Message Board Archives

Pick a winner

1.Hunte .............. 1. Greenidge
2.Stollmeyer......... 2. Haynes
3.Kanhai.............. 3. Kallicharan
4.Weekes............. 4. Richards
5.Worrell(cappo)... 5. Lloyd (cappo)
6.Sobers.............. 6. Hooper
7.Walcott ............ 7. Dujon
8.Valentine .......... 8. Marshall
9.Hall.................. 9. Roberts
10.Griffith........... 10. Garner
11. Gibbs............ 11.Holding

In reply to Narper

How would Carl Hooper make a 70s-80s team ahead of Lawrence Rowe, Ritchie Richardson, Larry Gomes, Seymour Nurse and Charlie Davis?

In reply to Fivestar

You guys just add names?
Hooper from the team selected is an All-rounder
As a youngster I did not get it, when the Combine Islands were complaining of David Allan selection ahead of Shillingford, ever since then, I understood team selection.

In reply to Narper

Freddo before Haynes and Richardson should be in dey. Stollemyer? mussee could find a better bat than him. Collie Seymour Butcher even though they didn't open.

In reply to openning

Number one, who was David Allen? Number two, there is no law that every team has to have an all-rounder, you pick your best team.

There was a time when every Test team had two specialist spinners and an all-rounder. Problem was sometimes the two spinners couldn't get anyone out. Also, the so called all-rounder wouldn't take wickets or score runs.

I'm sorry but Hooper could not make a 70s-80s West Indies team.

In reply to openning

Correct...the spin option to support Richards

In reply to Oilah

I am not going to pick any 11 players to just fill the team....I am looking at the role I expect them to play in the TEAM...if a player is not an established opener I am not going to pick him to open...or if I am looking for a spin bowling allrounder I am going to pick Hooper and not Richardson or Rowe or Davis...I looked at Harper too but Hooper is the better player to contribute some tight spin like Richards could to allow some periodic rest for any one of the 4 prong fastmen

Stollmeyer and Freddo has the same test average....42

Freddo played only 2 years in the 60s ( 10 test matches and averaged 27....therefore couldn't make the 50-60s team....70-80s...Haynes / Greenidge formed the best opening combination in the history of test cricket...Freddo loses out here

In reply to Fivestar

.

The spin bowling role Hooper and Richards would play in my team is to give any one or two of the 4 prong fast bowlers a short rest and yet keep the pressure on....Richards and Hooper would get thru an over in a minute...for spit usually

In reply to Narper

I like Hooper, in fact, I've never seen anyone make batting look as easy the way he did. It was as if he knew what the bowler would bowl before the ball was delivered. However, his batting average was 36 and his bowling average was 50. So not sure he is an all-rounder in Test cricket. Maybe One Day games.

In reply to Fivestar

His econ in test is 2.5...and I am not picking him to bowl out the opposition....the 4 prong is quite capable of doing that on ANY wicket...I am picking him to give the spin variety to the attack and to periodically during the innings... give a fastman a break

In reply to Fivestar

How do you decide the best team?
Surely Hooper would never make any West Indies all time X1, as far as I am concern, but I saw where Narp was going with his selection.
Richardson has to play and bat at #3, I have him ahead of Kallicharan

In reply to Narper

I think that 60s team would beat the 70s team.

In reply to anandgb

I am not so sure about that...that 4 prong is lethal....dem ole big bats of the past never faced anything like that in their entire careers

In reply to Narper
Anyone of the oldsters, having played on undercovered wickets, Cartroads, in gaps, Backyards, can bat against any fast bowler.

In reply to openning

I know the oldsters can play fast bowling well....and without helmet and other guards to boot......but we are talking about a 4 prong...non stop pressure...all bowling with a different style

Would have been fascinating to watch

In reply to Narper

Let us wish Sir Carl a Happy Birthday, he turns 50 next week.

In reply to openning

(86 tests) Richardson averaged 44.39 and Kallicharan ( 66 tests) averaged 44.43

Richardson 16x100 and 27 x50 and Kalli 12x100 and 21x50 ( Kalli had 9 scores in the 90s)

Kalli gets the edge for me because he faced Lilee and Thompson in their heyday and also his superior ability to play spin....in the match up he has to face Gibbs, Valentine and maybe spin from Sobers

In reply to Fivestar

I noticed that when I checked his stats....Dec 15 .....wow 50

In reply to anandgb

Anand,I admire your consistency..

In reply to Narper


But I still think that Freddo and Greenidge was our best opening pair in the 70s...it just didn't last as long as Haynes Greenidge. It also had the minor advantage of the left right combination.

Richards would be bowl what little spin was needed. Hooper out and Richardson in for me. I pick 60's team to win. West Indian batsmen back in the day eat fast bowling for lunch. Anyone of the top seven would have no problem with the fast bowling while Gibbs, Valentine and Sobers would be a real problem. You had a lot of fast bowlers back in that time also who were very fast. They just were never measured for speed. To tell you the truth I think they were meaner also. Playing on those coverless pitches was no joke.

In reply to Narper

It is not only about the average they ended up with.Kalli had a dramatic tail off of his average towards the end of his test career when he came back into the team after Packer.
After 50 of his 66 test matches his test batting average was 50.19.Richie Richardson never averaged 50 after his 10th test match.
It is like the spurious argument that Worrell is not great since his overall test average is less than 50,when he played his last test series as a captain only!!!!

Kallicharran was a better batsman than Richardson.

In reply to Fivestar

Overall average is misleading. Since becoming captain, and definitely in the latter half of his career, Sir Carl was averaging in the 40s

In reply to seaegg99

There was a time when fast bowlers only tried to bowl fast and straight. In fact, many experts back then felt once you were bowling over ninety miles an hour it was not possible to get movement through the air or off the wicket. So once the shine was off the ball you had to hide these speed merchants until the second new ball.

The game of cricket has evolved and modern fast bowlers are more versatile. They can take wickets with both the new and old ball. For example, Malcolm Marshall was lightening fast yet he could move the ball both ways through the air and off the wicket.

In reply to Narper

Going by that, Hooper played 16 Tests in the 80's and averaged 25 and took 7 wickets at 74.

In reply to Fivestar

When was this time???

In reply to Dukes

Totally agree.

kalli was comfortable with pace and of the West Indian bats I've seen only Lara might be a better player of spin.

Full disclosure...Kalli and Hoops are my two alltime favorite batsmen

In reply to openning

The most potent fast bowling combo the 50s team faced was Lindwall and Miller, and just dem two run them all over Australia. There is no way they coming out on top facing the full might of the four prong for five test matches

In reply to Andy99

Pick your better allrounder...who could spin

In reply to openning

only a cricketing no nothing would pick Richardson ahead of kallicharran.

on paper, shewag is Richards equal...and we know that is hogwash

In reply to Narper

Question though is there a need for one?
Look at the 70's to 80's team, the ones that actually played, the 4 prong managed well and according to them and reports could bowl all day long. Viv was enough support back then.

In reply to Andy99

There may be no need for one...but I am picking one


Larry Gomes used to bowl his medium pacers

Charlie Davis used to the same

Even Lloyd in his younger days filled that role

Harper players for a while

In reply to Dukes

he was great for 50 tests then

hahahaha

In reply to Narper

agree with Anand. The 60s team would win.

better all around team under the best leader in WI cricketing history!

In reply to googley

My first hero Kanhai handed the torch to my 2nd hero Kallicharran

In reply to Narper

WestDem calls that handing of torch, frenism!

In reply to Fivestar

Vanburn Holder swing the ball. Stephen Farmer swing the ball. Ramnarace swung the ball. Sober swung the ball. Julien swung the ball. Batsmen back then we're just better prepared and like to bat. Doubt many of the 60's team was too worried about the bowlers. They were just class players in a competitive environment.

In reply to seaegg99

I did not get the impression that Vanburn Holder was a swing bowler.He used to bowl off and leg cutters similar to Brian Statham.The others I agree with but not Vanburn who incidentally was a very close friend of Clive Lloyd back in the day.
BTW Vanburn and I share the same birthday.

The 70-80s team would win and I basing it on one team: Australia.

the 50-60s only dominated AUS once and that was in 1965 in the Caribbean....they were never able to beat Aus in Aus.

The only WI team that ever terrorized and murdered Aus in Aus was the WI 70-80S TEAM...and not just that they had four fast bowlers...they had four menancing fast bowlers.

To further my point the only time SA has ever been dominated in SA was against that WI rebel team that consisted of a pace attack of Clarke,Moseley, Stephenson and Alleyne.

A genuine four prong is a killer in test cricket!

In reply to Narper

I think to get a better picture of how the teams will fair is to do a comparison of player V player and then try to come up with a verdict... Of course, then will enter the analysis with each players in different era. e.g the batsmen in the 50/60's played on uncovered pitches; but then the bowlers of the 70/80's didn't bowl on those pitches. So, while it makes for interesting comparison, I guess the arguement will go on.

In reply to Dukes

Before the seventies, when the cricket revolution started.

In reply to Dukes

Yuh just remind me of some shit talk muh cousin said bout Vanburn. Playing a match Vanburn pants bus out and he borrow one from another player...I think he said Boyce. When de day done and Vanny went to give back de pants Boyce tell Vanny tuh keep de pants...permanent bow set in

In reply to Bigzinc

Dude, why dont you stick to fast food cricket?
I'll select Richie ahead of Kalli, anytime.

In reply to Dukes

I played against Vanburn in his last match for St. Leonards, I was 12 years at the time, never followed his career after that time

In reply to Dukes

on what tour did Kallicharan come back in the team after Packer?

In reply to methodic
"on what tour did Kallicharan come back in the team after Packer?"
I think 1980 in England and 1981 in the WI V England. If he didn't play the full tour in 1981, it's bcs he was injured, but I am sure he played in that odi in St Vincent when Wi was bowled out for 120+ and they bowled out England for a few runs less...When Crawft got 6 Wickets for about 15 and 11 runs came off one of his over.

In reply to tops

when did Gomes get back in the team? Gomes and Kalicharan didn't play together when he was called back.

In reply to googley

For West Dem is a Berbice focus only.

In reply to openning

That's probably because you never saw Kalli bat. He was a maestro against both pace and spin. The most complete batsman that ever played the game some say.

In reply to Narper


What makes you think that Alf Valentine would bat at #8 in any West Indies team of any era?

It's little details like that which cause me to scratch my chin and murmur, "hmmmm".

In reply to methodic

I should have said when the Packer players came back into the team against Australia in December 1979.He played in 4 series for 15 test matches where he scored 530 runs at an average of 25.24. This resulted in his test average dropping from 50 to 44.

In reply to seaegg99

Think you may have misunderstood my point. Back in the day, there were fast bowlers who bowled over ninety miles an hour but they were straight. There were also fast bowlers who swung the ball but were not genuinely quick.

The modern day fast bowler strives to bowl at ninety miles an hour and swing the ball at the same time.

In reply to ProWI

Is that all you could contribute to this thread?

In reply to Andy99

Here Clive Lloyd today



Link

In reply to anandgb

Tony Cozier said so many times in that era

The 4 prong would have been neutralized in today's games with all the restrictions and protections that are pro batsman.

In reply to Runs

Inconvenienced but not neutralized.

4 TOP CLASS fast bowlers will cause nuff problems in any era in any location. look at Steyne and in particular Mitchell Johnson. They both had batsmen crumbling under the onslaught in this batsman friendly era. The lie repeatedly put forth by some on this mb is that our fast bowlers only got wickets through intimidation...LIE. You just have to have internet access to see for yourself. We have had bowlers before and since just as fast who were no where near as successful as our combinations of Roberts Holding Garner etc etc. Sustained great fast bowling will always put the opposition batting in bare trouble...dead wicket or not (see India 1983 Holding and Marshall mek a mess of dem). Speed combined with movement and accuracy will always be a winning combo and if you have 4 of dem at de same time yuh near unbeatable.

In reply to Oilah

Good points

In reply to Oilah

I keep saying that Austrailia team in the 1970s-1980s consisting of Laird,Wood,Border Hughes Greg and Ian Chappell,Marsh, Lillee,Thompson,Redpath and Gilmour was batting wise Austrailia's strongest and toughest of all time and yet they were beaten home by the vaunted WI four prong!

Remains to this day the only WI team to ever beat Aus in Aus!

In reply to analyst-kid

Redpath? Are you high? That was not Australia's strongest side during that era anyways
Didn't Viv or was it Richie made Hughes resign the captaincy in disgrace after a series of successive ducks?

In reply to Runs

Put in Keith Stackpole...he brutalized the ball

In reply to Narper

Ask de Rev Wes Hall if Kanhai could bat vs real fast bowling??

In reply to Narper

Doug Walters was one of my favorites too add him

In reply to Runs

As a school boy I dislike Doug Walters....only because he made so many runs against us.

When I grew up I recognized Walters was one of the Ozzie greats

In reply to Dukes

my statement was not only about pace...of course kanhai could handle pace...in his book blasting for runs he talked about regularly pulling Trueman to the boundary off his face

I was talking about 4 prong in every innings...all equally lethal...dem ole big bats never face that....now I am not saying they couldn't handle it....maybe they could...but we would never know

In reply to Narper

Can't we program a computer with individual players and simulate and hypothesize

In reply to Runs

it was under Lloyd....please inform me what was the strongest Aussie team of that era that didn't include the Chappells,Border and Kim Hughes

Discrediting the Aussie side becuz Greg Chappell made seven ducks is like saying Lara can't be the greatest cuz he didn't make no runs against Donald and Pollock.

In reply to analyst-kid

I think Lloyd was drubbed 5 nil in the mid 70's and repeated in kind a year later

In reply to Runs

Then that would kill de fun we ole farts having...challenging we memory

One or two of the past team would have gotten stuck in and would scored big runs against any one. Those guys played cricket on pitches fellas started to qu it on later and could no complain about it. They would just adjust to the playing conditions. They just accepted the challenge.

A pleasant thought provoking cricket thread Narps. I haven't posted for some time, so let me take the opportunity to wish everyone Happy holidays. On the 60's team I would replace Stolly with Nurse , simply because because of the nature of the 80s pace attack. I would like to see Hendricks as keeper. Walcott kept mainly to Medium pacers and spinners not to pace like Hall and Griffith. Moreover, for most of his short keeping career, he had a bad back.

I would reluctantly dispense with Val. Hall, Griffith, Gibbs, Sobers and Worrell would handle the bowling. The trickiest problem I see for the 50- 60s team is the batting order. Walcott should bat at 5 Sobers against this particular attack at 4.The #3 spot might well be a toss up between Weekes and Kanhai. My preference would be Kanhai, Worrell at 7. To some extent, Worrell was probably the least secured vs real pace.I believe that these Bajan stroke makers with Kanhai, on a fast true Sabina or Bridgetown wicket, would be able to handle any combination of the 80s four prong.

The 80s team might well need Hooper to bowl a couple lengthy spells. Who would win? Possibly the 80s team mainly because of their fitness and the ruthless nature of their approach.

In reply to DonD

Don't you think Hooper bowling to Weekes, Kanhai and Sobers would be a run feast!I mean the best spinners in the world couldn't get those guys out even when they doctor the wickets.

In reply to seaegg99

Hooper will only serve as a rest bowler, effectively not bowling much am thinking

In reply to seaegg99

Better to play Hooper than Richardson or Rowe. He is a useful bowler, better than Viv. Weekes in particular might well murder him, but Hoops can bowl a decent line. Might well give the quicks some well earned rest.

In reply to Don


How would Conrad fear against this 4 prong, he was very aggressive, especially against fast bowling.

In reply to tc1

The great strength of the 4 prong was that the whole was far greater than the sum of the parts. Imagine the technique and concentration needed to survive an opening spell from Holding and Roberts. So you survive (near impossible to dominate these bowlers) and who next in yuh bosom...Garner and Croft or Garner and Macco...DAMN. No where to run to no where to hide. So as long as you batting you facing great fast bowling...dat is de reason we dominated cricket for sooo long....presshah does buss pipe

In reply to DonD

It's always a pleasure to have you posting here DonD.

This board needs you to more often.

Most of us love WI cricket and international cricket so much.

I want to wish you and all posters a happy holidays too

Cheers!!!!

In reply to Oilah

My thing aboUT past WI bats that was so different later bats was the fearlessNess of the players. Those falls seemed so confident in their abilities. Kind of like how Richards got once he reached a certain place in his life. While Richads was recognized as a world top bat Sobers,Weekes,Kanhai and Walcott was too recognized as world top bats. Anyone of them could take apart a top line bowling attack alone. Then you still had Hunte and Worrell to deal with.

In reply to seaegg99

I am of the opinion that the top bats of the pre-helmet batsman friendly era would be top bats now. I am not sure all the modern top bats would have been successful back in the day simply because I can't measure how they would manage fear. Back in the day by the time a batsman is picked to play for the WI he had faced a lot of good genuine pace...only the bravest survive...so dem man could handle pace. Dealing with 4 top pacers at one time is still nuff to handle for any batting line up.

Btw if yuh never face a bowler that before you shape up properly tuh play de shot de ball gone pass yuh head humming a tune...then you en know what I talking bout when I talk bout managing fear

In reply to Oilah

In reply to Oilah

Back in the day when you reach Barbadian colors you been there. Same went for them boys from BG! If they scared it ain't going to show.