Today as I was listening to the commentary I was convinced that all the commentators had gotten trapped into some kind of group-think where they all just ended up agreeing with each other for no particular reason, even though the slightest attempt at reasoning out their position would show how crazy it was:
1. Everybody was saying how "boring" the match was going this afternoon and how WI were moving slowly. Now at any point did any of them take into account the fact that South Africa were not attacking but consistently bowling wide and trying to wait for an error? How often do we see wides called in test matches? When was the last time we saw 3 consecutive wides in an over in a test? Sure WI were strolling, but it wasn't like South Africa was doing anything to get the game moving either.
2. As one fellow who wrote in to cricinfo's commentary observed:
Quote
George: "It is a bit ironic that the W.I. is coming in for criticism for 'boring play' when everyone always blast the W.I. for impatience and rash strokeplay. South Africa are obviously bowling very defensively and waiting for the inevitable W.I. rush of Blood. Good Fighting spirit from W.I., I like!"
These were my thoughts exactly. Had WI been batting their usual way over the past few years they would have been lambasted for "senseless" batting and "giving away their wickets". And I noticed that as the commentators kept griping on and on about how boring it was, that after Chanderpaul left we saw the players doing exactly what the commentators wanted (i.e. trying to pick up the pace) and in the end give South Africa chances and wickets: Bravo could have been caught going for that 4 which gave him his 50 and Ramdin was caught. Had Bravo, Ramdin and Shillingford stuck to the original script of "boring" the South Africans to death then WI would probably still have 2 more wickets in hand. Well now the commentators have gotten what they wanted and surprise, surprise we have a bit of a collapse. Duh! Of course there is going to be a collapse. I'm certain the whole reason Chanderpaul and Bravo batted the way they did after Nash left was specifically in order to avoid just such a collapse...and look on it, the "disgusting" and "boring" play by Bravo and Chanders put on exactly 100 runs since Nash left while the "exciting" and "chancy" stroke play since Chanders left has put on the grand total of 15 runs for 3 wickets. The commentators can't complain now about how the WI batted after that since this is exactly what they asked for; for WI to take unnecessary risks when they only had 2 recognized batsmen (Chanders and Bravo) left with a deficit of over 150 runs. I'm beginning to wonder if some of these commentators had bet money on a WI collapse and were hoping for it to happen. I mean I'm a little shocked. After all, when was the last time Bravo made a 50 in test cricket? And when was the last time you had 5 West Indians making scores of 50 or more (with 2 centurions including 1 with over 160) in a single test innings? That should be noted as quite an achievement for this lot that is regularly derided as useless. Not even in the drawn match in Barbados against England did that occur I think.
The commentators were talking some garbage about fans not coming out to watch boring cricket, but I think the simple truth is that fans are not coming out because the WI don't show any fight half of the time and lose badly. If WI played like how Bravo and Chanders played more often in test cricket with cautious, measured batting that put on 100 run partnership I would bet my left lung that more people would come out since WI would be more likely to draw matches and people would come out to watch WI play and not lose. Once WI can draw more often then they may build up the confidence to go back to aiming for a win every match, but one should at least be capable of drawing before being capable of winning.
