Pakistan Cricket

[shortpitched713]

They weren't miles ahead of New Zealand, at all. They probably were better, but not sufficiently better to beat them or even look like doing so on the one occasion the two faced-off.

Richards' decline from good to no-more-than-decent started in 1989, and Greenidge's in 1988. The pace attack was nothing like what it had once been after 1986, as Holding and Garner both essentially left the side after the Wisden Trophy that year. Roberts had already gone several years before, leaving the much lesser-calibre bowling of first the young Courtney Walsh and then Patrick Patterson in his place. Ambrose took a little while to find his feet too, and Bishop didn't emerge until 1989 (and had a chequered career with injury, sadly). Gomes declined severely and was a player of no note after 1984\85 (retiring before the spring of 1987), Lloyd had already retired after 1984\85, Dujon's batting fell to pieces after 1984\85... you get the picture. West Indies were nothing like the side in the late-1980s or thereafter that they had been between 1976 and 1986.

In the 86 to 89 period most of these players were still great, if not as great as they had been before. Just from glancing at the scorecard in the series against New Zealand you can tell that the West Indian team had more class, and while it doesn't always work out that the best teams on paper are the best, their performances against other teams were not so bad that one would get the impression they had fallen to the level of New Zealand. Don't know if there were Test Rankings at that time, but if there were I would wager that the West Indians would have remained at the top for the vast majority of that period because even the teams that challenged them were not able to win an overwhelming amount against other teams, Pakistan being a prime example of one such team.

 

[Richard]

If you started Test rankings in 1986\87 they'd show West Indies, New Zealand and Pakistan on top round about equal, I know because I've done it.

Obviously, if you factor in series before then, West Indies will come-out easily on top, but that's just the point - there's no good reason to, as there was a very clear watershed after the 1986 Wisden Trophy.

And you say "fallen to the level of New Zealand", that's poor form TBH - I highly doubt you followed cricket in the late-1980s, because otherwise you'd not make a comment like that. New Zealand were very much a powerhouse at the time, unlike at pretty much any other point in cricket history. Don't judge what you have not known by what you have known. Just because you've never known New Zealand be a truly powerful side, doesn't mean it never happened.

And there is absolutely no way Dujon was anything other than a roundly poor batsman from 1986 onwards. Nor Gomes from the same time (and he was gone so he couldn't even be great, good or poor after he retired in early 1987).

The only truly top-notch players West Indies had between 1986\87 and 1989 were Richards (until the end of the period), Greenidge (for the first half of the period), Haynes, Richardson and Marshall. Not the basis of a side clearly superior to anyone else.

 

[shortpitched713]

If you started Test rankings in 1986\87 they'd show West Indies, New Zealand and Pakistan on top round about equal, I know because I've done it.

Obviously, if you factor in series before then, West Indies will come-out easily on top, but that's just the point - there's no good reason to, as there was a very clear watershed after the 1986 Wisden Trophy.

ICC Rankings do take previous performances into account though, and with good reason. Otherwise, you'd have to formulate a rating for them from scratch after every match, and whoever happened to win their last match would be at the top, and theres no way you can say thats representative of how good a side a team is.

Clearly using the normal means of rating there would be some points during 86-89 where West Indies would not be at the top, but this was mostly because they were going through a transitional period from the greats of the 80s to the very, very good replacements of the early 90s. However this does not mean that one could have foreseen the marked decline that would happen to the West Indies later on in the 90s, and there really was no reason to assume that one was taking place at the time.

 

[Richard]

ICC Rankings do take previous performances into account though, and with good reason. Otherwise, you'd have to formulate a rating for them from scratch after every match, and whoever happened to win their last match would be at the top, and theres no way you can say thats representative of how good a side a team is.

How good a team was in 1985 has no bearing on how good a rather different team is in 1988, though. If there's a clear watershed there, you need to take account of, not try to ignore, it.

Clearly using the normal means of rating there would be some points during 86-89 where West Indies would not be at the top, but this was mostly because they were going through a transitional period from the greats of the 80s to the very, very good replacements of the early 90s. However this does not mean that one could have foreseen the marked decline that would happen to the West Indies later on in the 90s, and there really was no reason to assume that one was taking place at the time.

No, of course not. When did I say there was?

 

[shortpitched713]

No, of course not. When did I say there was?

So therefore it would be fallacious to mark that out as a period where they wouldn't be considered the best, because they most assuredly were considered just that.

 

[Richard]

They were considered such I'm sure (well, I presume anyway) but as I said - from 1986\87 onwards there were only two series that actually suggested they were.

While West Indies could have picked-up their game at any time - especially had Ian Bishop been fit unfailingly - and pulled away again, for a decade between 1986\87 and 1997 their results were exceptionally unconvincing. But not so unconvincing that anyone could have guessed what'd happen from 1997\98 onwards. Let me show you...

Away in Pakistan, 1986\87: drew 1-1
Away in New Zealand, 1986\87: drew 1-1
Away in India, 1987\88: drew 1-1
Home to Pakistan, 1988: drew 1-1
Away in England, 1988: won 4-0 (England were in a period where they won 3 Tests in 4 years, 2 against Australia and 1 against Sri Lanka)
Away in Australia, 1988\89: won 3-1 (Australia were in a period where they won 7 Tests in 5 years)
Home to India, 1989: won 3-0
Home to England, 1990: won 2-1 (but for rain it'd have been 2-2 - not should or could, would)
Away in Pakistan, 1990\91: drew 1-1
Home to Australia, 1991: won 2-1
Away in England, 1991: drew 2-2
Won a one-off Test at home to South Africa (which they should have lost)
Away in Australia, 1992\93: won 2-1 (should have been 2-2 at least)
Home to Pakistan, 1993: won 2-0
Home to England, 1994: won 3-1 (should have been 2-2)
Away in India, 1994\95: drew 1-1
Away in New Zealand, 1994\95: won 1-0
Home to Australia, 1995: lost 1-2 (should probably have won 2-1)
Away in England, 1995: drew 2-2
Home to New Zealand, 1996: won 1-0
Away in Australa, 1996\97: lost 2-3
Home to India, 1997: won 1-0
Home to Sri Lanka, 1997: won 1-0

Out of these, I'd classify two as performances worthy of a top-of-the-World team, the home victories over Australia in 1991 and Pakistan in 1993.

West Indies lived off the 1976-1986 decade for virtually the entire 1986\87-1997 decade. IMO.

 

[shortpitched713]

They were considered such I'm sure (well, I presume anyway) but as I said - from 1986\87 onwards there were only two series that actually suggested they were.

While West Indies could have picked-up their game at any time - especially had Ian Bishop been fit unfailingly - and pulled away again, for a decade between 1986\87 and 1997 their results were exceptionally unconvincing. But not so unconvincing that anyone could have guessed what'd happen from 1997\98 onwards. Let me show you...

Away in Pakistan, 1986\87: drew 1-1
Away in New Zealand, 1986\87: drew 1-1
Away in India, 1987\88: drew 1-1
Home to Pakistan, 1988: drew 1-1
Away in England, 1988: won 4-0 (England were in a period where they won 3 Tests in 4 years, 2 against Australia and 1 against Sri Lanka)
Away in Australia, 1988\89: won 3-1 (Australia were in a period where they won 7 Tests in 5 years)
Home to India, 1989: won 3-0
Home to England, 1990: won 2-1 (but for rain it'd have been 2-2 - not should or could, would)
Away in Pakistan, 1990\91: drew 1-1
Home to Australia, 1991: won 2-1
Away in England, 1991: drew 2-2
Won a one-off Test at home to South Africa (which they should have lost)
Away in Australia, 1992\93: won 2-1 (should have been 2-2 at least)
Home to Pakistan, 1993: won 2-0
Home to England, 1994: won 3-1 (should have been 2-2)
Away in India, 1994\95: drew 1-1
Away in New Zealand, 1994\95: won 1-0
Home to Australia, 1995: lost 1-2 (should probably have won 2-1)
Away in England, 1995: drew 2-2
Home to New Zealand, 1996: won 1-0
Away in Australa, 1996\97: lost 2-3
Home to India, 1997: won 1-0
Home to Sri Lanka, 1997: won 1-0

Out of these, I'd classify two as performances worthy of a top-of-the-World team, the home victories over Australia in 1991 and Pakistan in 1993.

West Indies lived off the 1976-1986 decade for virtually the entire 1986\87-1997 decade. IMO.

Thats a pretty damn impressive record. Doesn't match their domination of earlier in the 80s or the kind of domination that the Aussies are doing, but it clearly is of the caliber needed to be considered top of the world. Only the successive losses at the end to Australia signaled their falling from that status.

 

[Richard]

It's impressive enough, but compare it to their 1976-1986 record, and it's actually very poor in that context.

As I say - there's a very clear pattern: they drew with the better sides and comfortably beat the weaker ones. That means they were arguably the best, and no more than that. To be undisputably the best you've got to be beating everyone else most of the time.

Australia were IMO pretty clearly superior from 1992\93 onwards (when they should have won) and as I've already stated, Pakistan and New Zealand were pretty well equal at the tail-end of the 1980s.

 

[shortpitched713]

It's impressive enough, but compare it to their 1976-1986 record, and it's actually very poor in that context.

As I say - there's a very clear pattern: they drew with the better sides and comfortably beat the weaker ones. That means they were arguably the best, and no more than that. To be undisputably the best you've got to be beating everyone else most of the time.

Thats all well and good, but I'm not sure the other teams were doing that as consistently as the West Indies were. Lost series, either home or away were extremely, extremely rare for the West Indies in the earlier part of that period and I don't think that any other team can match them in that regard. I'll give you though that even though the Australians lost to them in 92/93 they were probably at least an equal if not slightly better side than them thereafter.

 

[Goughy]

The WI were never challenged in that period by NZ.

86/87 season to end 1989 they won 2 Tests out of 16 and their team bowling average was 37 . Its hardly the stuff of champions and that records worse than the supposedly current crappy England team

 

[Richard]

Thats all well and good, but I'm not sure the other teams were doing that as consistently as the West Indies were. Lost series, either home or away were extremely, extremely rare for the West Indies in the earlier part of that period and I don't think that any other team can match them in that regard.

OK, let's consider Pakistan. Their most impressive period was 1982\83-1988\89:
Home to Australia, 1982\83: 3-0 whitewash
Home to India, 1982\83: won 3-0
Away in India, 1983\84:drew 0-0
Away in Australia, 1983\84: lost 0-2
Home to England, 1983\84: won 1-0
Home to India, 1984\85: drew 0-0 (just 2 Tests)
Home to New Zealand, 1984\85: won 2-0
Away in New Zealand, 1984\85: lost 0-2
Home to Sri Lanka, 1985\86: won 2-0
Away in Sri Lanka, 1985\86: drew 1-1
Home to West Indies, 1986\87: drew 1-1
Away in India, 1986\87: won 1-0
Away in England, 1987: won 1-0
Home to England, 1987\88: won 1-0
Away in West Indies, 1988: drew 1-1
Home to Australia, 1988\89: won 1-0
Away in New Zealand, 1988\89: drew 0-0

Really, the only blemish on that record is the loss in Australia (and that'd probably have been the other way around had it been a year later), the failure to win in Sri Lanka and the earlier loss in New Zealand. Really, I don't think you can conclusively split them and West Indies after 1986. They even managed what West Indies did not, and won in India.

The WI were never challenged in that period by NZ.

86/87 season to end 1989 they won 2 Tests out of 16 and their team bowling average was 37 . Its hardly the stuff of champions and that records worse than the supposedly current crappy England team

Now let's consider New Zealand from a year later:
Home to England, 1983\84: won 1-0
Home to Sri Lanka, 1983\84: won 2-0
Away in Pakistan, 1984\85: lost 0-2
Home to Pakistan, 1984\85: won 2-0
Away in West Indies, 1984\85: lost 0-2
Away in Australia, 1985\86: won 2-1
Home to Australia, 1985\86: won 1-0
Away in England, 1986: won 1-0
Home to West Indies, 1986\87: drew 1-1
Away in Australia, 1987\88: lost 0-1 (should have been a 1-1 draw)
Home to England, 1987\88: drew 0-0
Away in India, 1988\89: lost 1-2
Home to Pakistan, 1988\89: drew 0-0
One-off Test in Australia: draw
Home to India, 1989\90: won 1-0
One-off Test at home to Australia: win

This record has a tad more blemishes on it than West Indies or Pakistan, those being the 3 in a row of defeat in Australia, failure to beat England at home, and loss in India.

India, incidentally, at the same time were their usual selves; usually a handful at home, usually utterly anodyne away. England and Australia were both a shambles.

Overall, I'd really say there was little to divide West Indies, Pakistan and New Zealand at the top of the pile after the watershed point (for West Indies alone) of summer 1986.

 

[Goughy]

If you started Test rankings in 1986\87 they'd show West Indies, New Zealand and Pakistan on top round about equal, I know because I've done it..

This was your original point. That WI declined around 86/87 and that exclusively during the period 86/87 to 90 that NZ would have challenged them for #1 if previous series were ignored.

As I showed (by the fact NZ won 2 out of 16 Tests in that period) that that was false. Now you are going back to 83/84. If you do that then you have to include WI successes during that period.

It makes no sense and smacks of desperation (as it wasnt your orignal intent) to exclude WI performances pre-86/87 and include those of others.

Richard, lets face it. Despite NZ good record against WI and the great performance by Hadlee and NZ in Aus they were never realistic challengers to WI crown.

 

[Richard]

Yes, unfortunately New Zealand had a short blip around the same time, which I'd actually forgotten about.

However, the reason I go back further for Pakistan and New Zealand and not for West Indies is that there isn't a clear watershed with them the way there is with West Indies. Pakistan were moreoreless the same in '87\88 as they were in '84\85, West Indies weren't. It's nothing to do with desparation, though I admit it doesn't tie in with what I originally said.

Either way, no, New Zealand weren't obvious challengers to West Indies in the late-1980s (because of the loss in Australia, draw at home to England and loss in India consecutively) but they were nowhere near so far behind as everyone had been in the first part of the 1980s.

 

[Goughy]

However, the reason I go back further for Pakistan and New Zealand and not for West Indies is that there isn't a clear watershed with them the way there is with West Indies. Pakistan were moreoreless the same in '87\88 as they were in '84\85.

Interestingly the Pakistan side for the 1st Test of 84/85 season contained just 3 players that played the last Test of the 87/88 season (the period in question). Mudassar Nazar, Saleem Malik and Miandad.

Thats a pretty high turnover by anyones standards and hard to say they were the same as the standard must have changed and there must have been a 'watershed' as so many different players came in and out.

Where as the WI team that played the 1st Test of 84/85 had 6 players that played the last Test of 87/88.
Greenidge, Haynes, Richardson, Richards, Dujon, Marshall, Walsh

 

[Richard]

Did performance change as a result of personnel changes though?

And wouldn't it be fairer to look at some series records rather than purely a single Test? Who knows who was missing for an odd game or a game or two.

EDIT: or, possibly, look at the career spans of players who played in the 1987\88 series against England.

 

[Goughy]

Did performance change as a result of personnel changes though?

And wouldn't it be fairer to look at some series records rather than purely a single Test? Who knows who was missing for an odd game or a game or two.

EDIT: or, possibly, look at the career spans of players who played in the 1987\88 series against England.

Not really, you said they were essentially the same. So I took the beginning of the period and the end to see what the difference was.

I didnt know what the results would be.

 

[Richard]

OK, these players played in the 1987\88 series against England:
Aamer Malik, Saleem Malik, Abdul Qadir, Wasim Akram, Rameez Raja, Mudassar Nazar, Javed Miandad, Ijaz Ahmed, Iqbal Qasim, Ashraf Ali, Asif Mujtaba, Saleem Jaffar, Shoaib Mohammad, Tauseef Ahmed.

And these in the 1984\85 series against India:
Zaheer Abbas, Saleem Malik, Qasim Umar, Mudassar Nazar, Ashraf Ali, Mohsin Khan, Manzoor Elahi, Javed Miandad, Tauseef Ahmed, Wasim Raja, Jalal-ud-Din, Azeem Hafeez, Abdul Qadir.

Of those who played in the '87\88 series, who had played Test cricket in or before 1984\85?
Aamer Malik - no
Saleem Malik - yes
Abdul Qadir - yes
Wasim Akram - yes
Rameez Raja - yes
Mudassar Nazar - yes
Javed Miandad - yes
Ijaz Ahmed - no
Iqbal Qasim - yes
Ashraf Ali - yes, but not as a regular
Asif Mujtaba - no
Saleem Jaffar - no
Shoaib Mohammad - yes
Tauseef Ahmed - yes

So I don't think Pakistan's side had changed spectacularly TBH.