Folks, get it into our thick skulls.

In reply to hubert

I have viewed too much of quality West Indies cricket. I have no apetite for the desecration of West Indies cricket.

In reply to Courtesy

Courtesy on an unrelated note I visited the monument in St James to the Cubana air disaster in 1976. Five of my classmates were on that flight. Very emotional moment for me there yesterday.

In reply to Courtesy

Severe rulings? I believe there was a restriction on the numbers of overseas players during the whole of the 1980s - it was one per playing side with exception of teams that had signed players before 1978. Several teams continued to be allowed more than one player, most notably Somerset kept Garner/Richards and Sussex had Imran/Le Roux. The rule was tightened in 1991 for the 1992 season onwards which allowed only one per squad, not per side, i.e. some teams had shared the burden between two players.

But after 1992, many West Indian cricketers continued to be signed. Remember there are 18 counties. And the non-first class league route remained wide open. If the numbers of West Indians declined thereafter, it was surely because other nations, especially Australians, became more more attractive options. As England had been routed by the Aussies in 1989, 1990/91, 1993, etc. the ECB would surely have done better to target this influx.

In reply to KTom

By your standards is this significant? In 1977, 27 of the 48 overseas players playing county were West Indians?

I will never ask you what is the current number.

In reply to Courtesy

I don't argue there wasn't a reduction in the number of overseas players, in general, nor West Indians, in particular. My point is that the ECB's decision to restrict numbers and encourage English players wasn't a sinister plot targetting uppity negroes but an entirelyreasonable policy. Even after 1992, significant numbers of West Indians could still have benefited but their relative value fell.

In reply to KTom



You fucking racist. It was only a matter of time you emerged from the closet. Now this fucking thread is not for people like you.

In reply to sudden

On what point? Or all points?

My main idea is simply that the objective standards in sports tends to rise over time. Better training methods, fitter athletes, greater levels of competition pushing standards, etc. It's not a natural law, of course. Countervailing forces could mean things get worse. If the numbers playing the game at various levels declined, the organisation and provision of facilities diminished, the financial incentives worsened (absolutely or relatively), competitive opportunities regressed etc. etc. I don't say West Indies cricket is better now, more that the state of West Indies cricket in the 1970s and 1980s wasn't much better.

In reply to Courtesy



It's your claim that the ECB were motivated by racial animus in bringing in these restrictions I'm ascribing your view to the ECB's action. That should be obvious.

In reply to CricSham


Commiserations mate.

In reply to Courtesy

Thank you, my brother. Standing there, I thought I could just as easily have been on that flight too had I gotten the scholarship. Got a B in Econs.

In reply to Courtesy

You caught him and in black-and-white. Pun intended.

In reply to KTom

now that you have elaborated, i dont have much issue with your submission in this regard

altho you seem to be referring to organisational input and not players' on field output

In reply to CricSham

How did he look in the second innings when the Ozzies pulled the length back???

When our players were good, more played in England. We won a lot then. Now, I feel, we not as good so less are sought. Now we losing a lot.

In reply to Courtesy

Sarwan and gayle were good enough and their test careers were ended.West Indian batsmanship is poor because the standard in the smaller islands and barbados sucks big time. proof is that people like pooran, hetmeyer, sherfane and others can make a living exclusive of west indies cricket. they are not being paid to model. I realize that Joshua Da Silva, motie and co were made scapegoats for the consistent failures of kraigg, lewis and athanaze, who regularly left the wicket with less than 40 runs on the board. But I am glad sammy is here to preside over this mess. his test career would have been almost non existent if the careers of gayle, bravo, jerome taylor and sarwan had not been destroyed

In reply to sudden

Yet they are better than those that did.

In reply to Courtesy


not really, if you mash the 40k potatoes you can put it in a 10k sack.

In reply to WI_cricfan



And how did you know the end result? You tried it.

You are amazing.

Did KTom know (or not know) that under no circumstances and especially in a forum like this that term is both racist and offensive regardless the intent doesn't matter either way?
Man do better! That Cubana bombing must never be termed 'A disaster' it was bloody terrorism! CIA caused a disaster but a Palestinian Bus Bombing is a terrorist act... oh The Hypocritical West and their terms.

In reply to CricSham

My brother's wife send my an article written by you and quoting our friend TG.I was looking him at cricket on Wednesday but he was back home.

In reply to Courtesy

You are correct. Does CWI ever pick the best available or do they come up with a "which team" to play and make sure we lose?

In reply to tc1

Yeah, I tried to talk him into coming, but he’s really soured on WI Cricket. I had a great time hanging out with the Bajan guys in the Media Center, Keith holder Ezra Stewart and company. It was hilarious.

In reply to rillo

How far are they tho from "pick the best available", S I would like to know these many players.