Message Board Archives

Bishop read out the 44 average or something for wi spinners here vs 29 of overseas spinners

what you omitted - perhaps you didn't look -

is that Roston Chase was the spinner in most of those matches

allyuh keep pushing the spinners out and expect part timers to develop into good ones

Gayle and Sarwan were the spinners early on

so yea

44 or whatever it is

Gayle
Sarwan
Samuels
Chase

Sulieman Benn played in one and took 7 wickets including a 5fer

In reply to doosra
I know what you are implying but do we still consider Chase a part time spinner after all the bowling & overs he does in all forms of cricket?

In reply to doosra

Doos....WI mentality is if a spinner don't take 5 wickets in an innings that spinner has failed

My gut feeling told me Motie would be dropped because HE DID NOT TAKE A WICKET

Yet a fast bowler can go matches without a wicket...no big deal..dat is easily overlooked because there are 3 other fast bowlers

In reply to Scar

Check his stats and tell me

his SR, Avg etc

his stats almost like Gayle's and no one would say Gayle was a front line spinner in tests

In reply to Narper

it is a terrible state of affair

In reply to doosra
You remeber when Holder would bowl Chase long before he would grudgingly give Bishoo the ball...den de demoralized Bishoo was expected to wreck the side

In reply to Narper

it's a mindset thing

I go for the pace like fire, we ain't have a spinner bamboozling anyone, apart from former Narine! I don't know whether Motie offers anything more than Chase who is also a better batter!

In reply to doosra I am not disputing the spinner argument just that a PT to me is a 4 five per innings bowler, Anyone who bowls 30 plus over a Test mattch for a while and does the same in Fc is not part time whether he takes wickets or not.

There PT workers in every day work who are better producers than FT staff - they still PT though

now dem want stats

In reply to Narper
Who can judge a spinner in such a match?
That drop honestly makes it appear as if
Phillips is being 'Pushed'

In reply to Narper



In the past when Trinis complained about the treatment of our spinners...Dhanraj..Mahabir...Mohammed...Joseph...etc, for the same reasons..

...we were called whiners.......MB pundits did comparative statistical analysis to disprove the TT whiners


What ah thing!

Table Ton round now

In reply to Narper

Agree....

In reply to Scar

If you think about it, the answer is YES.

You consider someone part time by the amount that they bowl.
Chase like Hooper bowled more in test cricket than he does in first class cricket for an obvious reason.THE COINSEQUENCES OF A SLOW OVER RATE.Initially fines and now suspension of the captain from test cricket.
I have the numbers to prove it too!!!!
Another clear bit of evidence is the amount Hooper bowled prior to the 90 overs a day rule and after the rule.
In 43 tests Chase bowled 5881 balls or 22 overs per test.In his other 51 first class matches he bowled 14 overs per match.

In reply to Dukes

correlation does not equal causation

Especially in Chase’s case

In reply to sudden

Just because the reason 1 plus 1 is 2 is not the reason that 3 multiplied by 2 is 6 does not mean that the latter is not true!!!!
You would have to show me why this is not the case wrt Chase!!!

In reply to Dukes

There was a time when CWI stated, if not in word, by deed, that Chase was picked for his all round abilities. That being the case you cannot assert that he was used as a measure to solve the over rate

In reply to sudden

Do you expect CWI to make such a statement i.e we are playing Chase to try to meet the 90 over requirement in a day's play?For the unwashed, that is what we call a rhetorical question!!!!!

Carl Hooper himself said that he was asked to bowl more when the 90 over rule came into being.In those days failure to meet the requirement only resulted in fines.Viv Richards even stated that losing the money was not important to him because he was not playing for money but for pride of having the West Indies win their matches.
In Chase's time as recently as the 3rd test vs England in 2019 Jason Holder was prevented from playing because WI failed to meet the 90 over requirement.

In reply to Dukes

we cannot prove either statement although I would posit mine is more correct

In reply to sudden

If it please the court in this civil action,I would like to state that the preponderance of the evidence suggests that Rolston Chase was picked mainly to speed up the over rate particularly after two important facts are taken into consideration.First Chase played a total of 14 test matches and scored 388 runs at an average of 14.92 and took 29 wickets at 39.72 neither of which satisfied the bare minimum for retention in the team for such an extended period.Of more importance is the fact that Chase takes on average about 2 minutes and 37 secs to complete his overs of which there were 332 overs whilst the average West Indian fast bowler takes 4 minutes and 15 seconds to complete his over.This was of great significance since as a result of a slow over rate the Wi were deprived of the services of the number 1 all-rounder in the World,their captain Jason "GOD" Holder which resulted in both real and psychological damage to the team resulting in a crushing defeat against the same opponents that they had easily crushed in both previous matches when "GOD" was playing.

Your honor I have forgotten the second point but this point can easily count for two.

In reply to Dukes

Now that is classic telling incomplete stories with stats.

You have not accounted for Chase bowling out Eng after he was picked for his all round abilities

And this is not an examination of Chase’s batting record

In reply to sudden

The context was that he was failing both as a batsman AND a bowler but was still being picked because of needing Jason Holder in the team!!!!!


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA