Dear Editor: WI got bowling tactics wrong in ODIs; give Alzarri the new ball!

“[…] The West Indies tacticians, in their wisdom, chose to give the new ball to Matthew Forde to accompany Jayden Seales in the first two games. In the third game, even with Forde missing, they again overlooked Alzarri and entrusted the new ball to Shamar Joseph. That, I believe, was a mistake.

“[…] The Antiguan with the new ball increases the probability of the visitors disturbing the host’s batting by inflicting early damage. And the first order of business for any bowling unit in any kind of cricket must be to get rid of the cream of the opposition’s batting as quickly as possible…”

The following Letter to the Editor, which suggests how West Indies can become a more menacing time through its use of pace bowler Alzarri Joseph, was submitted to Wired868 by Garfield Robinson, a Jamaican cricket fan:

The West Indies lost all three matches in their recent One Day Internationals (ODI) series against England. That was not all that surprising since England are the better team.

But the West Indies need not have lost the first and last games so badly and probably would have won the second game had they done some things differently.

West Indies coach Daren Sammy and captain Shai Hope would no doubt have been disappointed, especially at having squandered their position of ascendancy they achieved in Cardiff.

They had, at one point, an 89% chance of victory according to the CricViz statisticians, only to go on to lose by three wickets with seven balls to spare.

You might say there were some lost opportunities in the three games. But in deciding what changes to make going forward, however, they might want to consider the way they deployed their bowling resources. I am thinking specifically here about the use of pacer Alzarri Joseph.

The West Indies tacticians, in their wisdom, chose to give the new ball to Matthew Forde to accompany Jayden Seales in the first two games. In the third game, even with Forde missing, they again overlooked Alzarri and entrusted the new ball to Shamar Joseph. That, I believe, was a mistake.

Alzarri was the best man for the job as he is more likely to take early wickets with the new ball. He is quicker than Forde and Shamar. In fact, he was easily the quickest bowler on show in all three games.

At his best he swings the new ball away from the right-handed batter. He can also bowl a challenging short ball and therefore potentially offers a relatively wider range of threat to the top order batter than anyone else in the side.

Forde is an honest trier. But ask any opening batter who they’d rather face and I’m sure they’d pick the Barbadian over the much more menacing Antiguan.

The question is, therefore: why would the West Indies tacticians not choose to make life at the crease less pleasant for the English openers by handing Joseph the new ball, especially in the first two games?

The theory, I believe, is that Forde’s gentle pace means he lacks malice when the ball stops swinging and there is little seam movement. The fear is that he’d not be very effective in the middle overs and would allow relatively free scoring during that period of the game.

His best chance for success as a bowler, therefore, is with the new ball when the seam is at its proudest, allowing more swing and more movement off the surface.

Furthermore, his potential with the bat is such that he’s a useful player and probably a game changer batting in the lower middle order. His recent world-record equaling half century against Ireland solidifies that viewpoint somewhat.

He is a player Daren Sammy wants in the team.

The dilemma here, though, is that you give yourself the best chance of winning games when you take early opposition wickets. A team like England, with its phalanx of high-quality, attacking batters who all espouse the Bazball philosophy, must be subdued if they are to be beaten.

The way to do that is to set them back early, and Alzarri is the bowler more likely to do that with the new ball.

Forde did capture an early wicket in Cardiff and would have had another had the umpire looked more kindly at a very good LBW appeal against eventual match-winner Joe Root. Root was only seven at the time. He went on to make 166 not out.

Still, Forde’s offerings were much less challenging than the other West Indies pacers. He was the most expensive West Indies bowler, with his nine overs going for 76 runs.

Alzarri captured 4/31 from his 10 overs in Cardiff, and while he needs to become more consistent and will not always bowl as well as he did, his wicket-taking capacity is substantially greater than Forde’s.

That is not to say that the West Indies would have won the second game had Alzarri opened the bowling. But the Antiguan with the new ball increases the probability of the visitors disturbing the host’s batting by inflicting early damage.

And the first order of business for any bowling unit in any kind of cricket must be to get rid of the cream of the opposition’s batting as quickly as possible.

This is not just talk; there is research to back this up. According to the analysts at Cric Viz, losing three or more wickets in the first power play in ODIs diminishes the win rate of the batting side under 20% on average. On the other hand, the win rate of the bowling side rises to over 65%.

Early wickets put the batting side under pressure, exposing the middle order to a fresher ball and bowlers and leaves them with fewer resources to orchestrate any kind of acceleration later in the innings.

It increases the confidence of the bowling side, allowing them the option of employing more attacking field placements and to gain even more dominance.

The West Indies think-tank seems to have miscalculated. Hopefully they have seen the error of their ways and will make things right at the earliest opportunity.