Relative merits, great West Indian Test bowlers

Best West Indian fast bowler? Take your pick - and there have been some good ones. This chart tallies up the Calypso Kings' bowlers to have taken 200 Test wickets and shows that the 1970s and 1980s truly were an exceptional period for West Indian cricket.

Circle size represents the player's wickets-per-innings, which as you can make out is remarkably close (Walsh 2.14, Holding 2.20, Roberts 2.24, Ambrose 2.26, Garner 2.33, Marshall 2.49).

The Decline and Fall of the Caribbean Empire

Throughout recorded human history, there exists a circular nature to the rise and fall of the great or powerful civilisations. This can be thought of as a series of stages, listed below, that describes the path each major power takes in their rise to supremacy and eventual ruin.

From bondage to spiritual faith

From spiritual faith to great courage

From great courage to strength

From strength to liberty

From liberty to abundance

From abundance to leisure

For leisure to selfishness

From selfishness to complacency

From complacency to apathy

From apathy to dependency

From dependency to weakness

From weakness to bondage

For the Roman Empire, the cycle took somewhere - if you use the same death rattle as Gibbon - a little over five hundred years. For the West Indies, a complete circle looks likely to be complete in less than fifty.

The curious case of world cricket, perspective and Sir Curtly Ambrose

Perspective is a funny thing. A respected older friend once told me “Your perspective is your reality”; it’s an adage I’ve often tried to fault without ever managing to do so.

While listening to Subash Jayaraman’s excellent interview with Sir Curtly Ambrose, I was struck by one of Sir Curtly’s remarks about his series mirabilis, the 1992-93 five-Test stoush away against the upstart Australians.

“We were a young team; we were not expected to win”.

Sir Curtly’s reasoning is logical, in a way: the Undisputed Champs had a new captain in Richie Richardson and the team’s middle order had played in a combined 43 Tests, with Carl Hooper having the vast majority of those (33).

That doesn’t make his statement any less stunning to much of his audience, because while Australia had some victories under their belts against India at home and, with the first glimpses of Warne-spun mastery, away in Sri Lanka, this hardly gave them a claim to the title of World’s Best.

While Viv Richards and Gordon Greenidge had retired, the West Indies of 1992 had last lost a series in 1980 and had conceded only 7 of 34 Tests – never more than one in a series – since Ambrose’s debut in April 1988. But Sir Curtly’s interview tells of an interior perception of a team not expected to win.

This is somewhat odd, because the Australian crowd expected nothing else. The locals were talented and might put up a fight, but victory for the home side was nestled in next to a Geelong Premiership and dating Elizabeth Berkley in the most teen of dreams. Our perception of the West Indies was of an implacable machine, a viewpoint reinforced when Keith Arthurton made the highest score of his career in the first innings of the first Test.

Local perceptions formed our reality – the West Indies were coming and they would almost certainly win. How could two viewpoints on the same series be at such crossed purposes? The answer is relatively straighforward: a unique perspective narrows the visual field, for better and worse. What is gained in the detail is lost in the scope.

As heralded best (amongst others) by the documentary Fire in Babylon, the West Indies began life as a handful of colonies who existed almost solely to be taken advantage of. It took independence for these colonies to really coalesce around an oval and some of the best players of all time waged private battles against against racism and imperialism, not just intimidating their cricketing opponents but demoralizing them. While the forefathers of that revolution had moved on, their progeny – Richardson, Ambrose, Walsh, Bishop, Haynes and Lara – remained.

The West Indies of 1992 thought of themselves as underdogs because forty years of being enjoyable non-threats (to 1975-76) had taught them how to be exactly not that.

To outsiders, in no way should the West Indians have been anything other than favourites – if only due to the mental barriers faced by Aussies still scarred from years of Marshall, Garner, Colin Croft, Holding, Walsh, Roberts, Ambrose and Patrick Patterson. The tourists were still a generation influenced heavily by revolutionaries like Sir Frank Worrell, Sir Garfield Sobers, Sir Clive Lloyd and Sir Vivian Richards; their self-perception was of a team that would continue fighting because otherwise they once again risked being marginalized by the actions of cricket’s off-field establishment.

Australians knew nothing of the financial climate in the West Indies. Nor were we aware of the difficulties faced by many – or most – of our vanquishers, such that cricket was only a route to a comfortable lifestyle for those who managed to secure major sponsors or County deals.

Our perception – bouncers fired in at 155 clicks and Viv swatting Tony Dodemaide for six (again) – meant antipodean audiences could see only a small fraction of the macroeconomic picture. For generations, the West Indies knew nothing but being entertainers. For nearly twenty years, the Australians could only couple this particular set of opponents with impending defeat.

Twenty-one years later, and we can begin to reconcile these opposing perspectives. Both viewpoints are still absolutely valid; if swayed a little by the Kenobi principle (“What I told you was true. From a certain point of view”). Even though world cricket is still plagued by nepotism and self-interest that threatens to further marginalize boards such as the West Indies, the accessibility of information has never been greater and as such we have more facility to appreciate the situations of our rivals. Unfortunately cricket’s never been really good at that.

More reading: My Favourite Cricketer: Curtly Ambrose

Book review: Sixty years on the back foot, by Clyde Walcott

The Caribbean has produced several of the greatest batsmen of all time. However, many of these players seem to rail against faceless figures of authority. Currently, talisman Chris Gayle swats boundaries at whim – more often for lucrative T20 sides than for the West Indies. The chain which leads back through the likes of Brian Lara and Sir Vivian Richards – who was rather partisanly profiled in the acclaimed documentary Fire in Babylon – to George Headley.

Courtesy: amazon.com

The second (or third, or fourth depending on how you look at it) of these superstars was Sir Clyde Walcott, a forerunner of devastating West Indian batsmanry and later president of the International Cricket Council. His autobiography, Sixty years on the back foot, was published at the conclusion of his ICC tenure in 1997.

His memoir is lightweight – entire tours are glossed over, especially those in which the West Indies struggled – and Walcott writes with the style of a man who finishes lengthy believable anecdotes with “Can you believe it?”. However, the parallels between West Indian cricket in 1952 and in 2012 are too plain to ignore.

Along with Sir Everton Weeks and Sir Frank Worrell, Walcott was one of the famed “Three Ws”, three Bajan players raised within a mile of each other and who helped West Indian cricket attain relevance in the 1950s. The significance of the three friends and their relationship is underscored throughout Walcott's writings as he attempts to characterise Caribbean cricket through their free-hitting exploits.

He does this for a simple reason: Walcott unquestionably thought that West Indian cricket, when played hard but for fun, is superior to any other. (Ed: he may be right) Time and again, his tacit disdain the orthodoxy inherent in 1950s English cricket is obvious; simultaneously he rejoices in the laid-back joie de vivre that formerly typified West Indian cricket.

Although Fire in Babylon incorrectly suggested that calypso cricket was provided only a team of loveable freewheelers (ie. losers), you can't escape the feeling while Walcott revelled in victories, he wouldn't countenance sacrificing style to achieve more success. His transition from money-chasing maverick pro to WICB ambassador adds another intriguing dynamic. However, like most politicians, his autobiography is an exercise in using many words to avoid saying much at all.

Although Walcott's memoir hearkens to different times, where pacemen were named Esmond Kentish and Foffie Edwards, there are still familiar cricket themes. Race relations, though downplayed, provided undercurrents of discontent. The same could be said for matters of money, as cricketers were still strictly classified as “professional” or “amateur”. That Worrell, Weekes and Walcott were forced to choose between making a living playing English league cricket rather than representing the West Indies provides a fifty-year prophecy of the WICB's current struggles with player free-agency.

The same issues have plagued West Indian cricket now for sixty years. The islands' success from 1975 to 1995 and more widespread cricketing professionalism only masked the difficulties of West Indian players and administrators. That the situation is unchanged over so long, coupled with difficult economic factors leaves the reader feeling that this situation is now intractable in West Indian cricket and the game is so much the poorer.

However disappointing the state of West Indian cricket, it's perhaps more disappointing that such an eminent figure in the game stuck true to his political, rather than returning to his maverick roots and challenging the myriad failings in Caribbean cricket politics.

My Favourite Cricketer: Curtly Ambrose - Matthew Wood

As we involve noted cricket writers and bloggers on our topic "My Favourite Cricketer" - the brainchild of Balanced Sports' Matthew Wood - sees the series creator delve into his happy childhood memories to pay homage to the baddest, coolest fast bowler in recent memory: Curtly Elconn Lynwall Ambrose.

As cricket fans, we favour iconoclasts and champions. Every player in this series is likely to fall into one category or the other. The players who appeal most express a certain freedom - of emotion, thought, preparation, leadership or skill. Our game, more than any other, creates artistry - in batsmanship, bowling, fielding and captaincy. That liberty allows one to create results from nothing a la Shane Warne, to redefine the game as Jardine or one's own game like Lillee; to propagate evolution by force of will alone in the mould of Allan Border or simply just to be oneself, enormous moustache and all - Merv Hughes.

I spent months considering who actually is my favourite cricketer; narrowing the list of potentials proving more difficult than anticipated. Certain players I respect for their skill and resulting achievement: Sir Donald Bradman, Warne or McGrath. The Chappell brothers remain straight-shooters, one an iconoclast and the other a fractured savant. My childhood favourite? Merv Hughes. Stylistically, no-one comes within galaxies of Sir Viv Richards, while the greatest moment of cricket perspective was Keith Miller's "Pressure is a Messerschmitt up your arse, not playing cricket".

Curtly Elconn Lynwall Ambrose didn't redefine fast bowling, but re-imagined it. The last in almost a half-century of the truly great West Indian pacemen, he not only picked up the legacy of forbears Hall, Griffith, Roberts, Holding, Croft, Garner and Marshall but added his own chapter to cricket's most exciting history. His stature - 6'7 - led to constant, inevitable and overstated references to a basketball career, but he shouldn't be remembered for that length but for it's deadly effect when combined with his natural talent and work ethic.

Fast strides to the wicket turned into a quickish amble as the years passed, but Ambrose casually delivered the ball from over 9 feet high at extreme pace for twelve years at Test level. Instead of losing accuracy due to his height, he turned that divine gift into a stock ball which reared off a good length: he had the accuracy of McGrath, the malice of Holding, the movement of Marshall and the faster changeup of the killer Roberts. He had everything any fast bowler could want, including a murderous yorker and a bouncer so evil it hissed "Luke, I am your father" as the ball passed their throat.

Loose-jointed and almost outrageously fast, he was the evolutionary Joel Garner. His languid appearance, nevermore on show than when bowing to Bay 13, often gave the impression of coasting. He could afford to celebrate victories as they kept him going - cricket never meant that much to him. Unlike some others, he appeared a to have a life outside cricket and now combines with former captain and fellow Antiguan Richie Richardson in a reggae outfit.

After years of competition between bowlers to get into the West Indian side, the destiny of their pace attack rested with Curtly, who became the sole embodiment of the Caribbean fast bowling progression. He was criticised more often for coasting than he actually did. Much of that may have come from poor use as necessity harnessed him into the role of combo bowler, stock-plus-strike. Perhaps fittingly his only competition for the title of "best paceman" over the past twenty years is McGrath, who successfully combined those fraught roles. The large man was human and prone to emotion which focused his mind on delivering missiles that seemed to come from orbit.

That human side came out in his final assault on Australian shores in 1996-97. Down on form and luck, he announced before the third Test in Melbourne he would take ten wickets and Brian Lara would score a century. Lara couldn't fulfill his end, but Ambrose performed magnificently, taking 9 for 72. So good - and gracious - was he that no-one begrudged his success and most were left disappointed when he couldn't quite manage the ten-fer. After missing the next match through injury (unsurprisingly, the West Indians lost), he returned for Perth and in a 10-wicket triumph took 7/93 - Curtly owned Perth.

His Test averages speak for themselves: 405 Test wickets at 20.99 and an Economy rate of 2.3. He has the lowest economy rate of any fast bowler with over 200 wickets, and is fifth overall. The average stands the third best of any of the greats: .05 behind Marshall and .02 behind his prototype Garner.

Ambrose's most famous moments came against the Australians - he toured Australia three times - in 1988-89 as a rookie , in 92-93 as the best bowler in the world and in 1996-97 as a fading force still commanding ultimate respect.

The most revered spell of fast bowling in recent Australian memory, talked about as the greatest of follies of all time occurred in a One-Day match in Brisbane in 1993. The recently-reinstated Dean Jones asked him to remove his white wristband. Instantly, commentators, spectators and the West Indian fielders knew he had made a mistake and Curtly told him so - in words and actions. He unleashed the most unholy spell of fast bowling, claiming 5/32 and running himself into an seeing-is-believing stretch of form climaxing when he ensured the retention of the Sir Frank Worrell trophy with a villainous spell of 7/1 at the WACA.

His 1995 stouch with Steve Waugh at Trinidad turned Bankstown's finest from "good" to "great" and was the last great tribulation for Waugh before he could claim to be amongst the all-timers. Curtly Ambrose, so long a man-mountain of fast bowlers, was Waugh's - and with Lara, Australia's - Everest. The best of the 1980s had to succumb to the best of the 1990s. West Indian cricket has not since been the same.

It's not fair - and very wrong - that Curtly Ambrose is probably not considered at the same level as Lillee, Hall, Marshall and McGrath. He was every bit as talented and driven as those bowlers yet for the majority of his career was supported by a gimpy Ian Bishop and the corpse of Courtney Walsh. After he became the attack leader, he never had the support of a Thomson, Warne or Gillespie, meaning he had to know when to attack and when to defend. The freedom to go all out was denied him for the last seven years of his career. His pacy Islander ancestors could rely on the guy at the other end joining you in ritually strangling the batsmen. Curtly could not.

Don't tell me Curtly Ambrose wasn't amongst the greats. Mike Atherton and Steve Waugh certainly think he was. His combination of lethal pace, pinpoint accuracy and devastating "troat balls". Of all the players I remember seeing, the one of whom I have the fondest memories for who he was, was Curtley Ambrose.

Back to series homepage for My Favourite Cricketer.

My Favourite Cricketer: Brian Lara

The first Balanced Sports and World Cricket Watch: "My Favourite Cricketer" is penned by the editor of WCW, David Siddall. It features the Samba King of West Indian batsmanship, Brian Lara.

From the age of 13-18 this aspiring top order batsmen would spend their summer holidays practically living at the Stoughton and Thurnby Cricket Club nets. Honing the particularities of your batting technique was the order of the day. But it wasn’t any English batsmen we were attempting to emulate (possibly with the exception of Graham Thorpe’s late cut). Rather we’d play around with the low grip of Tendulkar, the seemingly straight bat pull shot of Ponting, and the high back-lift and ferocious bat-speed of Lara.

Analysing the three players, arguably the finest three batsmen of their generation, leads to never-ending debates pertaining to the all time batting pantheon. Frankly, this gets tedious in less time than Marcus Trescothick had to react to this tracer bullet beamer. In short, I’d go for 1) Tendulkar 2) Lara, and 3) Ponting. Tendulkar’s longevity and imminent hundred hundreds record – one way of looking at that is he must have several hundreds he doesn’t even remember – account for his top spot.

But this piece is about favouritism and not statistics. And the love of cricket, being such a heavily mediated sport, owes its success just as much to aesthetic appeal as it does to run getting. Of the three players, it is Brian Lara’s elegance and flamboyance that makes him my favourite cricketer.

Early on in his career, Lara was able to stand on the shoulder of giants – Viv Richards, Malcolm Marshall (immense at 5”11), Ian Bishop, Curtly Ambrose and Courtney Walsh (both metaphorically and literally at 6”7 and 6”6 respectively) – in the tail end of West Indies dominance. In the latter half of his career, post 2000, West Indies cricket would fade, yet Lara would continue to make waves. And whether the West Indies was dominant or dormant, the hallmarks of Brian Lara’s batting would remain a constant.

These included aggression in attack and defence in equal measures, lightning footwork, fleet of foot to get down the pitch against the spinners, the highest back-lift in world cricket and the clunk of his back-lift unleashing timing that rivalled one of his idos – Viv Richards himself. He had a tendency to play every ball on its merits irrespective of the time of the day. Never has this been exemplified more than when he hit Robin Peterson for 28 runs in an over in Johannesburg in 2003-04 despite their being only 2 overs to go in the day.

Trademarks of the 466444 display are the shimmy down the wicket, 100% commitment to the stroke, and the lazy swing of the hands through the ball.

Besides the stunning aesthetics to the batting of Brian Charles Lara, he will go down in history as being the batsmen who turned big scores into mammoth scores time and time again. His maiden test match century, a whopping 277 in Sydney in only his 5^th test, was a sign of things to come. Had it not been for an over zealous run out, in all likelihood it would have been a triple century.

Lara would go on to be the only batsmen in history to record a century, double century, triple century, quadruple century and quintuple (?) century in first class cricket. In 1994, Lara was at the height of his powers as he surpassed Sober’s test record score of 365* with a score of 375 against England in Antigua and recorded the highest ever first class score of 501* in the space of only a few months. During the same period he recorded 7 first class centuries in 8 innings. Just how much of an immovable force he was can be seen in the awe of the faces of his Durham opponents and his Warwickshire teammates alike in the following video…

But despite being named the 1994 and 1995 Wisden leading cricketer of the year, Lara would arguably save his greatest ever innings for the Australians with a modest (by his standards) match-winning 153* in a 1-wicket win in Barbados in 1999 in a game that Steve Waugh described the greatest test he’d ever been involved in. The Wisden 100 has named it the second greatest ever knock in test cricket only behind Don Bradman’s 270 for Australia v England at Melbourne in 1936-37.

Having hit a double hundred in the previous game to resurrect the series for the West Indies, this innings would swing the series in the West Indies favour as they would lead 2-1. The poignancy of the knock made even more unbelievable when you consider the West Indies had possibly come off the back of the lowest point in their history – a 5-0 thrashing at the hands of South Africa. At 248 for 8, still requiring another 60 runs for victory, Lara had to take the bull by the horns with only Ambrose and Walsh in the hutch. Lara the ‘Lone Ranger’ of the Windies batting lineup seemingly becoming the constant theme as his career progressed. Although you might think otherwise if you believe the version of events that Courtney Walsh spun (surviving 5 balls at the death).

To try and attempt to analyse the legacy of Brian Charles Lara is a tall order. It predominantly lies as a batsman rather than a captain (Lara did guide the West Indies to the 2004 Champions Trophy and led from the front admirably however). Statistically, the record for the highest ever test score is the obvious choice. It was a choice that Matthew Hayden almost dented having hit Zimbabwe for 380 in Perth in 2003.

Fittingly in April 2004, Lara, not to be outdone, became the first ever man to score 400 in a test match at the same ground where he surpassed Sober’s original record. With today’s over rates and endless stoppages, it is a score that is unlikely to be eclipsed. But Lara’s legacy should transcend far beyond that of mere batting records.

Besides meeting Barack Obama and having a fantastic cricket video game named after him, Lara was the most entertaining and most flamboyant batsman of his generation. His only criticism could be that he perhaps lacked the mental toughness that Tendulkar demonstrated unerringly for over 20 years.

Nevertheless, when in the mood (a caveat that seems to explain the low points in Lara’s career), Lara’s stonewall defence like Rahul Dravid, aggression and strokeplay likeVirender Sehwag, combined with his footwork to spinners that remains unrivalled in world cricket today made him simply unplayable.

If the cricketing pantheon does the great man any justice, the image and memories of his batting will be forever immortalised, alongside the biggest scores in cricketing history.

Clive Lloyd: Mr World Cup

by Balanced Sports Columnist Ben Roberts

Into its tenth edition and with 36 years of existence, the thought of the Cricket World Cup still provides no great historic or nostalgic pull on the heart of a cricket fan. Despite the tournament still struggling to forge an identity in our hearts, it has acted as a canvas for some tremendous individual performances.

Tournaments in all sports often have players rise up and define their careers by them. Think of Rugby player Jonny Wilkinson reaching heights of fame in the 2003 Rugby World Cup and Diego Maradona making the 1986 Football World Cup his own. But cricket, with such a focus on individual analysis, calls for even greater influence then a starring tournament in its search for the World Cup's best.

To combine influence, leadership, as well as personal success is a feat that some have done in individual tournaments, but likely only West Indian Sir Clive Lloyd produced this consistently.

The bespectacled West Indian was an early limited over cricket champion finishing his middle order batting career with an average of 40 and a strike rate of over 80. He led West Indian cricket into the era of dominance but In 1975 they were far from this, still to be drubbed 5-1 by the Australians in the 1975-76 test series. Lloyd would later identify that the brutality of Dennis Lillee and Jeff Thomson drove them to greater heights.

The first two Cricket World Cups staged were won by Lloyd’s West Indian teams. The 1975 tournament at the time was regarded as somewhat of a novelty, and the West Indian win has only been fully recognised for its significance in hindsight. So trivial at the time that Ian Chappell stated his belief publicly that these one-day 'tests' were just a warm up to the Ashes in 1975, and so misunderstood that Sunil Gavaskar seemingly batted for a draw in one match.

Tony Cozier later wrote that the West Indians were considered the inaugural tournament's favourites given their all-round strength, fielding ability and experience from many players coming out of the county scene where limited over matches were already a fixture. The West Indians had an unbeaten run through the tournament, and outside of geographical hosts England probably had the most home support with a large expatriate community calling Britain home. Lloyd himself dominated the winning final against Australia with 102 off 85 balls (his only ever ODI century) and a miserly bowling performance.

Again in 1979 Lloyd led his side to an unbeaten tournament (though this time one match was abandoned due to weather). Reliant upon the growing status of later champion batsmen Gordon Greenidge, Desmond Haynes and Vivian Richards, Lloyd’s personal contribution was less pronounced with the bat (a top score of 73 not out against NZ) but he still led his side admirably.

Leadership of West Indian teams is regularly undervalued when compared against leadership of other nations. The West Indies we must remember are a conglomerate of different nations and different cultures. They are a group of players thrown together who don't necessarily speak a consistent language (at the very least they have different dialects) and all have differing cultural backgrounds. A successful leader will walk a fine line in their interaction with the team as they try to be fair and justified in their treatment of all.

The West Indian dominance of the tournament finally ended at the 1983 tournament. A seed was perhaps sewn in their opening match when they lost to India. This would be the only blemish for Lloyd's team as they from then on proceeded undefeated to make the final of the tournament for the third successive occasion, even defeating India in the return group match.

They again faced the Indian team led by the charismatic all-rounder Kapil Dev. With what was now considered the most damaging bowling attack in the world the West Indies managed to dismiss India for a lowly 184, but could not overhaul this small target themselves being bowled out for 140. Coming toward the end of his international career, Lloyd did not pass 50 in his final World Cup.

In raising Lloyd as the most influential has required an ignorance of greater individual performances by great players such as Sachin Tendulker, Glenn McGrath and Wasim Akram. However, none ever led their side to a World Cup victory; and the victories that Akram and McGrath both played in, while contributing in a large way, still relied upon great team efforts. In Tendulker's case, now in his last tournament, despite a phenomenal World Cup record he is yet to win and at most can only finish with one victory.

Also ignored are the captaincy feats of Kapil Dev in 1983, Allan Border in 1987, Imran Khan in 1992 and Arjuna Ranatunga in 1996 who led teams that were certainly not tournament favourites to victory. But none have led teams sustaining this success in subsequent tournaments.

Probably the only player who does go near the feats of Lloyd is Ricky Ponting. Ponting is in his 5^th World Cup currently and has three tournament wins and a runner-up from his other four. He has led Australia to two of the victories, losing no matches in either tournament and produced some of his great limited over performances on its highest stage.

Ponting of course was blessed with a great, if not the greatest, team in the history of the limited over game. Should Ponting, in 2011, lead a weaker team than at least three other competitors to victory and provide value with the bat, he may have cause to take the mantle from Lloyd.

Lloyd also later went on to have influence off the field at World Cups as well as in his role as a match referee. He was a pioneer of the format and a ruthless competitor. But he was and remains highly respected as the leader of these great West Indian teams that set the benchmark of performance in the formative years of cricket's World Cup.