Message Board Archives

Legendary West Indies fast bowler, Curtly Ambrose, believes the team could have been more aggressive in going for the win against Sri Lanka in the second and final Test but admitted to being pleased with the strides the team had made.

In the end, West Indies and Sri Lanka played to a 0-0 Test series draw with neither team really able to press home advantages at various stages in both matches.  In a reversal of fortunes, it was the West Indies who had headed into the final day of the final Test with a big lead and looking to put the pressure on the visitors.  The team, however, managed to take two wickets as Sri Lanka closed the day on 193 for 2.  Ambrose, however, believes the West Indies did not give themselves enough time to win the game.

“I think that we didn’t show enough intent to try and win that game. We batted too long in my opinion, we took too long to score the runs which means we didn’t have enough time to bowl out Sri Lanka on a very placid surface and I thought that the urgency in getting those quick runs wasn’t there. We batted too long,” Ambrose told the Antigua Observer.

Read more at SportsMax

Idiot

The West Indies took 2 wickets in 79 overs but Ambrose thinks we should have declared earlier.
What that statement tells me is that Ambrose while one of the greatest fast bowlers we have produced is not a great analyst of a cricket game.

In reply to Dukes

He’s a great motivator

In reply to Dukes

you can be pretty harsh in your criticisms at times. this is one of those times.

Ambrose qualified his position on that by saying the pitch was docile and he loved the fighting spirit of the WI.

In reply to sudden

If I said one plus one is two, then I went on to say, but some people think it is three.
We should have declared earlier but the pitch was docile and I admire our team’s fighting spirit.

I am moved to quote a famous Bajan

Wuh loss!!!!

In reply to Dukes
I'm an Ambrose fan but I have found myself disagreeing with a number of his statements lately.

In reply to sudden

In reply to CaribbeanCricket.com

Shallow.


But then, who said Ambrose was deep?

//

Lemme give you some simple numbers.

Tea on Day 4,Sri Lanka had bowled 52 overs in WI second innings.If we had scored at 5runs per over we would have been at 260 and the lead would be 356.In theory they would have had 41 overs on Day 4 plus 90 overs on Day 5 plus 30 minutes.In theory they would have had 138 overs to score 357 runs which is a rate of less than 2.7 RPO..Not even Garry Sobers would have declared in that scenario.

BTW when did these guys score at 5 runs per over in a test match?
Do you think Sri Lanka would have bowled 52 overs by tea if we were scoring at 5 runs per over??

In reply to Dukes

whilst not a scientist or mathematician by any stretch of the imagination, i know from experience that life is not to be viewed thru a purely quantitative lens.

the qualitative is another way to look at it or rather, to put it succinctly if not correctly, the qualitative explains the quantitative.

when you seek to articulate what Ambrose said by numbers or however you want to parse it, you are missing what Ambrose said qualitatively.

Well I do not know if Ambrose has a good memory, only a few months ago, the WI chased down almost the same amount of runs in Bangladesh, I think Kraigg had that in mind when he was timing his declaration. Also many years ago Lloyd made a declaration, setting India over 400 runs to make and India did make the runs. It is better to draw than lose.

In reply to sudden

West Indies had no chance of winning once Kraigg was the leading batter on what was a good track for batting! And they will never win with that scenario.

Kraigg made the right decision to bat until you cannot lose but still give your bowlers a day and half hour to get the wickets on what everyone agreed was a docile pitch. Remember, we were short on bowling with Gabriel out of form and Alzharri being ineffective.

In reply to StumpCam

I seem to read that what Ambrose has alluded to in this instance is purely the intent shown and not the lack of a positive result. He does not appear to have suggested that we should have won; just that our approach could have been more proactive especially with respect to setting the target. I certainly agree that Joseph - if not Cornwall since he's not necessarily the quickest between the wickets - could have come in ahead of Da Silva in this particular scenario. When Da Silva came in the team requirement was for quick runs and he ended up having to try to play a game that was against his natural instinct. There's every chance that Joseph, whose natural game is to attack, could have potentially gotten the required target in quicker time or, alternatively, advanced the score further in the same time that Da Silva was at the wicket. Whether either situation would have resulted in victory does not appear to be Ambrose's point; he seems to have been referring to the overall strategy, a la the intent. That seems a fair observation from where I sit.

In reply to CarlosR

In Reply To Dukes

Pity you don't own a franchise bro else Da Silva may well be in the IPL now; tough luck on him!!

With such 'after the fact' analogy one may be well placed to take over as the WI 'braintrust'; flabbergasted that anyone who supposedly knows cricket would suggest that Da Silva is as good (or better) an option as Joseph when quick runs are the order of the day.

Having obviously not seen either of 'em bat before (so it seems), may have been helpful in doing the stats to work out the career strike rates of Joseph v Da Silva in all forms of cricket, determine their overall potential to score quickly and hit boundaries, and factor those in as well...... a cursory glance at their respective 1st innings stats even, may have helped....

This is not a jab at Da Silva, mind you.

It's decisions like these that are helping to keep WI cricket where it's at; happy to settle for less than average and unable to think outside the box.

In reply to CarlosR

In view of the fact that taking 2 wickets in 79 overs does not seem important to you at all let us take a different approach.

2 Questions

1.How much sooner would WI been able to declare if Joseph had batted instead of Da Silva?

2.Do you think that the additional overs (somewhere between 1 and 5) could have resulted in us taking 8 more wickets?

In reply to Dukes

You're missing the point altogether bro; the discussion is aimed at what's the best strategy to potentially position the team for possible shot at victory. If you are resigned to the the notion that victory is not possible on the pitch then why declare at all; why not bat till the cows come home....maybe let Holder get another double ton and Da Silva a maiden one?

In reply to CarlosR

A team that takes 2 wickets in a day's play needs to first look at their bowling line up.Focusing on how fast Brathwaite is batting should not be an item until you either find a way to get Alzharry to take more than 1 or 2 wickets in an innings, bowl Kyle Mayers more or get Chemar Holder into the team.As it is 5 people averaged 50 with the bat but conversely 3 players averaged over 50 with the ball.
Instead of bawling about Paint we should be bawling about Gabriel.

In reply to Dukes

This appears to be a different discussion that's unrelated to the initial one about strategy during the game while batting....

you, sir, have Squarely hit the proverbial nail on the head!