England v West Indies Twenty20 Series Thread

[Ninjaman]

So if England lost because they have no 20/20 specialists, how did WI win when they have none either?

Also, as wonderful a batsman as he was I wouldn't accept every word Viv says.

After all, he is the man who picked a squad to tour in his capacity as chairman/convenor of selectors, resigned from the job, took up a more lucrative commentary position and then spent the team criticising the squad selection!!

[flanflinger]

Specialists Ern, not to rest Test players, but to improve the quality of England's performance..

Players like Maddy and Doshi, but that will still mean a places for the like of Colly, Freddie and KP...

It will probably mean that players like Cook will play all but Twenty20's, which to me makes sense.

[Notts Exile]

Originally Posted by Ninjaman

So if England lost because they have no 20/20 specialists, how did WI win when they have none either?

Ninja, you are right. England lost because the Windies played better cricket than we did. Samuels proved what a natural he is, how frustrating it must be for Windies cricket fans that he cannot translate that talent into consistent runs at Test level.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Ninjaman

So if England lost because they have no 20/20 specialists, how did WI win when they have none either?

No Ninjaman I am not saying England lost because they don't have any specialist one day batsmen - I am saying test players should not play in 20/20 matches.

West Indies have been better at one day cricket for a while - even in the summer of 2004 when England won the test series, the West Indies outplayed England in the ODI's.

20/20 is not cricket as we know it, the people who turn up to watch would never watch a test series, so 20/20 does little or nothing IMHO to advance the cause of cricket as a whole, in fact the reverse may be true.

Again if 20/20 was treated as 20/20, and not mainstream cricket - then there would be no problem with it's own players and managers, what does a test player gain from playing 20/20 (and this counts the Windie's), I would say no positives at all.

The negatives are:-

1) There is a risk of injury due to the fast pace of 20/20.

2) The players have enough cricket without being bothered by this bat and ball game.

3) batsmen will suffer in the longer form of cricket - though lousy shot selection, brought about by improvisation being carried into test cricket.

As for what Viv Richards has done with the West Indies, his comments on England needing "specialists" must have been an impartial comment, he has no vested interest in England.