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

[Darth018]

I guess that means we ought to knock him down a few pegs based on Blaze and Ikki's theory adjusting for eras.

What exactly is so wrong with adjusting eras? It only seems fair to do it.

 

[Slifer]

Nah, just using them as a refutation of an assertion that claims Warne can't or has never been as good as Marshall.



If you're comparing him to someone like McGrath or bowlers who played in this flat track era, you have to make that adjustment. Regardless if that is Lillee or Marshall.

All players will have peculiarities which must be balanced out. With regards to this debate, the over-rates, flat tracks and the quality of batsmen faced are pretty big ones. It goes to show how close the two attacks actually are when you take them into consideration.

I remember right after Oz lost to RSA in 08 at home cricinfo did something very similar as that series loss had pretty much signalled the end of Oz's era of being the best.

Ne way they did a comparison of the 2 eras and compared player vs player bla bla bla, overates etc (still trying to dig up that article as we speak). In the end like so many of us, it was concluded that Oz (esp due to the Gilchrist factor) had the better batting line up and more balanced bowling. But in the end the WI were given the edge. Their composite team was similar to the one I posted earlier but like me they recognised that the gulf between the two teams attacks and bowling depths were decidely in the WI favor.

Added to that the WI simply refused to lose. When they were down and seemingly out, they always found a way back.

 

[Slifer]

What exactly is so wrong with adjusting eras? It only seems fair to do it.

If ur goin to adjust the Ozzie bowlin averages down for era then by the same token u have to adjust the WI batsmen's averages up. Now thats fair. And we will be right back where we started.

U cant adjust the Oz bowling down and then make some convuluted argument as to y the same cant be done for the WI batsmen cause if I recall in the 76 to 95 era they would have faced the following bowlers: Lillee, thommo, Underwood, Qasim, Imran, Wasim, Hadlee, Willis, Botham, Chandra and co, Dev, etc.

 

[BlazeDragon]

If ur goin to adjust the Ozzie bowlin averages down for era then by the same token u have to adjust the WI batsmen's averages up. Now thats fair. And we will be right back where we started.

We are not back where we started we are back to an issue which you never replied to. We have pointed out that even if you do that it won't WI batsman much help with the exception of Richards.

 

[BlazeDragon]

Bit harsh taking Windies from 74 - 86 when they were undefeated for a further 9 years after that time. For a 12 year period how about say 1979 to 91 when Richards, Greenidge, Marshall & Dujon retired?

Being undefeated and being dominant are two completely different things. Just because India managed to stay undefeated until now doesn't mean that they were dominant over all the other teams.

WI dominance was gone after 86.

 

[Slifer]

We are not back where we started we are back to an issue which you never replied to. We have pointed out that even if you do that it won't WI batsman much help with the exception of Richards.

WTH?? Bowling averages and batting averages obviously will have to be adjusted at differing amounts,. If ur gonna tack on what 2 to 3 runs to the WI bowling averages, u have to tack on something like 4 or 5 runs to the batting. Doing that all of a sudden WI have 3 batsmen averagin over 50, and several of their batsmen just below (similar to Oz). Try again.

 

[Slifer]

Being undefeated and being dominant are two completely different things. Just because India managed to stay undefeated until now doesn't mean that they were dominant over all the other teams.

WI dominance was gone after 86.

Ok between 95 and 99 who did Oz dominate. Surely not the WI or RSA or Pak. They were better but not dominant. And between 76 and 95 no one was in doubt as to who the 'Man' was in cricket.

I already said Oz were the more dominant side in their era, and had the better batting lineup. But I guess thats not enough for some of u now u have to get into some really jacked up scenarios to go for the trifecta and prove that Oz also had the better bowling. Sorry they didnt. And further, even though they were more dominant i sincerely doubt Oz would have outlasted the WI of the 76-95 era over 5 tests at home and away.

 

[BlazeDragon]

Ok between 95 and 99 who did Oz dominate. Surely not the WI or RSA or Pak. They were better but not dominant. And between 76 and 95 no one was in doubt as to who the 'Man' was in cricket.

I already said Oz were the more dominant side in their era, and had the better batting lineup. But I guess thats not enough for some of u now u have to get into some really jacked up scenarios to go for the trifecta and prove that Oz also had the better bowling. Sorry they didnt. And further, even though they were more dominant i sincerely doubt Oz would have outlasted the WI of the 76-95 era over 5 tests at home and away.

If Aus didn't dominate from 95-07 then WI sure as hell didn't during 74-86 since statistically Aus comes out better than WI.

Look who's talking your trying to extend the WI dominance period on top of trying to childishly that WI bowler were "not even in the same level" and all that crap. I did say that WI had a better bowling attack statistically overall but that the best two Mcgrath and Warne were better than all their their bowlers and that Aus had could put up a fight in the bowling department. But I guess that's a little too much for you ego to handle.

 

[Slifer]

If Aus didn't dominate from 95-07 then WI sure as hell didn't during 74-86 since statistically Aus comes out better than WI.

Look who's talking your trying to extend the WI dominance period on top of trying to childishly that WI bowler were "not even in the same level" and all that crap. I did say that WI had a better bowling attack statistically overall but that the best two Mcgrath and Warne were better than all their their bowlers and that Aus had could put up a fight in the bowling department. But I guess that's a little too much for you ego to handle.

No no no Warne and Mcgrath are arguably better its not set in stone. No way is McWarne inarguably better than MM+Garner or Amby or Holding etc.

Ur the one using childish arguments because if u bothered to read ne thing i posted (u probably read but couldnt comprehend) I said Oz were the best team til 99 and became dominant thereafter. Case in point vs the WI : 95 Oz 2 WI 1, 97 Oz 3 WI 2, 99 Oz 2 WI 2.

Post 99: '00 Oz 5 WI 0, '03 Oz 3 WI 1. Is that so hard to comprehend?? I said WI were the best team in the period 76 to 95 (dominant about 80 to 86), Oz the best 95 to 07/08 ( dominant 00-07). Really u cant wrap ur brain around that??? And last but not least I said Oz were the more dominant team in their era.

 

[BlazeDragon]

No no no Warne and Mcgrath are arguably better its not set in stone. No way is McWarne inarguably better than MM+Garner or Amby or Holding etc.

Ur the one using childish arguments because if u bothered to read ne thing i posted (u probably read but couldnt comprehend) I said Oz were the best team til 99 and became dominant thereafter. Case in point vs the WI : 95 Oz 2 WI 1, 97 Oz 3 WI 2, 99 Oz 2 WI 2.

Post 99: '00 Oz 5 WI 0, '03 Oz 3 WI 1. Is that so hard to comprehend?? I said WI were the best team in the period 76 to 95 (dominant about 80 to 86), Oz the best 95 to 07/08 ( dominant 00-07). Really u cant wrap ur brain around that??? And last but not least I said Oz were the more dominant team in their era.

Yeah right I am childish . Just because you say so makes it so right? I did my statistical argument as to why Mcgrath is better. Why don't you do yours then?

Its funny how you "say" Aus were the more dominant team yet you vote for WI in the poll. Saying something and doing the exact opposite? What's that called again? Your brain seems to work in mysterious ways.

Aus were about as dominant from 95-99 as WI was between 74-78.

 

[robelinda]

in 96/97 WI were not even in the contest at all, they were hammered in the first two tests, came back with a win in the 3rd but not entirely convincing, completely thrashed in the deciding 4th test and scored a consolation win in the 5th. Aus were the better team by quite a distance. WI were gone by then as a force, the two 1995 series showed them up- beaten by Aus and hung on for a drawn series against England, who they routinely thrashed in England. 20 years too since WI have won in England, interestingly.

Anyway, I'm not going to quibble over such small points, but yeah Aus certainly became dominant after 99, but the quality of the teams sure weren't that great, as is usually the case it seems. Its not like there has been 4 really strong teams over the past 40 years at the same time. The WI, Aus and India all have beaten some very ordinary teams in their time at number one. Not their fault of course, just shows the number one spot aint all that its cracked up to be.

 

[Slifer]

Yeah right I am childish . Just because you say so makes it so right? I did my statistical argument as to why Mcgrath is better. Why don't you do yours then?

Its funny how you "say" Aus were the more dominant team yet you vote for WI in the poll. Saying something and doing the exact opposite? What's that called again? Your brain seems to work in mysterious ways.

Aus were about as dominant from 95-99 as WI was between 74-78.

Dude because just in case u didnt notice two questions were asked. It asked who was more dominant and who was stronger. Oz were a bit more dominant but i dont think they were stronger and if the two 'teams' went head to head i would give the WI the edge. And yeah I am a lil biased towards the WI butnot to the extent to think that WI would dominate. Oz were too good a team to ever be dominated by ne one.

 

[stephen]

How did this become a battle of Marshall vs McGrath?

Lillee and Hadlee both had careers that coincided with each other. Both bowlers are rated very similarly and each produced spells which ripped through their opponents on regular occasions. It's almost impossible to tell them apart and whichever one was having a good day would be the deciding factor in telling them apart *on the day*.

Marshall and McGrath are both champions and I would say exactly the same about them, with the caveat that they played in different eras.

Warne vs any of the all time great WI quicks (in this comparison I think Ambrose would be the second picked WI quick) would depend almost entirely on the pitch.

Gillespie was very good but was not quite as good as the third bowler picked (probably Garner or Holding).

Stuart Clark, who was the fourth best Australian bowler in the 1995-2007 period of dominance, was extremely good and during his international tenure was probably better than Gillespie but will not be regarded as highly because of his short career. However, that doesn't make a difference in this hypothetical matchup. Still, I would put even this Clark marginally behind the other of Garner/Holding. But again, the difference is not huge.

So we're left with a slight advantage to the West Indian attack. It's there, but it's nowhere near as huge as people are making out and the quality of a bowling attack is mostly dependent on the top two-three bowlers in the attack anyway (often times the West Indies would dominate even with a mediocre fourth bowler, who would have their stats inflated by being hidden behind three all time great bowlers).

The bench strength would be stronger for the West Indian bowling attack, but again, this is a comparison of hypothetical sides, not their respective bench strength.

The batting comparison is far more in Australia's favour than the bowling comparison is in the WI favour. However, this is necessary as you would need these to face the stronger attack.

All in all I think that the Australian batting more than makes up for the difference in bowling between the sides. However, the winning side would be defined more by the conditions and externalities than anything else (toss, weather, pitch, player form).

The final consideration to make is that with the exception of Hayden, all of the Australian batsmen were far more competent against fast bowling than spin. That fact alone makes this contest worth salivating over. I'd love to see Ponting battle Marshall, Ambrose and Garner.

 

[BlazeDragon]

Dude because just in case u didnt notice two questions were asked. It asked who was more dominant and who was stronger. Oz were a bit more dominant but i dont think they were stronger and if the two 'teams' went head to head i would give the WI the edge. And yeah I am a lil biased towards the WI but to the extent to think that WI would dominate.

Fair enough. You stick to your opinion I'll stick to mine. I see no point in this exchange if you honestly think its a matter of opinion.

I disagree with your opinion. That's about all there is to it.

 

[Slifer]

How did this become a battle of Marshall vs McGrath?

Lillee and Hadlee both had careers that coincided with each other. Both bowlers are rated very similarly and each produced spells which ripped through their opponents on regular occasions. It's almost impossible to tell them apart and whichever one was having a good day would be the deciding factor in telling them apart *on the day*.

Marshall and McGrath are both champions and I would say exactly the same about them, with the caveat that they played in different eras.

Warne vs any of the all time great WI quicks (in this comparison I think Ambrose would be the second picked WI quick) would depend almost entirely on the pitch.

Gillespie was very good but was not quite as good as the third bowler picked (probably Garner or Holding).

Stuart Clark, who was the fourth best Australian bowler in the 1995-2007 period of dominance, was extremely good and during his international tenure was probably better than Gillespie but will not be regarded as highly because of his short career. However, that doesn't make a difference in this hypothetical matchup. Still, I would put even this Clark marginally behind the other of Garner/Holding. But again, the difference is not huge.

So we're left with a slight advantage to the West Indian attack. It's there, but it's nowhere near as huge as people are making out and the quality of a bowling attack is mostly dependent on the top two-three bowlers in the attack anyway (often times the West Indies would dominate even with a mediocre fourth bowler, who would have their stats inflated by being hidden behind three all time great bowlers).

The bench strength would be stronger for the West Indian bowling attack, but again, this is a comparison of hypothetical sides, not their respective bench strength.

The batting comparison is far more in Australia's favour than the bowling comparison is in the WI favour. However, this is necessary as you would need these to face the stronger attack.

All in all I think that the Australian batting more than makes up for the difference in bowling between the sides. However, the winning side would be defined more by the conditions and externalities than anything else (toss, weather, pitch, player form).

The final consideration to make is that with the exception of Hayden, all of the Australian batsmen were far more competent against fast bowling than spin. That fact alone makes this contest worth salivating over. I'd love to see Ponting battle Marshall, Ambrose and Garner.

I say we choose the best possible team from either era and sim a match up:

Oz:

Langer
Hayden
Ponting
Hussey
S Waugh*
D Martyn
Gilchrist+
Warne
Lee/CLarke/Reiffel
Gillespie
Mcgrath

WI:

Greenidge
Haynes
Richards
Kallicharan
Rowe
Lloyd*
Dujon+
Marshall
Holding
Garner
ROberts/Croft/Walsh/Daniels/Clarke/


The Caveat being Oz playing at home under conditions as they were from 00 and beyond when they were at th.eir most ruthless and the WI playing in home conditions as they were in the 80s.

 

[Slifer]

Fair enough. You stick to your opinion I'll stick to mine. I see no point in this exchange if you honestly think its a matter of opinion.

I disagree with your opinion. That's about all there is to it.

Yeah i edited my post. Im biased to the WI but no way in hell would they dominate Oz and vice versa. I could very easily see a home and away series ending in a stalemate tbh

 

[GotSpin]

I say we choose the best possible team from either era and sim a match up:

Oz:

Langer
Hayden
Ponting
Hussey
S Waugh*
D Martyn
Gilchrist+
Warne
Lee/CLarke/Reiffel
Gillespie
Mcgrath

WI:

Greenidge
Haynes
Richards
Kallicharan
Rowe
Lloyd*
Dujon+
Marshall
Holding
Garner
ROberts/Croft/Walsh/Daniels/Clarke/


The Caveat being Oz playing at home under conditions as they were from 00 and beyond when they were at th.eir most ruthless and the WI playing in home conditions as they were in the 80s.

Did Hussey ever actually play with Waugh?

Seems a little unrealistic if you ask me

 

[kyear2]

You'll have to spell this out. I was under the impression that people thought Lillee was the greatest due to having all the weapons; being capable as a tearaway and as a methodical bowler; being a lone-wolf and hunting in a pack; and playing his best against the best (WSC and World XI); etc. That's certainly why I rate him as the greatest fast bowler and that has all to do with performance.

I am sorry, and I dont meant to turn this into a Marshall vs. Aussies bowling thread. But I cant let this one slide.
Persons constantly use WSC to push how great Lillee was during that competition and that he took the most wickets. Now ask them what was his average. They constanly say that if WSC wickets are allowed that it would elevate his stats above the rest of the pantheon. His career average is just below 24 with a strike rate of 52, his WSC stats are even worse, admittedly he bowled the most, but an average of over 26 is hardly sterling work. Pundits constantly state that Marshall exploited the bouncer rule and used the lack of helmets and protective gear to terrorise batsmen, but Lillee also played in this era and his stats pale in comparrison. Additionally Marshall made his debut in 1978, but wasnt a regular until about 82, and didnt reach his peak until 83-84, also making their debut around that time were................Helmets. Watch the clips.
In the seventies, bowlers truely ruled, no protection and fierce pitches ruled the day. Batsmen were truly terrified and these conditions were exploited, almost unfaily mainly by, Lillee, Thompson, Holding and Roberts. We constantly state that its best to compare bowlers with others fron their era, and that is the case Lillee is matched, if not bettered statistically by one man, Michael Holding, who was faster, straighter and even more feared than Lillee. But Lillee was a showman, a National Icon and was Australian. The holes in Lille's resume are wide, 92% of his wickets in 2 countries and lack of exposure/success in the SC, and even with these advantages, still feel behind Holding, far less MM.
Marshall played againts Border, G. Chappell, Gavaskar, Hughes, Miandad, Zaheer, but they surely cant be seen as competition can they. More importantly he played and dominated everywhere, not just where the conditions were helpful.
Australia, especially post 2002, didnt really play on dead tracks so much, as againts dead attacks, Hayden in particular batted outside his crease and tore apart weak attacks, and this epiomised the Australian batting of the Noughties.

 

[kyear2]

It's not that they shouldn't be compared, but that a straight stats comparison is different between pacers and spinners. TBF, this site generally rates Marshall higher than what you'd find elsewhere. You're more likely to read that Warne or Lillee or even Hadlee are the greatest bowlers of all time than Marshall.

Mike Selvey on Malcolm Marshall | Specials | Cricinfo Magazine | ESPN Cricinfo

Stats analysis: Malcolm Marshall | Specials | Cricinfo Magazine | ESPN Cricinfo

Greatest fast bowler of the modern era | Opinion | Cricinfo Magazine | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[Fusion]

BlazeDragon + smalishah, I think that'll do.

BlazeDragon and Smalishah, I know you both saw this post because you both acknowledged it. Use the ignore function if you can't be civil to each other. You're both receiving a warning. If you carry on like this, further action will be taken.