Australia (1995-2007) Vs. West Indies (1974-1986)?

[Ikki]

WI from 79 onwards faced Imran/Akram/Qadir, Lillee/Thomson, Hadlee, and peak Botham/Willis/Hendrick, and never lost a series. Earlier they played the famous India spin quartet in 74 and scored well against them. So they had plenty of experience with worldclass bowling attacks.

Don't think Warne will be the big factor he's made out to be, unless its a spinning wicket. Lloyd, Greenidge and Richards were find players of spin.

Australia on the other hand never played anthing like the WI four-man pacers. They at best played against 2 worldclass pacers at one time. Unless you count Ashes 2005, but we saw how well they fared then.

Overall, WI have the bowling edge while Australia have the batting depth with Gilchrist, but bowling wins matches, so the edge to WI.

Hadlee was a great bowler, NZ were not a great attack. In 79/80 they played 1 test vs Lillee and Thomson who did well in that match. The match was also a draw. In 75 the same pair succeeded over them. Indeed, Viv later claimed that it was the loss to this Australian team that gave them the belief that they could become the best in the world. Which begs the question if indeed we should be beginning from 1974. In 82 they played 2 tests with Thommo/Lillee and by then past their best - especially Thommo who was a shadow of himself

I am fairly sure the Indians never fielded the quartet other than in 1 test and that wasn't against the WIndies. And as good as they are at home, I am not sure if I'd rank them alongside the great attacks of the 90s.

Re Warne: he was successful all over, not just spinning tracks. Doesn't change the fact that they never faced a spinner near as good as him.

Re 4-prong attack; the WIndies never faced them either. So it's irrelevant to begin with.

Which is why, overall, I don't think the this period's attacks compare favourably to those of the 90s-early00s.

 

[smash84]

yes but in the main years of Aussie dominance the main attacks of the 90s were clearly past their best weren't they?

 

[smash84]

Warne would be a big factor.

Gilchrist probably not as big since the WI quicks were pretty good

 

[Ikki]

yes but in the main years of Aussie dominance the main attacks of the 90s were clearly past their best weren't they?

Nope. We faced and beat the teams with the best attacks once if not twice during those years. Series where the attacks were still great.

 

[subshakerz]

Hadlee was a great bowler, NZ were not a great attack. In 79/80 they played 1 test vs Lillee and Thomson who did well in that match. The match was also a draw. In 75 the same pair succeeded over them. Indeed, Viv later claimed that it was the loss to this Australian team that gave them the belief that they could become the best in the world. Which begs the question if indeed we should be beginning from 1974. In 82 they played 2 tests with Thommo/Lillee and by then past their best - especially Thommo who was a shadow of himself

They still faced great attacks against Pakistan and England. The 79 Aussie attack of Lillee, Dymock and Hogg would be close as well. And Australia's real dominance started under Waugh, around the same time all the great bowlers of his time were past their primes.

I am fairly sure the Indians never fielded the quartet other than in 1 test and that wasn't against the WIndies. And as good as they are at home, I am not sure if I'd rank them alongside the great attacks of the 90s.

Re Warne: he was successful all over, not just spinning tracks. Doesn't change the fact that they never faced a spinner near as good as him.

Lloyd, Richards. Greenidge scored plenty of runs against worldclass spin. Warne may be better than what they faced, but this idea that WI have a weakness against spin is nonsense. Warne will be a handful but not the dominant factor.

Re 4-prong attack; the WIndies never faced them either. So it's irrelevant to begin with..

Your missing the point. WI dont need to face the 4-prong attack, Australia do. WI will be facing McGrath, Gillespie, Lee and Warne, 2 greats, one good bowler and one erratic bowler. That's a big difference.

 

[Ikki]

They still faced great attacks against Pakistan and England. The 79 Aussie attack of Lillee, Dymock and Hogg would be close as well. And Australia's real dominance started under Waugh, around the same time all the great bowlers of his time were past their primes.

Lloyd, Richards. Greenidge scored plenty of runs against worldclass spin. Warne may be better than what they faced, but this idea that WI have a weakness against spin is nonsense. Warne will be a handful but not the dominant factor.

The Pakistani attack during the 80s was worse than the Pakistani attack of the 90s -Wasim and Waqar at peak with Saqlain. Pakistan was largely Imran, Nawaz and Qadir. When Wasim comes he is green and it's towards the end of Imran's career as a bowler. It was also, what, 2 Tests?

England I gave you but you're really not doing your argument any service. These attacks simply don't compare to some of the attacks of the 90s, where many had 2 all-time great bowlers to call on - Donald and Pollock; Ambrose and Walsh; and Wasim and Waqar - at their peaks.

Re Warne; they faced spin, high class spin...but comparing those spinners to Warne is like comparing Paul Reiffel to Malcolm Marshall.

Your missing the point. WI dont need to face the 4-prong attack, Australia do. WI will be facing McGrath, Gillespie, Lee and Warne, 2 greats, one good bowler and one erratic bowler. That's a big difference.

And that's why people would rate the WI bowling attack slightly ahead; albeit Australia's is probably better rounded. Gillespie is negligibly worse than probably the worst of all-time great bowlers used in that attack. Lee is expensive but also played in an era where averages were in general higher and his SR is comparable with the best of them. So really, between the bowling the Aussies are only slightly more expensive.

 

[G.I.Joe]

I'd give it to Australia, except perhaps in England.

 

[BlazeDragon]

I'd give it to Australia, except perhaps in England.

Other than the 05 series they won both of their other series in England.

 

[G.I.Joe]

They didn't play an attack remotely close to the WI attack in those series though.

 

[Slifer]

WI of the 80s hands down. Oz batting > WI batting (Gilchrist factor). But with all due respect to Oz the bowling attacks r not close. People say that the Oz attack was better rounded and that may be true but being better rounded (whatever that means) does not equal being more effective. Up until Ambrose's retirement in 2000, every single test series that Oz and the Wi had played up til then (in the 90s) had been close, even though the Oz batting and Warne were supposed to put them well on top. (See 96/97 series, 99 series). It is therefore my conclusion that if they couldnt decimate a weak battin lineup (except Lara) and a bowling attack of 2 alltimers (C and C) how r they gonna cope with the WI circa 1980s??

 

[Ikki]

By that logic: WIndies of this period had a tough time against Pakistan and the series between them were very close. How could they hope to beat Australia who was much better than that Pakistani team?

 

[subshakerz]

What I think ultimately it comes down to is the aura of invincibility that WI had (and is mentioned so often by cricketers of that generation) which Australia could not quite match. When WI became no.1 in 1979, they remained unbeaten for 15 years. That's unbelievable. During Australia's reign from 1995-2007, they still lost four series.

With Australia, you felt that when faced with difficult conditions or sustained pressure, they could crack, particularly under Steve Waugh's captaincy.

 

[subshakerz]

'The West Indies team of Lloyd and Richards was the best I have seen' - Times Online

 

[smash84]

wonderful article from Gower

 

[hang on]

Except for the Ind-Aus series 2003 Every Series in Aus was plain one-sided and they dominated to the core.

didn't the kiwis play exceptionally well and draw a series in australia in 2001? they were certainly not dominated. in fact, they had a fair stab at an almight upset in the last test when four of their batsmen got 100s at, i think, perth. am somewhat hazy on the details at present.

 

[Howe_zat]

'The West Indies team of Lloyd and Richards was the best I have seen' - Times Online

wonderful article from Gower

Player of the 1980s in thinking team of the 1980s was better shocker.

 

[smash84]

haha.....Jake's sarcasm......I like that

 

[subshakerz]

If we are talking about combined teams of 74-86 and 95-07, we have to include Kalicharran in place of Logie, would give the edge even more to WI then, given that he was an awesome player of spin.

 

[BlazeDragon]

Quite surprised at how close this is. I thought Australia would have won this poll easily.

 

[smash84]

I am not at all surprised.

Comparing the bowling attacks you have to marvel just how good the WI attack was during that time

People like sylvester clarke did not even find a place in the WI side whose overall bowling average and SR is better than Kapil Dev.

Among the rest of them the worst career average is for Andy Roberts (whose avg and SR are almost exactly the same as Shane Warne i.e. avg of 25.61 and SR of 55.1).

Then you have Colin Croft and Michael Holding who are both sub 24 avg bowlers and strike at 50 or less.

Then you have big bird and Malcolm Marshall who are both sub 21 average bowlers and Macko strikes at less than 47 and big bird strikes at 50

Bloody hell on closer evaluation WI should be leading the poll. Their bowling attack is just plain outstanding.

I don't think the Aussie bowling attack of 95-2007 is this good tbh and this attack has done well on all sorts of pitches throughout the world so Warne might not be as decisive a factor that I had initially thought. I can't remember the bowler who did not have a googly and he said that he didn't need any. The WI did not have quality spinners but they really did not seem to need them.

Jake if David Gower thought it was difficult to score against them then he wasn't too far off the mark.

Here are the careers of Macko, Big Bird, Roberts, Croft, and Holding

Malcolm Marshall | Cricket Players and Officials | ESPN Cricinfo

Joel Garner | Cricket Players and Officials | ESPN Cricinfo

Andy Roberts | Cricket Players and Officials | ESPN Cricinfo

Colin Croft | Cricket Players and Officials | ESPN Cricinfo

Michael Holding | Cricket Players and Officials | ESPN Cricinfo


In comparison I am also putting in Australia's bowling attack during this time (McGrath, Gillespie, Bruce Lee, and Shane Warne) which even though is quite impressive does not seem to be as awe inspiring a sight as the WI bowlers.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/player/6565.html

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/player/5392.html

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/player/6278.html

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/player/8166.html