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

[subshakerz]

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

Yup, any team would struggle against that relentless bowling. No weak links, constant pressure...

 

[subshakerz]

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.

Did you exclude Bangladesh and Zimbabwe?

 

[subshakerz]

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?

Exactly, even the stats tell you that WI were a much tougher team to beat.

 

[subshakerz]

Can we at least decide which two teams we are comparing?I suggested the following, feel free to differ.

WI: Haynes, Greenidge, Richards, Richardson, Logie, Lloyd, Dujon, Marshall, Holding, Garner, Roberts

Australia: Hayden, Langer, Ponting, M. Waugh, S. Waugh, Hussey, Gilchrist, Warne, Brett Lee, Gillespie, McGrath

 

[Nate]

Australians vote for Australia and foreigners vote for not-Australia in poll shocker.

You suck Cricket Web.

 

[Slifer]

Not quite sure if Hussey and S Waugh actually played together. But my WI team would consist of:

Haynes
Greenidge
Richie
Richards
Lloyd*
Gomes
Dujon+
Marshall
Holding
Garner
Walsh

Pretty sure this team a few tests together, otherwise will go with the team that mauled Oz in 79

Haynes
Greenidge
Viv
Kalli
Rowe
Lloyd*
Murray+
Roberts
Holding
Garner
Croft

 

[Slifer]

Australians vote for Australia and foreigners vote for not-Australia in poll shocker.

You suck Cricket Web.

Foreigners donot equal West Indians otherwise the poll would have been even more one sided. Safe to say that the so called foreigners would be a hell or a lot more objective that Ozzies. Nice try.

 

[Nate]

What?

 

[Spark]

I gotta say this is one of the most boring threads I've seen of late.

 

[Furball]

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?

lol

 

[smash84]

I gotta say this is one of the most boring threads I've seen of late.

that is because you don't understand the high level intellectual debate that is going on here

lol

What?

 

[BlazeDragon]

Did you exclude Bangladesh and Zimbabwe?

If I take out minnows for Australia I would also have to take out minnows for WI.

 

[BlazeDragon]

Australians vote for Australia and foreigners vote for not-Australia in poll shocker.

You suck Cricket Web.

I am not Australian

 

[BlazeDragon]

I gotta say this is one of the most boring threads I've seen of late.

That's because nobody is joining in. Its only about 4 people debating.

Exactly, even the stats tell you that WI were a much tougher team to beat.

The stats also tells you that WI would also have harder time winning. I don't know why you two are being so one-sided when it comes to comparing stats.

 

[smash84]

lol @ us being one sided in interpreting stats. It seems you are the one who is doing that.

 

[Furball]

lol @ us being one sided in interpreting stats. It seems you are the one who is doing that.

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?

Not one sided at all.

I wonder why you didn't use number of matches won as the criteria?

Using your statistics, Australia lose 17.12% of the time, West Indies lose 15.53% of the time. A completely negligible and statistically meaningless difference.

 

[BlazeDragon]

lol @ us being one sided in interpreting stats. It seems you are the one who is doing that.

Lets see your only bringing up things that goes in favor of WI and I am the the one being one sided.

Not one sided at all.

I wonder why you didn't use number of matches won as the criteria?

Using your statistics, Australia lose 17.12% of the time, West Indies lose 15.53% of the time. A completely negligible and statistically meaningless difference.

 

[GIMH]

Australia.

 

[smash84]

Not one sided at all.

I wonder why you didn't use number of matches won as the criteria?

Using your statistics, Australia lose 17.12% of the time, West Indies lose 15.53% of the time. A completely negligible and statistically meaningless difference.

The whole point of me bringing that up was that was it was constantly being repeated that Australia won many more matches conveniently discarding the fact that in the late 90s and 00s the matches were much more likely to have a result due to a number of factors. Not losing matches was not at all being accounted for by BlazeDragon. That was why I chose to use the other side of the coin.

Whoever denied that Australia never won more matches? Just the fact that continuous repetition of "statistically Australia are far ahead" does not make that a universal truth since I showed that in terms of not losing WI are ahead. Also WI did not lose a series for a long long time when they were at their peak. Australia does not boast that record although Australia twice won 16 matches in a row which is phenomenal.

 

[smash84]

Lets see your only bringing up things that goes in favor of WI and I am the the one being one sided.

Because you were only bringing up things that were going in favor of Australia hence I chose to counter that.