless of the consequences.

Powell's intent was one considering the threat of Pierre and the need to get him out of the attack. He was also very aware that with 9 other batsmen to come and only 100 runs, that the foundation was already set and he had support to come and him taking that chance was appropriate at the time.

Careless of consequences it was not. Skin teet.

In reply to voiceofreason

And Powell was never aware that cricket is a game of glorious uncertainties?

I guess you should blame that on Root and Morgan. You are a real Dunce! Not even funny.

In reply to voiceofreason

More philosophy - bad, not reckless lol

In reply to voiceofreason

You are straying from the issue mate...

...That is not my argument and you know this...follow the thread...the problem is, blaming only Samuels and Bonner for facking up and no one else.

Got that?

In reply to Courtesy

They alone facked up. They alone were reckless. There was no calculated risk in their decision making.

Got that?

I gone.

In reply to voiceofreason

You better do.

Taking a risk when no risk is needed is called what?

This MB can do without your smoke and mirrors.

In reply to Courtesy

Powell was bad

Bonner and Samuels reckless

Bad is not reckless. Just a little less reckless lol

In reply to doosra

I'll buy this.

In reply to doosra

Reckless is careless of the consequences.

Powell took a calculated risk as he considered the position of the game and the need for him to attack and therefore nullify the young Pierre. He also considered that he had enough support behind him to take that risk. Reckless decision it was not.

This time I gone.

In reply to voiceofreason

Taking a risk when no risk is needed is called what?

RECKLESS...that's it.

I'll turn you like a facking top.

In reply to Courtesy

A risk was necessary as Khary Pierre was a threat to the RHB. Kieran needed to nullify his potency, take him off his game. The risk was worthwhile as he was a left handed bat who had the capability to nullify Pierre.

Now who doing the turning here.

In reply to voiceofreason

Now your head is spinning. Binary thinking.

Give me some more comic relief.

In reply to Courtesy

On to another challenge. This one is getting easier by the minute. Let me see if Yadi can provide a sterner challenge.

In reply to voiceofreason

Give me some more of your breast beating, binary, comic relief stuff.

Btw, thanks for the laughs. Come back on this thread soon.

In reply to voiceofreason

In reply to doosra

Thanks for the well deserved century.

In reply to voiceofreason

Do you appreciate centuries?

In reply to Courtesy

ouch!!!

that's a nice set up

In reply to doosra



Forget it, VOR.

In reply to Courtesy

115/0 is a good opening century. In a chase of 226, 90 % of the times that should be a solid foundation for an emphatic win.

In reply to voiceofreason

You're extracting stats from your ass now.

After Powell was out in the 27th , 10 players made 100 runs VOR you are 8 players short.

In reply to voiceofreason

?

In reply to voiceofreason

With all your talk this thread defending Kieran Powell's saying that the others didn't do their part, that its OK for him to say that because its true, and you attacking the posts of others when they say its KP himself should not have got out in that manner and left the job for others to do...


You never defended Gayle like that... Gayle always getting licks and blows saying its his fault...

Its different strokes for different folks... so inconsistent

In reply to Courtesy

... sure, only when they agree with you.

In reply to voiceofreason

... but this is the Lwrds we talking about ...duh!

In reply to natty_forever

The Leewards with Bonner at # 3, Samuels at # 4. DUH.