Kirk McKenzie 34.5 average still top WI batting comparing series

In comparing both of West Indies recent series against Australia, the batting averages can be compared to demonstrate by use of stats my consistent argument even before a ball was bowled in this series that the selectors made a huge mistake by not selecting Kirk McKenzie for this series against Australia. In fact, the error is significant, considering that just a few months ago Kirk McKenzie topped the batting average against one of the most lethal bowling attack in the world with 34.5 average. The stats here demonstrated that no West Indies batsmen in this series even came close to his average, while folks are using dungheap cricket scores to disqualify the youth, when it’s very clear to everyone that their dungheap bullies are unable to buy a run against Australia, then folks wondering WI why is playing so poorly, frankly insularity and bad mind has ruined West Indies cricket. They rather select inexperienced and immature young players and destroy their careers and psychological motivation rather than select a youth who had already proven that he is capable of dominating the Australian bowlers. Travesty of selection incompetence.

In reply to Slipfeeler

Just a few months ago? It was 19 months back and he has done nothing since

Stop lying to prove a point

In reply to Slipfeeler

Slippy, Kirk McKenzie didn't deserve to be selected. Did the top 6 fail here, absolutely, but that does not mean McKenzie should have been in the squad much less team. Mohammed, DaSilva, Imlach and Hodges are the ones who were hard done by the selector this time around not McKenzie.

In reply to JoeGrine

The only 2 batsmen who should be retained are King and Campbelle all fast bowlers and Greaves as an all rounder also retained.I agree with your choice of Mohammed,da Silva but not Hodge were hard done by.I will still go for K.Mc.Kenzie add to him Wickham.What about Jangoo have they forgotten him.

In reply to granite

What McKenzie has going for him is that he has shown he can face the best pace attack on their field and hold his own. Unfortunately, he has also shown:

1. He lacks the temperament for big scores.
2. He doesn't do well at the domestic level (but for his double century a few years ago) - of course, domestic competition means nothing to this selector.
3. He (not as extreme as Campbell), will find ways to get himself out.

In reply to JoeGrine

How best can a young batsman prove himself but by dominating the best bowling attack in the world while others were failing around him.

In reply to Slipfeeler

An average of 34 with a fifty isn’t dominating. A creer average of 17 isn’t either

In reply to JoeGrine

I respect you Sir but K.Mc.Kenzie has to be given a long run,just like all those who got long runs but showed nothing,at least Kirk showed his ability to play top pace,I would like to point out a fact that you, and everybody know,every test playing country have pace and more pace,KIRK time is now.

In reply to granite

I hear you and respect is mutual. Kirk since Australia has done himself no favors. He did not deserve to be in the squad. Having shots all around the field is one thing, knowing when to make them he and most other West Indian players are yet to figure out.

Justice for Kirk..

Kirk
Imlach
Hodge
Jos DaSilva
Athanaze


all need to be in the starting 11

plus

King
Chase
Greaves
Alzi
Shamar
Seales

Man to much drunks in here anyman that can not dominate fc. Cricket aint worth talking about .neither people that average under 20 after a dozen matches

In reply to Slipfeeler

mckenzie's 2nd innings brisbane score eclipses the entire WI total last night

In reply to Jumpstart

I would take McKenzie over Kevlon Anderson any day.

I'm not impressed with Anderson at all. I saw him in the 4 day comp and even though he made runs he didn't look solid or assured making those runs.

I wasn't surprised he looked like a deer in a head lights against this Aussie attack.

Whether you guys want to accept it or not but it is now very obvious that the selectors made a huge mistake by not playing Kirk. West Indies without any top batsmen, denying a young player based on dung heap cricket when most of the dung heap bullies failed against Australia. Common sense should tell us that dung heap cricket can no longer be used as a qualification for selection of players. I would rather select a player who scored against one of the top teams in the world than a player who scored heavily in dung heap cricket.

Sinclair topped the batting average in Australia, not Kirk

Sinclair averaged 32.0 and Kirk 34.5, should I send you back to Maths 101?

In any event why were failures like Braithwaite and Warrican selected over Sinclair??

In reply to Slipfeeler

Slips, every time you post about McKenzie dominating Australia and that he should have been picked, it brightens my day. In no other country in any part of the cricket world would a player with the skills and average of McKenzie be touted as a sure pick. I believe that he does have talent and I think that he should concentrate on competing for the opening position which is now up for grabs but to say that he should have played before other men who have made multiples of the runs he has scored over the past two years is to stretch the reality of his contribution to a losing cause in Australia.