Woof, yeah that 2004 batting roster is pretty insane. Bond & Anderson would be a good shout to make up the bowling attack.
Harper barely bowled though. Probably only came on for long spells in favorable situations.This is simply not true either.. Windies won a bunch against India in India with 4 seamers. Something that Aussie side could never do (bagel India in India in a test series). The point here is unless it is an absolute rank turner, Warne is really not gonna make a difference AFAIC, especially given the quality of whoever the 4th seamer is in the 80s Windies side. Even Australia won in India when they finally played with 3 seamers and stopped picking a spinner just for the sake of it. And Hooper did bowl a lot in the 90s, but not in the 80s. Also, fun fact, Harper, who was their main spinner in the 80s, averages 28 or 29 per wicket. Not all that far off Warney as you may have thought.
Marshall did play then; not sure if in 1980 but pretty sure he made his debut in 78/79. Border shouldn't really be left out for any of Miandad, Chappell, or Botham IMO.
Forgot Miller, I'd bring him in as a bowling all-rounder for Cowie.
Good call, thought Marshall was a 1981 debutante for some reason. Border is by all means an excellent call. How would your 1980 XI look?
I would love to see how many tests other teams won against India in India in the 80s. I am not talking about being defeated by India. But India were strong enough to hold off most other good teams and attacks to draws in favorable conditions. And the ATG Australia team only managed to win there once, for all this talk about them being better balanced and what not. And they drew against India in Australia too. You don't know if Windies were ever good or bad with their plan B because their plan A almost always worked. We do know about the ATG Australia's plan B and it DID NOT work against India in India. And if you think a side with Sadagopan Ramesh and Shiv Sundar Das opening was better than the one that played in the 80s, I don't know what to tell you. The entire 2001 series was basically Dravid, Laxman, Sachin, Harbhajan Vs Australia and they still won. Same with Windies in 99 against Australia - basically Ambrose, Walsh and Lara were enough to make 2-2 (result may well have been different in Antigua too had Lara's injury not flared up again, limiting him severely with the bat in that test).
The Indian team of 80s was better than indian team of 90s. Growing up and watching cricket from early 90s, I could vividly remember that there was a sense of hopelessness in that Indian team. Not even a single victory outside subcontinent through this decade. We got beaten by Zimbabwe in late 90s lol. Whereas, in 80s, we achieved quite a bit. Held Australia to 2 drawn series down under, won 2-0 in England. India was made to look a bit worse than we were, by the ATG WI team, as simple as that.
Plan B is over-rated. Plan A would work well in even alien conditions. Proof needed ? Watch Holding's bowling on a flat pitch in Oval 76 or Marshall's and Holding's performances in India in 1983. And we are adding Ambrose and Garner.
Can't say that I agree that India 90s was worse than their 80s counterparts. Obviously, stephen is making his over the top assertions to prove that Oz beat a better team than wi 80s (even though the oz away win was in 04). But the 90s Indian team especially at home were tough. And the 2000 teams tougher. What Australia did in 04 was monumental, no two ways about that. And even though the 80s Indian teams were slightly weaker (not far worse per Stephen) wi blanking them in both the tests and odis was outstanding. And FWIW wi also blanked Pakistan in the tests and odis in the 80s series in Pakistan. That imo was just as impressive.
Hadlee played his last professional cricket game in 1990
