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

[smash84]

Why then, did the WI play out a greater proportion of draws than Australia did?

because the WI and opposition run rates were considerably slower?

 

[G.I.Joe]

because the WI and opposition run rates were considerably slower?

Slow enough to postpone and prevent said dust-eating for a further 2 days?

 

[BlazeDragon]

Nonsense. Australia in 79 and 81 were better than any of the SA sides, and Pakistan in the 80s could be considered better t least than the 2001/2002 SA sides, given that Donald was in breakdown mode.

What exactly do you determine that by? Because stats sure as hell don't say so.

You can look at it both ways, Australia had a higher winning percentage, or WI lost less. WI played in an era where the rate of play was much slower and draws more common. Either way, I don't want to boil this down to 0.8 percent of some random stat as the difference between the two sides.

No Australia not only had a higher winning percentage they have and higher average when you combine both wins and losses. What exactly do you find so hard to understand about win/loss criteria?

 

[BlazeDragon]

Nope.

. Why because you say so? Your acting like an 8 year old kid now.

Nope. Australia in 79 and 81 were quite strong, stronger than any team Australia faced in the 2000s.

Not whining, merely pointing out your flawed argument of saying that Australia faced tougher opposition for most of their dominating period in the 2000s. Pakistan, WI, NZ, and even England aside from 2005 were all weaker than their 80s versions. Even India's team in the 2000s wasn't much better, India in the 80s had their best ever paceman (Kapil) and a strong batting lineup of Gavaskar, Vengsarkar, Amarnath, Viswanath.

And we already established that WI never faced any minnows either.

Again, Australian sides of 79 and 81 were better than any of the teams Australia faced. And the Pakistan sides of 2002 and 2004 were quite ordinary, can't believe they would be rated ahead of India.

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

Hell yeah he seems to go by that logic of "if I say it long enough its true." He doesn't provide any statistical or logical reasons to back up his statements he just repeats his random thoughts that he pulls out of nowhere over and over. I wonder if he trying to annoy us to death so we would stop arguing for Australia.

Not if you are going to be so selective in your argument.

Lol selective in my argument. All you did was repeat your previous post again ignoring all the stats I provided to you.

Okay lets get this settled and look at the win/loss criteria of all the team of both era.
Team records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo
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.
(Look at the stats)
Plus Australia only played Ban/Zim in only 7 matches combined so even if you do them out Australia still comes out marginally ahead. (Look at the stats)
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.

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. (Look at the stats)

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. (Look at the stats)

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. (Look at the stats)

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

This time actually LOOK at the links then read the words again. I made a it a little easier for you this time.

 

[smash84]

Slow enough to postpone and prevent said dust-eating for a further 2 days?

yeah but I never say bite the dust in 3 days in EVERY match

 

[Ikki]

Of course, nobody is suggesting that Australia bowling will fail to take 20 wickets, just as nobody is suggesting that the WI batting will spotaneously collapse every time they bat. Where we differ is how much Australia's batting advatange (thanks mostly to Gilchrist) makes up for WI's bowling advantage.

In my opinion, a weaker batsman like Dujon rather than Gilchrist can be compensated for by the strength of the rest of the batting lineup. But a weaker bowler like Gillespie or Brett Lee is much more of a handicap, as you only have four bowlers to start with, and there is a greater likelihood of a bad day for the above mentioned, putting a lot of pressure on McWarne. With the WI, there were no weak links.

Can you honestly say that McGrath/Gillespie/Warne/Lee will take wickets as easily as Marshall/Holding/Garner and 1 of Roberts/Walsh/Croft?

Yes, they will take wickets as good as them. Taking wickets is reflected in SR. There's really not much in it TBF. The Aussies are a bit slower but over a 5 day Test it's basically nothing - well, actually, you could argue that the modern day batting SRs buy more time for them anyway. But to even argue along those lines is splitting hairs or being difficult for the sake of saving face.

The only meaningful difference between the two attacks really is Australia's will be slightly more expensive - and again, that is more than compensated by the Australian batting line-up IMO.

I reiterate, test cricket in general favors the better bowling side. It's why Australia were able to beat WI in 74-75 and lost in 79-80. If this was one day cricket, my money would be on Australia.

And I reiterate: the bowling > batting argument only goes for wicket taking. And both are going to bowl the opposition out so the distinction makes little sense here.

I'm sorry, no matter which way you cut it, the record of not losing a series in 15 years is >>>>> more impressive than a 0.8 percent difference in winning stats.

Excuse me? For the dates in question:

[B]     [URL="http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/team/4.html?class=1;spanmax1=31+dec+1986;spanmin1=01+jan+1974;spanval1=span;template=results;type=team"]WIndies[/URL] [URL="http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/team/2.html?class=1;spanmax1=31+dec+2007;spanmin1=01+jan+1995;spanval1=span;template=results;type=team"]Australia[/URL][/B]
[B]Win[/B]   44.7%    67.8%
[B]Loss[/B]  15.5%    17.1%
[B]Draw[/B]  39.8%    15.1%

Australia just wins a ****load more (about 23.1% more, not 0.8% more as you stated) than the WIndies.

The tougher opposition clause doesn't apply in the 2000s, as I've shown.

It's not nostalgia, WI simply had a bowling attack unmatched in cricket history, the best no.3 since Bradman, and other fine batsman to help him.

Since we're talking about 95-07, it totally counts and it is far better than the WIndies record.

It really is nostalgia in many senses. Which is not to say the WIndies don't have an argument here - the 15 years of not losing a series is incredible - but the best opposition they faced were a class below Australia's. And Australia still has an incredible record despite that.

 

[smash84]

It really is nostalgia in many senses. Which is not to say the WIndies don't have an argument here - the 15 years of not losing a series is incredible - but the best opposition they faced were a class below Australia's. And Australia still has an incredible record despite that.

The best opposition the WI faced were a class below the ones that the Aussies faced?

I posted that Pakistan team of the 1986 series which is an outstanding team. A good match for SA if not more.

This is a pretty formidable Pakistan line-up

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/current/match/63441.html

Equal in pace quality to SA with Imran and Wasim and much better spinners in Abdul Qadir and Tauseef Ahmed

 

[Ikki]

It's a broad statement about the teams during this period of WIndies reign - not just "opposition" as a single team. Do you really think the WIndies, as the Australians did for several years, had opponents to that level? That team may be one example but it is right at the end of this period. Australia didn't just only face 1 team of such high class, but many of them.

That's why I think the unbeatable series stat, while impressive, hides the fact that the WIndies weren't tested that often and had gotten used to simply not losing to - instead of dominating - teams that were, for the large part, inferior to the teams Australia had to play.

 

[Ikki]

The best opposition the WI faced were a class below the ones that the Aussies faced?

I posted that Pakistan team of the 1986 series which is an outstanding team. A good match for SA if not more.

This is a pretty formidable Pakistan line-up

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

Equal in pace quality to SA with Imran and Wasim and much better spinners in Abdul Qadir and Tauseef Ahmed

What more: WIndies couldn't beat that Pakistani team. Not then, not a year later nor in 1990. Australia beat the 3 best teams (WI, Pak and SA) 2 series each during the 90s.

 

[G.I.Joe]

It really is nostalgia in many senses. Which is not to say the WIndies don't have an argument here - the 15 years of not losing a series is incredible - but the best opposition they faced were a class below Australia's. And Australia still has an incredible record despite that.

The best opposition the WI faced were a class below the ones that the Aussies faced?

I posted that Pakistan team of the 1986 series which is an outstanding team. A good match for SA if not more.

This is a pretty formidable Pakistan line-up

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

Equal in pace quality to SA with Imran and Wasim and much better spinners in Abdul Qadir and Tauseef Ahmed

Gonna sue you for libel, ****. You're attributing the quote to an author who wasn't.

 

[smash84]

What more: WIndies couldn't beat that Pakistani team. Not then, not a year later nor in 1990. Australia beat the 3 best teams (WI, Pak and SA) 2 series each during the 90s.

FTR WI did not beat Pakistan since Imran Khan became captain otherwise they beat Pakistan in a test series in 1980. So they did beat all the teams during their peak without losing to them. Meanwhile Australia lost to a series to both SL and India when these two teams fielded strong teams at home and lost the Ashes when England fielded their best team in years in 05. So Australia lose a fair bit of points there.

 

[The Sean]

Meanwhile Australia lost to a series to both SL and India when these two teams fielded strong teams at home.

Did they tend to deliberately put out weak sides on the other occasions?

 

[BlazeDragon]

Did they tend to deliberately put out weak sides on the other occasions?

Yeah they only put out strong teams when they beat Australia didn't you know?

 

[smash84]

Did they tend to deliberately put out weak sides on the other occasions?

No. I guess that didn't come out right.

 

[subshakerz]

Yes, they will take wickets as good as them. Taking wickets is reflected in SR. There's really not much in it TBF. The Aussies are a bit slower but over a 5 day Test it's basically nothing - well, actually, you could argue that the modern day batting SRs buy more time for them anyway. But to even argue along those lines is splitting hairs or being difficult for the sake of saving face.

The only meaningful difference between the two attacks really is Australia's will be slightly more expensive - and again, that is more than compensated by the Australian batting line-up IMO.

Did you bother to even look at the strikerates? I'm assuming not, given that Marshall = 46, Croft = 49, Holding = 50, Garner = 50, Roberts = 55, while McGrath = 51, Lee = 53, Gillespie = 55, Warne = 57. Marshall's SR is particularly outstanding. These differences in strikerates combined with much better averages make a huge difference when you stretch it out over four bowlers and an entire series.

So, not only will WI get wickets cheaper, they'll get them quicker also.

And I reiterate: the bowling > batting argument only goes for wicket taking. And both are going to bowl the opposition out so the distinction makes little sense here.

If WI get bowled out for 325 on average and Australia get bowled out for 275 on average, that does make a difference.

Since we're talking about 95-07, it totally counts and it is far better than the WIndies record.

It really is nostalgia in many senses. Which is not to say the WIndies don't have an argument here - the 15 years of not losing a series is incredible - but the best opposition they faced were a class below Australia's. And Australia still has an incredible record despite that.

I would say the Australia sides of 79 and 81 were up there, and the Pakistan sides WI faced as well.

Australia facing quality sides in the 90s has to be balanced by facing some very ordinary sides in the 2000s when they began all those white washes. You have to look at it collectively, since you like using a winning percentage and ignore the sides when the majority of the wins were garnered. And you can't claim that losing series against Sri Lanka in 1999, India in 2001 and England in 2005 doesn't take points away from Australia. It is perfectly logical that in comparing two sides you give points to a team that was unbeaten for a long stint. It shows that Australia were vulnerable in a way that WI was not.

The overall quality of the opposition for the periods in question I feel is close to equal, a slight edge to WI.

 

[subshakerz]

Lol selective in my argument. All you did was repeat your previous post again ignoring all the stats I provided to you.

I'm sorry, but those stats of winning percentage for a 12 year period tell me very little about the makeup of the sides. I would prefer to compare the actual lineups you are talking about. SA for example varied in quality from 95-2007. The SA lineups of 97-98 were very good, while the lineups of 2005-2006 were not IMO.

So, if you are saying Australia faced superior opposition, tell me which lineup are you talking about rather than a narrow arbitrary statistical approach.

 

[Ikki]

FTR WI did not beat Pakistan since Imran Khan became captain otherwise they beat Pakistan in a test series in 1980. So they did beat all the teams during their peak without losing to them. Meanwhile Australia lost to a series to both SL and India when these two teams fielded strong teams at home and lost the Ashes when England fielded their best team in years in 05. So Australia lose a fair bit of points there.

You've misunderstood my post. Name the Pakistan team in 1980...it clearly isn't as strong as the sides Aus faced in the 90s. The only one that really does is that Pak team of 86 that you showed, and the WIndies couldn't beat them.

The Aus losing to SL was a bit of a shock but after winning the 1st the next 2 tests were drawn because of the weather. The India one really isn't. India had the best home record in the 90s IIRC (or up there). They were pretty much as good as any team, when playing in their home conditions.

Australia may have lost a series here and there, but on the whole their record is superior. About 23% more wins is a big margin.

 

[Ikki]

Did you bother to even look at the strikerates? I'm assuming not, given that Marshall = 46, Croft = 49, Holding = 50, Garner = 50, Roberts = 55, while McGrath = 51, Lee = 53, Gillespie = 55, Warne = 57. Marshall's SR is particularly outstanding. These differences in strikerates combined with much better averages make a huge difference when you stretch it out over four bowlers and an entire series.

So, not only will WI get wickets cheaper, they'll get them quicker also.

Colin Croft only played 27 Test matches, so I don't think he would have kept that SR. The others I am fine with, and yes, 2-3 balls here and there don't really matter; not at all really. When you look at the batting SRs, between the two teams, you'll see this difference is essentially negated.

The only thing that is left is averages of which the WIndies are slightly ahead - then again, for the 10th time, Australia has a strong enough batting line-up to negate this and then some.

If WI get bowled out for 325 on average and Australia get bowled out for 275 on average, that does make a difference.

You're pulling figures from your rear.

But it's good you've at least started getting on the right track. The bowling > batting argument no longer applies - both teams will get 20 wickets. It is then a matter of cheapness where you must balance out the teams' batting against the oppositions' bowling.

I would say the Australia sides of 79 and 81 were up there, and the Pakistan sides WI faced as well.

Australia facing quality sides in the 90s has to be balanced by facing some very ordinary sides in the 2000s when they began all those white washes. You have to look at it collectively, since you like using a winning percentage and ignore the sides when the majority of the wins were garnered. And you can't claim that losing series against Sri Lanka in 1999, India in 2001 and England in 2005 doesn't take points away from Australia. It is perfectly logical that in comparing two sides you give points to a team that was unbeaten for a long stint. It shows that Australia were vulnerable in a way that WI was not.

The overall quality of the opposition for the periods in question I feel is close to equal, a slight edge to WI.

I know what you would say. It goes to show how sporadically WIndies played quality sides over such a long period. They really weren't Tested much. From the mid 90s till the end of the millenium, Australia played 3 quality teams, at least twice each...and beat them.

It's fine if you want to strike some points away for SL in 1999 but you're essentially doing it for 1 test match lost, it's hard to call that a series; but not India in 2001. India during that time were as tough as any of the best teams in the world at home. England in 2005 was a culmination of our players being in poor form and their attack hitting fantastic form.

But here is an easier path: look at the stats on the whole. And as I've said to smalishah, a difference of 23% wins is too big to deny.

 

[subshakerz]

Colin Croft only played 27 Test matches, so I don't think he would have kept that SR. The others I am fine with, and yes, 2-3 balls here and there don't really matter; not at all really. When you look at the batting SRs, between the two teams, you'll see this difference is essentially negated.

You were the one who brought SR into this, and the WI bowlers still come out better. Nothing suggests that Aussies bowlers will pick up wickets as quickly as the WI for an attack on the whole. And I highly doubt that Aussie batsmen are going to maintain that strikerate against this kind of bowling...

The only thing that is left is averages of which the WIndies are slightly ahead - then again, for the 10th time, Australia has a strong enough batting line-up to negate this and then some.

WI are not just "slightly" ahead. Marshall = 20, Garner = 20, Holding = 23, Croft = 23, Roberts = 25, while McGrath = 21, Warne = 25, Gillespie = 26, and Lee = 30. Lee is a particular weakness in this attack that you are silent on, an average of 30+ and giving nearly 3.5 runs an over is a serious hindrance.

You might as well as say that any point difference of less than 10 is inconsequential. I will reiterate: Point differences in averages and SR stretched over four bowlers for an entire series make a huge difference.

I know what you would say. It goes to show how sporadically WIndies played quality sides over such a long period. They really weren't Tested much. From the mid 90s till the end of the millenium, Australia played 3 quality teams, at least twice each...and beat them.

And after that, they played mostly ordinary sides for seven years and managed to strike a lot of cheap wins. So it balances out, no?

Lol at you saying WI weren't tested much. The side they defeated in 79 contained Lillee, Marsh, Border, Hughes and the Chappell bros and other quality pacers. They faced them again in 81. The Pakistan side they defeated in 80 contained Imran, Qadir, Miandad, Zaheer Abbas, Majid Khan and Iqbal Qasim. They faced a similar side in 86/88. The England side they defeated in 80 contained Boycott, Gooch, Gower, Knott, Willis and Botham at his peak and other quality pacemen. Any of those sides would be serious contenders today.

It's fine if you want to strike some points away for SL in 1999 but you're essentially doing it for 1 test match lost, it's hard to call that a series; but not India in 2001. India during that time were as tough as any of the best teams in the world at home. England in 2005 was a culmination of our players being in poor form and their attack hitting fantastic form.

Funny how many excuses you need to justify losses of supposedly the best side ever. Ok, let's take some points for Sri Lanka first.

As for India, please, are you suggesting that India in 2001 was simply too big a challenge for Australia? That's especially strange given that SA defeated them at home a few months prior. So they lose points for that.

England in 2005, again, poor form didn't seem an issue in the series prior to that. Funny how poor form materializes when faced with a quality attack. Regardless, this is an entire side we are talking about, so poor form is no excuse. Points off here as well.

The idea is that the record shows that Australia had an occasional vulnerability which WI did not show: facing strong teams in alien conditions.

 

[hang on]

will be interesting to see which team had more largish scores - defined as 350 above - hit against them. would give one a good idea as to the the relative bowling strengths. i would imagine that it would be australia.

at the same time, which team scored large scores more often? again, i would wager that i would be australia.