In reply to Courtesy

I would suggest that you accept the fact that once most human beings make up their mind about something, they will not change regardless of what data is presented to them.People who are schooled in the scientific methodology tend not to display that fundamental human weakness.
Examples of this phenomenon are plentiful on this message board on cricket topics but lemme give you a Medical example.

I have a friend from high school who is a Journalist.He was recently diagnosed with high blood pressure.He told me,he does not understand how he could have high blood pressure because he has never had headaches and feels fine. I tried to explain to him that high blood pressure rarely causes headaches or indeed any other symptoms and that is why it is so dangerous.
Sadly he refuses to accept that I might know what I am talking about and is still lamenting this strange phenomenon of him having high blood pressure despite feeling absolutely fine.
There is absolutely nothing I can tell him to convince him against what he thinks he knows.
Many on this board have an opinion on something and the facts can take a hike if they show the opposite.

In reply to Dukes

That is as relevant as a man complaining that he is well endowed but can’t get a partner

In reply to Dukes

I would suggest that you accept the fact that once most human beings make up their mind about something, they will not change regardless of what data is presented to them

That above profound.
I see it daily.

In reply to Dukes

Then I go back to my earlier statement: Education is a process of reasoning and not "to make yuor mind up about something."

In reply to sudden

Maybe I should have transferred to Cawmere

In reply to nick2020

And all the time I was thinking that you were a stowaway who arrived in Barbados way past schooling years.

In reply to sudden

MAAAN

Why don't you open a school to teach fishes to ride bicycles!!!!!

In reply to Dukes

My point exactly

In reply to Courtesy

Courts, I see the point you're making and I have to say that you are correct. Shai Hope is by far our best ODI batter and today showed how important his innings with an increased strike rate was to the much deserved win. I did admit in a previous post that improving on such is a step in the right direction. ODI cricket has changed over the years and because of the powerplay overs, wides from bowling down the legside and freehits from no balls, the game has become advantageous to batters. Hence, 300+ scores have become the norm. I said that we had to score over 300 runs to be competitive, at least between 315-320 runs. We got 335 which was more than most expected. Therefore, since our team depends heavily on Hope, this must become the norm more often.

In reply to Courtesy

Are you sure you are not the POINT,he was missing like you.

In reply to Windiesfan78

It is very simple. We need to think of maximum utilization of our given resources.

The number of balls we have to face are the resources given when batting...and our bowlers when on the field. The combine utilization of these resources will determine the outcome of the games.

We must also consider that we do not have quality bowling resources and therefore any competitive advantage will have to be gained with our batting.

Teams front load their innings as well as back load.

Give our bowlers a total where there will be room for error. Our margin of error has to be wider than all other ODI teams.

Most of our bowlers give opposition batsmen diabetes.

Teams with the ability to maximize their resources will always have the competitive advantage.

We have to implement our game using scientific methods.

In reply to Courtesy


I knew the key to winning the match today was getting QDK and Bavuma out. Bavuma scored half of the runs that SA made and like Hope, was key to his team's success. Based on our bowling attack, as shown in Pakistan when we lost even after scoring 300+ runs, we need to be consistently scoring big against the stronger teams.

When observations on Shai's approach used to be made, homies would point out thata'at least he didn't get out and cause a collapse. Surely a middle otder batsman and or finisher must shore up a good start as Shai did today but King amd Kyle got out but but they utilized the powerplay provided a cushion and reduced pressure

Cricket is a conditional sport it is not always about strike rate.

In reply to Wally-1


Please list the conditionalities. This can make an interesting discussion.

In reply to nick2020

I would had agree with you until I looked at the top players for comparison, Shai SR is ten points below the norm.

In reply to Wally-1

Repeat: Please list the conditionalities. This can make an interesting discussion.

Our cricket is bad and we all want to see a return to the glory days. We all have different points of view but we all want the same outcome.

I believe the biggest issue with our batmen is we are unable to bat our way through 300 balls or 3 sessions. I believe this has been an issue for a while. I remember before Shai Hope we have Shiv Chanderpaul. The people who loved Shiv loved the way he valued his wicket. The people who hated Shiv hated his selfishness. But if the rest of our players could emulate the best of Shiv our cricket would have been in a better place.

The Numbers

Nicholas Pooran averages 36 in ODI at a strike rate of 96. In 50 inns he faces on average 33 balls (he has 6 Not Outs and that skews his average so his average score per inns is actually 31.8. So he gets out on average around the 33rd ball he faces.

Shai Hope faces on average 58.83 balls before he gets out.

The Belief

What plagues West Indies Cricket the most? I believe we have a bunch of batsmen who can score runs quickly but get out quickly. I believe the first step is to find players who can stay on the pitch and out of the pavilion. I do not see the value in saying "Shai Hope needs to score at a run a ball + maintain 50 average" when that is clearly not who he is. 100 inns later that is not who he is. So what is the point coming on here asking for unicorns?

I am not here saying the Strike Rate side is wrong; there is no right or wrong. You shuffle a deck of cards and pull a hand that may be more or less desirable based on the situation. I personally believe we need to firstly get players who can face a variety of deliveries and not get out like a dunce and secondly work on getting them to score quicker. We all want people who can score lots of runs quickly.

And people who look at life as right and wrong are often too rigid and incapable of being effective in diverse situations. I prefer to see our players face 58 balls and make 50 runs vs 33 balls and make 38 runs because our biggest issue in my opinion with our batsmen is all out not current run rate.

In reply to openning

ICC ODI Player Rankings

#1 Babar Azam - 59 Avg @ 89 SR
#2 Rassie - 64 avg @ 90 SR
#3 David Warner - 45 Avg @ 96 SR
#4 De Kock - 45 Avg @ 96 SR
#5 Imam - 50 Avg @ 82 SR
.
.
.
#14 Shai - 50 Avg @ 75 SR

Assuming we keep Shai's BF the same at 5883 and upped his SR to 90 he would then score 5295 runs putting him at 53 runs an inns. He currently has 4436 runs / 100 inns = 44 runs an inns. 8 More runs per at bat.

I will leave that up to you to decide if that is a much of a much. I would tell you we certainly aren't losing by 8 runs so it is a much of a much.

If any of my math is wrong let me know. I ain't eat all day.

Edit - I believe it is 14 more runs not 8. Compared a NO avg to a runs per inns avg. Would make it more compelling.

We, humans, prefer to believe what we want to believe.
So let me ask this if you believe in Continuous Improvement
and Hope albeit with a better average is striking at the same rate
or less of Shiv, Sars and Gayle are the arguments for improvements
merited? Before you answer please note that the men mentioned above
played at least half their ODI careers in 'a different era and game'
Smaller bats, tougher pitches, longer boundaries, different powerplay rules etc.

In reply to nick2020



nick that is whole lot of bad flying fish....stop it. you are in full confirmation bias mode

let me just repeat what i said before...batting slow, soaking up dot balls, etc... affect the whole rhythm and flow of an innings...so those 8 runs you talk about is not the what we end up short by...

In reply to Brerzerk

Does the data support the beliefs?

I do not understand your question. Do I believe we are justified for asking Hope to improve? Of course. Pooran too. King too. Our bowlers too. I would love to see Hope with Babar's stats and I will still want improvement.

I think I can swallow his low strike rate because I see our biggest problem is getting out quickly. In this department he is doing a far better job.

In reply to nick2020

You must implement whatever it takes to win a game and Shai Hope scoring consistently at a SR of 75 will not help you. If every batsman scored at that pace the team will score 225.

In today's world that score will win the occassional game providing you have world class bowlers. Are we embarking in an exercise of futility when we play these ODIs? I believe if you are going to die better have your boots on.

It is also unfair to ask the other batsmen to score at break neck speed and risk getting out while the tortoise cruises.

However, let us not runaway from the main problem...our batsmen lack the requisite skills at international level. Shai Hope is closer to international requirements but bats the slowest. Does that make sense?

We are attempting to fix consequences of a main problem. Get the team to international standards. For three decades we have failed our cricketers.

In reply to doosra



Show me the data of the other batsmen in our squad and the contributions they make to the match.

In reply to Courtesy




see my above post about breaking the rhythm and flow of the innings...that is exactly it