Australia needs to learn from the Windies: play the kids or perish

By SteveOL / Roar Pro

A long time ago in a tropical archipelago far, far away, the West Indies cricket team was being knitted together by a languid slip of a man.

Frank Worrell had taken over the captaincy from wicketkeeper-batsman Gerry Alexander and had begun moulding a group of players made up of nations separated by flight paths.

Barbadians would associate with Barbadians, as would the Trinidadians, Jamaicans and Guyanans. Before he took the reins his was a team divided.

“There was no allowance for the original point of view,” Worrell said of his harsh school years.

The new captain was not having any of that in his new inclusive Windies order. His mantra was “one in all in”.

His team had recently lost two of the three Ws to retirement in Clyde Walcott and Everton Weekes. Along with Worrell they had formed the most powerful middle-order combination of the time and were irreplaceable.

Sound familiar?

Cricket had become a borefest. Indeed, the West Indians had just come off a home series against England in which the visitors had claimed the series 1-0 with four draws.

Before the 1960-61 tour of Australia, Sir Donald Bradman urged opposing captains Richie Benaud and Worrell to play attacking cricket. They took his advice to heart and produced a pulsating tie in Brisbane, the first of only two in Test history.

The series captured the public’s imagination like never before.

The unprecedented interest saw the Caribbean tourists farewelled with a ticker tape parade by the Melbourne public, only after the Boxing Day turnstiles rattled along to the tune of 90,800 adoring fans – a record that stood for 52 years until the Ashes Test of 2013 where 91,092 people crammed into the modern version of the same stadium.

The Australians won the 1960-61 series 2-1 and the West Indians had a taste of how cricket could really be played.

With players of the ilk of Gary Sobers, Rohan Kanhai, Conrad Hunte, Lance Gibbs and Wes Hall, Worrell’s men swept India at home 5-0 then travelled to England in 1963 and won 3-1.

Worrell retired after that tour and handed the captaincy to Sobers, whose side defeated Bob Simpson’s Australians 2-1 in the 1964-65 Caribbean series.

More series wins away against England and India followed. A level of excellence had been established and the West Indies were on top of the world.

Travelling the world as freewheeling ‘Calypso Kings’, they operated with a ‘if it ain’t broke don’t fix it’ philosophy and the composition of the team remained consistent. For years.

Sound familiar?

A month after the team returned from yet another series victory in India in 1967, Worrell died in hospital of leukaemia at the age of 42.

With the outpouring of grief in the Caribbean and the unprecedented memorial service for a cricketer at Westminster Abbey, West Indian cricket disappeared into a black hole of mourning.

Over the next nine series, under the leadership of Sobers and Kanhai, the West Indians would win just four Tests on the way to losing five trophies.

Something had to give and it was under the stewardship of the ‘Supercat’ Clive Lloyd that the older players who had had their time were swept aside.

A new breed of attacking batsmen were introduced, including Viv Richards, Roy Fredericks and Gordon Greenidge along with a budding pace battery led by a young Andy Roberts and Vanburn Holder.

Lloyd’s men travelled to India where they won the series 3-2. They then went on to England in 1975 where they defeated Australia in the first World Cup, which was then a 60-over affair.

The Windies followed Australia south for a six-Test series where they found Ian Chappell’s side waiting for them with what proved to be a blueprint for West Indian cricket.

Bloodthirsty firebrands Dennis Lillee and Jeff Thomson, supported by Gary Gilmour and Max Walker, spearheaded a hostile 5-1 thrashing.

Lloyd was convinced of the effectiveness of “three or four quick bowlers on your side”.

In the superb documentary Fire In Babylon he admitted that every West Indian had “at some time or other felt the pain of a cricket ball, sent down at great speed, thudding into their bodies”.

They were “determined never to let it happen again”.

Lloyd scoured the islands of the Caribbean and picked bowlers who could let the ball go at hellish pace, bowlers who had no compassion for the plight of the flesh and bone at the other end. Malevolent demon quicks.

There was no let up. Lloyd and his successor Richards bowled them in tandem and when the batsmen had seen off one tearaway bowling at 90 mph and pitching them more often than not in the bowler’s half of the wicket, another one came on.

All innings. All day. And the production line appeared to have no end: Roberts, Colin Croft, Joel Garner, Michael Holding, Malcolm Marshall, Patrick Patterson, Ian Bishop, Winston Benjamin, Curtly Ambrose, Courtney Walsh, and so on.

The Caribbean batsmen were as good as the era saw too. Richards, Lloyd, Greenidge, Desmond Haynes, Richie Richardson, Brian Lara, Carl Hooper and even little Gus Logie took on the bowlers of the time with contempt.

Confidence is the key to an all-powerful side. It pervades the minds of all of a team’s members and infiltrates an opponent’s dressing room.

The ‘new Calypso Kings’ swaggered their way through the 1980s. In their 82 Tests that decade, the Windies won 43 and lost just eight as 16 fast bowlers gathered 1,257 wickets.

From February 1980 and March 1995, they went unbeaten in a Test series and were considered to be a dynasty that would not end.

But of course all dynasties end. Richards, Greenidge, Marshall and Logie retired in 1991, Patterson in 1992 and Haynes followed in 1994.

Sound familiar?

By the time Mark Taylor’s squad, described by opposing captain Richie Richardson as the “weakest Australian team I’ve played against” ended the West Indies reign in the Caribbean in 1995, many of the great names were gone.

As was the Sir Frank Worrell Trophy, and by year’s end so was Richardson.

Young guns had not been infused into the line-up. There were still great players in the side but West Indian youth had not been given the opportunity to gradually knit with the champions of the golden era.

As former Victorian fast bowler Dirk Nannes wrote, “a great young player is historically born from a dressing room with a wealth of knowledge. They have served an apprenticeship in a strong team, as the baby in a team of experienced players.”

The West Indian Test team has never recovered, winning just 39 of the ensuing 185 Tests, a winning record of just 21.1% of matches played.

With the advent of Twenty20 cricket mercenaries, a dearth of modern day role models and the lure of other sports, the ‘Calypso Kings’ may never reign supreme again.

Sound familiar?

With the retirements of the guts of the best Australian combination in history and no young blood, sans Michael Clarke, to fill the breach, Test cricket in this country nosedived into an abyss.

There is no point in running over old ground here – suffice it to say the early 2013 hammering in India provided a resounding punctuation mark to what was the lowest ebb for decades.

Then a funny thing happened on the way to a 5-0 Ashes victory. Cricket Australia began to get its ducks in a row, ‘began’ being the operative word.

Hard-nosed personnel, comprising blokes who called a spade a shovel and were well adept at celebrating a win properly, were called into the Australian dressing room. A relatively clever and considered 2013-14 domestic fixture was drafted.

And, right or wrong, for better or worse, angst was served up to the shell-shocked English like so many Mitchell Johnson bumpers with ‘angry’ pills popped like vitamins.

Yet while the deck chairs on the Titanic may well have been reshuffled and the iceberg avoided presently, regardless of what transpires in South Africa this month, the elephant in the room remains – “What next?”

A number of the recommendations of The Argus Report have been ignored in many ways while others have been taken on board and rejected like a dodgy kidney.

However, largely through necessity, succession planning has not been a priority despite the report declaring: “There was significant negative feedback from numerous stakeholders about our selection function. The evidence also shows that we have not handled succession planning well.”

So despite a report detailing where Cricket Australia had got it all so wrong and the once invincible West Indies providing a template of how not to keep your dynasty humming seamlessly, Australia’s ‘next generation’ batsmen in recent times have been restricted to David Warner, Steve Smith and the Phil Hughes yo-yo.

With the failure of the George Bailey experiment (what a great name for a band!) and the all-too-familiar soft tissue injury to Shaun Marsh, the selectors hand has hopefully been forced.

It is to be hoped that in short time, as is the case with Australian fast bowling stocks, we will be discussing names such as Nic Maddinson, Jordan Silk, Chris Lynn, Peter Handscomb and Travis Head in terms of Test batting depth rather than potential riches.

The Crowd Says:

2014-02-07T03:52:36+00:00

Dalgety Carrington

Guest


T20 performs an additional function of keeping cricketers in the game and drawing new ones in. As you pointed out earlier Sheek, the competition from other sports can drain the numbers playing the game and the subsequent talent pool available. T20 not only draws kids in, but mums too, who often make the decisions on merchandise bought, outings spent on and crucially often the sports played by kids. So love it or hate it, you can still acknowledge it's crucial place in keeping the cricket heart beating strongly. Skills can be honed and money should be transferred into first class cricket too, but having less players playing can be as detrimental to the overall skill of a Test team as any "corruption" of skills by the T20 influence.

AUTHOR

2014-02-06T01:16:13+00:00

SteveOL

Roar Pro


As they say, bowlers win Tests, batsman save them. Always used to love mimicking Ian Bishop, Joel Garner, Curtly Ambrose and especially Malcolm Marshall as a kid.

2014-02-05T19:19:52+00:00

Armchair expert

Guest


Curtley Ambrose is the classic example, he preferred to play basketball and soccer and apparently only played beach cricket with his mates, the story is it was only his cricket loving mother's persuasion that saw him eventually play club cricket.

2014-02-05T07:08:34+00:00

ChrisB

Guest


The Windies got lucky really. In the end lack of resources and facilities and generational shift caught them out. Even during the period you referred to they had that period (roughly 68-73) as you point out, they struggled, but that was an artefact of no fast bowlers, it basically began when Hall and Griffith declined and ended with Andy Roberts debut. In between they had an ageing Sobers, Vanburn Holder at medium-fast, and Lance Gibbs offspin. But the run of bowlers had to end eventually, as it did after Walsh, Ambrose and Bishop.

2014-02-05T06:57:30+00:00

ChrisB

Guest


While I sort if agree, there's one big difference, in the pre-professional era not so many players hung around if they didn't make the test team young (and of course many established test players quit before they were 30) so there has been a bit of a paradigm shift. Plus everyone has memories of the vast depth we had on the bench from the early 90s till about 07. It became an expectation that a Langer, Hussey, Love, Bichel, MacGill etc was sitting there ready to go. In our entire history probably only the immediate post WWII era has had such depth

2014-02-05T05:46:07+00:00

Lroy

Guest


I really hope Pattinson is fit... big strong and fast.. he really could be the difference I think.. he is the cherry on the cake of the Australian attack I think.

2014-02-05T05:34:17+00:00

Armchair expert

Guest


Another theory on the West Indies gradual decline is the gradual independence of the West Indies islands from Britain from the 1960s onwards, apparently political support for cricket has subtly declined over the years since, which would filter down to their schools.

2014-02-05T05:26:55+00:00

Jack

Guest


I was just trying to make the point that you don't drop good players to try and plan for succession. It was never meant to be taken seriously mate. -- Comment from The Roar's iPhone app.

AUTHOR

2014-02-05T03:31:16+00:00

SteveOL

Roar Pro


You're right re: first class strength. A bit of a silly question asking who you'd drop for McGrath and Warne. Ditto Gilchrist, Hayden, Ponting, S. Waugh. However the Bailey and Marsh selections are a different story. Far different.

2014-02-05T03:05:20+00:00

Gobarg

Guest


Here is a mental execise... Who out of the dominant aussie side of the recent past would you have dropped to make way for an untried youngster? Would you drop McGrath for a young quick? Warne for a young leggie? The reason why you don't often see any such thing as succession planning is that the guys in the side are the ones who deserve to be there and if that side is winning everythiing why change it? The nly way I can see that you can prepare for the eventual day that your champions retire is to have a really strong first class game that produces very good cricketers. Then when the day comes that you lose the champions you have at the very least a crop of players that can hold the fort until another out and out champion raises their head again. Forget planning for the future at test level plan for the future at first class level and then pick the best test team from that. History tells us that when the first class competition is strong then out test team is strong.

2014-02-05T01:17:44+00:00

sheek

Roar Guru


Thanks Gr.

2014-02-05T01:03:20+00:00

AlanKC

Guest


Interesting read Steve. I find it ironic that the thing that was supposedly needed to retain talented youth in cricket rather than going to other sports (money) is also the thing that may retard the development of young players. When players weren't paid large sums, the necessity of financial security meant that they voluntarily retired at a fairly early age to pursue a "career". Now that the sport has become the career, it's up to the selectors to nudge players into retirement rather than let them play on too long to the later detriment of the team. The selectors role is a fairly thankless one given 1) the punters want the side to keep winning, so dropping an older player for a younger, probably less well performed one risks raising our ire and 2) their employers, the ACB, want the rivers of gold to continue to flow now, as well as in the future.

AUTHOR

2014-02-05T00:53:19+00:00

SteveOL

Roar Pro


As I say, let's hope there is a production line of these young bats in a year or two. They seem to be ton-makers, especially Silk, and tons and 1000-run Shield seasons create pressure. Fingers crossed.

AUTHOR

2014-02-05T00:51:01+00:00

SteveOL

Roar Pro


Maybe that will be a bonus from the BBL? I had not heard of Ben Dunk or Tom Cooper or James Muirhead before this summer but am glad I know these household names (they are in our house anyway) mow and will follow their progress.

AUTHOR

2014-02-05T00:46:10+00:00

SteveOL

Roar Pro


The playing of Hughes, Khawaja, Wade, Pattinson and Starc were completely out of necessity and not through a policy of pushing kids. They were picked as the older crew simply weren't firing. Lyon is the best spinner in the country so he picks himself. Has been the case for a while and despite being dropped unfairly several times raced to 50 wickets in only one match less than Warne. Hughes was picked on form in 2009 and along with Johnson won them a series in South Africa. Warner was picked post-Katich along with blokes like Cowan on promise and would have to be considered a success despite his brain fades. Smith has had his opportunities, probably more than anyone else. His is the blooding selection I am talking about. What I am saying is don't pick 30-something blokes like Bailey and Marsh with 30-something first class averages when you can blood a kid.

AUTHOR

2014-02-05T00:34:19+00:00

SteveOL

Roar Pro


Thanks for reading, Jorji. I am pretty certain I addressed the issues of island separation and the lure of other sports. I didn't look at admin and the domestic scene as those are an issue in many other Test playing nations. The key foci of this piece was the WIndies extended dominance and ensuing complacency followed by falling off a cliff in a big way when retirements cam en masse. Much as it went at the end of the noughties in Australia. To say that not infusing youngsters into dominant sides in order to keep the long term success of a team viable is just completely and utterly incorrect. Imagine if Geelong in the AFL had the same side they had 5 years ago. The nostalgia would be great but they would be mid to bottom of the table.

AUTHOR

2014-02-05T00:28:02+00:00

SteveOL

Roar Pro


Thank you, Spanker.

2014-02-05T00:22:39+00:00

Spanker

Guest


Fabulous article thank you -- Comment from The Roar's iPhone app.

2014-02-05T00:22:24+00:00

sheek

Roar Guru


Hi Steve & understood. However, I think the problems of the Windies go beyond not integrating youth into their teams. Which is what I was trying to articulate. You're absolutely right that professionalism means players are hanging around longer. Removing them becomes the job of the selectors. But what if there isn't anyone worthy to replace them? When I first started following cricket in the late 60s, it was the opposite, guys retired too young. Bob Simpson first time around, retired just before his 32nd birthday (he hung around longer than most). Bob Cowper was gone at 28; Paul Sheahan a few years later at 27 (both when they were approaching their peak). If World Series Cricket hadn't happened then very likely Greg Chappell & Max Walker would have retired at 29; Rod Marsh at 30; Dennis Lillee at 28 & Doug Walters at 31. BTW, there was an enormous number of players given a test cap or more during the turbulent period 1977-86. Many of them regrettably, weren't up to the standard. There are no easy answers. Another problem is an overwhelming lack of competition for places, especially among batsmen. Players appear distracted by other things!

2014-02-05T00:11:13+00:00

Pope Paul VII

Guest


Never thought I'd feel sorry for the West Indies. They should be the ICC priority but like that will happen.

More Comments on The Roar

Read more at The Roar