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

[smash84]

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

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.

and dude did you even bother to read the statements that went before it like the one highlighted above that I was responding to?

 

[Furball]

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.

In terms of winning Tests Australia are miles ahead though.

 

[Fusion]

In terms of winning Tests Australia are miles ahead though.

That obviously has a lot to do with the era the two sides played in. Test results were much more common in the Australian era than the Windies. The WI side had to deal with a different style and approach altogether. To Australia's credit, though, they were primarily responsible for the change in attitude and "pushing for a result".

 

[BlazeDragon]

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

Go back and look at all my posts again. Most of them have been in response to the two of you saying WI is the better team because they have better bowler and because they lost less.

I did not only bring up things going in favor of Australia I am acknowledging both of their accomplishments but I am saying Australia comes out more dominant at the end. You two on the other hand however are ignoring everything accomplished by Australia.

 

[BlazeDragon]

That obviously has a lot to do with the era the two sides played in. Test results were much more common in the Australian era than the Windies.

In all fairness, if we are going to shift this argument toward the era they played in we should do it both ways. Australia had to deal with tougher competition in their era than Windies had to in their era.

 

[Slifer]

In all fairness, if we are going to shift this argument toward the era they played in we should do it both ways. Australia had to deal with tougher competition in their era than Windies had to in their era.

Think that is a matter of opinion to be honest. And one thing to note, in the WI's era of dominance the practice of making up overs lost to weather (etc) was not a common practice as it is today. I can cite an innumerable number of tests (and series) that were drawn due to weather where the WI were in the proverbial 'drivers seat'.

 

[Furball]

Think that is a matter of opinion to be honest. And one thing to note, in the WI's era of dominance the practice of making up overs lost to weather (etc) was not a common practice as it is today. I can cite an innumerable number of tests (and series) that were drawn due to weather where the WI were in the proverbial 'drivers seat'.

If the West Indies actually bothered to bowl 90 overs in a day then I'd have some sympathy for them.

 

[robelinda]

70 overs was a good day for them. Disgusting over rates. 4 fast bowlers off bloody long run ups aint getting through 90 overs ever.

 

[Uppercut]

Something's wrong when the rules of cricket can't make room for that attack.

 

[robelinda]

They brought it upon themselves. Over rates of 7 or 8 an hour was insane. And they were SO slow between overs.

 

[smash84]

If the West Indies actually bothered to bowl 90 overs in a day then I'd have some sympathy for them.

You don't need to bowl 90 overs in a day when you have a bowling attack like this (thanks again Rob this is such a wonderful video. I have already watched it 3 times and just can't get enough of this video)

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

Eat dust in 3 days

Something's wrong when the rules of cricket can't make room for that attack.

I agree

 

[subshakerz]

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

You mean Sri Lanka? I could be wrong, but I don't believe WI played Sri Lanka in the 80s. Their first series against them I remember was in 1993 when they were a weak team but hardly a minnnow like Zimbabwe and Bangladesh.

Don't you think it's unfair to use winning percentage as an indicator and include freebie teams that WI never got to play?

 

[subshakerz]

In all fairness, if we are going to shift this argument toward the era they played in we should do it both ways. Australia had to deal with tougher competition in their era than Windies had to in their era.

You pretend as if Australia just played in 90s, whereas the majority period of their domination was in the 2000s when they accumulated all those successive wins. The quality of the teams suffered and you choose to ignore that.

The WI teams Australia faced in 2000, 2003, 2005 and 2008 were quite poor, almost unwatchable aside from Lara. The NZ team in the 2000s was poorer than the 80s version which never lost a series at home that decade. The Pakistan team in 1999 was strong, yes, but they faced a second rate team in 2002 and a shambolic one in 2004, far poorer than the 80s version. England in 2001/2002 were comparable to their 80s counterparts, probably worse, and they lost to the stronger English side in 2005. And they feasted on Zimbabwe and Bangladesh, two minnows WI did not face.

India and Sri Lanka were definitely better teams than their 80s versions, but coincidentally Australia lost a series to both of them as well. SA remained a quality side.

So I don't think it's fair to say Australia faced tougher competition, at least in the 2000s. The three teams that improved (Sri Lanka, India, England) were the ones Australia managed to lose a series to. WI, as mentioned before, remained unbeaten.

 

[smash84]

You pretend as if Australia just played in 90s, whereas the majority period of their domination was in the 2000s when they accumulated all those successive wins. The quality of the teams suffered and you choose to ignore that.

The WI teams Australia faced in 2000, 2003, 2005 and 2008 were quite poor, almost unwatchable aside from Lara. The NZ team in the 2000s was poorer than the 80s version which never lost a series at home that decade. The Pakistan team in 1999 was strong, yes, but they faced a second rate team in 2002 and a shambolic one in 2004, far poorer than the 80s version. England in 2001/2002 were comparable to their 80s counterparts, probably worse, and they lost to the stronger English side in 2005. And they feasted on Zimbabwe and Bangladesh, two minnows WI did not face.

India and Sri Lanka were definitely better teams than their 80s versions, but coincidentally Australia lost a series to both of them as well. SA remained a quality side.

So I don't think it's fair to say Australia faced tougher competition, at least in the 2000s. The three teams that improved (Sri Lanka, India, England) were the ones Australia managed to lose a series to. WI, as mentioned before, remained unbeaten.

Excellent points subshakerz

 

[BlazeDragon]

Think that is a matter of opinion to be honest.

How so?

If we can give WI and excuse for not pushing for a win because of the era why can't we give Australia credit for the game being more competitive in their one

And one thing to note, in the WI's era of dominance the practice of making up overs lost to weather (etc) was not a common practice as it is today. I can cite an innumerable number of tests (and series) that were drawn due to weather where the WI were in the proverbial 'drivers seat'.

We are really getting desperate here if we are bringing weather into this now. Who knows how many Australian games were affected by the weather. But we are not sympathizing with them for getting the result at the end. Like everybody has pointed out WI deserves no sympathy because of their slow over rates.

Plus making up over puts pressure on the players as well. If you are saying what you are saying that means Aussie players had to deal with a lot of pressure on that area.

 

[BlazeDragon]

You mean Sri Lanka? I could be wrong, but I don't believe WI played Sri Lanka in the 80s. Their first series against them I remember was in 1993 when they were a weak team but hardly a minnnow like Zimbabwe and Bangladesh.

Don't you think it's unfair to use winning percentage as an indicator and include freebie teams that WI never got to play?

Okay lets get this settled and look at the win/loss criteria of all the team of both era.
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;home_or_away=1;home_or_away=2;home_or_away=3;orderby=win_loss_ratio;result=1;result=2;result=3;result=4;spanmax1=31+Dec+2003;spanmax2=31+Dec+2007;spanmin1=01+Jan+1995;spanmin2=01+Jan+1995;spanval1=span;spanval2=span;template=results;type=team
Team records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

No other team in the WI era comes even close to South Africa. So if by your logic WI deserves extra credit because they never played 'lesser' team like Ban and Zim they also have to lose credit because they never played an opposition as strong as SA.

Plus Australia only played Ban/Zim in only 7 matches combined so even if you do them out Australia still comes out marginally ahead.
Team records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo
Team records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

So that means my dear friend Australia wins the argument of statistics no matter which way you want to look at it.

 

[BlazeDragon]

You pretend as if Australia just played in 90s, whereas the majority period of their domination was in the 2000s when they accumulated all those successive wins. The quality of the teams suffered and you choose to ignore that.

The WI teams Australia faced in 2000, 2003, 2005 and 2008 were quite poor, almost unwatchable aside from Lara. The NZ team in the 2000s was poorer than the 80s version which never lost a series at home that decade. The Pakistan team in 1999 was strong, yes, but they faced a second rate team in 2002 and a shambolic one in 2004, far poorer than the 80s version. England in 2001/2002 were comparable to their 80s counterparts, probably worse, and they lost to the stronger English side in 2005. And they feasted on Zimbabwe and Bangladesh, two minnows WI did not face.

India and Sri Lanka were definitely better teams than their 80s versions, but coincidentally Australia lost a series to both of them as well. SA remained a quality side.

So I don't think it's fair to say Australia faced tougher competition, at least in the 2000s. The three teams that improved (Sri Lanka, India, England) were the ones Australia managed to lose a series to. WI, as mentioned before, remained unbeaten.

This argument is pretty much settled with the win/loss criteria stats I provided above.

Only Pakistan and England were really that competitive in the WI era.

If you wanna whine about WI and NZ of the Aus era you could do the same for India and NZ of the WI era.

As for England, Pakistan, and England the stats shows that they were better than even Australia of WI era the fourth best team of that era. Btw, Pakistan in the Aus era had better stats than India.

So yeah you really have no argument here statistically on WI being better.

 

[smash84]

No other team in the WI era comes even close to South Africa. [/url]

So that means my dear friend Australia wins the argument of statistics no matter which way you want to look at it.

errr no.........Imran Khan's Pakistan disagree.......This is a pretty decent line up

1st Test: Pakistan v West Indies at Faisalabad, Oct 24-29, 1986 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

This argument is pretty much settled with the win/loss criteria stats I provided above.

And I am the one who keeps arguing one side of the coin

Maybe GF should butt in now

 

[BlazeDragon]

errr no.........Imran Khan's Pakistan disagree.......This is a pretty decent line up

1st Test: Pakistan v West Indies at Faisalabad, Oct 24-29, 1986 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

Did you even click on any of the links I posted? South Africa in Aus era comes out way better statically.

This is not about which team had better reputation or was more beloved.

And I am the one who keeps arguing one side of the coin

Maybe GF should butt in now

That's very typical of you. When you can't prove that things would go your way using stats you turn to posting BS. Seriously have you provided anything legit to this debate other than your one-sided way of viewing things?

If you see something wrong with the stats I provided say so. Don't waste time with garbage.

 

[smash84]

If you see something wrong with the stats I provided say so. Don't waste time with garbage.

Yes I see something wrong with your stats. I am going to go back to the same old argument of mine since you seem to be stuck on the win/loss ratio.

Who lost more matches and who lost more series at their peak?