(Part 1)
It is useful at the end of each year to assess the state of West Indies cricket at the highest level. That evaluation must be made in the light of one overriding factor, namely, the progress achieved in the effort to regain ascendancy in international cricket, lost in 1995 when the West Indies were dethroned by Australia. The regaining of world ascendancy remains the supreme goal of current West Indies Cricket.
In the light of this critical consideration, the year 2006 has been one of mixed fortunes for West Indies cricket. On the one hand, it has witnessed some progress in the shorter version of the game, limited-over cricket. Whereas in 2005 the regional team lost the one-day International (ODI) series 5-0 to the visiting South Africans, in 2006 it defeated third-ranked India 4-1. In contrast, the West Indies performance in Test cricket in 2006 left much to be desired.
In short, the results in 2006 confirm an obvious feature of West Indies cricket which has been evident for several years, namely, the fact that the senior team is much better equipped for limited-over cricket than for Test cricket. The fundamental reason for this fact is that the present shortcomings of West Indian cricket are more damaging in the longer than the shorter form of the game.
For example, take the area of bowling. It is very difficult for the West Indies to win Tests partly because its moderate bowling attack usually is incapable of dismissing most opponents (except lowly Zimbabwe and Bangladesh) twice in a match, especially in conditions conducive to productive batting. That same deficient attack, however, does not have to bowl out the opposition in limited-over cricket in order to win the match. Victory will be achieved provided that the team’s batsmen can surpass the opposition’s score, however challenging.
Where batting is concerned, the technical deficiencies of most members of the West Indies team make them less vulnerable in ODIs than in Test cricket where bowlers are subject to fewer restrictions than in limited-over cricket, especially in relation to field placing, the use of bouncers and the number of overs permitted. This largely explains the marked disparity between the performances of Christopher Gayle in the two versions of the game.
In 2006 Gayle continued to be a dominant force in ODIs, scoring century after century and winning the Man-of-the-Series Trophy in the ICC Champions tournament with an impressive aggregate of 476 runs. In striking contrast in 18 Test innings in 2006 he scored only 690 runs, with a highest score of 93 and five other half-centuries, and a moderate average of 38.33.
Similarly Ramnaresh Sarwan, ranked among the top ODI batsmen and widely regarded as the game’s best “finisher”, has been so much less successful in Tests that the selectors took the controversial decision to drop him recently in Pakistan. In contrast to his ODI average of well over forty, in 14 Test innings in 2006 he scored only 384 runs, including one hundred (116) and three fifties, with a low average of 29.53, inferior to that of the less talented and inexperienced Runako Morton (36.40).
The striking difference in the team’s performance in the two versions of the game is obvious in the statistics of the results. In 10 Tests in 2006 the West Indies had five losses and five draws, while in 33 ODI matches the team won 18, lost 14 and had one game abandoned without a result. In short, it enjoyed 56.25 per cent of wins in ODI games and 0 per cent in Tests. As a result, it edged up to place Number 7 in the ICC ODI rankings, but remained eighth in the Test ranking above only minnows Bangladesh and Zimbabwe.
The ODI performance in 2006 was distinguished by the fact that the West Indies were the losing finalist in two tournaments, the Tri Series DLF Cup against India and Australia in Malaysia and the ICC Champions Trophy in India which the regional team won in 2004. Furthermore, it was marked by success in both ODI series in the Caribbean against Zimbabwe and India, the West Indies team winning nine matches and losing only one game and showing significant improvement in bowling and fielding.
Admittedly, the West Indies’ ODI performance in 2006 had some negative features. Notable among them was the team’s inconsistency and the fact that its success overseas was much less substantial than that in the Caribbean.
It won three and lost seven of its ODI ‘away’ matches (i.e. games played in the territory of the opposition), and in twelve matches played in ‘neutral’ venues, it had six wins and six defeats. In short, it won nine of 22 or only 41 per cent of its overseas ODI games in 2006 compared to 90 per cent success at home.
In marked contrast to the improvement witnessed in ODI matches, the West Indies’ performance in Tests in 2006 was pathetic. The team not only failed to win a single Test match even at home, but also succeeded in enabling India to gain its first series victory in the Caribbean in thirty years. Admittedly, it is consoling to note that the regional team, by drawing one Test in New Zealand as well as in Pakistan, managed to bring an end to the embarrassing sequence of three successive “whitewashes” experienced overseas having lost 4-0 in England in 2004, 2-0 in Sri Lanka and 3-0 in Australia in 2005.
Nevertheless, the West Indies continued to create unenviable records and to enable its opponents to enjoy unprecedented success. For example, in losing the second Test to New Zealand in Wellington by ten wickets the West Indies suffered its eighth successive Test defeat. This was not only the region’s longest sequence of defeat since it began to play Test cricket in 1928, but one experienced on only three other occasions by any team in the long history of Test cricket dating back to 1877 – once by England 85 years ago in Australia and in modern times by newcomers Zimbabwe and Bangladesh. The loss in Wellington also enabled New Zealand to achieve a national record of five successive Test wins, unprecedented in its 76 years of Test cricket.
The overall individual performances in Tests of both the West Indian batsmen and bowlers in 2006 left much to be desired, especially when compared with those of most other international teams. Only two batsmen achieved an average of over 40 runs an innings, and just marginally – Daren Ganga (41.64) and Brian Lara (41.61). The averages of the other specialist batsmen were 38.33 by Gayle, 36.40 (Morton), 34.11 (Shivnarine Chanderpaul) and 29.53 (Sarwan). The performance of the two premier batsmen, Lara and Chanderpaul, was particularly disappointing. Master batsman Lara made only 749 runs in 18 innings, 216 of them in one knock, and in four consecutive innings in New Zealand amazingly had an aggregate of only seven runs.
The West Indies’ bowling in Tests in 2006 did show a measure of improvement especially in terms of a better command of line and length with a resultant economy not achieved in recent years. It was, however, still badly lacking in penetration. With the possible exception of Jerome Taylor (28.67) and Corey Collymore (29.27), the average cost of wickets captured was unacceptably high – Fidel Edwards (39.10), Dave Mohamed (42.40), Gayle (43.4) and Daren Powell (44.25).
In conclusion, it can be said that the performance of the West Indies in ODI matches in 2006 was more encouraging than in recent years, though obviously there remains much room for improvement. The results showed that no opponent, not even the mighty Aussies, can afford to take the inconsistent unpredictable West Indies team lightly in a limited-over game. On the other hand, there has been very little progress in the longer version of the game. There has been no turning of the much-talked-about “corner”. Rather where Test cricket is concerned, the region in 2006 continued to mark time. The results in Tests gained by chief coach Bennett King and his highly paid Australian staff since their appointment in 2004 are increasingly embarrassing – 1 win, 13 losses and 4 draws.
The
second installment of this article will focus on the implications of the performance of the West Indies team in 2006 for the region’s future in the shorter version of the game.
