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

[Slifer]

Gillespie was as good a bowler as Bishop, or very close.Both careers sadly marred by injuries too. Bishop especially

Edit: not that that's the point, I'm just saying.

I don't think you could reasonably say australia's pace bowling ever had the depth of the WI.

I think Bishop case was one very similar to the likes of Waqar. Prior to his much publicised back injuries, Bishop was very much on tap to be not just th greatest WI paceman but among the greatest of all time. Such was his talent. I have no doubt that pre injury Bishop was better than Gillespie but post injury probably a lil worse.

Overall I would take Bishop though. But Jason Gillespie was no doubt one hell of a bowler and served his country with distinction

 

[Top_Cat]

I don't think you could reasonably say australia's pace bowling ever had the depth of the WI.

Same with regards Australia and batting, really.

That's why a theoretical matchup between these two sides would make for some pretty compulsive viewing, two sides with strengths on opposites sides of the fence. Would the Aussie batting negate the WI bowling enough to give their lesser crop of bowlers a total to bowl at? NFI and I don't think it's possible to predict with any degree of certainty.

 

[Burgey]

Glenn was a Great bowler, and possibly top five all time. Malcolm Marshall by all measure and consensus on this forum, is The Greatest Fast Bolwer of All Time. An average below 21, and strike rate of 47, had all the tools, ferocious pace, prodigious swing, skiddy, deadly bounce. Under-rated accuatcy who could do every thing Mcgrath could do at 10mph faster. He was never dominated and was a champion.

Warne is the greatest spinner of all time and a great match winner, but on a last day pitch few could match the match winning ability of Curtly Ambrose in his prime. His match winning spells are legendary and with him the Windies were never out of a match.

Mcgrath and Warne were Greats, but lets not disrespect the opponents just because of who you like. We on this forum voted Marshall one of the Five Greastest cricketers of All-Time and he joined Warne in Cricinfo's All Time XI.

We all have our preferences, but we have too see things from both sides and acknowledge and respect history.

I disagree with that. They were very different in their methods, but McGrath was every bit as good a bowler as Marshall was.

People can't decry batting averages in the 2000s as being inflated because of flat decks yet not give bowlers like McGrath credit for having a record comparable to Marshall's in a more batsman-friendly era.

I'm not saying you do that btw, it's a general observation. Marshall was a more intimidating fast bowler than McGrath, but to say he was flat out better is harder to make out. You may not have shivered in your boots when facing McGrath like you did Marshall, and that's fine. All McGrath did was just get you out. All the time. Everywhere. In a batsman-dominated era. At a rate comparable to Marshall.

I should stress, that's not a sledge on Marshall, I used to love watching him bowl - he was a sight to behold

 

[Burgey]

I think Bishop case was one very similar to the likes of Waqar. Prior to his much publicised back injuries, Bishop was very much on tap to be not just th greatest WI paceman but among the greatest of all time. Such was his talent. I have no doubt that pre injury Bishop was better than Gillespie but post injury probably a lil worse.

Overall I would take Bishop though. But Jason Gillespie was no doubt one hell of a bowler and served his country with distinction

Yeah I recall when Bishop burst on the scene and the reports were how lethal he was. IIRC he had a back injury before his first tour of Australia so we never saw him at his absolute best.

I cannot recall if he toured in 1988-89, though I know he was here in 92-93, and was still fantastic, despite having had the injuries already.

 

[Slifer]

I would personally rate MM and Mcgrath as neck and neck tbh. For all the reasons u just pointed out and what a bowler he was. IMo and with all due respect, I think he was Oz's greatest paceman and a defo top 5 paceman of all time (as is MM).

 

[robelinda]

Yeah I recall when Bishop burst on the scene and the reports were how lethal he was. IIRC he had a back injury before his first tour of Australia so we never saw him at his absolute best.

I cannot recall if he toured in 1988089, though I know he was here in 92-93, and was still fantastic, despite having had the injuries already.

Yeah he did tour in 88/89 but only got a game on the ode's, where he was quick.I have lots of ball by ball of that series, i might post a full Bishop spell.

 

[Slifer]

When I think about this exercise it donned on me have we even come up with a composite team?? Here is mine:

Greenidge
Hayden
Richards
Ponting
S Waugh*
Lloyd
Gilchrist+
Marshall
Warne
Holding
Mcgrath


On the batting could have easily subbed in Langer or SLater and for the middle order Hussey, Clarke etc. Oz really does have awesome batting depth, more so than their WI counterparts. But on the bowling we could very easily sub in : Ambrose, Walsh, Garner, Bishop, Roberts, Croft and the quality overall would not lessen (that much) in the least bit

 

[Slifer]

Yeah he did tour in 88/89 but only got a game on the ode's, where he was quick.I have lots of ball by ball of that series, i might post a full Bishop spell.

Oh btw if ive never said this before to u Robe u are the MAN and thanks so much for all the good work u do with all those videos u have posted!!!!!

 

[Top_Cat]

Yeah he did tour in 88/89 but only got a game on the ode's, where he was quick.I have lots of ball by ball of that series, i might post a full Bishop spell.

My recollection of Bish in the early days is that he made you wince with how hard the ball slapped into the 'keeper's gloves but that it wasn't all about raw pace, more about how tall he was, hitting the seam, etc.

Don't get me wrong, he looked quick enough but I get the feeling, on the gun, he'd be a yard or two slower than the Tait/Lee/Shoaibs of the world. Mind you, after 90mph, it all looks the same anyway.

 

[subshakerz]

Same with regards Australia and batting, really.

That's why a theoretical matchup between these two sides would make for some pretty compulsive viewing, two sides with strengths on opposites sides of the fence. Would the Aussie batting negate the WI bowling enough to give their lesser crop of bowlers a total to bowl at? NFI and I don't think it's possible to predict with any degree of certainty.

Yeah, but as I pointed out before, test cricket favors the better bowling sides, in general. I think this will show over the course of a 5-test match series. It will be easier IMO for WI to compensate for Golmes or having Dujon rather than Gilchrist at 7 (though Dujon could hold his own with the bat) than for Australia to have Brett Lee as a 4th bowler. An injury for McGrath would be a death knell for Australia, while WI can manage to absorb the loss of even Marshall.

 

[Top_Cat]

Maybe. Maybe not. We'll never know. The case either way is predicated on so many assumptions as to render the entire exercise useless, in my opinion.

Also I don't quite agree that Test cricket favours the sides with stronger bowling than batting, to be used as a general rule. Too many variables impact on the success of a team than the raw ability of players to be in any way certain of that.

 

[Slifer]

I get what ur saying Cat and yeah there r so many intangibles to consider. Are we playing in 80s rules or 90s and beyond rules. Which teams are we exactly comparing; a composition of players from each era or teams that actually took the field together. And neither team at ne point had players who were all at their peak at the same time. Many intangibles but for me thats part of the fun of this debate.

 

[Top_Cat]

Oh yeah and fair enough to fantasise. It's when people then say "Reasons x, y, z mean WI/Aus were a better team than Aus/WI and so endeth the debate." that my teeth grind.

 

[Burgey]

When I think about this exercise it donned on me have we even come up with a composite team?? Here is mine:

Greenidge
Hayden
Richards
Ponting
S Waugh*
Lloyd
Gilchrist+
Marshall
Warne
Holding
Mcgrath


On the batting could have easily subbed in Langer or SLater and for the middle order Hussey, Clarke etc. Oz really does have awesome batting depth, more so than their WI counterparts. But on the bowling we could very easily sub in : Ambrose, Walsh, Garner, Bishop, Roberts, Croft and the quality overall would not lessen (that much) in the least bit

Haha, what a team. Seriously so good.

Be an absolute nightmare to play against.

 

[Burgey]

Some 80's ball by ball Bishop uploading now.....full 10 over spell vs Australia, will be an hour or two......good viewing for the uneducated!

Cheers mate. UIMM he'd had an injury beofre that tour? There is very little footage, as I understand it, of him pre-injury, owing to the little footage from the WI during that time.

 

[GotSpin]

Missing Walsh. Otherwise it's decent

 

[robelinda]

Edit, the footage i'll do is 10 overs vs Pakistan at the Gabba, 88/89.

 

[Burgey]

Missing Walsh. Otherwise it's decent

Walsh in for Warne on a green top?

Lawling at the prospect of a bowler the calibre of Shane Warne being omitted from a bowling line up (assumiing he's at his best).

 

[Top_Cat]

Cheers mate. UIMM he'd had an injury beofre that tour? There is very little footage, as I understand it, of him pre-injury, owing to the little footage from the WI during that time.

Think his back injury happened around '90.

 

[GotSpin]

Walsh in for Warne on a green top?

Anything but a dustbowl Walsh would be playing first obviously