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

[smash84]

Oh and yes Im a huge WI fan and I think I can guess rather accurately that u r an Oz fan. Nothing wrong with that at all. Oz are by far the greatest cricketing nation on earth.

Currently they are not

agree that australia have the greatest pedigree in cricket.

lol @ the hope comment

 

[subshakerz]

He was promoted to an opening bowler, not spearhead. McDermott, who you say was past his best, was the spearhead, ironically.

This doesn't change the fact that Australia were never no.1 before McGrath came into the team and started performing.

Lee has an SR of 62 against SA which is better than McGrath's. Against the best batting opposition of his day - India - he strike at 57 balls a wicket. Let's not forget how he debuted against a strong WIndies batting line-up in 2000 and struck at 32 for the series.

In fact, Lee only has really 3 opponents where his SRs are high, and ironically 2 of them are Bangladesh and Zimbabwe. The other is Pakistan against whom he only played 3 Tests. Your point holds little water. As I said, if we want to be that pedantic we can do so with the others too.

Man, you are stretching it. A strikerate of 57 against India is impressive? You really are losing credibiliy when you are describing the washed up WI batting of 2000 as strong, look at the wickets he got. McGrath's at least managed a good SR against India and England.

Brett Lee in his career record has nothing to suggest that he will run through the WI at the same rate as McGrath, sorry.

 

[Ikki]

It's a cop out to suggest that his claim to fame is solely his performances as well. Warne came at a time when spin was dead in Australia and revived it. He was a natural entertainer and a colorful character. He made spin ***y again. He had the substantial backing of the English press when he started out that hyped him into a league of his own. All of this contributed to his legend.

None of this takes away from the fact that his actual performances, while impressive enough to be considered a legend, have been bettered by several bowlers already in cricket history.

Again, cop-out. I have no problem with you thinking other bowlers are better, but the reason why is a cop-out. If only you could have watched Warne often enough to know that he was a great entertainer because he made things happen on the pitch, with his bowling.

Who has the most fans doesn't mean anything tbh. Tendulkar has the greatest number of fans. Doesn't mean he becomes the greatest of all time. Nobody is actually claiming that his claim to fame is things other than performance but it is quite disingenuous to suggest that his performances alone makes him the greatest bowler of all time when clearly there is a very strong case for other bowlers.

I don't mean fans in terms of normal people - I am talking about when panels of experts, past and present have gotten together to rate people.

I don't think it is disingenuous at all to suggest because of his performances he is rated higher. The problem is, not all performances garner the same statistical importance and it is in that, that people like yourself have a hard time grasping why so many other people will rate one player over the other, in spite of their supposed statistical inferiority.

I'll give you an example: there may have been many times where McGrath will finish 2 for 40 or 3 for 60; but Warne takes 4 for 100. Statistically, McGrath comes out ahead; but in terms of the effect on the match, Warne has a much bigger role (especially considering he usually took big wickets or the batsmen that were generally troubling us most).

It's because of a lot of games like this, when in retrospect people look at the stats that they feel McGrath is getting the short end of the stick or Warne got too much attention for his theatrics but it's wrong. Warne got big attention because of his match-changing performances. He continued to grow in repute for replicating it time and time again, when it was expected of him. Unlike a lot of players he also had physical and personal impediments. He became a different bowler after the 90s, after his injuries. He could no longer use all his tricks, but he still thrived - in the 00s he strikes as fast as McGrath does, just to give you an idea. It's because of all these intricacies you may not appreciate just how good a player may be. I admit myself, if I hadn't watched Warne and were judging him maybe in the future, I would be skeptical.

These are things you may not consider when you look at strict scorecards, but these are things that are in the mind of many of these experts or even fans, when they rate these players. That's why I do put weight on these opinions - I don't want to be missing out on another Warne.

 

[subshakerz]

Again, cop-out. I have no problem with you thinking other bowlers are better, but the reason why is a cop-out. If only you could have watched Warne often enough to know that he was a great entertainer because he made things happen on the pitch, with his bowling.

I watched Warne plenty. No doubt his bowling was much more entertaining to watch than McGrath's, just like I would rather watch Lillee than Hadlee. But my biggest gripe with Warne is really his performance against India, or lack thereof. If he didn't have that hole in in his record, I could conceivably put him in the upper upper bracket (though in the end, I will probably go for a fast bowler given that they are less dependent on conditions being in their favor than spinners). Same with Lillee, I strongly feel that his lack of performance in the subcontinent means he left one of the greatest tests for a fast bowler unchecked.

I attach tremendous value in a player proving himself in different conditions against different opposition, its one of the beauties of cricket that you have so many different conditions and pitches to test players out.

 

[The Sean]

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.

You're obviously looking at the WSC stats that don't include the match between Australia and RoW in New Zealand in 78/79, which most people include in the WSC "Test" stats but some sources don't.

Without that match, Lillee took 67 WSC wickets at 26-odd. With it included he took 79 wickets at 23.91, so almost identical to his official Test average, but with a far better strike rate.

Lillee's reputation in WSC is based on more than just his wicket tally anyway.

 

[Ikki]

I watched Warne plenty. No doubt his bowling was much more entertaining to watch than McGrath's, just like I would rather watch Lillee than Hadlee. But my biggest gripe with Warne is really his performance against India, or lack thereof. If he didn't have that hole in in his record, I could conceivably put him in the upper upper bracket (though in the end, I will probably go for a fast bowler given that they are less dependent on conditions being in their favor than spinners). Same with Lillee, I strongly feel that his lack of performance in the subcontinent means he left one of the greatest tests for a fast bowler unchecked.

I attach tremendous value in a player proving himself in different conditions against different opposition, its one of the beauties of cricket that you have so many different conditions and pitches to test players out.

That's fair enough. Those are real reasons I can appreciate even if I don't agree with. Thanks at least for clarifying.

 

[Ikki]

This doesn't change the fact that Australia were never no.1 before McGrath came into the team and started performing.

Australia was already seen as the best team by then, just officially after that series. And again; we achieved it without him spearheading or even opening that WIndies series. It may have been sustained later on, but the idea that we were rubbish without McGrath is just not real. It's a revision of history. It was only until the later part of the 90s that McGrath was seen as such an important figure.

Man, you are stretching it. A strikerate of 57 against India is impressive? You really are losing credibiliy when you are describing the washed up WI batting of 2000 as strong, look at the wickets he got. McGrath's at least managed a good SR against India and England.

Brett Lee in his career record has nothing to suggest that he will run through the WI at the same rate as McGrath, sorry.

Let's put it this way: none of the WIndies bowlers you care to mention played anything near as strong as the Indian line-up that Lee faced. So yes, an SR of 57 is pretty good. It sure as hell is not slow. By that account, Holding has nothing to suggest he would strike quickly through the Australian line-up anything like, even Lee. How about Garner? His SR against Pakistan - the other strong team of his era - is 53 - it's actually 54 when they were actually strong. And that batting line-up can't compare to what India's was. Is that slow? No, neither is Lee's.

Let's also not forget that Lee's figures are somewhat ruined by his last series in India where he was bowling sick. Discounting that last series he actually strikes at 47.5 against them.

Lara, Chanderpaul and Sarwan were washed up? You really going to use that as an excuse to explain how Lee was striking in the 30s for that series? Come on. The only 3 teams Lee strikes slowly against is Bangladesh, Zimbabwe and Pakistan. The rest of his SRs are fine, if not fantastic.

 

[subshakerz]

Australia was already seen as the best team by then, just officially after that series. And again; we achieved it without him spearheading or even opening that WIndies series. It may have been sustained later on, but the idea that we were rubbish without McGrath is just not real. It's a revision of history. It was only until the later part of the 90s that McGrath was seen as such an important figure.

No, I recall Richie Richardson thinking that the Aussie outfit that came to WI were the worst he had seen, how could they already have been considered no.1? Nobody is saying that Australia were rubbish before that, but it took McGrath's coming into the side and performing before they became no.1, even if he was recognized later as one of the best in the world. That's just a matter of fact.

Let's put it this way: none of the WIndies bowlers you care to mention played anything near as strong as the Indian line-up that Lee faced. So yes, an SR of 57 is pretty good. It sure as hell is not slow. By that account, Holding has nothing to suggest he would strike quickly through the Australian line-up anything like, even Lee. How about Garner? His SR against Pakistan - the other strong team of his era - is 53 - it's actually 54 when they were actually strong. And that batting line-up can't compare to what India's was.

I don't think an SR of 57 is going to be keeping the WI awake at night. You are missing the point. You suggested that Lee will take his wickets as fast as McGrath, and an SR of 57 is not that.

Lara, Chanderpaul and Sarwan were washed up? You really going to use that as an excuse to explain how Lee was striking in the 30s for that series? Come on. The only 3 teams Lee strikes slowly against is Bangladesh, Zimbabwe and Pakistan. The rest of his SRs are fine, if not fantastic.

Chanderpaul and Sarwan were hardly the players they are now in 2000. What about England and South Africa?

 

[Ikki]

No, I recall Richie Richardson thinking that the Aussie outfit that came to WI were the worst he had seen, how could they already have been considered no.1? Nobody is saying that Australia were rubbish before that, but it took McGrath's coming into the side and performing before they became no.1, even if he was recognized later as one of the best in the world. That's just a matter of fact.

The one that almost beat them was the worse he'd seen? Funny.

McGrath was in the team since 93 and we weren't #1. Sure, he improved and eventually became the spearhead; but not until 96-97. Now that is a matter of fact.

I don't think an SR of 57 is going to be keeping the WI awake at night. You are missing the point. You suggested that Lee will take his wickets as fast as McGrath, and an SR of 57 is not that.

It doesn't have to. The point is that the SR of 57 was achieved against a batting line-up none of the WIndies have faced. So if SRs based on performances they've achieved is anything to go by, then the WIndies bowlers themselves can't claim to have an equivalent stat. Holding has nothing near it, actually, and Garner is only slightly better.

This is, again, ignoring the fact that Lee was actually striking below 50 until his last series against India.

Chanderpaul and Sarwan were hardly the players they are now in 2000. What about England and South Africa?

England hardly had a good batting line-up until someway into the 00s. You seem to argue with me about a point - team strength at a time - and then make a point which flies in the face of that.

Again, if Lee's SR against S.Africa is not fast, then what is McGrath's? Stop picking and choosing as you please.

 

[kyear2]

Still waiting to see some of the people who rate Warne, Hadlee and Mcgrath (preferably non Australian jounalists), who rate all of them ahead of Marshall.

 

[stephen]

*sigh* this thread has become boring. All this arguing over strike rates in tests is quite dull. Noone considers Davidson a bad bowler for his strike rate of 62. In fact, most would place him in or near the all time Australian XI.

The one advantage that Warne gives Australia over the West Indies is someone who can bowl thirty-forty overs a day if necessary. If the batsmen last that long. The West Indies are either required to play part time spinners to do this or dramatically slow down over rates when things aren't going their way. No matter how good they are, if you have four quicks each bowling 22-23 overs a day they're going to get pretty tired. It also means that there really isn't anything you can do to a set batsman to change the pace of the game. A Steve Waugh 150 over a day and a half could win the game for Australia as much for what it would do to the bowlers as for the runs he'd make. If the WIndies bowled part timers it wouldn't matter how good their main quicks are, that would be 10-15 overs a day of ineffective attack to belt around the park.

Having said that, any captain would be salivating at their bowling options with Marshall, Holding, Garner and Ambrose (Walsh if you include the cutoff to be 86 or whatever arbitrary year people in this thread have decided on) to choose from.

 

[Ikki]

Still waiting to see some of the people who rate Warne, Hadlee and Mcgrath (preferably non Australian jounalists), who rate all of them ahead of Marshall.

Maybe you've heard of ESPNs Legends of cricket or Wisden's top 100?

 

[Slifer]

Australia was already seen as the best team by then, just officially after that series. And again; we achieved it without him spearheading or even opening that WIndies series. It may have been sustained later on, but the idea that we were rubbish without McGrath is just not real. It's a revision of history. It was only until the later part of the 90s that McGrath was seen as such an important figure.



Let's put it this way: none of the WIndies bowlers you care to mention played anything near as strong as the Indian line-up that Lee faced. So yes, an SR of 57 is pretty good. It sure as hell is not slow. By that account, Holding has nothing to suggest he would strike quickly through the Australian line-up anything like, even Lee. How about Garner? His SR against Pakistan - the other strong team of his era - is 53 - it's actually 54 when they were actually strong. And that batting line-up can't compare to what India's was. Is that slow? No, neither is Lee's.Let's also not forget that Lee's figures are somewhat ruined by his last series in India where he was bowling sick. Discounting that last series he actually strikes at 47.5 against them.

Lara, Chanderpaul and Sarwan were washed up? You really going to use that as an excuse to explain how Lee was striking in the 30s for that series? Come on. The only 3 teams Lee strikes slowly against is Bangladesh, Zimbabwe and Pakistan. The rest of his SRs are fine, if not fantastic.

Havent read the entire exchange but please dont tell me that u think there is ne comparison between Brett Lee and Garner or Holding


And FTR since u keep harpin on this strong batting lineup issue. Ambrose and Walsh (u know contemporaries of MM, Garner and Holding) both played vs some of those same strong batting lineups. Walsh in particular was exceptional vs India (ordinary vs oz) and great vs RSA. Amby was exceptional vs Oz (ordinary vs India) and great vs RSA. Again this notion that WI of the 80s didnt face ne challengin lineups really needs to be put to bed. And just in case u insist I think Ive provided enough irrefutable evidence to show that strpng batting lineups are not a hindrance to great WI bowlers or attacks.

 

[smash84]

awta. Just asking Matthew Hayden how he felt facing Ambrose and Walsh at their peaks.

 

[smash84]

As i mentioned that the Pakistan batting that WI faced in 1980 and 1986 was arguably a much better batting unit than any fielded in the latter years. Also the Indian batting in the 80s was not ordinary by any means. They had Gavaskar, Vengsarkar, Vishwanath and lower down the order they had firepower in Kapil so the batting that WI had to face was pretty decent if not to the level of the Indian line-up in the 00s. Pakistan in the 00s was a terrible side.

 

[The Sean]

awta. Just asking Matthew Hayden how he felt facing Ambrose and Walsh at their peaks.

He probably considers it to have been a great learning experience for himself on his way to reaching his own peak years later.

 

[Ikki]

Havent read the entire exchange but please dont tell me that u think there is ne comparison between Brett Lee and Garner or Holding


And FTR since u keep harpin on this strong batting lineup issue. Ambrose and Walsh (u know contemporaries of MM, Garner and Holding) both played vs some of those same strong batting lineups. Walsh in particular was exceptional vs India (ordinary vs oz) and great vs RSA. Amby was exceptional vs Oz (ordinary vs India) and great vs RSA. Again this notion that WI of the 80s didnt face ne challengin lineups really needs to be put to bed. And just in case u insist I think Ive provided enough irrefutable evidence to show that strpng batting lineups are not a hindrance to great WI bowlers or attacks.

If you think this discussion I am having with subshakerz is about Lee being as good as Garner or Holding, you haven't been reading it properly.

It was about the inaccuracy of using a stat against one opponent to predict how a bowler would do against an all-time great side. If Lee is being penalised for striking at ~62 against S.Africa, so should McGrath. If it's so important, then Holding is out of luck - he didn't even play against Pakistan. And IIRC none of the WIndies played a batting line-up consisting the strength of something like India's.

Personally, I say let's keep it simple; let's just use their base stat. I could appreciate the distinction subshakerz brings if Lee was uniformly bad against all but his performances against minnows bumps his SR up; but that isn't the case - ironically, it's the opposite; Lee's SR is lower without them.

As i mentioned that the Pakistan batting that WI faced in 1980 and 1986 was arguably a much better batting unit than any fielded in the latter years. Also the Indian batting in the 80s was not ordinary by any means. They had Gavaskar, Vengsarkar, Vishwanath and lower down the order they had firepower in Kapil so the batting that WI had to face was pretty decent if not to the level of the Indian line-up in the 00s. Pakistan in the 00s was a terrible side.

And yet, neither batting line-up compares to something like Sehwag, Dravid, Tendulkar, Ganguly and Laxman.

 

[smash84]

And yet, neither batting line-up compares to something like Sehwag, Dravid, Tendulkar, Ganguly and Laxman.

True. But the time that they ran into this line-up they did lose, also won once, and drew twice? But the bowling attack was quite ordinary too when they lost in 2001. Newbie Zaheer and Harbhajan and the likes of Venkatesh Prasad, Bahutule and Venkatapthy Raju. Also I remember Tendy bowling a bit in that 2001 series. The bowling attack was as bad as the batting was good. The Aussies sure don't gain any points losing to this attack.

 

[BlazeDragon]

You yourself don't find Warne>McGrath, neither do I. So, using your non-statistical argument, Warne should be still behind Marshall/Ambrose given that it's still highly debatable that McGrath is better than them.

The people who rate Warne higher than Mcgrath have some pretty good reasons behind them. Just because I don't agree with them doesn't mean that I don't respect their opinion.

The reason why I agree Warne being better than Marshall/Ambrose and but not Mcgrath because there are some things that applies to Mcgrath in particular which doesn't to Marshall/Ambrose. If you are gonna ask me what they are its gonna have to be turned into a Mcgrath vs Warne debate which I have no interest in starting. There are way too many bowler vs bowler debates going on already.

Anyways, this adjustment is not a particularly strong argument anyways, as I dont consider a 1-2 point difference to be the be all and end all in determining who is a better bowler. You need to look at the collective package (SR, excellence in many conditions, bowling skills, how often they've been dominated, player testimonials, etc). By that count, Marshall just edges McGrath, then comes Ambrose, and Warne lags behind.

All of those are a matter of opinion. I don't think Marshall edges Mcgrath in anyways and neither do I agree about Warne.

 

[kyear2]

Maybe you've heard of ESPNs Legends of cricket or Wisden's top 100?

That actually proves my point. Take a look at the panel one day.
Additionally Marshall made the final XI for both named squads, and Mcgrath and Hadlee neither.

I just love how people use stats when it is conveniant for them. Warne is statistically behind a bowler of his era, but they all still say he is ahead, and when Murali's stats are disected, one has to agree, but not by miles. But how can people look at Lillee's stats there are no justification for his lofty position. There is no way to break it down to show he is better than MM, other than bravado. Sobers at the end of his career, with Lillee at his peak, destroyed him. Of all the bowlers who enhanced their reputations during WSC, he wasnt one, while Viv and Barry and G. Chappell all proved their class.
With batsmen, stats can never tell the true story, with bowlers its another story, you either take wickets at a low SR and Avg or you dont. Lillee had extremely helpful pitches, trusting captains and GREAT slip and close in fielders, yet he still falls short of Marshall, and even Mcgrath, Ambrose, Khan and Hadlee.
Please explain to the slow.