For all you who are struggling to understand what happened on Sunday and some are blaming Hope, and some are reflexively blaming Sammy, My friend, Dr. Terrence Blackman, Mathematician, did an analytical analysis of the game and a somewhat of a lookback of the data of T20 as it pertains to WI and other teams. Please have a read, it is very revealing and is front page worthy.

https://guyanabusinessjournal.com/2026/03/the-anatomy-of-a-t20i-world-cup-super-8-west-indies-vs-india-more-than-just-one-inning/?fbclid=IwY2xjawQTutpleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBicmlkETE1UTZhOW8wcDFuTzQxZGlQc3...

@Larr Pullo

My analysis, dew was a big factor.

Wow !!

This site locked me out in the process of developing a critique to the article. I don't have the appetite to work my brain again on the niity griity in my usual nuanced manner.

Suffice it say, that the writer has not said anything that could not be gleaned reading this MB over the years.

• Fundamentally, if you don't lay a solid foundation in T20 cricket, the middle order will take greater risks and hence the propensity to lose wickets
• "tactical execution" on the day is the resposnsibility of the coach.
• Structural reforms is within the purview of CWI.

I say no more except, after more than 30 years we have not moved forward one inch in West Indies cricket. We accept too much mediocrity.

I hope haven't been time locked out again.

.

@Courtesy

I believe you missed the point. What the article clearly points out, through the use of the available data, is that the WI is the poorest team when it comes to recovery after losing multiple wickets in the power play. Therefore, our best chance lay in taking a cautious approach during the power play with the hope and expectation that we could make up any deficiencies at the end of the innings. unfortunately we lost momentum during the middle over when we would usually be accelerating when Hety was cheated out, and we also lost Rutherford, two of out best young power hitters. Holder and Powell were forced to take a few balls to settle but when we got to the death, India was excellent and we were restricted to the 195.

@Courtesy

This site locked me out in the process of developing a critique to the article. I don't have the appetite to work my brain again on the niity griity in my usual nuanced manner.

Type your response in a text editor then log in and cut and paste it to the site.

@Courtesy

I am piss.

And Sammy is poop

@Larr Pullo

And i am saying while the data points to a massive lowering of our winning percentage when losing early wickets this argument can be countered by saying because we are too conservative in the pp it means we have to take greater risks later and therefore disrupts our strategy. The policy of conserving wickets imho is floored considering that making use of the pp is vital in the T20 game. You don't want to give up adavatange at any satege in a T20 match.

.

Harry Brooks now bats at number 3 whether wickets are lost early or not knowing that he needs to make use of the powerplay.

Now if the reason is because we lack the skillset in the opening positions and middle order to execute, then I will gladly concede.

The writer has analyze the consequence of a problem beautifully but not the real problem.

@Narper

I concur on both points.

😀

@Larr Pullo

Yep, that's an option I will have to take in the future for lengthy posts.

Cheers.

@Courtesy

...data points to a massive lowering of our winning percentage when losing early wickets this argument can be countered by saying because we are too conservative in the pp it means we have to take greater risks later and therefore disrupts our strategy.

Given the resources we have that is PRECISELY our strategy, there is no disruption. To take more risks in the middle overs because if we take the risk during the PP, and lose early wickets, it is almost impossible for us to recover to a winnable position.

@Larr Pullo

Then we are dealing with the consequence of a problem and not the problem itself. Coward batsmen should not be playing T20. The pp and the closing overs very often determine to outcome of T20.

The West Indies is the only team in the top 8 to implement this strange strategy. We have got to wean ourselves off this strategy. It will not put you in the top echelons of T20 cricket if you continue to paly that way.

It goes against the grain of T20.

Btw, there is an interesting correlation between the number of dot balls given up and a teams success rate. Perhaps the writer for the sake of completeness provide this perspective.

And this strategy has not made us world beaters either in T20 within recent times.

Before now, we never had to send in a Chase as night watchman in a T20 game.

Btw, "winnable position" must also be looked at in the broader perspective of a comparative analysis with top 8 teams.

It is an isolated set of data. We need to see the winning percentage against top teams when they haven't lost three wickets in the power play,

Yes, we are doing it against lower ranked teams. It improves our individual percentage against them but how does it (winning percentage) compare with the rest of the top 8?

West Indies winning percentage between 2011-2025 against top 6 teams is about 38.00 percent.and this is skewed by a 55 percent win against Afghanistan - the only top team we have a more than 50 percent win record.

How has this strategy improved your standing with top teams? Is it a case of improving your winning percent against the weaker teams thus making it look healthy in the golabal scheme of things because of your number of winning matches in this weaker cohort. It is highly skewed data.

It's like the proverbial saying that "your good is not enough."

But the writer defeats his argument because we did not lose wickets in the power play yet we were not clinical with our finish.

The game is really about having the team in a position at all stages where it can assess the level of risks it needs to take to achieve its goal.

The writer's position and perspective should have been much broader.

195 was a very good total in a must win game against a team that was not at all firing. Batting is not the issue. Spinners being unable to bowl with dew played a role. Look how many overs Motie and Hosein bowled. Wi was one wicket away which never came.india gifted wickets. But sanju didnt

@Courtesy

Secondly, if a coach sees that a batsman is not living up to the expectations of his strategic plan, why did he allow the batsmen to limp along to nearly half of the allotted overs (8.5). This is unpardonable considering that we have plenty, plenty, batting resources.

Are you suggesting that Sammy retire the Captain out in a Quarter final match. How great would that be for his morale. Imagine you and the Anti-Sammyites if that was done.

Further, Sammy has always shown his hand in the powerplay. If we lose 2 wickets early, he sends Chase early to snail along in an effort to stem the fall of wickets. This to my mind is ludicrous, counterproductive and testament to a sluggish mindset which sumply does not understand strategy and the maximum use of resources in T20 cricket

The reason why we would do that is exactly what you mentioned earlier it is fraught with risk continuing at a break neck pace. The worst thing can happen is losing 3-4 wicket s in the PP. So he is right for sending Chase to consolidate and not lose any more wickets!

Any well drilled T20 team will never allow 20 overs to run out with the loss of only 4 wickets on a good batting pitch with a lightening fast outfield. The situation is further compounded by having an historically weak bowling attack. Imho, 225 on this ground was bare minimum. It proved a lack of preparedness, awareness and execution, all functions of a head coach.This is a serious derelection of duty by the coach.

This by no means the finished team. To blame the coach for Hope being unable to hit 130 in the PP or Holder and Rovman unable to execute in the penultimate over is unfortunate. The team was in posiiton for a 220 score here is why 175 /4 after 18. Then came the penultimate over:

18.6

1

Arshdeep to Holder, 1 run

Nails the wide yorker. Holder can only drill it down to long-off. Excellent death bowling by Arshdeep Singh. 24 off his last over, just five off this one. Some comeback

18.5

2

Arshdeep to Holder, 2 runs

Low full toss angled across, driven along the ground through cover. They take two

18.4

•

Arshdeep to Holder, no run

Angles this across him again, Holder tries to hit it but gets an underedge to the keeper

18.4

1w

Arshdeep to Holder, 1 wide

Angles this across Holder, and that's not given wide. The umpire has a check and ends up calling it wide after a check with the third umpire

18.3

1

Arshdeep to Powell, 1 run

Abhishek drops one again! Powell flicks this off his toes and Abhishek runs in from deep midwicket, but shells it diving forward! That was a rather simple chance

18.2

•

Arshdeep to Powell, no run

Past a diving Samson! Slower ball angled across him. Powell shuffles across and swipes across the line, but it's wide of Samson at full stretch

18.1

1

Arshdeep to Holder, 1 run

Full and wide, he tries to take it on and skies it off the toe end. But it's too straight of long-off and he gets away with that slight mis-hit

Execution was the issue cause even with all that happened in the PP we had more than enough opportunity for a 220 total. Dereliction of duty my derriere.

You consistently criticize the bowling yet that same bowling got us here defending sub-par totals and almost won it for us just within 4 balls. I guess you will blame Sammy for not bowling out Forde, Motie or Hosein.

@voiceofreason

Bruh, quite frankly I hardly view your jibber jabber with any degree of seriousness. Your views are parochial. I will not waste any time.