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

[Slifer]

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

I purposely left out Ambrose and Garner to prove a point tbh.

 

[G.I.Joe]

One could also prove a point by leaving out Richards and Lloyd.

WI had greater backup in the bowling department.
Australia had greater backup in the batting department.

 

[Darth018]

One could also prove a point by leaving out Richards and Lloyd.

They would get bowled out for less than a 100 runs.

 

[BlazeDragon]

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

lol I was trying to be humble there but your mistake was probably even worse. You tried to make me out to be some kind of an idiot because I mentioned Bollinger was playing in the Mcgrath/Warne era. You tried to act like you knew about the back ups of Australian cricket even though you literally had no idea of what your were talking about and were merely playing a guessing game because you were so desperate to prove that WI backups were better. I actually tried to look up the stats even though I looked up the wrong one. So you not only made your self look foolish you also proved that you are biased and that you are desperate to prove that WI are better at any costs.

I will be the better man here by accepting that I actually made a mistake. I have an excuse for it which is that I clicked some wrong buttons on statsguru and was mistakenly led to believe that those were the stats I was looking for but I won't use that to justify it anyways. I made a mistake and I will accept that.

You can keep using your traditional smiley "" and try and get your way out of your mistake.

 

[BlazeDragon]

BlazeDragon + smalishah, I think that'll do.

Oops.

Sorry bro. I honestly didn't see your post before I posted the above. Won't happen again.

 

[BlazeDragon]

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.

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.

Ps Im waiting on this statistical argument that proves that Warne is greater than MM.

Ah! Yes sir I will keep my word on this like I said to that Subshakerz guy.

All righty then, lets start with Mcgrath. The only advantage Marshall and Amborse have over him is average. From the tone of you two guys it seems like you are trying to make it out to be that Mcgrath was a country mile behind. That would be wrong in every possible way. Marshall and Amborse averaged 20.94 and 20.99 respectively. Mcgrath averaged 21.64 in a time which people describe as the era of flat tracks.

Now like so many people have pointed out before, you would have to drop the average of Marshall and Ambrose even below Mcgrath if you adjust it to the era.

Also, like its says on another quote I bolded above, that the West Indies bowlers had the psychological advantage of fear over their batsman because of no helmets and superior protective equipments. Plus if you know anything about cricket history you should also know that the bouncer rule didn't exist until 1991 and that WI bowler had reputation of using that to their advantage in fact its a big factor behind their stats being so successful.
Cricket's Turning Points: The bouncer rule | Highlights | Cricinfo Magazine | ESPN Cricinfo

Aussie bowler didn't have either of those advantages. People here mentioned Lee, and if we were playing in the 80's he would most certainly be a guaranteed pick for me because when you put those rules into place he becomes more dangerous than any bowler from either team and his stats would be MUCH more impressive.

Now when you take all those things into consideration, you could most certainly drop Marshall and Amborse's average below Mcgrath.

As for Warne, though I don't agree with it a whole lot of people rate Warne higher than Mcgrath for a lot of reasons even though McG has a much superior average. Now if Warne could be rated higher than Mcgrath even after having such a better average, and Marshall and Ambrose's could be dropped below even Mcgrath's after adjusting to the era, why exactly do you have such a problem with Warne being rated higher than Marshall and Ambrose? If Mcgrath vs Warne is debatable this sure as hell is too.

Yes I will admit that WI probably has a better bowling attacks overall statistically, but saying that the Aussie attack can't even hold a candle to it is quite puerile especially when they have the likes of Mcgrath and Warne whom I think I have said enough about to suggest that they were better than even the best WI had to offer.

 

[smash84]

BlazeDragon you are such a gun poster .........the above post must be quoted for posterity

 

[smash84]

BlazeDragon you are such a gun poster .........the above post must be quoted for posterity

 

[BlazeDragon]

Yes thank you and your traditional triple "" should be as well.

 

[Slifer]

Ah! Yes sir I will keep my word on this like I said to that Subshakerz guy.

All righty then, lets start with Mcgrath. The only advantage Marshall and Amborse have over him is average. From the tone of you two guys it seems like you are trying to make it out to be that Mcgrath was a country mile behind. That would be wrong in every possible way. Marshall and Amborse averaged 20.94 and 20.99 respectively. Mcgrath averaged 21.64 in a time which people describe as the era of flat tracks.

Now like so many people have pointed out before, you would have drop the average of Marshall and Ambrose even below Mcgrath if you adjust it to the era.

Also, like its says on another quote I bolded above, that the West Indies bowlers had the psychological advantage of fear over their batsman because of no helmets and superior protective equipments. Plus if you know anything about cricket history you should also know that the bouncer rule didn't exist until 1991 and that WI bowler had reputation of using that to their advantage in fact its a big factor behind their stats being so successful.
Cricket's Turning Points: The bouncer rule | Highlights | Cricinfo Magazine | ESPN Cricinfo

Aussie bowler didn't have either of those advantages. People here mentioned Lee, and if we were playing in the 80's he would most certainly be a guaranteed pick for me because when you put those rules into place he becomes more dangerous than any bowler from either team and his stats would be MUCH more impressive.

Now when you take all those things into consideration, you could most certainly drop Marshall and Amborse's average below Mcgrath.

As for Warne, though I don't agree with it a whole lot of people rate Warne higher than Mcgrath for a lot of reasons even though McG has a much superior average. Now if Warne could be rated higher than Mcgrath even after having such a better average, and Marshall and Ambrose's could be dropped below even Mcgrath's after adjusting to the era, why exactly do you have such a problem with Warne being rated higher than Marshall and Ambrose? If Mcgrath vs Warne is debatable this sure as hell is too.

Yes I will admit that WI probably has a better bowling attacks overall statistically, but saying that the Aussie attack can't even hold a candle to it is quite puerile especially when they have the likes of Mcgrath and Warne whom I think I have said enough about to suggest that they were better than even the best WI had to offer.

Umm Blaze u do realise that much of Ambrose, Walsh and Bishops careers were post '91 when bouncer rules and overate rules were in effect. And all of them were pretty effective. MM didnot just have a superior average to Mcgrath his sr was 46, and he averaged sub 25 home and away vs everyone. Those are stats that no bowler has matched or surpassed. The WI were not the first nor the only bowlers to use bouncers to intimidate, if ne thing they learned this tactic from the great Lillee who used to bounce batsmen 6 times in an over. I suppose now u r goin to tell me that Lee was in Lillee's class because of era.

And if we r goin to get into the practise of adjusting the Oz bowlers average down, then we may as well adjust the WI batmen's averages up. U see how convuluted that becomes? Oh and Im still waiting to see how Warne is statistically superior to MM .

 

[smash84]

As for Warne, though I don't agree with it a whole lot of people rate Warne higher than Mcgrath for a lot of reasons even though McG has a much superior average. Now if Warne could be rated higher than Mcgrath even after having such a better average, and Marshall and Ambrose's could be dropped below even Mcgrath's after adjusting to the era, why exactly do you have such a problem with Warne being rated higher than Marshall and Ambrose? If Mcgrath vs Warne is debatable this sure as hell is too.

Conclusive statistical proof that Warne is better than Marshall

 

[BlazeDragon]

Umm Blaze u do realise that much of Ambrose, Walsh and Bishops careers were post '91 when bouncer rules and overate rules were in effect. And all of them were pretty effective. MM didnot just have a superior average to Mcgrath his sr was 46, and he averaged sub 25 home and away vs everyone. Those are stats that no bowler has matched or surpassed. The WI were not the first nor the only bowlers to use bouncers to intimidate, if ne thing they learned this tactic from the great Lillee who used to bounce batsmen 6 times in an over. I suppose now u r goin to tell me that Lee was in Lillee's class because of era.

Walsh and Bishop doesn't have a a better average than Mcgrath. As for Marshall, what exactly makes you think if his strike rate won't go down if his average does?

And what exactly is your purpose behind bringing up Lillee? Did I ever try to argue that Aussie bowlers are morally better because they didn't use bouncers?

Btw, show me where in my post you get the feeling I am suggesting Lee was in the same class as Lillee? What exactly do you find to confusing about the word "dangerous"

And if we r goin to get into the practise of adjusting the Oz bowlers average down, then we may as well adjust the WI batmen's averages up. U see how convuluted that becomes?

That won't benefit you much other than Richards.

Oh and Im still waiting to see how Warne is statistically superior to MM .

I guess you have sunk to the tactic of ignoring. I'll bold it for you this time.

As for Warne, though I don't agree with it a whole lot of people rate Warne higher than Mcgrath for a lot of reasons even though McG has a much superior average. Now if Warne could be rated higher than Mcgrath even after having such a better average, and Marshall and Ambrose's could be dropped below even Mcgrath's after adjusting to the era, why exactly do you have such a problem with Warne being rated higher than Marshall and Ambrose? If Mcgrath vs Warne is debatable this sure as hell is too.

 

[smash84]

.



I guess you have sunk to the tactic of ignoring. I'll bold it for you this time.

Where are the stats showing Warne to be greater than Marshall? Don't beat about the bush. Present the stats showing Warne to be better than Marshall.

 

[Ikki]

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

McGrath had a great series, but the spearhead in that series was Reiffel - he was also as good, if not better than McGrath in that series.

The next series against Pakistan McDermott had come back and he was the spearhead. Indeed, McGrath's rise was both through merit but also incidental; in that without injuries to McDermott and Reiffel he would have had to wait a while.

McGrath wasn't really the spearhead and premier pace bowler until around 97 when we faced the WIndies again.

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.

That's like saying that McGrath won't strike fast because he didn't against NZ or SA. Or saying Holding won't perform well because of his abysmal record against NZ and the fact that he never faced arguably the best opposition of his time; Pakistan.

I am taking their SRs as a base; otherwise we can go into every single player's record and say "it is unlikely they'll do well against Aus/WI because they were poor against X".

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

That's fine, you can adjust their batting averages, but we should also remember: the WIndies batsmen only had more sporting pitches. In terms of quality of bowling faced it was inferior. Till about 2002 neither the pitches nor the bowling attacks faced by Australian batsmen were too different from the 90s - an era where both the quality of the attacks and the pitches meant a tough time for batsmen.

In the end, I don't think it changes the comparison between batsmen as much as it does for the bowlers.

 

[Ikki]

Where are the stats showing Warne to be greater than Marshall? Don't beat about the bush. Present the stats showing Warne to be better than Marshall.

Whilst he hasn't showed stats; he doesn't have to. His argument is fine. Warne is a spinner, and the stats should be looked at differently anyway. He is right though; Warne is regarded as the greatest bowler of his time (many say of all-time) and in general the comparisons with McGrath are very close.

 

[BlazeDragon]

Where are the stats showing Warne to be greater than Marshall? Don't beat about the bush. Present the stats showing Warne to be better than Marshall.

people rate Warne higher than Mcgrath for a lot of reasons even though McG has a much superior average. Now if Warne could be rated higher than Mcgrath even after having such a better average, and Marshall and Ambrose's could be dropped below even Mcgrath's after adjusting to the era, why exactly do you have such a problem with Warne being rated higher than Marshall and Ambrose?

English is better than stats. Learn to read it.

 

[Darth018]

English is better than stats. Learn to read it.

sorry I couldn't resist.

 

[Ikki]

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.

That's true. Fleming, Reiffel, McDermott and Clark were all probably better bowlers than Lee. Although, Lee ended up having the better career.

In terms of quality those guys actually demonstrate that Australia had some fantastic fast bowling depth; they were just unlucky with injuries for the most part.

 

[Slifer]

English is better than stats. Learn to read it.

LOLOLOLOL ROTFL

 

[smash84]

That's fine, you can adjust their batting averages, but we should also remember: the WIndies batsmen only had more sporting pitches. In terms of quality of bowling faced it was inferior. Till about 2002 neither the pitches nor the bowling attacks faced by Australian batsmen were too different from the 90s - an era where both the quality of the attacks and the pitches meant a tough time for batsmen.

In the end, I don't think it changes the comparison between batsmen as much as it does for the bowlers.

It might not change the comparison as much as for the bowlers but it certainly makes it closer for the batsmen.

Whilst he hasn't showed stats; he doesn't have to. His argument is fine. Warne is a spinner, and the stats should be looked at differently anyway. He is right though; Warne is regarded as the greatest bowler of his time (many say of all-time) and in general the comparisons with McGrath are very close.

And if you so claim that Warne is not a fast bowler and shouldn't be compared with them then such arguments should rather not be started in the first place.

Marshall is also regarded by many as the greatest bowler of all time and while there may be other arguments for rating him higher than McGrath (and for some even Marshall) they are certainly not statistical.

If he claims that he has stats to prove his argument then YES he has to show it otherwise he might resort to just about every lie under the sun that he can come up with.

English is better than stats. Learn to read it.

LOLOLOLOLOL

.....dude you were the one who claimed you will bring a stats to prove your argument. Now bring them.

In trying to prove your point you go and say stupid things which you can't back up with facts. And I am the one who is accused of seeing only one side of the picture