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

[Burgey]

Think his back injury happened around '90.

Cheers mate.

 

[smash84]

Anything but a dustbowl Walsh would be playing first obviously

No way you can leave out warne at his peak

 

[smash84]

Okay my mistake, I copied and pasted the wrong link. I'll come back with the right one tomorrow.

But your Bollinger age mistake was just as worse to be honest.

haha........my mistake was bad but NOT this bad ;p.........you were first trying to show others as idiots and only managed to make a fool of yourself despite me asking you more than once as to what this list meant. lol....not only that you didn't even bother to check when I tried to get any meaningful inferences out of that list

 

[robelinda]

Here's some Ian Bishop I just uploaded, nothing special but better than nothing.

bishop1 - YouTube

 

[Spark]

BlazeDragon + smalishah, I think that'll do.

 

[smash84]

thanks Rob.

 

[smash84]

thanks spark

 

[Ikki]

If WI have 10 bowlers as good as each other it hardly matters, they'll only pick 4. "If McGrath is injured..."... Well what if Richards gets injured?

As an attack, I'd agree; WIndies are slightly ahead. But not much. People talk about averages and yet if you take into consideration the eras; you could push the Australian bowler averages down ~2 points and it'd start getting closer to reality. It still means someone like Lee is expensive comparatively, but then McGrath and Warne will make up for it - not that they have to; the Australian batsmen will score more anyway. And then the difference is so fine, that as TC mentions; it really becomes about other factors - like over rates, or even who had more Weetbix.

I know I've pushed the Aussie cause in this debate, but I think you simply cannot ignore their superiority over WIndies in getting wins; in an era of more competition and difficulty. Again, the one big difference between the sides will be Warne. Both sides will have faced similar opposition with regards to the batting and pace bowling quality but WIndies simply will not have faced anyone near as good of a spinner as Warne.

 

[Outswinger@Pace]

If WI have 10 bowlers as good as each other it hardly matters, they'll only pick 4. "If McGrath is injured..."... Well what if Richards gets injured?

That's not an even comparison. The head of a four-man bowling attack getting injured is much more serious than your best batsman (one out of seven) getting injured. McGrath's true worth has always been highlighted by his absence; Ashes 2005 and the Indian tour 2003-04 are two ideal examples that spring to mind.

Australia's reliance on McGrath was enormous. Gillespie et. al. suddenly looked to be more potent when the great man was bowling from the other end. The West Indies were never so reliant on one fast bowler; not even on Malcolm Marshall.

 

[smash84]

awta

 

[smash84]

If WI have 10 bowlers as good as each other it hardly matters, they'll only pick 4. "If McGrath is injured..."... Well what if Richards gets injured?

As an attack, I'd agree; WIndies are slightly ahead. But not much. People talk about averages and yet if you take into consideration the eras; you could push the Australian bowler averages down ~2 points and it'd start getting closer to reality. It still means someone like Lee is expensive comparatively, but then McGrath and Warne will make up for it - not that they have to; the Australian batsmen will score more anyway. And then the difference is so fine, that as TC mentions; it really becomes about other factors - like over rates, or even who had more Weetbix.

I know I've pushed the Aussie cause in this debate, but I think you simply cannot ignore their superiority over WIndies in getting wins; in an era of more competition and difficulty. Again, the one big difference between the sides will be Warne. Both sides will have faced similar opposition with regards to the batting and pace bowling quality but WIndies simply will not have faced anyone near as good of a spinner as Warne.

The thing that you also need to factor is that not all the bowling will be done by 2 (or 3 bowlers). You need to have at least four bowlers to share the load otherwise you can't have sufficient rest for the other guys. That is where it will really help the WI that there is a bowler of Lee's class or the lack of it (relatively speaking of course) to complement the others. While the WI juggernaut will seem to give no respite the WI batsmen will have a bit of a break when Lee comes in.

However I do agree that the analysis is not so straightforward and it is close enough that other factors will play a major role in which side wins. At the moment it is just gut feel and it is pretty even so far.

 

[The Sean]

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

Ha ha, phenomenal side. I'd personally have Ambrose over Holding, but it's splitting hairs really.

 

[Ikki]

That's not an even comparison. The head of a four-man bowling attack getting injured is much more serious than your best batsman (one out of seven) getting injured. McGrath's true worth has always been highlighted by his absence; Ashes 2005 and the Indian tour 2003-04 are two ideal examples that spring to mind.

Australia's reliance on McGrath was enormous. Gillespie et. al. suddenly looked to be more potent when the great man was bowling from the other end. The West Indies were never so reliant on one fast bowler; not even on Malcolm Marshall.

You're missing the point and you're wrong. When Australia claimed top spot Warne was comfortably the most important bowler and the likes of Reiffel and Julian were opening the bowling.

My point was to assume a bowler gets injured in this exercise is to assume too much. And I disagree; take Richards out of that batting line-up and it loses a hell of a lot - the Windies lineup is not as deep or filled with as much quality as Australia's. In fact, they lose the only batsmen they have who averages 50+. But this exercise is presumably aimed at getting the best players together at something near their best.

 

[Ikki]

The thing that you also need to factor is that not all the bowling will be done by 2 (or 3 bowlers). You need to have at least four bowlers to share the load otherwise you can't have sufficient rest for the other guys. That is where it will really help the WI that there is a bowler of Lee's class or the lack of it (relatively speaking of course) to complement the others. While the WI juggernaut will seem to give no respite the WI batsmen will have a bit of a break when Lee comes in.

The assumption in the above is wrong. The WIndies will not have a break. Lee's SR refutes this - he'll take wickets faster than everyone bar McGrath in our side. He is only more expensive. And given the eras, had he bowled in the 80s he'd be a sub-30s bowler.

The other point you raise misses what I mentioned earlier. The only way Lee is going to disadvantage his side is when he takes more wickets at his higher average (1, 2, 3 wickets x his avg). But in reality this is unlikely to happen. For him to take more wickets than his teammates means he is seriously outbowling them and on those days Lee is as destructive as any bowler on both teams. So even if we say he takes 4 wickets at his higher average - in essence the difference between Lee and the others is his slightly higher average per wicket - you are talking about ~15 runs more Lee will cost, per match. Do you think the Australian batsmen can't make that up? I reckon they can 19/20. Moreover, such small differences are rarely going to be the difference in a match.

It again will go to other circumstances. That's why, IMO, the WIndies bowling by itself won't carry them over the line. But the mystery of a Warne more probably could for Aus; as there is no equivalent nor a make-up factor for him.

 

[smash84]

if you are willing to take down the bowling average of all your bowlers then conversely you should also take up the batting average of all the WI batsmen because they did not get to play on the flat tracks that the Aussie batsmen did.

Actually that is assuming that Lee will take only 2 wickets in a match at the most. Since Lee is almost 7 to 8 runs more expensive per wicket

 

[Camo999]

Yeah, I reckon Brett Lee would do OK. He'd get a few wickets sure but at the same time he wouldn't be anything these guys couldn't handle either, Richards, Lloyd, Greenidge etc having faced the likes of Thommo & Lillee at their fastest with no helmets.

Not sure about our batsmen necessarily scoring more runs to be honest. Would a line up of say Hayden, Langer, Ponting, M.Waugh, S.Waugh, Martyn, Gilchrist really have the discipline to knuckle down and stay at the crease in difficult conditions if they weren't being allowed to score at 5 per over? Not sure if some of these guys were as great players defensively and they would definitely be tested here.

Would be great to see in any case. I can imagine these guys successfully taking the attack to the Windies pacemen in a fashion that was probably never really attempted in test cricket. At the same time though I can envisage this line up getting rolled for less than 200 on a couple of occasions over the course of a series which could cost them.

Aussie team probably matched Windies team for dominance - except for the series they lost and to me that is the difference. Once they were established the Windies did not lose to anyone for 15 years. I mentioned previously I would have taken Windies era from say 79 til 91 when Richards, Greenidge, Dujon & Marshall retired rather than 74-86 which includes Packer bans etc.

 

[stephen]

I probably wouldn't play Brett Lee in my best Aus XI from this era. Given the choice of everyone who was a significant player between the win in the West Indies in 95 to the Ashes whitewash in 06/07 my team would be:

Hayden
Langer
Ponting
Martyn
Waugh (c)
Hussey
Gilchrist (wk)
Warne
Clark
Gillespie
McGrath

If you think that Clark isn't good enough or didn't play enough (he played 9 tests and took 47 wickets at 17.8 in that period) then Fleming or Reiffel would both make better choices than Lee. Lee took a lot of wickets because he played a lot of tests but I would argue that Fleming, Reiffel and Clark were all better test match bowlers than Lee.

With an attack of McGrath, Gillespie, Clark and Warne you have a seriously destructive attack that could match any of the hypothetical West Indian lineups (Marshall, Holding, Garner and Ambrose being the strongest on paper). Sure Clark only had a short career, but the career that he did have was exceptional. He took a very long time to learn his trade and then when he had he only had a few years at which he was quick enough to hurry batsmen. I liken him somewhat to Croft in the way that he had a short but impactful career.

If we are going on a specific side that was fielded at some point in the respective eras of domination then we're talking about an entirely different question than was posed.

If we're talking bench strength from these eras then that's also an entirely different question.

To me this hypothetical Australian lineup is stronger than the hypothetically strongest lineup that the West Indians could produce from their era of domination. But the difference is negligable and I think the conditions (pitch, weather, toss, "era" of the match) or one player having a blinder would impact more on the result than anything else.

 

[subshakerz]

You're missing the point and you're wrong. When Australia claimed top spot Warne was comfortably the most important bowler and the likes of Reiffel and Julian were opening the bowling.

Actually, McGrath's breakthrough series was exactly the time when Australia became no.1, against WI in 95. He was their spearhead since then.

My point was to assume a bowler gets injured in this exercise is to assume too much. And I disagree; take Richards out of that batting line-up and it loses a hell of a lot - the Windies lineup is not as deep or filled with as much quality as Australia's. In fact, they lose the only batsmen they have who averages 50+. But this exercise is presumably aimed at getting the best players together at something near their best.

Yeah, in a straight head to head matchup we dont have to consider injuries. But it does say something of the depth of the two teams if we are evaluating of the long periods of dominance.

 

[subshakerz]

The assumption in the above is wrong. The WIndies will not have a break. Lee's SR refutes this - he'll take wickets faster than everyone bar McGrath in our side. He is only more expensive. And given the eras, had he bowled in the 80s he'd be a sub-30s bowler.

Please tell me, given that Lee had SR's of 57, 62 and 63 against India, England and South Africa, the only three competent batting lineups he faced, how exactly will he take wickets so fast against WI?

If anything, he's lucky he played so much cricket against WI and New Zealand, otherwise his average would be a lot worse.

 

[subshakerz]

If you think that Clark isn't good enough or didn't play enough (he played 9 tests and took 47 wickets at 17.8 in that period) then Fleming or Reiffel would both make better choices than Lee. Lee took a lot of wickets because he played a lot of tests but I would argue that Fleming, Reiffel and Clark were all better test match bowlers than Lee.

Clarke had a good first couple of series and did little after that before being dropped. Not enough to merit consideration. Fleming and Reifel were quite good but pale in comparison to the WI front four.