Crucket

The last test between NZ and the Windies in Dunedin way back in 1980 might have gone differently if the West Indies could have challenged some of the umpires’ decisions. We’ll never know if it would have changed the result of that match, but it almost certainly would have prevented the acrimony that developed in the series.

For those who not entirely familiar with NZ cricketing history, here is a report on the match from Wisden’s archives. The link requires registration, but to summarise: the Windies arrived full of confidence after soundly beating Australia at home (who incidentally had not won a test series themselves for about 2 years) but found things harder going in Dunedin and found themselves facing defeat and feeling that the umpiring hadn’t gone their way, culminating in Michael Holding kicking over the stumps when John Parker was given not out in a poor umpiring decision (though Parker only ended up making 5).

Things got much worse in the next test in Christchurch (where the West Indies considered throwing the test in protest and Colin Croft shoulder barged the umpire Fred Goodall), but the acrimony had started in Dunedin. The ill-feeling generated in this series has largely eroded, but the memories remain, which is a real shame as it takes the gloss off a hard fought series and overshadows the several other hard fought series the NZ and WI had played.

I suppose that returning to Dunedin now, where the troubles began, is reason enough to revisit the controversy, as Fazeer Mohammad has in this article. It alarms me however that so many years after it happened, some West Indians continue to maintain that the NZ umpires in that series cheated. (Mohammad even praises Holding’s stump kicking form.) There’s no doubt that the umpires made mistakes (some of the batsmen have admitted that they should have been given out), but cheating? Jeez, get over it!

Personally, I suspect the Windies’ indignance in discovering that they weren’t unbeatable was as much a problem as the umpiring. But the accepted story seems to be that the Windies were robbed.

It’s the trend these days to name series after big names of old from the two teams. E.g. Chappell–Hadlee, Border–Gavaskar. There isn’t a grand history between NZ and the Windies as there is between many other pairings of sides, so who could we choose to name the series after? Would the Goodall–Croft Trophy be too uncharitable?

Whatever we might call it, this test series is the battle of the cellar dwellers – the 7th and 8th ranked teams battling it out for that coveted 7th place. (While just across the Tasman the battle of the table toppers is about to get underway. Is there any symmetry there, or is it just coincidence?)

The recent head-to-heads go pretty solidly in NZ’s favour. In the last 10 years through three series we’ve won five tests and they’ve won none. Since the last series in 05/06, the Windies have done nothing much, whereas the Black Caps roller coaster has taken a dive. We’re starting this series more evenly matched that we have been since the 80s.

There’s a good deal of optimism around the traps. Adam Parore reckons we’re the better team. Are people too quick to forget the Aus series just a couple of weeks back? Aus are of course a stronger team, but barring one strong innings each from Bracken and Lee, the capitulation in Australia was due almost entirely to our own fragility. This home series is going to be even and it’s going to be close. After looking at our form this year, I’m picking 1-1.

Players to watch

Tim McIntosh: He only cashes in one innings in four, but when he cashes in he cashes in big. With four innings in prospect, he’s odds on for one big one.
Andy Moles: The other debutant in the team. How quickly can he turn the team around?
James Franklin: I’ve been hanging out for his return. If he bowls to his old standard, he’ll be our biggest wicket taker. Chances are though he’s sacrificing some of bowling strength for some batting strength.

The haves: Gayle, Sarwan, Chanderpaul, Benn, Taylor and Powell all won big in the final of the Standford 20 for 20. Are they worth a million dollars each?
The have nots: Baker, Baugh, Chattergoon, Edwards, Johnson, Marshall, Nash, Ramdin and Roach were not lucky recipients of the Stanford windfall. Can they prove themselves against their more illustrious team mates?