Message Board Archives

HEADLINE: West Indies captain Jason Holder suspended for St Lucia Test

 
CaribbeanCricket.com 2019-02-03 11:50:53 

West Indies will be without their captain, Jason Holder, for the third Test of the series against England after the ICC suspended him.

Holder was held responsible for his team's slow over rate during the win in Antigua. West Indies wrapped up the three-match series with a second successive win - this time by 10 wickets - within three days in Antigua. They won the first Test in Barbados by 381 runs within four days.

ESPNcricinfo has the report


Full Story

 
InHindsight 2019-02-03 12:05:01 

In reply to CaribbeanCricket.com
Shucks

sad

 
sunfish 2019-02-03 12:08:15 

This is a harsh rule that should be shelved. Now we are faced with the lifeless Braithwaite leading the team in St Lucia. England will win this one.

 
conman 2019-02-03 12:12:35 

This needs to be addressed by the coaching staff. Jason for all his talent still has too much on his plate. And this will keep happening.

 
FuzzyWuzzy 2019-02-03 12:15:26 

In reply to conman

As long as you got a 4 prong it will happen

 
mikesiva 2019-02-03 12:20:28 

In reply to FuzzyWuzzy

Yes, this stupid ICC rule discriminates against teams that pick four genuine fast bowlers.

 
Slipfeeler 2019-02-03 14:13:16 

This is the craziest thing I have ever heard. I was just waiting for the English or the ICC or some other cricketing body not happy with WI recent success to uncover some type of negative reaction.
The real objective now is to totally demoralize 'ol England in the third test.

 
methodic 2019-02-03 14:18:53 

In reply to mikesiva

how much overs they want in an hour

 
tomm47e 2019-02-03 14:21:51 

Really sorry to hear this, not a fan of the ICC generally and this seems exceedingly harsh, given the conditions. Is there any appeal?

I cannot imagine it will lessen the resolve of the Windies next test though, and nor should it.

 
allan 2019-02-03 14:26:21 

In reply to methodic

15 overs a hour, 30 per session... 90 for the day... so some lappy spinner is being forced to play..
However for the final test, lets play Oshane Thomas instead of Holder..

 
POINT 2019-02-03 15:13:36 

NEVER EVER UNDERESTIMATE THE

PROPENSITY OF THE ENGLISH TO DELVE IN

CHICANERY .


I AM NOT SURPRISED ; WHEN ENGLAND

DECIDED TO LIMIT THE NUMBER OF

OVERSEAS PLAYERS PLAYING CRICKET IN

ENGLAND ; THAT DECISION WAS AIMED

MAINLY TO OUR PLAYERS , WHO IN THOSE

DAYS DOMINATED INTERNATIONAL CRICKET

DESPITE THE FACT THAT IN THE REGION

WE HAD NO REGIONAL CRICKET LEAGUE .


ENGLAND HAS ALWAYS BEEN IN THE

FOREFRONT OF ALL INTERNATIONAL

CRICKET INTRIGUES .


WHO HAD THE FASTEST BOWLERS IN THE

WORLD WHEN IT WAS DECIDED TO

INTRODUCE THE ONE BOUNCER PER OVER

RULE ?????

ONE THING WE NO FOR SURE IT WAS NOT

OUR CRICKET BOARD .

 
bobby 2019-02-03 15:20:19 

This Test Match ended in 3 days so obviously the rule needs to be amended.

 
dayne 2019-02-03 15:36:16 

IMO this rule was manufactured to counteract the dominate days of the WI when they were playing four fast bowlers in their Test matches.

 
netgrouchy 2019-02-03 15:51:15 

The irony of it all: A captain is banned for SLOW OVER RATE when he managed to wrap up a 5-day test match in THREE days!!!!! Hilarious but freaking dumb rule!!!!!! They should beat the crap out of England in St.Lucia.

 
openning 2019-02-03 15:54:19 

This is not the first time a captain has been suspended for slow over rate.
Sometimes we want to play the blame game, the management team should had been aware of this, during the match.
BTW, Jason should have known prior to this match, how close he was to being suspended.

 
Sylobeauty 2019-02-03 16:05:33 

No, Jason Holder is suspended for causing West Indies to embarrass England in two consecutives games, by 381 runs in Barbados and followed it up wit almost an inning defeat in Antigua. ICC is really controlled by England, Australia and South Africa so they have to react when they see us on a rise. If anything, it is ICC that ought to pay us back for only 2.5 days of cricket when we paid or subscribed to 5 days. If the game ended in a draw and they wanted to blame Holder, I would probably understand. But we embarrassed them in less than two days, in essence with almost 200 overs to spare man. That's hogwash!

 
Khaga 2019-02-03 16:09:59 

In reply to Sylobeauty

lol

SA?

 
JahJah 2019-02-03 16:22:03 

In reply to Sylobeauty

Khaka trying to tell you bout him peeps and how dem tan, but unnu nah listen, and is ungle pink people unnu a watch and worry bout. lol

 
Sylobeauty 2019-02-03 16:28:23 

Is that ICC way of trying to help England win a game? But tell them they wrong because the English batsmen are scared of fast bowling and therefore the suspension of JH will only cause more embarrassment to them because that will just create an opportunity for our FASTEST bowler Oshan Thomas, to bounce them out! How dare you suspend JH for slow over rate when we bowled out England just after Tea on the first day, with so bad calls had to be reviewed and in the 2nd inning we bowled them out between lunch and tea, with again poor umpire decisions against us had to be reviewed? ICC stands for Island Cricket Crusher. They just want to crush us

 
Sylobeauty 2019-02-03 17:03:13 

In the 70's when Lance Gibbs became a force with the ball, ICC quickly changed rules to limit the amount of fielders behind the bat.

When our fast bowlers were bouncing out their batsmen, ICC quickly came with laws to limit the amount of bouncers bowled in an over

After Jermaine Lawson went through Australia and terrorized them with pace, ICC banned him.

ICC is there to help protect England, Australia and India, while they do everything within their power to ensure that we don't rule cricket again

 
Ewart 2019-02-03 17:13:40 

And do not forget that it was after Alfred Valentine bamboozled them (7 for 127 2nd Test 1950 Lords) with his leg-breaks that they installed the rule about balls pitched outside leg cannot get you lbw.

//

 
Baje 2019-02-03 18:12:14 

In reply to allan

15 overs a hour, 30 per session... 90 for the day... so some lappy spinner is being forced to play..
However for the final test, lets play Oshane Thomas instead of Holder..

So which one was violated hour/session/day

 
uton 2019-02-03 18:17:03 

Easy solution to get around this in the future, give the "figure-head" captaincy to the most expendable or weakest link to shield your critical or least expendable players from being sanctioned.

 
Baje 2019-02-03 18:19:15 

In reply to uton
Then we will be fined for "not in the spiit of the game"

 
carl0002 2019-02-03 18:28:57 

I think we have pondered this question before, how can you be charged for slow over rate when you win the match inside 3 days for a 5 day test. It seems illogical and the suspension for a game seems rather harsh as opposed to just a fine. smh

 
che 2019-02-03 18:30:28 

In reply to netgrouchy

They should beat the crap out of England in St.Lucia.

Widout Holder windies weaker

 
Norm 2019-02-03 18:46:21 

What the ? Something seems very fishy here.

Generally tho, most regional pacers take an awfully long time to return to their bowling marks. This is particularly bad in the regional first class championship, where matches often have to be extended beyond the scheduled close of play, to try to bowl the stipulated number of overs in a day's play.

CWI should introduce a similar rule in regional first class cricket, to force regional players to get into the habit of returning to their bowling marks quickly.

Get some rest, cappo. You earned it.

 
carl0002 2019-02-03 19:14:37 

I think he can appeal and get off with a fine. If that's the case he should do so pronto. In the end they only want the money to cover whatever the broadcasting rights owner was penalized.

 
openning 2019-02-03 19:27:47 

In reply to carl0002

The ICC rule book says

Link Text

 
carl0002 2019-02-03 20:27:51 

In reply to openning
Did not read all of it but what comes to mind is this. If the rule is to prevent the wasting of time - for a game that is supposed to last 5 days, if you finished with a result in 3 days how is it logical that you were wasting time.

lol lol lol

 
doublecentury 2019-02-03 20:35:03 

In reply to carl0002

The rule s simply to ensure that the spectators who pay for the day get 90 overs..

 
openning 2019-02-03 20:35:35 

In reply to carl0002
It is the number of overs bowled, not the number of days a game is played.
Holder and the management team, should had known he was disciplined before the test.

 
Baje 2019-02-03 21:02:28 

In reply to doublecentury


The rule s simply to ensure that the spectators who pay for the day get 90 overs..

If England would have batted longer, we would have used our spinners. They gave us no chance to use our spinners. England needs to bat longer

 
POINT 2019-02-03 21:26:16 

ENGLAND HAS ALWAYS BEEN AMONG THE

COUNTRIES STEEPED IN INTERNATIONAL

CRICKET CHICANERY .

I was therefore not surprised that it
was among the Countries that decided
to Hijack most of the ICC Profits .

 
VoopsandOut 2019-02-03 21:28:55 

that is exactly the point. How can they blame only us for wasting time when the other side also bowled on the two days that we bowled? Are they in effect saying that you must bowl an over in 4 minutes or else you are penalized even if you are fetching the ball from the boundary every ball? I don't want it to be a conspiracy theory but I really hope that WI appeals or else we will have to think that the tourist dollar for St Lucia is more important than the development of the cricket.

 
openning 2019-02-03 21:37:04 

In reply to POINT

Point, in a democracy, you have one vote, unless you have the diplomacy, to influence others.
Stop playing the victim, each cricketing nation, look out for itself.
We just don't have leaders in the region.

 
netgrouchy 2019-02-03 22:18:16 

Poor umpiring added to the drama. JH captained his team to victory twice for the series and the cup was won. Huge blow to show up in St. Lucia for the third WIN without the skipper!

Today is officially the final day of the 2nd test in which we:
1. Took 20 wickets
2. Lost 10 wickets
3. Captured the WISDEN
4. Lost our Captain

Bring on the 3rd Test! Rules are rules and we always play by the rules!!! We have all put in our 'entitled two bits' so JASON gets a rest (we can pretend he is injured) and someone will fill the void. Have faith! big grin

 
POINT 2019-02-03 22:43:22 

In reply to openning

The only thing that you stated that makes sense is your last sentence .
It seems that You ignorant of the following freaking Facts :

AT THE ZENITH OF WEST INDIES CRICKET

SUPERIORITY IN INTERNATIONAL CRICKET

ENGLAND OUT OF THE BLUE DECIDED TO

LIMIT OVERSEAS PLAYERS , FROM

PLAYING CRICKET IN ENGLAND .


I AM FIRMLY OF THE BELIEF THAT THIS

WAS AIMED MAINLY AT OUR PLAYERS ,

BUT COUCH THIS DECISION

DIPLOMATICALLY , THIS DECISION

INCLUDED ALL OVERSEAS PLAYERS , IT

WOULD HAVE LOOKED TO GLARING TO ONLY

SINGLE OUT WEST INDIES CRICKETERS .

SO THEY STATED ALL OVERSEAS PLAYERS.

I am never ever going to retract what I have stated .

FOLLOWING THE ABOVE IT WAS DECIDED

TO CURTAIL THE MANY MATCHES THAT

TOURING TEAMS PLAYED BETWEEN THE

TEST MATCHES .

This along with England limiting Overseas Players from playing in England obviously hampered the Competitiveness of Our Players in the International Cricket Arena , due to the freaking fact that the
Members of the Worst International Cricket Board in the Commonwealth ,
aka the WICBC bluntly refused to have a Regional Cricket League at this Juncture .

THESE TWO FACTORS THAT I HAVE CITED

ABOVE CANNOT EVER BE REFUTED BY

ANYONE . SINCE YOU CLAIM TO BE

KNOWLEDGEABLE ABOUT CRICKET YOU

SHOULD KNOW THAT THE FORMER

INTERNATIONAL TOUR SCHEDULE ALLOWED

VISITING TEAMS OPPORTUNITIES TO GET

ACCLIMATIZED TO THE WEATHER & THE

PITCHES .


IT ALSO GREATLY ASSISTED OUR PLAYERS

TO ALSO BE FULLY FIT MENTALLY &

PHYSICALLY & ALSO THEIR SKILLS WERE

FINELY HONED . DESPITE THE FACT THAT

THERE WAS IN THE REGION NO REGIONAL

CRICKET LEAGUE .


I SUBMIT THAT THERE IS NO ONE IN THE

FREAKING WORLD THAT CAN FACTUALLY

REFUTE WHAT I HAVE STATED HERE .

I would readily agree that Our Players were the Victims of a scheme
by Other Cricket playing Countries to weaken the Supremacy of Our Players in the International Cricket Arena .

 
POINT 2019-02-03 22:46:51 

In reply to openning

PERHAPS IT MAY HAVE ESCAPED YOUR

ATTENTION ; BUT CRICKET HISTORY

INFORMS AT LEAST ME , THAT WE HAD THE

FASTEST BOWLERS IN THE WORLD WHEN IT

WAS DECIDED THAT PACE BOWLERS CAN

ONLY BOWL 1 BOUNCER PER OVER .

IN THIS FREAKING RESPECT WE WERE THE

VICTIMS .

For years I have stated all of the
above and neither YOU are anyone in
this Forum have produced credible
evidence to factually refute what I
have stated .

Now Run Along ; because nothing that I have stated here can ever be factually refuted . About 7 or 8 years ago it finally dawned on the
Worst International Cricket Board in
the Commonwealth , aka the WICBC to
have a Regional Cricket League .

THE FREAKING FACT IS THAT THIS

SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE WHEN OUR

PLAYERS WERE SUPREME IN

INTERNATIONAL CRICKET .


OBVIOUSLY THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE

TO GET MANY SPONSORS ; HISTORY

INFORMS US THAT AT THAT JUNCTURE THE

PEOPLE IN WICBC SAT ON THEIR

COLLECTIVE & INDIVIDUAL ASSES AND

DID ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ; AT A TIME

WHEN THEY COULD HAVE GOT FINANCIAL

SPONSORS TO HAVE A REGIONAL CRICKET

LEAGUE .

 
ducks 2019-02-03 22:57:59 

In reply to sunfish
Even if the rule is harsh it was known. Professionals should not continually fail to operate within the rules Having four fast bowlers is no excuse Skipper must always be aware of the situation However when they were penalized when Oz scored some 400 in a day I thought it was unjust as so much time had to be spent retrieving balls

 
openning 2019-02-03 23:00:56 

In reply to POINT
Point, When it comes to cricket, I've witnessed some of the greats, unlike you.
The Three W's did not need playing in England to make them great, it was playing in Barbados, Jamaica, T&T, Guyana, Windwards and Leewards and of course clubs within the BCA, that made them great.
Tell your nonsense to youngsters who just start following T20 cricket.
Everyone has to put in the work, but need facilities, to work on their game.
The WICB is a member of the ICC, with one vote, you will need a polish person to help you with your agenda.
I cannot blame anyone, if I died poor, I had the opportunity to be just like any other middle class person.
Thats how my experience in life taught me.

 
openning 2019-02-03 23:03:05 

In reply to POINT
Point, did you know anything about the slow over rule, and did you commented on it, prior to today?

 
POINT 2019-02-03 23:08:17 

In reply to ducks

You have raised a very important point ; Our Problem is that the WICBC , also
known as the Worst International Cricket Board in the Commonwealth are
devoid of Testicular Fortitude to Challenge the ICC .

They however relish bullying Our Players , while being subservient to the dictates of the ICC .

 
openning 2019-02-03 23:15:12 

In reply to POINT

Stop with the nonsense of the ICC.
The WICB is a member of the ICC, with one vote.
You behaving like Fidel Castro, whose voice is the only one that matter.

 
POINT 2019-02-03 23:20:31 

In reply to openning

FYI I saw the first Test Match in 1960
in Barbados , So your assertion is
False .

I am very well aware of the fact that
You relish talking about Test Matches
with your blasted condescending attitude that You generally resort to
when You cannot factually refute what I state in this Forum .

Yes I know , you have seen more Test Matches than I have , but that does
not negate what I have stated here .
In fact from now on I am not going to respond to what You state in response to what I state in this Forum .

 
openning 2019-02-03 23:36:05 

In reply to POINT
Point, I was a tot, the first time I was a test match, that match did nothing to the way I see a cricketer.
It is my experience, talking and being friends with people that are smarter than I am, that has help me.
I spend 8 hrs with Muhammad Ali in 1972, I knew that evening that he was a strong individual, but It was not all about being black.
It was a lesson that I would not had gotten reading this MB but it was the same I got from two teachers growing up in Barbados

 
netgrouchy 2019-02-04 00:02:08 

In reply to che

We can't deny that but we need confidence in the "11" who take the field in Lucy!!
Watch this space!

 
mikesiva 2019-02-04 01:46:09 

Did anybody hear any fan watching the Antigua match complaining about the over rate and demanding their money back?

If the answer is no then who does this law benefit?

The law is an ass, as Bumble said in Olivier Twist.

 
Baje 2019-02-04 10:26:45 

In reply to ducks

Even if the rule is harsh it was known. Professionals should not continually fail to operate within the rules Having four fast bowlers is no excuse Skipper must always be aware of the situation However when they were penalized when Oz scored some 400 in a day I thought it was unjust as so much time had to be spent retrieving balls

Would you risk losing the game by bowling spinners when your fast bowlers are getting the job done? We sent England in to bat, expecting the fast bowlers to exploit the conditions. The fast bowlers bowled them out in 61 overs. Are you suggesting that we should have eased the pressure, by bowling the spinners to obtain a better over rate?

 
Sylobeauty 2019-02-04 10:43:12 

The real victims of this very bad ICC decision are the people of St. Lucia. They have been denied the opportunity to see the newly crowned number 1 all rounder of the world, live in action. They were denied by the ICC to see West Indies in full strength for the third and final test. They were denied the opportunity to witness a possible west Indies whitewashing England in a three test series, something we had not seen in almost 30 years. I mean in which sport apart from cricket will you see the governing body take a decision to hurt their fan base? Can you imagine the NBA taking such a dummy decision against Lebron James? If JH was banned because of drugs or for bringing the game into shame, that would be on him. But for slow over rate? In a game where England was bowled out inside 3 days and could only bat a total of 103 overs? ICC should take the circumstances of the game into consideration and allow Jason Holder to play man.

 
Outswinger 2019-02-04 11:10:01 

In reply to CaribbeanCricket.com

This is totally and utterly ridiculous!

This rule should only be invoked if a team batting second to win the game is denied victory due to the number of overs being reduced in order to prevent them from scoring and earning the victory. And in that case, maybe the team being denied should be awarded the game. That will stop it fast!

The game was won in three days with two remaining!!!!!!! Hello ICC!!!! cry

 
Tagwa1 2019-02-04 13:12:54 

Read Mark Nicholls piece and will post my position on it hear.

Total emotionalism Nicholls. Sometimes these guys instead of standing for what's right see it as an opportunity to join a populist surge. After winning and making a double of course Jason Holder must be an untouchable. Ride the wave Nicholls, ride the wave.

Not me I call BS when I see it. No matter how unpopular my position.

The only way Nicholls a man of great cricket knowledge can reach that conclusion is by playing dumb. By doing that he will be popular in Bridgetown, Banks on the house; after all he defends the great Holder against the Mighty and unfair ICC.

Look the ICC have done a lot of unfair things to lesser teams. This however is not one of them. It's not even up for discussion. Without a time law and strict enforcement the modern game is dead. Just imagine what would happen to TV rights with people moping around and not bowling.

No wonder Nucholls cannot put any fact into his letter. No numbers, no real history. If the law needs more overs or less penalities ect. Bring it up.

The law was first put it for two reasons.

1. Against fast bowlers taking too much time. West Indies was prime violaters but so were many other teams.

2. Because Fielding teams would simply bowl slow when they were about to be beaten too. Teams looking to draw games would simply diddle Daly till time ran out.

As I pointed out before England has been the most penalized team,18 times followed by Sri Lanka 17. Not West Indies.

Besides over the years WI Captains worked it out to simply let a spinner bowl a few overs. Sometimes they even got a ticket or two. Richards was the master at that with his low full tosses.

Holder cricketing skill has improved leaps and bounds and he is clearly a great leader of men. He has to improve his overall captaincy though. Anyone who is really into Cricket will tell you that.

As he said in the end it's a simple problem and all teams have to abide by it. It's the same thing as a yellow for wasting time in football.

I understand Holder is now an untouchable after his stellar performances. But we as a people need to stop this " Hero and the crowd" mentality. Its no wonder we get fooled so easily by politicians and others. We need to start thinking more objectively.

Sometimes we should be holding our own accountable if we truly love them. Defending BS is one sure way to never make those we love improve.

 
JOJO 2019-02-04 13:30:34 

In reply to Tagwa1

I understand Holder is now an untouchable after his stellar performances. But we as a people need to stop this " Hero and the crowd" mentality. Its no wonder we get fooled so easily by politicians and others.


The first time I got any sense of this was when I read your post.

Context may not be everything but it should count for something.

Holder was short by 2 overs—TWO! That’s in a game that ended with two days and a few minutes to spare.

How many spectators complained that they were short of play by the slow over rate?

About the rule in general: Don’t you think it undermines the integrity of the game when officials decide to exclude a player that may be key to the game? What if that was a series deciding game. What if it was a real crowd puller like Kohli, (playing in India) instead of Holder.

And don’t tell me players get banned in soccer—it is not the same thing. The offenses are not similar.

 
Scar 2019-02-04 14:33:46 

Series won. Gabriel walks to his mark and run up takes uo about 2 extra minutes. AlJo will be out next game so both Oshane and Keemo should get a game

 
mikesiva 2019-02-05 03:06:57 

In reply to JOJO

Anybody with common sense on the ICC can change the law to make it applicable only when matches end in a draw.

Simple!

The question is this. Is there anybody with common sense on the ICC?

 
carl0002 2019-02-05 10:27:28 

In reply to openning
You are completely missing the point. Of course its the number of overs bowled-per day. Even Shane Warne is saying the game only lasted 2.6 days. The point is if the game lasted only 3 days out of 5 what is the justification for over rate when you get a decision in 3. If you prefer I could say the same thing in overs. 450 overs max they finished it in 200 overs or whatever the amount was. Both teams still have 250 overs to spare.

 
POINT 2019-02-05 10:37:44 

What can anyone expect from an Entity
that allowed 4 of its Members to attempt HiJacking the Lion's Share
of the ICC Profits ?????

What can anyone expect from an Entity
that has allowed the Worst International Cricket Board in the
Commonwealth to bluntly refuse to change its 90 years Structure , despite periodically Commissioning
Several Reports & then swiftly discarding those Reports without any
considering and addressing the Findings of those Reports .

 
openning 2019-02-05 12:30:03 

In reply to carl0002

You are completely missing the point.

I have not discussed the rule or try to play the Victim game.
This rule has been around for decades, numerous captains were fined previously, was there any out cry from members of this MB of the rule?
How many days did the game last, when Jason suffered the same fine, against NZ?
I support anyone, that say the rule need to be amended, I just don't support fans, who think winning in three days, the fine was unnecessarily.

 
jelfew 2019-02-05 12:37:04 

In reply to carl0002
Real POINTS. Again I ask was there a time in the matches that the Windies bowlers could bowl 90 overs in a day? If the suspension or the law is based on 90 overs being bowled in a day, then it would seem unfair to apply it to the Windies captain if they indeed couls not do it. Warne and Vaughan has made a strong point.

 
carl0002 2019-02-05 13:51:43 

In reply to openning


It is not the first time we are having this discussion. We had this very discussion for New Zealand and the same arguments I had then is the same I have now. Only that we are on the winning end on this occasion. So win or lose, he is being punished for not doing it efficiently, despite the result in significantly less than the stipulated time. Makes no sense.

 
carl0002 2019-02-05 14:01:50 

In reply to jelfew
That's the other thing we have not even considered. I don't think The English men batted out the 3 session in a day. Which means what they are really looking at is the over rate per hour despite the tumbling of wickets.