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

[Slifer]

I have wanted to do this poll for a while now. Which side would you say was the strongest and the most dominant side in the history of cricket?

Im curious to know y the WI period of dominance was extended from 74 to 86?. AFAIC WI dominance began right after their mauling to Oz in 75-76 (ironically) and ended in 95 (after '86 of thereabout they werent as dominant but were still clearly the best team).


To the question at hand and in all seriousness its clear Oz was the more dominant side for the periods in question, the more rounded bla bla bla. But I wouldnt label them as stronger side nor do i "think" that they would have outlasted the WI team in a 5 test series home and away. One things for sure (IMO) neither team would dominate the other and ne one who thinks otherwise has no place on this forum .

 

[smash84]

To the question at hand and in all seriousness its clear Oz was the more dominant side for the periods in question, .

It seems that it isn't as clear to so many other posters

 

[subshakerz]

The above is factually wrong. Stop repeating it.


1995 - Windies; Walsh, Ambrose and the Benjamins
1995 - Pakistan: Wasim, Waqar and Mushtaq
1996 - Windies: Walsh, Ambrose, Bishop and Benjamin
1997 - S.Africa: Donald, Pollock, Klusener and Kallis
1997 - S.Africa: Donald, Pollock, Klusener and Kallis
1998 - Pakistan: Wasim, Akhtar, Saqlain and Mushtaq

Under Taylor's captaincy, sure, they beat a lot of quality teams. That team was a scrapper unit but I doubt Taylor would fit into an Aussie team of 95-2007. His captaincy made the difference in making them no.1 IMO.

I was more talking about Steve Waugh's dominant side (which had Gilchrist, Hayden, Langer, Brett Lee, Damien Martyn). This side racked up the victory percentage that you laud so much, and during their time, the great pace attacks were on the down swing.

 

[BlazeDragon]

Im curious to know y the WI period of dominance was extended from 74 to 86?. AFAIC WI dominance began right after their mauling to Oz in 75-76 (ironically) and ended in 95 (after '86 of thereabout they werent as dominant but were still clearly the best team).

Clive Lloyd took over in 74 so that's why I started there.

As for why I ended it in 86, Even if West Indies were still the best team till the next couple of year they lost they were nowhere close to their old dominant self. Similar to Australia's case in 2008, they were still the best team but nowhere close to being their old dominant self.

 

[subshakerz]

Clive Lloyd took over in 74 so that's why I started there.

As for why I ended it in 86, Even if West Indies were still the best team till the next couple of year they lost they were nowhere close to their old dominant self. Similar to Australia's case in 2008, they were still the best team but nowhere close to being their old dominant self.

WI were still the best team in the world till 1995, and remained unbeaten till then though not as dominant. Australia were the best team till they lost at home to SA in 2008, and then India took the mantle since then.

It would be best to compare their most dominant periods when they were at their strongest: WI 79-86 and Australia 99-07...

 

[keeper]

What dates did the WI unbeaten run of 15 years occur between?

 

[smash84]

1980 - 1995

 

[BlazeDragon]

WI were still the best team in the world till 1995, and remained unbeaten till then though not as dominant. Australia were the best team till they lost at home to SA in 2008, and then India took the mantle since then.

It would be best to compare their most dominant periods when they were at their strongest: WI 79-86 and Australia 99-07...

No SA were the dominant ones in 09 for a couple of months before India took over.

I am just doing to the point of dominance start to dominance end. Even if WI were the best team their dominance was clearly gone after 86. Even though they managed to stay undefeated at tests they lost 5 ODI series from 88-94.

 

[keeper]

1980 - 1995

ta

 

[smash84]

No SA were the dominant ones in 09 for a couple of months before India took over.

I am just doing to the point of dominance start to dominance end. Even if WI were the best team their dominance was clearly gone after 86. Even though they managed to stay undefeated at tests they lost 5 ODI series from 88-94.

We are not discussing ODI series otherwise Australia lost an ODI series to Pak in 01-02 and maybe to others as well.

 

[The Sean]

Would like to point out that Waugh's team started to dominate as the great pacemen of his time (Akram, Younis, Ambrose, Donald) were retired or well past their best. I dont think thats a coincidence.

And Australia's real dominance started under Waugh, around the same time all the great bowlers of his time were past their primes.

No, as I pointed out, Australia period of dominance coincided with the decline/retirement of the major fast bowlers in the last 90s, early 2000s.

I was more talking about Steve Waugh's dominant side (which had Gilchrist, Hayden, Langer, Brett Lee, Damien Martyn). This side racked up the victory percentage that you laud so much, and during their time, the great pace attacks were on the down swing.

Subshakerz going with the time-honoured "if you repeat it often enough it becomes true" tactic.

 

[Ikki]

Under Taylor's captaincy, sure, they beat a lot of quality teams. That team was a scrapper unit but I doubt Taylor would fit into an Aussie team of 95-2007. His captaincy made the difference in making them no.1 IMO.

I was more talking about Steve Waugh's dominant side (which had Gilchrist, Hayden, Langer, Brett Lee, Damien Martyn). This side racked up the victory percentage that you laud so much, and during their time, the great pace attacks were on the down swing.

During the period from 95 to Waugh coming in - which is when Taylor was captain - Australia won all its series apart from the 2 series in India. Many of Waugh's players were Taylor's.

The earlier insinuation that Australia were flat track bullies or made merry when the greats in the opposition got old or retired is without merit. It's a bit insulting to that team actually.

It's not much of a discussion, really. Australia beat the best at their primes, in this period - with Taylor as captain too.

 

[BlazeDragon]

We are not discussing ODI series otherwise Australia lost an ODI series to Pak in 01-02 and maybe to others as well.

If we are looking at test cricket Australia comes out quite ahead statistically.

But we can't be that shallow we have to look at other things as well such as who faced tougher oppositions, better players etc. And I think Australia comes out the winner overall.

 

[smash84]

If we are looking at test cricket Australia comes out quite ahead statistically.

errr. No

Depends on what criteria you are using. If you are using the criteria of the number of matches lost then Australia might not come out ahead or the number of series lost during their peak.

 

[robelinda]

WEST INDIES FAST MEN- could our guys like Waugh, Ponting etc handle this stuff ?

‪WEST INDIES FAST BOWLERS OF THE 80'S - BRUTAL COMPILATION!‬‏ - YouTube

 

[BlazeDragon]

errr. No

Depends on what criteria you are using. If you are using the criteria of the number of matches lost then Australia might not come out ahead or the number of series lost during their peak.

If we are going by matches Australia is far superior.
Team records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo
Team records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo


If we were going by series it comes back to the same argument. West Indies might have lost less than Australia but they also won less. Also, not forgetting the fact that Australia had to play significantly more than West Indies.

 

[smash84]

I still don't get how is Australia far superior if we are going by number of matches lost? Australia played 146 matches and lost 25. WI played 103 matches and lost 16. So how is Australia far superior if we take the number of matches lost as the criteria?

 

[Slifer]

WEST INDIES FAST MEN- could our guys like Waugh, Ponting etc handle this stuff ?

‪WEST INDIES FAST BOWLERS OF THE 80'S - BRUTAL COMPILATION!‬‏ - YouTube

I would just like to take the time to say Robe u r the best. Watchin clips like these I still find it hard to believe that some would say that that WI attack shades the Oz attack of the late 90s. I mean when u have Walsh coming on as fourth change (who is defo better than both Gillespie and Lee) it just boggles the mind how outstanding that attack was.

 

[Top_Cat]

Great footage but yawn @ the discussion.

 

[BlazeDragon]

I still don't get how is Australia far superior if we are going by number of matches lost? Australia played 146 matches and lost 25. WI played 103 matches and lost 16. So how is Australia far superior if we take the number of matches lost as the criteria?

Your are only look at the losses but ignoring the wins.

Look at the win/loss average between them.