Message Board Archives

Assessing West Indies performance in the last World Cup, commentator Michael Holding -- known for his knowledge, insight and candour -- said West Indies did not play "intelligent" cricket. Given the constraints of modern television commentary, Holding was being polite. I have no such constraints. Too often we lose because we play "dumb" cricket. The decision in the third and deciding Test of the current series against Pakistan to win the toss and bowl is just one more example.

On an overcast morning, with rain in the air, moisture already allegedly in the pitch, there are two competing theories as to what you do when you win the toss in a Test match. One is what I call the "English Colonialist Theory": insert the opposition and hope to get early wickets. This theory is fancied by the English. England is the only Test country where the weather, perennially, makes a significant impact on decisions. Outside of English conditions, this theory has more holes than Swiss cheese. It is predicated on so many "ifs" it should have been discredited and discarded long ago.

In reply to CaribbeanCricket.com


You tell them Errol.

And then they go further and believe that

1) it is bowlers who win matches and
2) that they have the bowlers to win matches.

All the great West Indies teams had top class batting down to no. 6 or 7.


//

Just learned something new: Ram & Val were 2 inexperience debutants when they faced England in 1950.

I guess in today's thinking they would have been seemed not to be "ready", and so too would Sobers, who debuted 4 years later, with a mere 3-4 FC games under his belt.

In reply to jacksprat


Yes, they were!


//

ET continue to school us. ET, Foggy and Jimmy Carnegie Jamaican journalists of the highest order!

I don't agree with the author. It was a good call to bowl on a pitch with life, overcast conditions and a fast bowler tearing it up in the mid nineties. Pakistan was very fortunate to end the first day with only 3 wickets down. The fielders should have taken chances coming their way as well there were several near misses where bat barely missed nicking ball.

With regards to new ball spinner I believe Chase was given the ball 8 overs in. The cherry was still fairly fresh.

And finally he talks about WI batting last......not necessarily......not if they get a big score over the next day and a half....anything upwards of 150 in front and its serious trouble for Pak

If Holder had batted first, many of these experts would have been waxing eloquently about why he should have bowled first.

If your fast bowlers recently dismissed the opposition for under 100 and you win the toss in what appears to be helpful conditions for your fast bowlers, won't you decide to bowl too?

A lot of if's.No sane captain will bat first on an overcast morning with some moisture in the wicket.Pakistan lost a few wickets but weathered the storm.
The author needs to get out and see some cricket in the parks in Canada there when it is overcast.

In reply to CaribbeanCricket.com

What I don't understand is, it seems as if Bishoo is now a part time bowler, each and every match of this series chase is bowling before him. Now I understand chase has been picking up wickets too but Bishoos primary role is a bowler and his confidence must be taking a beating knowing you're the spinner and is being introduced last into the attact.

In reply to vsingh

Can only fault himself...

In reply to jacksparrow
Two reasons for bowling first
1. Exploiting helpful bowling conditions
2. Protecting a weak batting lineup from a quality pace attack under helpful conditions.