No it is not.

Well not with regards to the point I am making.

The point is that back in the 80s when Australia were not doing well they never blamed the fact that people of all ages might be into rugby or swimming or Aussie rules as the problem for why those who chose to pursue cricket as their sport where not doing as well in cricket.

They analysed what needed to be done, put those systems and place, backed them and now are reaping the benefit.

There is this patronising view that the West Indies can only support cricket and the reason for our decline is because children are playing other sports.

Well I'm here to tell you that they have always been following other sports!!!

Cricket lost a bit of its following when they started losing regularly not the other way around.

And if cricket could miraculously become the only sport in the whole region, we would still be poor because, and I repeat myself again, our cricket system is designed to only produce the type of players you are seeing on display now.

Well I am one of those "ordinary" people and I reject this idea of pride and passion wholeheartedly.

When you are continually being shown up across the whole spectrum of your cricket as not being fully conversant in the basic fundamentals of cricket, that has nothing to do with pride and passion. I see kids playing cricket with the same amount of passion as they always have.

Some would say it takes even more pride and passion to continue playing when your national team is not doing as well.

Pride and passion doesn't make you bowl straight, stop getting out the same way you have been for the last 5 years, drag your batting average above even 30 or 40 or make you catch regulation catches.

It is an easy cop out answer because it can never be quantified.

Our players in the team and the players in line to replace them and the players in line to replace those players are average to poor because they don't know any better. They've never been around an environment that has forced them to be better and they've never had to perform out of their skins to get into or stay in the side.

Until these issues are actually faced head on, we can moan about pride and passion until we are blue in the face.

I will agree with a loss of central focus but that MUST come from each national board and be channeled by the WICB.

They have destroyed WI cricket and continue to do so and allow other so-called reasons such as basketball, lack of pride and Lara to be discussed, whilst the real reason, their mismanagement is never addressed.

Such dedication is present in all people regardless of where they are and where they come from.

I could fill this board with anecdotes about dedication.

But that would help no cause at all.

Kudos to Wes Hall but the late 50s and the early 21st century are different times and different things are also needed to succeed in the game now

Dedication alone will not bring you the rewards in the game now.

Dedication to a poor plan will just lead to dedicated failure!!

The life of a regional WI cricketer unless he can get a contract to play league cricket in England is one that must involve dedication. He is not very well paid , plays only 5 first class games per year, has to fit cricket around a day job and put up money out of his own pocket all whilst living in an area of the world not known for economic prosperity.

I'd rather deal with tangible qualities that will bring WI cricket back up the ladder.

1) A system put in place that highlights the best talent in the region
2) A system put in place to first ensure that across the region, children are schooled properly in the fundamentals and basic and not have to learn them when they are playing Test cricket!
3) A system that rewards good performance and punishes failure.

Such systems would ensure that an opener, for example, after 60+ Tests and 7 years in Test cricket would have known by now that an average under 40 is not good enough and you'll always got out lbw if you don't move your feet.

And he'd know that because there would be 5 players tearing up the domestic circuit to replace him. And if he wanted his spot back, he'd have to go out and hit runs for fun to show the selectors he deserves it.

Instead, his spot is guaranteed and he's even mentioned as an outside shot for captain and given a partner who averages nearly 10 runs less than him after 40+ tests

Likewise for bowlers who find it so hard to average under 40.

It is, and frankly it is a little depressing! Whilst I'm excited by an England batting line up flaying the ball to all parts it must be noted that they haven't been tested. The only "test quality" ball that England received in their innings was the undoing of Bell and he may rightly feel a little unlucky about that.

However, the real cause of my depression regarding this match came in the Windies innings. As in the case of some previous posters, I am a great fan of West Indian cricket. In their pomp they played the game in the mannor that it was meant to be played - attacking with both bat and ball. This current side have apparently given up against some of the biggest garbage that England's seamers have served up. And this is the second cause of my mood - the bowling of Harmison and Plunkett is just not international class. They had not the slightest clue where their deliveries would end up and it is therefore presumably more luck than judgement that resulted in their flattering figures coupled with woeful batting. It is almost a competition as to which side is the poorer in this innings rather than the other way round!

As a footnote, well bowled Sidebottom, however, his figures were flattered also by the quality of the opposition.

West Indies rolling over even more pathetically than the 1st innings.You would think that with the possibility of weather saving them they would fight for their lives.

57-5 raining again now.

England win by an innings and 283 runs, their biggest win bar two and the West Indies' biggest loss bar none. Very sad indeed for West Indies, but the reports I've read (I've heard none of this match) suggest that the result is a fair reflection of the way the match went.

So what have we learnt? Rather little, I fear, for either side ...

__________________
Money won't buy you friends. But it gets you a better class of enemy.
Spike Milligan

Selectorial preference for Mahmood and Plunkett over Sidebottom has been exposed as a nonsense: that's a HUGE positive.

If only this could have happened 12 months earlier, in time for Sidebottom to have been bowling alongside Hoggard and Flintoff in Australia...

As usual, the MoM award was farcical: a seamer gets one of the best returns in the history of Headingley.... figures that don't even reflect how well he bowled... and figures which would have been better still had England actually bothered fielding a wicket-keeper... and the award goes to.... a batsman gifted most of his runs by wayward WI bowlers!

Oh, that's the other thing the selectors might have learned this match: that Prior is not a wicket-keeper!!!

Rachael - it will yet prove a HUGE negative.

He did bowl better than either Harmison or Plunkett, but I fear.

Harmison
Hoggard
Sidebottom
Panesar

Will be the England line up - ok when the ball is swinging the minority of the time, the other times they will bowl a good line and length - for precious few wickets.
A balanced attack has pace bowlers - not medium pacers.

Well I though Harmison and Plaunkett made Prior look World class, he saved heaps of runs from byes.

__________________
Ern

That bowling erratically at under-prepared batsmen lulls them into a false sense of security, thus turning good deliveries into unplayable ones.

That England are stronger as a unit when Vaughan is in charge.

That if Collingwood gives enough catching practise eventually he will be out.

That Plunkett is at least two seasons away from being a test bowler.

That the Windies Captain is even more injury prone than the English skipper.

Too right, for some reason I always have more confidence when Vaughan is captaining (in test cricket).

For the second point - thats why I feel that Colly will be the first batsman to go when (if) Flintoff gets fit. For all his graft, to me he always seems liable to get out whether he's on 10 or 110.

Plunkett, Mahood, Anderson, Broad.... all need lots of bowling in the CC. They all bowl at least one rank bad ball every over and dont yet have the consistancy to be part of a 4 man attack, unless we are playing really weak teams.

Rachael, I agree with Ern on the Sidebottom issue. He's an ideal bowler to bowl against the leaden footed sloggers of the Windies on a Headingley pitch. All he has to do against the Windies is pitch it up (even half volley length) and they will get themselves out. Against the likes of Ponting and Hussey and flat Australian pitches with little or no swing it would be a differant matter. He would be driven on the up and if he was slightly short he'd get pulled into the stands.

Its horses for courses, against this Windies batting line up Sidebottom will take wickets and against Aus in Aus he's go for runs and lots of them.

__________________
Mark.

Rather like a left-armed Hoggard then: a perfect new ball partner and a nice contrast with either Harmison on Flintoff (either of whom can provide the pace and bounce needed to create a balanced seam attack).

As one commentator noted in the weekend papers, England won the Ashes in 2005 by frustrating batsmen out: with ball after ball in the right area and little or nothing in the way of balls allowing batsmen the room to swing their arms from their preferred stance.

Sidebottom delivers that sort of bowling week in, week out and has shown he's perfectly capable of doing the same in the Test arena as well. As a result he should now be not only the replacement for Hoggard when Hoggard is injured but the new ball partner for Hoggard when the Yorkshireman (England's ONLY other class bowler at present) returns.

Ern, I'm afraid I agree with Rachael on this point. There should be no preference for a bowler just because he propels the ball to the other end faster; the bowler has to bowl it in the right area and make the batsman play at it. Mahmood, for example, tries to get too clever and bowls too many slower balls in the wrong area, while Plunkett can be wildly inconsistant. Whoever said he's two seasons away from being Test quality has hit the nail right on the head.

While Sidebottom might not be a Test quality bowler (and thus be exposed by the likes of Australia), at least he is capable of bowling each delivery in the right area, much like Hoggard. Remind me who England's best bowler in the Ashes was? Hoggard.
When he was first called up (I'll find the specific post in a minute), I agreed wholeheartedly... now I'm not too sure. He conceded just one bye in both of the West Indian innings - and when you consider how erratic Harmison and Plunkett were, then that's pretty impressive. He also took the kind of simple catch today that I have vivid memories of Geraint Jones dropping.

__________________
"Being second is to be the first of the ones who lose."
- Ayrton Senna