Message Board Archives

Former Ontario Cricket Association Director and RJR sports reporter Errol Townshend has a more studious take on the non-selection of Bravo and Pollard. He thinks it is Clive Lloyd's penchant for winning with fast bowling that is at the root of the matter, and in a conversation with me he makes the point that, in the language of this MB, 4-prong and shit-prong are vastly different things.

It is one thing when you have pacemen of the apocalypse such as Marshall, Holding, Garner, Roberts, Walsh or Ambrose - most of whom by the way knew what to do with a bat.

He believes Lloyd is trying to build a pace attack from lesser beings to the detriment of the whole team - and to the dismay of Chris Gayle who has expressed himself on the matter and countless others, not to mention Messrs Pollard and Bravo.

Townshend recalls that captain and top batsman Frank Worrell spent several years as West Indies leading fast bowler. He could have added that Sobers, who followed Worrell as captain and adored him, also did much the same.

Needless to say, neither man was a pace bowler of the apocalypse.

I could add that from the days of Lindwall and Miller, both of whom were centurions, Australia had top fast bowlers who could bat. Indeed their policy seems to be one of having batting down to #10 or #11.

Townshend expressed himself in a letter published recently in the Jamaica Observer, and asked me to post it on the MB. Here's the letter:

It's Not Victimization - Just Bad Selection Policy

by Errol Townshend

Those quick to accuse the West Indies selection committee chaired by Clive Lloyd of victimising Dwayne Bravo and Keiron Pollard for their roles in the aborted India tour may be missing the far more serious 20-year-old problem which has brought our cricket to its knees.

The case can be made that, by including Bravo and Pollard in the T20 team; there has been no victimisation. So what then is the rationale for Lloyd and fellow selector Courtney Walsh dropping them from the ODI team?

The 15-man World Cup includes no less than six fast/medium bowlers; at least three of them, on current form (Roach,Taylor and Cottrell) having no pretensions to batsmanship.

This presages the continuation of the failed policy of ignoring all-rounders (Bravo and Pollard) and negative spinners (Nikita Miller) with the resultant long donkey's tail in an era when Australia's last three wickets put on over 150 runs in a recent Test against India.

Lloyd and company apparently forget that the names of today's fast bowlers are not Holding, Garner or Marshall. What worked in his time has not worked for 20 years and won't work now. We should be far more concerned with Lloyd's doomed selection policy than any perceived 'victimisation’.

Errol W A Townshend
Toronto

Thanks Ewart.

Well reasoned although I do not believe the exclusion of Bravo & Pollard had anything to do with the 4-prong but with their involvement with the India fiasco.

Like Gayle before them, they a re being taught a lesson

By the way, I had often wondered what had become of Errol Townsend

In reply to jacksprat

Ha ha ha!

If you keep looking for Townsend, you won't find him. Like some Jamaicans, he cherishes the "h" in his name Townshend!



By the way, he spent several years as a lawyer in Toronto and retired from that in recent years.


//

In reply to Ewart

I remember Townshend as a lawyer in Toronto.

I was not aware of his background in journalism

In reply to jacksprat

Yes. A long and celebrated journalism career.

First at Public Opinion and Sports Life magazine, then at RJR.


//

In reply to jacksprat Well reasoned?? You being sarcastic, right? Personally I am not sure Lloyd and Walsh know what they are doing (one spinner to Indian, but two to Oz), but in all fairness the World Cup is primarily in Oz where the pitches are far better suited to faster bowlers or at least guys who can hit the seam. On the slow wickets in India and the Caribbean Pollard's bowling is very effective but I expect that he would be fodder on the good Oz wickets - in any event his bowling is more suited to T20 cricket where going for 8 an over is satisfactory. One day cricket requires a majority of the bowlers to be of the more conventional type.




I have an issue with what is the probable victimization of Bravo and Pollard but I say probable especially in the case of Pollard. Given the unsuitability of his bowling for a 50 over game down under and his suspect technique against short-pitched bowling, he would not be in my first 11.

You did notice that spinners on both RSA & OZ took more wickets than usual right? You also noticed yhat yhe pitches are slower according yo all OZ players and scores? Also, I hope you realizecprep of ODI pitches are usually dumbed down ones. Spinners peg back runs in these type of games, offies to lefties and leggies to righties. For once WI doesnt seem to have 7 leftie bats susceptible to any frigging offspinner! And al teams have about 3 of those including a genuine obe.

In reply to Scar I wasn't even suggesting that wi should not have 2 spinners in Oz, especially with Narine being an unknown quantity. I was questioning the selectors thought processes when they send 2 spinners to Oz and 1 to India. As to the Oz pitches - no, did not realize that they are usually "dumbed down ones". They seem simply to be good batting pitches with a lot of bounce. Spinners who turn the ball get the benefit of bounce as well.

In reply to Ewart


Hopelessly married....Yuh talking bout Waveney Lloyd?

In reply to Logic OZ past and present players were complaining about the slowness this year. The ICC I think has a set standard for their big events pitch preparations. Its a crowd pleasing game T20 and ODI, 6s and 4s lots if them required to keep the peeps coming

In reply to Narper

In reply to Logic You mean dem cant play the SP ball even if the pitches slower now?

I think Lloyd is old and passed it, hasn't seen enough local cricket and is a totally useless selector.

Why he was appointed is clearly all part of cameronocracy.

Several players selected should not be there including carter,brathwaite,Dwayne smith. Some are dubious and some obvious omissions.

But how did they pick narine? He was reported twice and withdrawn.he was never tested to confirm his action. Wicb have not overseen any rehabilitation and he has not been tested since. And he hasn't played since being reported.

Are we to assume secret testing has taken place and Lloyd knows what he is doing or iis it just another voop...And IF you can pick him for the World Cup why in gods name is he not in South Africa.that cannot be logical.

The days of 4 prong are long gone.

As chairman of selectors Lloyd should be at the grounds watching the matches.

The best thing to do would be to merge the team manager & chairman of selector roles. The manager tours with the team, he sees what's going on.

The chairman of selectors could be sitting in a sky studio.

In reply to doublecentury Brathwaite is not in the World Cup squad, only in the one day squad for SA. You may have a fair point on Carter... nothing substantial in regional cricket to support his selection. The only argument for him is a utility player, being a useful medium pacer, but more importantly good enough with the gloves to be a back up to Ramdin. Smith though, I think you are being unfair to him given that he was one of the few good performers in the last one day tournament in India with both a 90+ and a half century. On harder wickets he is also a much better bowler than he is given credit for (and better than some of these other part-timers)... but you have seen that for yourself in regional cricket. The fact that he has not bowled much since opening for WI may be because the captains - Bravo and Sammy - took a position that he must make it as a batsman only or not at all.

But, if I am wrong about his bowling we will see shortly as I am sure Holder will use his bowling vs SA>

Another thing: According to the WICB's stated mission, enunciated 4 years ago, they had started to put together a squad with the intention of having a 'settled team' by this World Cup in 2015.

How does one reconcile that stated goal with this virtually experimental squad that was assembled on the eve of the World Cup?

Some guys-including the Chairman of Selectors- are being a bit careless with the truth, hoping that we would all fall for their BS.

So far, so good.....


But what can be said about the apparent insistence on pace bowlers. Especially men who can't make any contribution to their team's batting.

In Clive Lloyd's day, he had the benefit of a strong batting line up with the "weakest" of them being the elegant centurion w.k. batsman Jeffrey Dujon. Not to mention the best opening pair the West Indies has ever had.


//

In reply to Logic

I am a Dwayne smith fan.i have seen him for queens park and Sussex and he can be a match winner in t 20. I saw him take a hat trick and a spell of five wickets for one run against Nottinghamshire.

But that's not the Dwayne that was in South Africa. He dropped catches he would have eaten,he was tentative batting and didn't bowl. He also looked grossly overweight.

He has recently pulled out of two overseas tournaments for personal reasons. From recent experience I am afraid I wouldn't have him in the 50 over team. Having said that I don't know who I would pick but certainly the other dwayne before him.

Anybody know how narine got picked without proving his action and form?

With the World Cup imminent why is the 50 over squad in South Africa the same as the World Cup squad?