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

[Ikki]

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.

Wrong, you are free to pick who you like as long as your reasonings are logical. Unfortunately, the ideologically rigid is yourself.

 

[BlazeDragon]

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.

First of all, when did Flintoff become a specialist bowler? You are complaining about the SA attack and how they had all rounders so how the hell is Flintoff not an all rounder?

As for struggling, what exactly is your definition of struggling? Did you even check the scorecards? Because they England scores were were pretty much the same. The victories England got were by only 2 runs and 3 wickets. Helps to do some research before blabbering doesn't it?

Btw, what exactly happened to Ashley Giles? I missed when it was declared that he was a fast bowler.

As for Australia never facing the a "four-man specialist pace attack" again, did you even watch the 06/07 Ashes? They were missing Simon Jones but they got a pretty worthy replacement who would be James ****ing Anderson. Do you even know what you are talking about?

 

[Spark]

Anderson circa 06/7 was rubbish.

 

[smash84]

awta

 

[kyear2]

Why don't you, subshakerz and kyear2 just have a tea party and be done with this thread.

I suggest you and Blazedragon do the same.

 

[BlazeDragon]

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????

You seem to have the kyear2 syndrome. What exactly is your idea of people? Start a Marshall vs Ambrose thread if you don't believe me and see how many PEOPLE vote for Ambrose.

Funny how you speak of talking without evidence. Where exactly is your "evidence" that Amobrose would have adapted and his average would stayed the same? Because every other bowler's clearly got higher after the 00's.

Oh and who do I expect him to decline against. Oh well I don't know about a dozen batsman of better quality than he faced in his era.

I would say the scorecards are a pretty good evidence as to why Marshall would go down. Unless you wanna debate that the time Mcgrath played was not era of flat tracks. I would really love to see how you go about this argument.

 

[BlazeDragon]

Anderson circa 06/7 was rubbish.

Doesn't change the fact that Oz had to face a four man pace attack though. Simon Jones never really had a series as impressive as the 05 Ashes. So you can pretty much pass that off as a fluke too.

 

[BlazeDragon]

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.

What logical argument did you make really? You couldn't even find something that took me 10 seconds to do on google.

Oh yeah man your not biased in anyways. You made one of the most ridiculous statements in this place by saying Marshall is the Bradman of bowlers and how no others are close to him. So take a look in the mirror before accusing others.

Btw, I am not Australian so don't just assume things.

 

[BlazeDragon]

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.

Funny coming from you really you haven't really backed up any of your statements. Your were even wrong about your latest Ashes statement. Aussies never faced a four man paced attack bar the 05 Ashes right? I laughed hard on that.

Oh yeah man Warne is such a mediocre bowler. Wicket taking ability counts for nothing in cricket. And yeah you have to personally believe that Warne is better than Mcgrath to say he was better than WI bowlers right?

Well your statements are capable of making people laugh I will give you that much though.

 

[BlazeDragon]

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.

It seems quite too much for your ego as well to accept Australia can sure as hell compete at with that bowling attack since the especially since they have the like of Mcgrath and Warne which can be argued better than all their attacks.

Yeah sure its only "nonsense" when it doesn't favor WI right?

 

[BlazeDragon]

Same could be said of your views...But nah, those damn biased Australians!

Yeah man did you not know that Australians are the only ones capable of being bias?

One poster in here actually admits favoring to WI because he grew up in that era, another West Indian poster is going around calling a West Indian bowler the "Bradman of bowlers" and how no others are close to him, 2 Pakistani posters are quite likely arguing for WI because it makes in own side from the 80's look tougher and we are the ones bias here.

Times like this makes me wish that this was the Youtube comments section so I could just come out and say what I really feel about some particular people. Can't do that here since they go whine to mods about I am being too aggressive and I end up getting banned.

 

[kyear2]

Of everything I said on this forum you will constantly harp on one single sentence, which I explained afterwards and admittedly was a over statement.

 

[BlazeDragon]

Of everything I said on this forum you will constantly harp on one single sentence, which I explained afterwards and admittedly was a over statement.

And what "unshakable view" of ours that we didn't back up are you harping on? At least we got something to harp on.

 

[Slifer]

You seem to have the kyear2 syndrome. What exactly is your idea of people? Start a Marshall vs Ambrose thread if you don't believe me and see how many PEOPLE vote for Ambrose.

Funny how you speak of talking without evidence. Where exactly is your "evidence" that Amobrose would have adapted and his average would stayed the same? Because every other bowler's clearly got higher after the 00's.

Oh and who do I expect him to decline against. Oh well I don't know about a dozen batsman of better quality than he faced in his era.

I would say the scorecards are a pretty good evidence as to why Marshall would go down. Unless you wanna debate that the time Mcgrath played was not era of flat tracks. I would really love to see how you go about this argument.

A dozen batsmen of better quality. Like???? Is MM facing these 'quality' batsmen alone or as part of the WI attack he had in the 80s?? If MM would have suffered in the 'flat' era, do u suppose the Oz batsmen would struggle in his?? That logical I think ur missing the point Blaze. Theres is no evidence to suggest MM would struggle since he didnt struggle ne where in his time. further all those bowlers who got worst post '00 (Id like u to name these bowlers since its fairly obvious that Donald and co were nearing retirement) didnt have the luxury (like Mcgrath) of being in an attack that included other great (Warne) and very good bowlers (Gillespie). Lets c Pollock who was Mcgrath-esque prior to 00 fell off post 00 but DOnald also retired around the same time; hope u can grasp where Im going.


Ne way I think Im with Ikki on this (surprise surprise). This topic is as good as dusted and what do u know, the teams r a dead heat (despite there being far fewer actual West Indians on this board than Australians, sorry couldnt help but point this out). U sir Blaze have a great day.

 

[kyear2]

You seem to have the kyear2 syndrome. What exactly is your idea of people? Start a Marshall vs Ambrose thread if you don't believe me and see how many PEOPLE vote for Ambrose.

Funny how you speak of talking without evidence. Where exactly is your "evidence" that Amobrose would have adapted and his average would stayed the same? Because every other bowler's clearly got higher after the 00's.

Oh and who do I expect him to decline against. Oh well I don't know about a dozen batsman of better quality than he faced in his era.

I would say the scorecards are a pretty good evidence as to why Marshall would go down. Unless you wanna debate that the time Mcgrath played was not era of flat tracks. I would really love to see how you go about this argument.

If you want to start a thread lets start a Mcgrath vs Marshall thread as well, and lets see who votes for who, we could even add Warne and Lillee to the poll as well.

Additionally are we to believe that the pitches automatically went dead in 2001 as soon as Amby retired. Or is it more reasonably to assume that the great bowlers of the 90's retired at that point. Ambrose, Donald, Akram ect all retired around that point and thats why batsmen flourished. Or are we just to assume that Mcgrath was just the best who ever lived.
Did you watch cricket today, watch for the difference in that dead pitch when Englands bolwers take the field.

Any way Mcgraths average on the lively pitches up and including the year 2000 (not sure when the curators started to provide dead tracks exactly, proabaly just after Amby retired) was 21.94, on the placid pitches there after 21.29.

Strange that his average didnt go up, but Ambrose and Marshalls would have. Strange isnt it. Judging from Mcgraths stats, their stats may even have improved.

 

[Slifer]

If you want to start a thread lets start a Mcgrath vs Marshall thread as well, and lets see who votes for who, we could even add Warne and Lillee to the poll as well.

Additionally are we to believe that the pitches automatically went dead in 2001 as soon as Amby retired. Or is it more reasonably to assume that the great bowlers of the 90's retired at that point. Ambrose, Donald, Akram ect all retired around that point and thats why batsmen flourished. Or are we just to assume that Mcgrath was just the best who ever lived.
Did you watch cricket today, watch for the difference in that dead pitch when Englands bolwers take the field.

Any way Mcgraths average on the lively pitches up and including the year 2000 (not sure when the curators started to provide dead tracks exactly, proabaly just after Amby retired) was 21.94, on the placid pitches there after 21.29.

Strange that his average didnt go up, but Ambrose and Marshalls would have. Strange isnt it. Judging from Mcgraths stats, their stats may even have improved.

Kyear, I think ur wasting ur breath. Ive used this exact same argument many times before. But please dont start a MM vs Mcgrath thread, I dont think its right to have to sully the careers of one at the expense of the other when its obvious that both were champions and there is but a coat of varnish between them on the all time list.

 

[kyear2]

The reason the averages were lower in the 80's were that the bowlers were better. Lillee, Marshall, Holding, Ambrose, Hadlee, Imran, the 90's like wise. Donald, Pollock, Walsh, Mcgrath.

Marshall is renowned for bowling on dead tracks in India, spinners track in Australia, prepared to blunt the W.I attack and he flourished.

The reason I like Malcolm has nothing to do with where he is from, as a follower of cricket and reading top 5's ect all dominated by batsmen, I wanted to find a bowler who belonged in that crowd, and Marshall was tthe one I found and guess what second was Mcgrath. But because of his pace and agression, and his dominance everywhere Marshall to me was number one.

Also a huge fan of Gilchrist and from I have read and saw on line Hutton, I dont show bias based on country.

 

[stephen]

I think that Malcolm Marshall would have struggled in the modern era. I really believe that had he played post death he would have had trouble rolling his arm over.

In all seriousness, the Malcolm Marshall of the 80s would probably not have quite as good stats in the 00s as he did back then. I firmly believe that he would have averaged something around 21 instead of 20.

 

[BlazeDragon]

A dozen batsmen of better quality. Like???? Is MM facing these 'quality' batsmen alone or as part of the WI attack he had in the 80s?? If MM would have suffered in the 'flat' era, do u suppose the Oz batsmen would struggle in his?? That logical I think ur missing the point Blaze. Theres is no evidence to suggest MM would struggle since he didnt struggle ne where in his time. further all those bowlers who got worst post '00 (Id like u to name these bowlers since its fairly obvious that Donald and co were nearing retirement) didnt have the luxury (like Mcgrath) of being in an attack that included other great (Warne) and very good bowlers (Gillespie). Lets c Pollock who was Mcgrath-esque prior to 00 fell off post 00 but DOnald also retired around the same time; hope u can grasp where Im going.

The question isn't who did Marshall face off against that was as great as the one's Mcgrath did, the question is who is? How many batsman of his era would you really put in the same category as the likes of Tendulkar/Lara etc etc etc.

We have already had the debate of what if we adjust the average of Aus batsman and I think it was said plenty of times that Aus batsmen still comes out quite ahead.

If your are gonna push teammates into this you could do even worse for Marshall since you say that WI bowler were "so much" better than Australian ones. Others like Lillie for example of that era didn't have the luxury of other great and very good bowlers like Marshall did. So you see how this turns out when decide to go down that road?

Ne way I think Im with Ikki on this (surprise surprise). This topic is as good as dusted and what do u know, the teams r a dead heat (despite there being far fewer actual West Indians on this board than Australians, sorry couldnt help but point this out). U sir Blaze have a great day.

There is only 1 Australian in this place that has pushed the Australian case this debate all the way through from the beginning to the end and that's Ikki. And he is being accused of "bias" now even after providing statistical and logical arguments all the way through. So what is the point of there being more Australians if you are just gonna accuse them of being bias since some shallow people in here seems to go by that logic that if you are Australian and you say Australians are better your statement can't be taken seriously no matter what you do.

Btw, are you really gonna tell me that after seeing them dominate for all these years some people of this generation won't be anti Australian?

 

[BlazeDragon]

The reason the averages were lower in the 80's were that the bowlers were better. Lillee, Marshall, Holding, Ambrose, Hadlee, Imran, the 90's like wise. Donald, Pollock, Walsh, Mcgrath.

Absurd statement that can't be proven in any ways. The scores were generally lower in that era even in games that didn't involve those bowlers. That's about as ridiculous as saying that batsman of the modern era scores more because they are just generally tougher.

You say your not biased yet you are showing nothing but bias in that statement towards the 80's.