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

[Slifer]

So you are saying that the pitches in India and Pakistan in the 80s were bowling-friendly? Are you serious? I believe Pakistan was known as the graveyard of fast bowlers.



Please. Roberts, Holding, Marshall, Ambrose, Walsh each played over a decade of cricket, it's not as if they simply hopped in and out of the team. The fact is that no team in world cricket ever had the quality bowling depth that WI had.

If McGrath was waning or injured, for example, who could replace him? We saw the answer to that in the Ashes 2005 and in India 1997.

Its like u were readin my mind or something.I distinctly remember two series from the 80s India 83 and Pakistan 86 when the WI were far from full strength yet the bench bowlers (S CLarke, Tony Gray etc) were of such quality, that the attack was still very effective.

 

[Slifer]

Because once you accept the seemingly obvious, that WI had a better bowling attack in all ways possible, it becomes very hard to argue that Australia would beat that team. Test cricket just favors stronger bowling sides.

That's why they are using every random stat they can find to present a false parity between them, while ignoring points like Australia's relative lack of quality depth and the weak links like Brett Lee.

U know I never thought of that but now that I think of it u make perfect sense. I mean for ne one to think that somehow Mcgrath, Warne, Gilespie, Lee = Maco, Holding, Garner, Walsh, Roberts, Croft etc is ludicrous. Its actually quite laughable now that I think about it.Dont get it twisted Oz had a great attack but tbh that attack isnt even that much better (if at all) than the WI's early 90s attack of Bishop, Amby, Walsh and Benjamin (Winston and Kenny)

At first they were picking on the WI for their overrates, conveniently forgetting that the likes of Amby etc played in the era of limited bouncers and enforced overrates but still thrived. Then this 'character' brought this bowler friendly era crap as if to imply that the I attack always had things their way (even in Asia).

 

[Burgey]

Would love to see Hayden try and come out of his crease and smack Holding over mid off. Don't think he will last long, Langer is a better bet as he is a grafter.

So, bring in Slater or Taylor....

Don't think the WI didn't have their weak points. Carl Hooper and Gus Logie spring to mind as pretty mediocre players who thrived in a great side.

You get to the point of discussing great teams like these, and you're really splitting hairs looking for weaknesses though.

The WI attack was so good, I've no doubt they'd have fared well in any era. By the same token, if you transported Brett Lee back to the late 80s-early 90s, and let him loose on a few of those pitches, it would not have been pleasant playing him. Likewise Gillespie, let alone McGrath, whose record in a flat pitch era was amazing in and of itself.

It's fun talking about it though, for sure.

 

[stephen]

So, bring in Slater or Taylor....

Don't think the WI didn't have their weak points. Carl Hooper and Gus Logie spring to mind as pretty mediocre players who thrived in a great side.

You get to the point of discussing great teams like these, and you're really splitting hairs looking for weaknesses though.

The WI attack was so good, I've no doubt they'd have fared well in any era. By the same token, if you transported Brett Lee back to the late 80s-early 90s, and let him loose on a few of those pitches, it would not have been pleasant playing him. Likewise Gillespie, let alone McGrath, whose record in a flat pitch era was amazing in and of itself.

It's fun talking about it though, for sure.

Agree totally with the Burgster here. I personally would have loved to see the battles between McGrath and Richards, Ponting and Marshall, Warne and the WI middle order. A hypothetical matchup between the two sides would be delightful to watch.

 

[stephen]

One of the keys to Australia's longevity was the transition between the Taylor/Slater combo to the Hayden/Langer combo. Both were brilliant opening pairs that complemented each other well and let Australia thrive in all conditions.

Really the difference between the two sides would be largely dependent on external factors like the pitch, toss and weather conditions than any gap in skill.

 

[GotSpin]

Because once you accept the seemingly obvious, that WI had a better bowling attack in all ways possible, it becomes very hard to argue that Australia would beat that team. Test cricket just favors stronger bowling sides.

That's why they are using every random stat they can find to present a false parity between them, while ignoring points like Australia's relative lack of quality depth and the weak links like Brett Lee.

Warne?

 

[subshakerz]

Warne?

Collectively better.

 

[GotSpin]

You said they had a better bowling attack in all ways possible which clearly isn't true.

I always find these hypothetical match up threads a bit weird. I mean, in what era are we playing, what kind of pitches, rules, safety equipment and so forth.

 

[smash84]

Really the difference between the two sides would be largely dependent on external factors like the pitch, toss and weather conditions than any gap in skill.

awta

 

[Fusion]

Somewhat related to this debate, Cricinfo does a stat analysis on the WI pace attack.

Pace like fire

 

[smash84]

Although I must say the runs that Tubby scored against the attack was much better than the ones Sehwag has scored against. Since Ikki loves stats cricinfo have just done a great piece on the WI quicks of the 80s

Stats from the past: West Indies' battery of fast bowlers | Highlights | Cricinfo Magazine | ESPN Cricinfo

been there done that Fusion

Somewhat related to this debate, Cricinfo does a stat analysis on the WI pace attack.

Pace like fire

 

[Fusion]

Always a step late.

 

[Outswinger@Pace]

Always a step late.

Let's hope that doesn't happen on his wedding night!

 

[BlazeDragon]

Son what the hell r u on seriously?? Aus era started in 95, the likes of Ambrose and Walsh (contemporaries of Maco and co) coincided with this era and they thrived. Therefore its logical to conclude that their contemporaries would have thrived as well (esp if they were bowling in tandem with each other).

I dont know y its so hard for u to accept. The WI attacks of the 80s were better and more effective than their Oz counterparts of the 95 to 07 era, just like Oz had a better batting lineup.

Listen kiddo if you can't back up an argument using stats or logical reasons then don't argue. Frankly, your argument at this point is a immature as the kids that say Tendulkar is better than Bradman. Just because you say so doesn't make it so.

I am just gonna come and flat out say it, Mcgrath and Warne were better than everybody the WI attack had to offer. I would actually be willing to go on a statistical argument if you want me to which is something don't seem to know how to.

 

[BlazeDragon]

So you are saying that the pitches in India and Pakistan in the 80s were bowling-friendly? Are you serious? I believe Pakistan was known as the graveyard of fast bowlers.

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

Oh yeah man that's not bowler friendly in anyways. I don't know if people like you don't know stats at all or that you actually know it and still childishly ignore it because it doesn't benefit you.

I believe Ian Bell is known as "The Shermanator." About as relevant as the last sentence of that post.

The fact is that no team in world cricket ever had the quality bowling depth that WI had.

Like I said so before, people like you seem to suffer from the delusion that just because I say so it makes it so

If McGrath was waning or injured, for example, who could replace him? We saw the answer to that in the Ashes 2005 and in India 1997.

Just because they were not as good as Mcgrath means they were mediocre? If you think the talent of the Aussie group that low that without the the likes of Mcgrath the are a bunch of minnow then I have seriously wasted my time here trying to argue with someone like you.

The likes of Johnson, Bollinger etc are still a class apart from a good amount of bowler in the business today.

Windies suffered 5x worse from the retirements of their great bowlers than Aus did with theirs.

 

[BlazeDragon]

Because once you accept the seemingly obvious, that WI had a better bowling attack in all ways possible, it becomes very hard to argue that Australia would beat that team. Test cricket just favors stronger bowling sides.

That's why they are using every random stat they can find to present a false parity between them, while ignoring points like Australia's relative lack of quality depth

Its like u were readin my mind or something.I distinctly remember two series from the 80s India 83 and Pakistan 86 when the WI were far from full strength yet the bench bowlers (S CLarke, Tony Gray etc) were of such quality, that the attack was still very effective.

Its almost like you two are a multi of each other. You both use the adolescent "its true cuz I say so" method quite effectively. Of course bro, how dare we suggest that statistics have more value than personal opinions of you two geniuses.

And everybody knows that WI of the 80's bench bowlers were the only ones that has been effective.

and the weak links like Brett Lee.

@ Brett Lee being a weak link. You seem to put every WI bowler of that era on the same class as the likes of Marshall/Ambrose.

If your standards are that high then other than Viv that Windies batting of that era were some the the most mediocre batsman of all time.

 

[BlazeDragon]

U know I never thought of that but now that I think of it u make perfect sense. I mean for ne one to think that somehow Mcgrath, Warne, Gilespie, Lee = Maco, Holding, Garner, Walsh, Roberts, Croft etc is ludicrous. Its actually quite laughable now that I think about it.Dont get it twisted Oz had a great attack but tbh that attack isnt even that much better (if at all) than the WI's early 90s attack of Bishop, Amby, Walsh and Benjamin (Winston and Kenny)

At first they were picking on the WI for their overrates, conveniently forgetting that the likes of Amby etc played in the era of limited bouncers and enforced overrates but still thrived. Then this 'character' brought this bowler friendly era crap as if to imply that the I attack always had things their way (even in Asia).

Expected no better from the likes of you.

Your right its so ludicrous and laughable. How foolish of us to think that Statistics > Your fanboyish beliefs.

 

[Outswinger@Pace]

Wow, it's completely dead even at this point. I knew this would be a close one, but never expected an exact 50-50 breakup.

Would check back in a few days to see what the 'final verdict' is. Also some interesting points have been mentioned from both sides. Keep the flame burning, lads!

 

[BlazeDragon]

By the same token, if you transported Brett Lee back to the late 80s-early 90s, and let him loose on a few of those pitches, it would not have been pleasant playing him. Likewise Gillespie, let alone McGrath, whose record in a flat pitch era was amazing in and of itself.

Exactly they seem to use stats only when it works to their advantage.

You could pretty much say that if Brett Lee at his peak played in those era he could put a whole lot of the batsman on a body bag and trouble them even more than the likes of Marshall/Walsh etc. You just can't prove that with his statistical record.

 

[Outswinger@Pace]

Exactly they seem to use stats only when it works to their advantage.

You could pretty much say that if Brett Lee at his peak played in those era he could put a whole lot of the batsman on a body bag and trouble them even more than the likes of Marshall/Walsh etc. You just can't prove that with his statistical record.

That's a fair point. Yet another reason why I think that comparing a pre-Packer era to a post-Packer one is a very tricky assignment.

Introduction of helmets and superior protective equipment had a huge psychological effect that can never quite be quantified by stats. It's one thing playing forward and fearing that you'd get an edge. Completely different when you go for the hook knowing fully well that it you miss the ball, you'd end up in hospital with a fractured jaw.

IMHO, quantifying that 'physical threat' factor is very difficult. But some measure of understanding must be given to that when performing an exercise of this nature.