Clive Lloyd, the big Puzzy!

Lets take a look at the events under Clive:

a. Rohan Kanhai got dropped after having a bad performance against England.  Clive replaced him as captain.

b. Kallicharran got dropped in 1981 at the age of 32 after several low scores.  He went on to top the first class avg scoring heavily in England demonstrating a return to form but never called back.

c. Gibbs played until he was 41 and retired after surpassing the wold bowling record for most wickets in test matches.

d. Shiv dropped after a series of low scores and will not be called back regardless of how much runs he will be scoring in the local matches.

e. Bravo and Pollard got dropped from team for leading the walk out of the INdian tour.  Coach was recently sent to "talk" to them. 

anyone see a trend here?

Lloyd's secretly racist?

The impression I get is that Lloyd is always thinking and trying. There's seemingly concern and thought behind the decisions he makes. The only wholly illogical things Lloyd has done so far is to select Dwayne Smith for the World Cup and drop Dwayne Bravo. Everything else he's done has had some kind of logic (even the Bravo dropping can be defended; Lloyd replaced him with Andre Russell, a comparable bowler/cowlasher).

Trinidad and Guyana produce all the good Indian batsmen and spin bowlers. Right now we have a kind of golden age of Indo-spin - Narine, Perms, Badree, Bishoo etc - mostly due to the quality of local pitches. These guys are finally getting a chance to play, though as I said prior to the World Cup, we need to be brave and transition to a twin front-line spin attack.

And these guys can bat too (other than Sunil "boom boom Afridi" Narine).

Our Indo batsmen, though, don't average well domestically. Even Sarwan and Ganga averaged in the 30s domestically. Nobody's knocking at doors (though domestic averages can be deceptive; Keith Arthurton and Devon Smith were heavy scorers domestically, but suck internationally).

The last sure-pick Indo-West Indian batsman was Shiv. Regionally, he averaged 45-50+ in ODIs and Tests for about 2 decades. Everything else is a leap of faith. Ultimately, the future of Indo West Indian batsmen is in the hands of the Guyanese Cricket Boards. They have to create and promote some kind of star. Indo-Trini batsmen right now are just mad sloggers.

One more thing: Kane Williamson debuted for NZ at 19. He was making runs locally when he was 10-17 years old (he had a 49ish domestic average at this age). Good cricketers are formed as children and teens. Our domestic system detects and breeds cricketers too late. There are signs that this is changing - Paint debuted at 19 based on good teenage regional stats - but we won't know for sure for many years.

IF its not Racism : its Insularity.

the nature of the beast  >

Quote:The impression I get is that Lloyd is always thinking and trying.

really? 

is that why Devon Smith was picked against England? 

so why he has a history of discarding proven cricketers? 

Googs ,

go and comment on Bishoo Balls...

and fcuk rehashing Lloyd

Quote:The impression I get is that Lloyd is always thinking and trying. There's seemingly concern and thought behind the decisions he makes. The only wholly illogical things Lloyd has done so far is to select Dwayne Smith for the World Cup and drop Dwayne Bravo. Everything else he's done has had some kind of logic (even the Bravo dropping can be defended; Lloyd replaced him with Andre Russell, a comparable bowler/cowlasher).

that is hard to deal with TD. 

Lloyd may be a thinking man but quality becomes the question. I don't see Lloyd as a smart person..the opposite really. 

look at that ridiculous run he made at the wicb chairmanship. then look at how he handled that Guyana gig in the comess deh had there..before he messed up running for the wicb.

Googly has a point in the comparison between Gibbs and the bowling record and Shive/Lara aggregate currently.  Gibbs is Lloyd's blood relative...and he played and played and played. 

Kalli was not recalled and that was unconscionable...his drop was so, in the first place.

dropping Brabits was a political something which proved that Lloyd is amenable to direction by his superiors in crap.  he actually defended that drop when in his day he too was involved in similar but was brought back as captain at the end of it.  he was not so kind to Brabits.  he was totally uninfluenced by the principles involved in his own experience...

basically what I see Clive LLoyd as, is an unprincipled MF who does not act like he talks..who is out for LLoyd and Lloyd alone.  he may or may not be racist..I don't know and I don't care, because either or it makes no difference relative to consequences of his actions

mostly his actions/decisions suck..the product of short-sighted, narrow spectrum thought. his speeches around the world are full of right wing conservative bullsh!t, unbecoming an ordinary west indian black man, but fits an uppity, seeking, ambitions man who is looking for high honors.  the speeches Lloyd now make are opposite for example to the document he released around the time he retired, about west indies cricket and his recommendations for its development.  that was a progressive piece. nothing he now says is progressive

the dropping of Shive if thought out was jackass, and demonstrative of narrow spectrum defective thought.  there is no one to replace Shive, even in decline.  and shive did not fail in all those innings they accused him of.  he still stuck around, stopped the bleeding for a while. the mere presence of Shive in the team helps to hold the batting together.  were shive in this side it would not have collapsed for 148. 

to have sent out such a batting side in a test match is contrary to all LLoyd's experience..contrary to mine..that is why I said 187 for us and a loss by the first session of the fourth day.  if Lloyd was thinking straight and wanted change, it would have been better to drop Samules and keep shive, because of Shives powerful psychological value to the team.  Samules has no such effect on team morale.

it was/is counterproductive to include only such youth on any team.  the youth must always be guided through by a senior or 2.  to select such a team is counter to any intelligence I know Trinnidaddy..counter to any successful selection practice and tradition I know.

to say Lloyd is thoughtful leads to me to ask for fuller explanation as to what you really mean man..all you have seen about that man that I have not.  you may indeed have insight that I don't.  I would like to know

for this west indian batting to have scored well against these Oz would have been a miracle.

Paint is young but good..but is inexperienced.  he would have to carry the batting side and he is not yet up to that task.

most young batsmen need a lil bit of room to get going..a couple 3 tests.  I mean even Lara took a few tests/series to get going.  Sobers took 4 years before he scored a ton.  Kanhai took about 12 tests of thereabouts before he scored his first. I mean I have been watching test cricket since I was ah lil' boy and it is not every time a batsman starts his career with a ton.  and of those who do few end up with long, solid careers. a lot are like Dwayne Smith of Adrian Barath..flash in pan types.

Lloyd has more or less the same experience I have had..our time frames are in sync...contemporaneous. we have seen the same cricket/cricketers.  and if we assess this experience simply we would know that a batting side that contains Hope and Dowrich..Paint, Bravo and Blackwood..led by Samules is going nowhere fast..or slow.  they will score few runs and prolly be an emotional drag on their own development for failure to score. 

I mean strange things can happen..like Atkinson/Depeiza scoring 350+ runs with 6 west indian wickets down against OZ to save a test match with Lindwall, Miller and Johnston in the oz bowling line-up. but strange things do not happen often enough? to save this west indian batting from total ignominy

Quote:is that why Devon Smith was picked against England?

I think Lloyd picked Devon Smith to drop him permanently. He is phasing out people. Smith made big runs domestically (averaging sixty+, along with Paint), he got picked, he failed, he will never be picked again. Lloyd did something similar to Sulieman Benn, who will never again make a WI team.

I think he is doing 4 things:

1. obsessively selecting based on domestic stats
2. phasing out people (Shiv, Smiths, Gayle, Benn, Bravo, Samuels/Ramdin soon etc)
3. Selecting people with a history of batting at a certain needed position
4. Trying to encourage the domestic scene to be more competitive

Quote:Kalli was not recalled and that was unconscionable..

Indo cricketers got - deliberately or not - marginalized by the Black Pride "movement" that washed over the WI post-1960s. I don't think that still goes on. This is the era of statistics, everyone a commodity reduced to numbers.

That's my gut feeling. Lloyd could be a giant idiotic racist walrus-face for all I know.

Quote:and if we assess this experience simply we would know that a batting side that contains Hope and Dowrich..Paint, Bravo and Blackwood..led by Samules is going nowhere fast..or slow. 

True. But look at NZ. A young side 4 years ago, mostly fresh faces and teens. Now they're one of the top sides.

I like your ansah TD!  Terrific!

the way I look at it is that the Smiths were a waste of time save Dwayne for RSA test series..which did not happen.  Dwayne had one test success and it was there so a Horse for Course pik in the circumstances made some kind of sense.  other than that there was no need to pick Dwayne or Devon ever again.  we all knew they were done.

that is the logic in these quarters. so if indeed a process of elimination is in progress Lloyd is wasting time.

its like there was no need at all to pik Theophille, Johnson and Chandrika..on the outside maybe Chandrika at 25-not yet 26 years old.  nothing will ever come of Johnson and Theophille so it was best to make that judgement regardless of what they did in dung heap last season.

and if they were going to pik 2 batsmen from the pres 11 it was best to go with Chase and Dowrich and not Chandrika.  but none of them would be an improvement, would make the team go better, would contribute to a better future selected like that.  Shive was/is crucial to the team as I have argued from day one..more so than Samuels.  I would drop Samuels just like that from this team. he is  of little value..a player who should be phased out f indeed that is what Lloyd is up to

again with Russell.  why would he phased out Brabits for Russell?

Russell is not as good as Brabits as anything in the game..bowler, batsman, fielder.  he never will be.  he is faster, can get high speed as a fast bowler but he does not take wickets.  I have never seen him with a 5-fer or anything close.

then again Russell does not want to have anything to do with test cricket.  he knows his level, he has found his place and he is very happy as a cricketer.  why disturb him?  I would not.  all I have said there I believe to be true of Russell and Brabits.

when you lead a cricket you have to make the best use of the talent available...all of it.  you have to phase in and out but maintain balance and social peace.  you have to make thing work as best they can as you go.  you are abrupt and abrasive only when absolutely necessary.

at this time I see players who we have we can work with.... so we work with them and start dealing with younger and younger at their various levels fixing those so better players come through

relative to the way the Kiwi developed  they still peppered their side with experience on the way up.  it was counterproductive to drop Shive

and if Lloyd was a smart selector the player to bring through was Chase..not Dowrich and Chandrika. Chase looked the best player in the pres 11 and he is actually young

[quoteIndo cricketers got - deliberately or not - marginalized by the Black Pride "movement" that washed over the WI post-1960s. I don't think that still goes on. This is the era of statistics, everyone a commodity reduced to numbers.[/quote]

well I don't agree about the marginalizing nor the stats reduction to. 

I have recommended a return to the extent necessary to the days when we had to judge players basically in ability for selection not on stats for we had no serious competition going that developed and exposed players.

so we see and hear about a player to some extent, realize that he is class and go with him, bring him forward like Sobers was brought forward.

we have to use such methods because we don't have obvious class anywhere in the competitions.  we have to go look and judge and take risks.  numbers are of no use right now save to eliminate players.

Indo players from 1970 had a lot of competition to get in the west indies side.  and it was only then that Indo players began to come out in numbers to compete for selection.  there is a lot of noise about marginalization but was a judgement call at best in those days.

but what has happened subsequently with Indo players is a revolutionary puzzle to me.  when a people are under pressure but have arrived at a point of qualitative change due to a build up over a long period they burst forth with talent and power to occupy what they have been denied..or believe they have been denied.  that is what happened with Afro players limited by white power from the start in the west indies. now is the time for Indos.  the door is wide open, and here is need for talent..real talent, that afros appear to have run out of relative to cricket.

but there are no Indo players of class.  that is the perplexing factor to me!:

WHY IN THE HELL ARE THERE NO CLASS INDO PLAYERS DOMINATING WEST INDIES CRICKET, TAKING MOST OF THE PLACES, TAKING WEST INDIES TO THE TOP ::confused::

WHERE IS THE INDO REVOLUTIONARY FERVOR THAT SHOULD BE DRIVING THEIR TAKE-OVER OF THE CRICKET ::confused:: ::confused:: ::confused::

THIS IS A HEAD SCRATCHER!    ::confused:: ::confused:: ::confused:: ::confused:: ::confused::