What made the mid-1980s Indian ODI team so good?

[Daemon]

Devon Smith has one of the ATG cricinfo profile pix

 

[pardus]

I remember I was so relieved (for India) in 1987 World Cup when India fell in a different group from the West Indies.
I had no doubt that India would have had little to no chance against that Windies side if they met in the World Cup.

Even though the West Indies were without the services of Marshall & Greenidge in 1987 World Cup, they were still
a formidable side. Patrick Patterson's pace looked super scary. My hunch (of India being lucky to be in different group
from the West Indies) was kind of proven correct, in the home ODI series India played with the West Indies immediately
after the 1987 World Cup.

I think they played 7 or 8 ODIs in India, and India was pretty much blown away (they only won 1 match of the 7 or 8).

In 1987 World Cup, England & Pakistan did the tough & dirty job of removing Windies from the World Cup. In one of the
Pak-Windies league matches, Pak required 14 runs off the final over with just 1 wicket in hand (10 runs off last 3 balls).
Abdul Qadir unbelievably took Pakistan to victory scoring a 6 over long off, and a 4 to thirdman off Courtney Walsh's bowling.

If West Indies had won that match, they would have qualified for the Semis instead of Pakistan.

After India's upset win over the Windies in 1983 WC Finals, we lost 9 ODI matches in a row against them.
In fact India-West Indies ODI head-to-head for rest of the decade of 80s (after 1983 WC Finals) was an abysmal 3 wins - 23 losses.

1980s West Indies were a phenomenal ODI team, just overwhelming their opposition through pure skill & talent. They really didn't
need to rely much on strategy etc.
They won multiple Benson & Hedges three-nation ODI series in Australia, they won in Sharjah, they also won several bilateral ODI series
(in India, in Pakistan, in England, and at home).

 

[h_hurricane]

Botham at least had the 5 point difference, and halfway though his career it was more like 12-15 points - we all know Botham stayed on too long

But yeah did Kapil ever have a point where he had a massive difference between batting and bowling average? 32-26 or something like that before falling away at the end? or did he always hover around 31/29

coz really Shane Watson with his batting average of 35 and bowling average of 33 looks just as useful to a team lineup on paper - but he's considered a test failure

so i guess it's just interesting to me how a long career can smooth over unimpressive averages, mainly when it comes to all-rounders

Watson was a Stokes without the same longevity. Not good enough to be in a decent team on batting or bowling alone.

Kapil was different. He was good enough to be a 4th seamer in the WI team of his era or 3rd seamer of the Australian side of 90s or 2000s. Yes, he was a 'boringly' consistent cricketer. Always hovering around 29/31. But how can that be held against him lol. You could have different paths in your career but still end up with a similar record. Botham had 12-15 runs difference in batting and bowling, but that thought process of breaking his career into halves would have had merit if he had ended up with lets say 100 wickets and 1000 runs more than Kapil. He didn't.

You could shave away 20 runs from Kapil's batting average and reduce his bowling average by 5 runs. 24/11 is still ATG level.

 

[honestbharani]

I mean we literally have hb in another thread saying 8 tests is enough to judge whether Warne's flipper was effective against Indians so I'm not sure where this Indians love longevity thing is coming from tbh.

I thought we were past nationalistic lines of posting, with the exception of Stephen/HB and semi trolls like TJB.

Only when responding to stephen/tjb, Daemon... Otherwise, I have argued against many Indian players right here on this site. When it comes to biased posting, the Aussies on this forum do have us Indians beat.


And FWIW mr2, the regardance of longevity as a criteria to measure greatness could be just like any other criteria you use to define greatness. It is pretty idiottic to assume it is only because of nationality. And I have not seen any of the Indian fans here be inconsistent with the use of longevity as a definition for greatness.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Watson was a Stokes without the same longevity. Not good enough to be in a decent team on batting or bowling alone.

Kapil was different. He was good enough to be a 4th seamer in the WI team of his era or 3rd seamer of the Australian side of 90s or 2000s. Yes, he was a 'boringly' consistent cricketer. Always hovering around 29/31. But how can that be held against him lol. You could have different paths in your career but still end up with a similar record. Botham had 12-15 runs difference in batting and bowling, but that thought process of breaking his career into halves would have had merit if he had ended up with lets say 100 wickets and 1000 runs more than Kapil. He didn't.

You could shave away 20 runs from Kapil's batting average and reduce his bowling average by 5 runs. 24/11 is still ATG level.

Surely that's a stretch

Only when responding to stephen/tjb, Daemon... Otherwise, I have argued against many Indian players right here on this site. When it comes to biased posting, the Aussies on this forum do have us Indians beat.

lol it's almost always you that starts it dude

 

[vcs]

Kapil was brilliant, bowling on unforgiving Asian pitches with virtually zero support. Awesome against the WI, brilliant in Australia, destructive in ODIs. He wasn't as good as Imran or Hadlee, no shame in that, but still awesome.

 

[mr_mister]

Only when responding to stephen/tjb, Daemon... Otherwise, I have argued against many Indian players right here on this site. When it comes to biased posting, the Aussies on this forum do have us Indians beat.


And FWIW mr2, the regardance of longevity as a criteria to measure greatness could be just like any other criteria you use to define greatness. It is pretty idiottic to assume it is only because of nationality. And I have not seen any of the Indian fans here be inconsistent with the use of longevity as a definition for greatness.

I feel it's something sunilz did quite a bit last year/2018 while discussing Sachin - I think you possibly were on a sabbatical from this site around that time

 

[GoodAreasShane]

Devon Smith didn't stick around at the top level though. He spent more time dropped than in the team.

The fact that he was pretty much never more than a couple of matches away from getting a random recall counts as sticking around to me

Frankly more than anything I just wanted to talk about something else apart from this same old tedious Aus v Ind wankfest

 

[h_hurricane]

Surely that's a stretch

Why would that be ? If you observe a real WI bowling attack of 80s, it was always Marshall, Garner, Holding and someone else (Baptiste, Harper etc). Or Marshall, Ambrose, Walsh and (2 Benjamins, Patterson etc). Would you be saying Kapil Dev wasn't as good as any of these 4th seamers ?

 

[honestbharani]

I feel it's something sunilz did quite a bit last year/2018 while discussing Sachin - I think you possibly were on a sabbatical from this site around that time

Maybe, but from whatever I saw of sunilz after I have been back, he has been consistent with his criteria and stuff, whatever be his bias. And remember I went against him to bat for Lara in Lara V Sachin.

 

[h_hurricane]

I also believe many Indians here do consider ATG bats from other countries at the same level as Sachin or even better. I, for one, rate Sobers and Richards a bit higher and Lara as Tendulkar's equal. And neither of them have Tendulkar's longevity.

 

[mr_mister]

I also believe many Indians here do consider ATG bats from other countries at the same level as Sachin or even better. I, for one, rate Sobers and Richards a bit higher and Lara as Tendulkar's equal. And neither of them have Tendulkar's longevity.

oh wow no you're going too far the other way having Viv ahead of him

Viv was literally Langer/Martyn level(in terms of output) for like, 85% of his career. But with a worse century ratio. Basically if Voges stayed in the side for several more years after his Bradman like beginning. And nobody can really claim different eras or something because most of the era's toughest bowlers were on his team.

https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/e...an;template=results;type=batting;view=innings

Viv's level of overratedness is the stuff of legends to me. After 1976 he was only ATVG - I don't even him place him on Sachin/Lara/Sobers level let alone above any of them

i guess his swagger and personality counted for a lot

 

[h_hurricane]

oh wow no you're going too far the other way having Viv ahead of him

Viv was literally Langer/Martyn level(in terms of output) for like, 85% of his career. But with a worse century ratio. Basically if Voges stayed in the side for several more years after his Bradman like beginning. And nobody can really claim different eras or something because most of the era's toughest bowlers were on his team.

https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/e...an;template=results;type=batting;view=innings

Viv's level of overratedness is the stuff of legends to me. After 1976 he was only ATVG - I don't even him place him on Sachin/Lara/Sobers level let alone above any of them

i guess his swagger and personality counted for a lot

Why would 1976 be taken away from him though ? It isn't as if some one else scored his runs. Viv still ended up with an ATG average of 50+ while also possessing the intangibles which separate him from a lot of 50+ averaging batsmen.

One example :
https://www.espncricinfo.com/series...ia-1st-test-india-tour-of-west-indies-1982-83

There one was heading towards a boring draw until Roberts cleaned up the tail. WI had to score 170 of 26 to win it. No way they would have won it without Richards's counter attacking 61(36).
I am stating this at the risk of being pulled down by my own countrymen, but,put Tendulkar in a similar situation, he would have settled for a cute 30*(36).

 

[honestbharani]

I don't think Sachin would have "settled" but I don't think he would have been capable of an innings like the one Richards played, even if he tried his best. But I am sure there are knocks that Sachin played that Viv could not have played even if he tried his best.

 

[Arachnodouche]

@h_hurricane: That's being unfair on Sachin, no? Was he ever in a situation where there was a victory to be had but he closed shop prematurely?

 

[TheJediBrah]

I am stating this at the risk of being pulled down by my own countrymen, but,put Tendulkar in a similar situation, he would have settled for a cute 30*(36).

lol

I don't think Sachin would have "settled" but I don't think he would have been capable of an innings like the one Richards played, even if he tried his best. But I am sure there are knocks that Sachin played that Viv could not have played even if he tried his best.

@h_hurricane: That's being unfair on Sachin, no? Was he ever in a situation where there was a victory to be had but he closed shop prematurely?

yea

 

[h_hurricane]

I could remember one example here. Not pulling down Sachin here, he was amazing, and he could play other flavors of innings that Viv couldn't. And yeah, greatness comes in different colors.

https://www.espncricinfo.com/series...ndia-4th-test-india-tour-of-australia-2003-04 (he didn't unleash in the second innings, remember watching it, left several harmless deliveries outside off when there was a target to be put up.) Felt a bit disappointed as there was a historical achievement so near.

 

[ankitj]

Is economy of 4 that impressive for the 80s?

Yes, that's the point.

 

[pardus]

oh wow no you're going too far the other way having Viv ahead of him

Viv was literally Langer/Martyn level(in terms of output) for like, 85% of his career. But with a worse century ratio. Basically if Voges stayed in the side for several more years after his Bradman like beginning. And nobody can really claim different eras or something because most of the era's toughest bowlers were on his team.

https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/e...an;template=results;type=batting;view=innings

Viv's level of overratedness is the stuff of legends to me. After 1976 he was only ATVG - I don't even him place him on Sachin/Lara/Sobers level let alone above any of them

i guess his swagger and personality counted for a lot

Your view is understandable since you most likely never watched him bat live, especially at his peak.
Nevertheless going on pure stats, I wonder how Viv always made it to top-10 in DoG's ratings which
are reasonably objective (and I think he was the only batsman from his era to make it to the top-10).

Because, like you, I too think Vivs stats aren't particularly great.

I also think Viv hung around way too long. He should have called it a day after his final series in Aus
in 1988.

For me tho, since I watched Viv bat live, and always rooted against him, you can say in a way I am
suffering from PTSD caused by Viv's batting. I could never appreciate him when he was playing. It
was only long after he retired I realized how amazing he was.

And just like Imran, Holding, Lillee etc, I too would throw the stats book out of the window when it comes
to Viv. But I fully understand if current generation does rate Viv through stats.

 

[mr_mister]

Why would 1976 be taken away from him though ? It isn't as if some one else scored his runs. Viv still ended up with an ATG average of 50+ while also possessing the intangibles which separate him from a lot of 50+ averaging batsmen.

One example :
https://www.espncricinfo.com/series...ia-1st-test-india-tour-of-west-indies-1982-83

There one was heading towards a boring draw until Roberts cleaned up the tail. WI had to score 170 of 26 to win it. No way they would have won it without Richards's counter attacking 61(36).
I am stating this at the risk of being pulled down by my own countrymen, but,put Tendulkar in a similar situation, he would have settled for a cute 30*(36).

yes he still had to have that amazing '76, but I guess i don't see what separates Viv from say, Mohammad Yousuf then, other than 'intangibles'. Both only had one real amazing year of test batting('76 and '06) and outside of that had pretty similar stats. And as I said, Viv wasn't exactly facing legendary bowlers every other test like some '90s batsmen had to. Mo-Yo's peak year coming in the middle of his career almost looks better than Viv's coming right at the beginning, coz it meant Viv had 14 years straight of 'just okay' output. And by 'just okay' I mean relative to some of the names Viv is held up against.

I don't think you could find a 100 consecutive test period of any of the other 'gods' (ie those in the conversation for second best after Bradman) averaging as low as 46 with 16 measly tons or anything close to it.

Intangibles seem to help Viv more than nearly anyone else when rating test batsman. It's 'how he got them' or how he looked at his brief time at the crease. Or how he strode out to the crease.