West Indies vs Australia

[bagapath]

Well, we rate the batsmen differently. I would say Waugh is distinctly better than Lloyd whereas Ponting may be only a hair's width under Viv. I think the others pip their WIndies counterparts too, TBF.

here is my ranking of the batters in the two teams

1. richards
2. ponting
3. gilchrist
4, 5. s.waugh >= lloyd
6,7. greenidge >= hayden
8,9. richardson = langer
10. hussey
11, 12. haynes = m.waugh
13. gomes
14. dujon

and the bowlers

1. marshall
2. mcgrath
3,4. warne=ambrose
5. holding
6. garner
7. gillespie
8. lee


of course I will be tempted to change the middle positions of the batting list in 15 minutes. but to get your opinion, and have a discussion, this is good enough for now. anyways, i am quite sure about the bowlers and the top positions of the batsmen as they are right now.

 

[Spark]

Surprised that a 30ish yo Stuey Clark hasn't even got a mention in this.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Safe to say that West Indies had greater depth in bowling and Australia in batting. As to who was better well i think a brilliant case can be made for each side and we could end up bashing our heads against a massive brick wall and get nowhere.

Both were outstanding sides and i guess in West Indies favour is the fact they dominated when there were far more good bowlers around worldwide. Not the Aussies fault standards may/may not have dropped but many will use that in Windies favour.

 

[Mike5181]

Surprised that a 30ish yo Stuey Clark hasn't even got a mention in this.

I had him in there before but my laptop overheated. He has like 90 odd wickets @ 23. He is world class no doubt. Its a shame he didn't get more games.

 

[smash84]

I had him in there before but my laptop overheated. He has like 90 odd wickets @ 23. He is world class no doubt. Its a shame he didn't get more games.

But the you also have Sylvester Clark and Colin Croft not getting too much of a mention for the WI. The WI pace battery definitely trumps the Aus pace battery.

 

[smash84]

.

They were never nice, Greenidge asked a number of Aussies behind the stadium. Aussies were often called white ****s from the slip cordon
)

Wow didn't know about this. Sounds disgraceful really.

 

[smash84]

here is my ranking of the batters in the two teams

1. richards
2. ponting
3. gilchrist
4, 5. s.waugh >= lloyd
6,7. greenidge >= hayden
8,9. richardson = langer
10. hussey
11, 12. haynes = m.waugh
13. gomes
14. dujon

and the bowlers

1. marshall
2. mcgrath
3,4. warne=ambrose
5. holding
6. garner
7. gillespie
8. lee


of course I will be tempted to change the middle positions of the batting list in 15 minutes. but to get your opinion, and have a discussion, this is good enough for now. anyways, i am quite sure about the bowlers and the top positions of the batsmen as they are right now.

I for one would rate Greenidge above Haydos. I really feel that one of the reason that Hayden did well after his comeback is the fact that bowling attacks had gotten much weaker and the pitches flatter.

 

[archie mac]

Wow didn't know about this. Sounds disgraceful really.

Well they were playing the Aussies so I imagine it was going both ways tbh

 

[Ikki]

I for one would rate Greenidge above Haydos. I really feel that one of the reason that Hayden did well after his comeback is the fact that bowling attacks had gotten much weaker and the pitches flatter.

Is Greenidge much different? You take out the WIndies out of the 80s and there are no great attacks in the 80s, really. Overall the attacks were actually worse IMO. His record against Australia whilst they still had a great-very good attack was poor/mediocre, same as his record against Pakistan who were pretty much the 2nd best team for the majority of his career.

Hayden gets beat with that stick too often. As much as it was easier to score in the 80s...it wasn't that much easier. Certainly not enough to explain about 6 points in average. Mark Taylor is an opener who played in one of the hardest eras around in terms of great attacks and his average is only slightly less than Greenidge's. And I don't think you'll find many Aussies who consider Taylor Hayden's equal.

 

[archie mac]

Is Greenidge much different? You take out the WIndies out of the 80s and there are no great attacks in the 80s, really. Overall the attacks were actually worse IMO. His record against Australia whilst they still had a great-very good attack was poor/mediocre, same as his record against Pakistan who were pretty much the 2nd best team for the majority of his career.

Hayden gets beat with that stick too often. As much as it was easier to score in the 80s...it wasn't that much easier. Certainly not enough to explain about 6 points in average. Mark Taylor is an opener who played in one of the hardest eras around in terms of great attacks and his average is only slightly less than Greenidge's. And I don't think you'll find many Aussies who consider Taylor Hayden's equal.

I would rate Greenidge just behind Viv tbh and a long way in front of Taylor and clearly in front of Hayden. Maybe the hardest cutter who ever played

 

[bagapath]

Hayden gets beat with that stick too often. As much as it was easier to score in the 80s...it wasn't that much easier. Certainly not enough to explain about 6 points in average.

it is actually only four points minus the minnows.... same goes for s.waugh with 2 points over lloyd when you take out tugga's record against zim/bang.

of course, i havent gone by numbers in my rankings. why would i put warne and ambrose on equal plane otherwise? or warne above garner and holding? or gilchrist at no.3 when many other batters averaged more than him? or richards over and above everyone else? this is not about stats alone. not that you said it like that; just dont want to get into numbers again. so am being extra cautious.

 

[bagapath]

I would rate Greenidge just behind Viv tbh and a long way in front of Taylor and clearly in front of Hayden. Maybe the hardest cutter who ever played

would love to see your rankings of these batters and bowlers archie.

 

[archie mac]

here is my ranking of the batters in the two teams

1. richards
2. ponting
3. gilchrist
4, 5. s.waugh >= lloyd
6,7. greenidge >= hayden
8,9. richardson = langer
10. hussey
11, 12. haynes = m.waugh
13. gomes
14. dujon

and the bowlers

1. marshall
2. mcgrath
3,4. warne=ambrose
5. holding
6. garner
7. gillespie
8. lee


of course I will be tempted to change the middle positions of the batting list in 15 minutes. but to get your opinion, and have a discussion, this is good enough for now. anyways, i am quite sure about the bowlers and the top positions of the batsmen as they are right now.

Pretty happy with the bowlers ranking although I may have Warne in front of McGrath at four

Batting again just some minor changes imo

1. richards
2. ponting
3. greenidge
4. gilchrist
5, 6. s.waugh >= lloyd
7,8. richardson >= hayden
9,10. haynes hussey
11 langer
12. m.waugh
13. gomes
14. dujon

 

[Ikki]

it is actually only four points minus the minnows.... same goes for s.waugh with 2 points over lloyd when you take out tugga's record against zim/bang.

of course, i havent gone by numbers in my rankings. why would i put warne and ambrose on equal plane otherwise? or warne above garner and holding? or gilchrist at no.3 when many other batters averaged more than him? or richards over and above everyone else? this is not about stats alone. not that you said it like that; just dont want to get into numbers again. so am being extra cautious.

I am not doing a straight averages comparison because, of course, the eras are different - the circumstances different but I'll address some points.

You make a point about minnows but if you are going to rate his average lower because of the era he played in, you should actually only consider when he played in that era - for Hayden also has Tests in the 90s which drag his average down. His average in the 00s is 51 (which IMO still undersells him) which is a difference of about 6 runs per average when you consider the era.

However, with Waugh it is a different discussion to me. He was an all-rounder and only later on developed into an all-time great bat in his own right. At his peak he was as good if not better than Lara and Tendulkar were at times (especially considering the weight of runs he scored against the fine attacks of his time). That he started off that way and only started rectifying his record in the 90s, yet finished with a 51 average is a testament to him. BTW the difference between Lloyd and Waugh is closer to 4 runs than 2 and in this case Waugh played in the harder era.

As for your point re bowlers: Warne is a spinner. It'd be, IMO, incorrect to do a straight averages/SR comparison with pace bowlers without taking that into account.

I actually put Gilchrist on a similar plane to Waugh than I would above him, so I think you are overrating him in that instance. However, even statistically speaking his SR is so high it can rightfully allow someone to rate him higher despite a slightly lower average than other batsmen. His consistency (or as me and you call "completeness" across countries is also commendable. It belies his risky nature.

 

[abmk]

Is Greenidge much different? You take out the WIndies out of the 80s and there are no great attacks in the 80s, really. Overall the attacks were actually worse IMO. His record against Australia whilst they still had a great-very good attack was poor/mediocre, same as his record against Pakistan who were pretty much the 2nd best team for the majority of his career.

Hayden gets beat with that stick too often. As much as it was easier to score in the 80s...it wasn't that much easier. Certainly not enough to explain about 6 points in average. Mark Taylor is an opener who played in one of the hardest eras around in terms of great attacks and his average is only slightly less than Greenidge's. And I don't think you'll find many Aussies who consider Taylor Hayden's equal.

you mean tougher to score in the 80s ? it isn't only that ..

Consider this:

hayden played 44 tests abroad and 56 at home ..

greenidge played 62 tests abroad and 46 at home ..

despite conditions being easier to bat on today, hayden still ended up with a lesser average abroad

 

[Ikki]

Sorry, meant to say "As much as it was easier to score in the 00s...it wasn't that much easier. Certainly not enough to explain about 6 points in average."

Your point is also somewhat against Greendige himself. If anything his home decks were harder to score on and many of the away venues (like in the subcontinent) were easier. Also, it should be said, Hayden actually averages 43 away from home (higher than Greenidge) and if you are putting forth the era argument, his average in the 00s is 46 - about 4 points higher than him.

Also, a lot of the matches in the 80s were draws whereas there are far more results during the Aussie peak - and especially during Hayden's career. As a comparison, Greenidge played in draws 34% of the time; Hayden only 14%

 

[Borges]

I know I have stars in my eyes when talking about the good ol days but please.

They were never nice, Greenidge asked a number of Aussies behind the stadium. Aussies were often called white ****s from the slip cordon and they bowled bouncers at tailenders with or without protective equitment.

Great team but not a nice one

Oh, I see; nasty. Thanks for that; I wasn't aware of this.

Just out of pure interest,

a. Was this true of all the great WI teams of that era (Sobers,Llloyd and Viv) or just the WI team that defeated Australia in Australia for the first time?

b. Do you think that the history of colonialism was the reason why the behaviour of the West Indians in Australia was so very different from that in India? Or was it just that India did not offer much of a challenge to that great team?

 

[abmk]

Sorry, meant to say "As much as it was easier to score in the 00s...it wasn't that much easier. Certainly not enough to explain about 6 points in average."

Your point is also somewhat against Greendige himself. If anything his home decks were harder to score on and many of the away venues (like in the subcontinent) were easier. Also, it should be said, Hayden actually averages 43 away from home (higher than Greenidge) and if you are putting forth the era argument, his average in the 00s is 46 - about 4 points higher than him.

Also, a lot of the matches in the 80s were draws whereas there are far more results during the Aussie peak - and especially during Hayden's career. As a comparison, Greenidge played in draws 34% of the time; Hayden only 14%

not for the WI batsmen

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

fact is hayden's stats are skewed in his favour somewhat by him playing more tests at home when compared to greenidge ( minnows as well as bagapath mentioned )

regarding draws , not sure what exactly your point is !?

Also remember those days, a 80 ball 25 ( seeing off the new ball ) might probably be more valuable than a 40 ball 30 (this matters a hell lot as far as openers are concerned ) its not just the runs /average

 

[abmk]

oh and if we are talking about ODIs, I'd take the Aus team over the WI team .....

 

[Mike5181]

To be honest when you look at the line ups they are fairly even all the way down until you hit number 6. No doubt that Hussey and Gilchrist are a notch above Gomes and Dujon.

1. Greenidge- Hayden
2. Haynes- Langer
3. Richards- Ponting
4. Lloyd- Waugh
5. Richardson- Martyn
6. Hussey- Gomes
7. Gilchrist- Dujon +