Splendid hundreds from Tion Webster and Yannic Cariah

no! I love cricket and and all there is to the game. vooping and tons of 4444s and 6666s is not totally the game of cricket. who convinced ya'all that it is????

cricket is about brains, skill, courage, fortitude, tenacity and fight over the spectrum of natural and social conditions the game is played in..that is brings out of humans on the field of play..over the spectrum of these conditions.

the game of cricket perhaps more than any other game brings out and reveals human capacity we never dreamed of like Brian Lara's ability to focus and concentrate to an extent we do not even know the limits of off for when he stopped several times during huge innings we knew he could have gone on indefinitely..like that test when he scored 400 not out.

or Wesley Hall when he bowled from 2 pm to 6 pm to save a test match at lords for the west indies..or Michel Holding when he bowled over a whole test match to take 14 wickets and win a test for the west indies...the amazing consistency of Tendulkar and Gavaskar.

but the secret is in the play of the game..the smarts, the skills on the field, the games and plots by the opposed teams, and determination to win.

there was a game in Oz in 1989, a test match between Oz and the west indies, at Melbourne... like Edgbaston, a famous west indian graveyard. the conditions were awful and both sides fielded excellent fast bowling and west indies prevailed by a great innings from Richie Richardson and tremendous fast bowling by Patrick Patterson.. of whom it was then said that he bowled probably as fast as ever can be bowled by a human being...as fast is humanly possible.

in those conditions as an umpire I would not even have allowed him to bowl far less to bowl as he did, but they all bowled as they could...they gave their all, on both sides. that there, is a game that should go down as what cricket is all about. it must have been like in the days when wickets were uncovered, no helmets, and you took your life into your hands with the fast bowlers on such wickets.

there was no fast scoring, no tons of boundaries..runs were seriously hard to make. but it was an enthralling, tit for tat battle all the way through and west indies prevailed by skill, toughness and smarts. now that is cricket. there are draws like that too. but if you really know cricket the draw is not all there is to the game. the play between the first and last days is always revelatory of all manner of insights into the game, human personality, experience, history, race, and on and on...

if all you are focused on is win, lose and draw, there is a whole world of experience you miss in cricket in between. that is why you don't understand Ramdin's silly decision, looking for the wrong results in a situation in which, sensibly, only a draw was possible..until a Titty loss became a possibility by Ramdin's search for the impossible

one is in fantasy if one wants to create out of thin air. one fails ignominiously in that sort of thing..like Sobers did and now Ramdin.

you have to accept what is basic and valid. why would you go against that?

what is basic is right and you cant alter it. god may be able to but not you. but if you do things by the basic that is where the action can come from because what is possible in that, you can come to achieve if you are good enough, and smart enough to see the inherent possibilities as you go, and the challenges as they arrive, give you the opportunity to, or force you to innovate, to create off and on the orthodox base you are facile at

who did the Australians call the most orthodox of west indian batsmen after 1960-61? that's right...ROHAN KANHAI!

but who also was Rohan Kanhai..only the most creative batting genius who ever lived...what is often called unorthodox.

but that is how Kanhai was such a genius.. because he came to know and understand the physical laws of what he did, by which he lived, and had the personal courage, confidence and belief in himself to innovate as he went, facing the challenges imposed on him by opposition and natural conditions, to overcome all that the bowlers and captains of his day threw at him.
and they all tried to stop him from scoring, to get him out. but they could not when he was going...or more often than not when he was interested. often Kanhai did not appear to be interested at all. he was when it counted but at times he would get out for no reason at all suggesting lack of interest, stimulation and focus

and later Brian Lara came along with the same ability to create, but of a different time and personality and generation, with an ability to focus and score endlessly.

but none were as basically orthodox and sound of technique as Kanhai, then Lara...sound fundamentals of batting..the soundest ever..straight bat, impregnable defense and all that. if Kanhai and Lara decided to occupy a crease, they could eliminate all chance and defend and no bowler could get past their bats. they would bat forever if that was physically possible..surely for all 5 days of a test match

so what makes for creativity, decisiveness etc.? fundamentals that's what. so as a captain you need to know the side you have, that you lead, and what they can do, achieve. any knowledgeable observer looking at that Titty side would know and agree that Ramdin had in that side, no ability to defeat that Jamaican side, coming from behind in that game...absolutely not. the advantage was Jamaica's on winning the toss and batting, and scoring big.

had Trinidad won the toss it would have been a different matter..the game would have flowed in the opposite. Trinidad's 331 declared would have been quite enough. batting second and fourth Jamaica would have been in real trouble, in great difficulty to hold on even for a draw. Trinidad would have won that game outright. Trinidad would have spun Jamaica out on the fourth day, in the fourth innings

by accepting the facts of the game, of the tournament itself and how to win the championship, Ramdin would have followed a different but orthodox course. he would have accepted the stark truth in front of him, that the game had become a first innings game as a result of Jamaica's big score: and as Cariah and Webster dug in, he would have nursed them to bigger scores...Webster prolly a double, Cariah to more like 150-175 ..and so bring home the first innings points, aiming at the whole tournament, not just that one game

it is important, crucial to accept simple reality and not become fantastic. it is only on that basis magic can be accomplished, when it is possible to do and make magic. when magic cannot be made don't try for it as you will only lose and end up looking the fool. there is enough work, risk and danger etc in the game, for a captain to go out looking for more, to create more and unnecessary problems for himself and his team

no more silly and impractical decisions eh Dinesh...

Mapoui, I inderstand there is NO 1st innings points in PCL

fundamentals changed from back in the day eh!

oh well! I expect that if you have a points tournament there must be a distribtion of points every game or at the end liquidity of points dries up and you have no result.

so we had a 4 innings game and no side won and no points on first innings. so no one came out with points then? how in the eff does that compute?

so ketchim! can you find out what the points format looks like?