What the hell kind of response is that?
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Australia (1995-2007) Vs. West Indies (1974-1986)?
- Thread starter BlazeDragon
- Start date
- Status
Outswinger@Pace
International 12th Man
Still no consensus! A 50-50 split. 
Maybe, a five-man committee can be formed with JBMAC, SJS and three other senior, highly respected and objective CW members. This body can pass the final verdict as to which team was the greatest. Thoughts?
Maybe, a five-man committee can be formed with JBMAC, SJS and three other senior, highly respected and objective CW members. This body can pass the final verdict as to which team was the greatest. Thoughts?
akilana
International 12th Man
Laughing @ direness
What direness? Its a true statement. WI batsmen do fall way short even if you adjust to the era.
akilana
International 12th Man
true statement? utter crap
Utter crap? Prove it wrong then. I don't think you knew how to make a debate so you immaturely used a smiley to get your way out of it. If anything was utter crap it was your response to it.
Yet you do it again.oh the irony
We are still waiting for you to prove how its "utter crap" come on. Otherwise you have proven your self to be an all talk you know what.
akilana
International 12th Man
BlazeDragon
Banned
oh the irony
I don't see him shoving off a debate with the use of smileys. The use of smileys in general and the use of smileys to avoid a debate are completely different things.
+1.
I would like to see your debate on this as well. That is if you have any at all.
Last edited:
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
This is just plain silly. You are a comparing a 5-test match series against a top class side to a one day upset against a minnow? The first is a proper thorough examination while the latter is a fluke.
A four-man specialist pace attack is a pretty unique bowling lineup in test cricket, few fields ever field it. Australia never faced it in this period outside of the Ashes 2005 (unless you count SA in the 90s but 1-2 bowlers were usually all-rounders not specialist pacemen). So in comparing them against a WI lineup with such an attack, we are to ignore the one notable time Australia faced something similar though obviously lesser in quality?
The results are telling: Australia only crossed 400 once in the series, not one of the entire top 7 averaged over 50, only 1 averaged over 40, and the ultra-aggressive batting style was put in check. It was a collective batting failure. Am I saying this is conclusive proof that they will do so against the WI? No, but it gives an indication that sometimes Australian batsmens' front foot dominate policy was counter productive, and in facing sustained pressure from all ends, I feel that Waugh apart, they may lack the ability to counter their instincts and buckle down when the situation requires.
Last edited:
Slifer
International Captain
Would love u to name the people who rate Amby along side MM. And regardless of when CC played until, they both played against and had varying successes vs great Indian and Oz batting lineups. If wickets got flatter post 00 Im pretty sure they would have adapted just like Mcgrath. And last but not least u cant just say MM's record would go down without some evidence. Again U put MM in the same exact Oz team that Mcgrath played in (post 00) and I dont see how his stats would change at all. WHo do u expect him to decline against????
kyear2
International Coach
Sorry, but why are you guys arguing againts BlazeDragon and Ikki. They hold an unshakable view, and nothing, no matter how logical can change their minds or opinions. If I wanted too as well I could make an All Time selection with Headley, Richards, Lara, Sobers, Marshall, Ambrose and Holding and all outside of Holding has been mentioned in all time selections or make Cricinfo or ICC fifst or second team selections, and have legitimate claims for selection. And even Holdings stats compare quite favourably with Lillee's, and we know how great he was. But that would not be logical, unless I was an Australian.
Slifer
International Captain
I argue because its quite amusing listening to their reasoning. For example, u know who considers Lillee to be the best fast bowler of all time but then says that a bowler like MM should be pegged down a notch because he played in a more bowler friendly era. He rates MM below Mcgrath for this reason but somehow Lillee above both even though Lillee played in the exact same era as MM.
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
What bias are we suffering from? I'm not a WI fan at all, I just favor them in this particular contest.
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
Yeah, the best was BlazeDragon saying that given that some pundits believe that Warne was better than McGrath, Warne must be better than all other fast bowlers ever even though he doesn't personally believe Warne was better than McGrath. Quite amusing.
I do say that this level of Aussie-first bias does ruin the discussion a bit, because you can always find certain random stats that favor one player or team, but objectively some stats/facts are simply more impressive and obvious than others unless you have blinders on. The conversation will therefore go on in circles. For example, the trivializing of the significant statistical and otherwise advantage of the WI bowling attack, while most of us here acknowledge the batting advantage of Australia. Or saying that the Ashes 2005 Aussie performance and other losses were irrelevant abherrations, or that Australia have less than a percentage point higher winning percentage is more impressive than WI not losing a series in 15 years.
Last edited:
Slifer
International Captain
Yeah that one stuck me the most. I freely accept that Oz had the better batting lineup but apparently for them its too difficult to accept that WI have a similar edge in bowling.
And the lengths they went thru to discredit the WI attacks: overrates, not playing a strong batting side, players without helmets all sorts of other nonsense. When that became futile they started on this whole Mcwarne better than all the WI bowlers like that would ever cover the short comings of Lee and Gillespie.
I would freely admit my somewhat bias towards the WI but its not like I think the WI would ever cake walk over Oz. Seriously comparing Lee and Gillespie to Holding or Garner lol
The Sean
Cricketer Of The Year
You missed my point. I was saying that the answer is "no" and so it only needed to be a one-word article.
Ikki
Hall of Fame Member
You are misrepresenting why I think Lillee is better than both, and it isn't because one bowled in a bowler-friendly era. I made a post about why I think Lillee is the best not too long ago, try to find it, and read it.
But you're as bad, if not worse, than those that are.
But over-rates and the batting line-ups they faced are two huge differences.
In the bolded, you are misrepresenting what was said, again.
Why don't you, subshakerz and kyear2 just have a tea party and be done with this thread.
- Status