Selection of Braithwaite maybe one reason for loss

CWI brain dead selector may have ignored the potential risk of a whitewash against Australia by selecting Braithwaite for the sole purpose of the player achieving his personal goal of 100 test matches, while Braithwaite contributed a dismal 3.75 average runs in return. When since the individual goal of one player surpasses the winning objective of the entire West Indies team? Considering that Braithwaite only averaged 8 runs for the entire series against Australia last year, it was a reckless and mindless decision by selector, one that usually resulted in separation from the job, in other sport teams around the world but not in WI cricket.

In reply to Slipfeeler

In other words. Kirk should have been selected

In reply to brians_da_best

That should have been a no brainer. But with WI cricket there is no such thing as a no brainer.

In reply to brians_da_best

Then there is Warrican who unbelievable averaged less than Braithwaite, with an average of 0.75, is that even possible for a batsman, less than one run average for the entire series? And you brain dead guys are still asserting that both deserve selection over Kirk?? Crazy and insular thinking.

In reply to Slipfeeler

True Slips. We would have expected Kirk to average somewhere between Warrican and Paint based on his recent form. Or he may even have surprised us and averaged the 12 or so he did in England in his last test series.

In reply to PalsofMine

Had he made his test batting average, Kirk would have top scored for WI in the 2nd innings at Sabina

So based on your responses, you guys have no problem with selector pimping out Braithwaite to make his personal career goal while West Indies suffered from whitewash and a disastrous 27 team runs?

In reply to imusic

as would have Suruj Ragoonath, Chandrika, Vishaul Singh and Lincoln Roberts.

In reply to PalsofMine

Incorrect