The other Steve Smith question - Who would you try and get him out ?

[RossTaylorsBox]

Bradman would look at DRS and believe that it's controlled by evil spirits who steal some of your life force if you receive three reds.

 

[Slifer]

They had a terrific attack but this idea great players couldn’t score runs against them at all is bollocks. Obviously it’s a big ask, but to say those players would average so low is kind of odd tbh. Why would Tendulkar drop to the mid-30s all of a sudden? Seems bizarre. This sort of stuff actually is revisionism wrt how great they were.

They were fortunate to draw a series here in 81/82 when they were pretty much at their pomp and drew vs Pakistan. Blokes like TOTAB has great series against them, gavaskar too. To suggest a bloke like bradman would suddenly halve his average is kinda odd.

And for this idea about going back to the 80s and having to play them, let them come to the 2010s and bowl 85-90 over per day instead of 70, and see how hard they charge in then.

The Australian side of the late 90s-early 2000s would beat that WI side nine times out of ten in all conditions Nd across all eras. They had better batting depth, an attack leader as great as (better, frankly) than Marshall and an atg spinner plus a keeper batsman who made Dujon look like Tim Paine by comparison. Fmd Gus Logie and Hooper were regs in the WI side after Lloyd retired Nd they averaged 30.

Dude you are high. Australia would beat wi across all eras 9 times out of ten gtfoh. No way would an oz team of the 2000s beat wi in the wi under any circumstances. Australia can have all the batting depth they want but that made no difference in the 05 series vs England. And none of England's bowlers would make a wi xI of the 80s.

 

[a massive zebra]

Dude you are high. Australia would beat wi across all eras 9 times out of ten gtfoh. No way would an oz team of the 2000s beat wi in the wi under any circumstances. Australia can have all the batting depth they want but that made no difference in the 05 series vs England. And none of England's bowlers would make a wi xI of the 80s.

He's Australian, what do you expect?

 

[Slifer]

And apparently a very biased one at that.

 

[Burgey]

Dude you are high. Australia would beat wi across all eras 9 times out of ten gtfoh. No way would an oz team of the 2000s beat wi in the wi under any circumstances. Australia can have all the batting depth they want but that made no difference in the 05 series vs England. And none of England's bowlers would make a wi xI of the 80s.

You’re right, of course. Because the Australian bowlers in that side would simply forget how to bowl when given the same conditions. Hooper, Logie, Dujon and Arthurton - the McWarne killers averaging 30 odd a piece.

 

[a massive zebra]

And apparently a very biased one at that.

In general, I find Australians to be by far the most biased nation of people I have ever come across. They seem to have an innate sense of superiority ingrained in their psyche. Whenever Australians compare their countrymen with people of a similar stature from other countries, they seem incapable of objective analysis and nearly always rank the Australians streets ahead. In fairness, Burgey is far from the worst Australian in this regard. We have another CW member called Stephen who comes across as more biased and we used to have a member called Ikki who was even worse than that.

I think it is fair to say Australia did have more world class batsmen than West Indies and a longer batting lineup. Adam Gilchrist blows Jeff Dujon out of the water as a batsmen and Australia generally had top class batting down to 7, while decent but unexceptional batsmen like Gomes and Logie were regulars in the West Indies side. However, it strikes of desperation when Burgey uses the likes of Hooper and Arthurton as evidence of Australia's superiority given that they didn't play during West Indies very peak period and only came into the side towards the end of their era of dominance. Also, the great Australian sides did at times include batsmen like Blewett and Elliott who were of a similar stature to Logie and Gomes.

On the bowling front, any objective person would agree the West Indies attack was comfortably ahead. ATG top 5 bowler as he undoubtedly was, McGrath clearly was not as consistently devastating around the world as Marshall. And if we ignore the attack leaders, the rest of the West Indies attack was streets ahead of Australia. Guys like Gillespie, Fleming, Kasprowicz and Reiffel were regulars in the Australian side but wouldn't have got close to the West Indies team (except Gillespie for a brief period, nowhere near the 70 Tests he played). You could argue Warne gave the Australian side more variety, but the West Indies attack generally bowled sides out so quickly they didn't really need a spinner.

I think Australia would beat West Indies in Australia, West Indies would beat Australia in West Indies, and results elsewhere would vary depending on the conditions.

 

[Burgey]

They generally bowled out sides who weren’t anywhere near as good as that Australian team. It’s a pretty ****ed up performance on your part to simply assert I’m saying this because it’s an Australian side. It isn’t. I watched both those sides play a shitload of cricket and they were both amazing outfits. But you know, this idea that Australian side automatically folds but the Windies outfit just piles on 500 per innings as though McGrath and Warne are Dodemaide and Peter Sleep is pretty disingenuous

The only reason I favour the Australian side is, as you’ve practially conceded, they had better and deeper batting and a more rounded attack. WI had better openers and number three, having said that. Also reckon you’re selling Larry short fwiw - he was a really good player imo. But their spinning option was Harper ffs and they generally bowled **** all overs in a day, which you can’t do now and which was (legally) gaming the system as it was back then.

It’s bullshit to just assume blokes like Ponting, Waugh, Warne, McGrath would fall in a screaming heap, just as it would be stupid to assume greenidge and Haynes would be **** against McGrath an Warne.

 

[akilana]

This one has potential. Let’s grab some popcorn.

 

[Burgey]

There’s nothing to it bar a difference of opinion mate. They’re two great sides who’ll never play against each other so we are just guessing and giving opinions. I generally enjoy slifer and AMZ’s contributions tbh, whether I agree with them or not. They’re both good contributors imho

 

[Slifer]

Yeah but 9 times out of 10 in any era?? Sorry not going to happen. Australia lost to England with both a bowling and batting attack inferior to the west indies'. Lol I salivate at the prospect of Hayden, Langer, Gilchrist and co facing Marshall and co on an old sabina pitch or Kensington or even an old Perth wicket (without helmets). Australia only started dominating wi after Ambrose retired. Assuming the best of both teams that actually played together we have:

Australia

Hayden
Langer
Ponting
Waugh
Waugh *
Martyn
Gilchrist +
Warne
Gillespie
Lee
McGrath

Vs

Greenidge
Haynes
Richardson
Gomes
Viv
Lloyd*
Dujon+
Marshall
Holding
Garner
Walsh

Yeah Australia has the better batting and supposedly a more rounded attack but they still lost a SERIES to an English team inferior to the west indies.

 

[Gob]

lol that's so flawed logic

 

[Slifer]

How? Australia lost to an English team centered around 4 pace bowlers. Flawed logic is thinking a team who didn't lose to any team in 15 years, would lose 90% of their matches to Australia who couldn't even handle Steve Harmless. Lol

 

[TheJediBrah]

Dude you are high. Australia would beat wi across all eras 9 times out of ten gtfoh. No way would an oz team of the 2000s beat wi in the wi under any circumstances. Australia can have all the batting depth they want but that made no difference in the 05 series vs England. And none of England's bowlers would make a wi xI of the 80s.

this post is worse, and more biased, than Burgey's by a long shot

 

[TheJediBrah]

How? Australia lost to an English team centered around 4 pace bowlers. Flawed logic is thinking a team who didn't lose to any team in 15 years, would lose 90% of their matches to Australia who couldn't even handle Steve Harmless. Lol

Burgey said Aus would win 9/10, you said Aus would never win "under any circumstances"

both pretty poor comments tbh

 

[Slifer]

Actually he said Australia would beat wi 90% in any era any where. All I simply stated that it's unlikely they'd beat WI IN THE WI. Especially under 80s conditions. He opened up pandoras box with that 90% and any era crap. I never ever said Australia wouldn't beat wi . I could see them beating the WI in Australia. Big difference

 

[stephen]

I love how I don't even post for a page and yet get brought up as being completely biased. Perhaps this is for the time I "only" rated Tendulkar as a moderate upgrade on Mark Waugh as an ODI opener. Such bias.

Maybe it's because suggesting that Warne and Murali were very similar with perhaps Warne edging him when conditions were taken into account. Such controversy.

But I'm apparently super biased. At least I'm not as bad as Ikki.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Probably that time you said Anderson would have been the same as Hilfenhaus if he was Australian

Actually he said Australia would beat wi 90% in any era any where. All I simply stated that it's unlikely they'd beat WI IN THE WI. Especially under 80s conditions. He opened up pandoras box with that 90% and any era crap. I never ever said Australia wouldn't beat wi . I could see them beating the WI in Australia. Big difference

Sorry missed the part where you said "in wi".

but you keep bringing up the 1 series Aus lost to England as if somehow proves anything, which it doesn't

 

[stephen]

Probably that time you said Anderson would have been the same as Hilfenhaus if he was Australian



Sorry missed the part where you said "in wi".

but you keep bringing up the 1 series Aus lost to England as if somehow proves anything, which it doesn't

Yeah I guess saying that a highly condition dependent bowler would struggle to get picked in a highly competitive environment where they are not playing in favourable conditions automatically makes me biased. Which is why everyone on the forums rates Ashwin and Jadeja so highly.

 

[Daemon]

Lol Burgey’s 9/10 comment is obviously rubbish. Doesn’t even need to be challenged it’s that warped.

If he would accept that then Slifer wouldn’t even be arguing I’m sure.

 

[morgieb]

Yeah I guess saying that a highly condition dependent bowler would struggle to get picked in a highly competitive environment where they are not playing in favourable conditions automatically makes me biased. Which is why everyone on the forums rates Ashwin and Jadeja so highly.

Because Anderson has only taken wickets in England, right?