And I don't understand why. Anwar averages more than Greenidge, has a good all-round record with hundreds in all countries that he played, has daddy hundreds, great against spin and has an away average higher than home average. Gives a left hand option too. Basically ticks all boxes.
Like you said, we can agree to disagree. To me, they are all equals in terms of bowling. Yes, like I have said earlier, 80s do bat deep which gives them points.
Bowling in the 80s was not better overall. The best bowling was concentrated in one country.
The answer is longevity. Greenidge until he reached mid 30s, had stats befitting an ATG batsman, certainly among openers. At a stage in 1984 tour of England, when he was 33 (coincidently the same age when Anwar played his last test), he was averaging well over 50. Maintained his standards near or there abouts until he was 36. Unfortunately, he played until he was too old, until 40, and that dented his averages enormously. His case could be treated as a batsman who was still performing on or above replacement level for the last 3-4 years. When he and Haynes retired, WI replaced them with likes of Simmons and Williams.
agreed. The 90s side was / is the best and should have won.
to be crystal clear, this exercise is comparing records in a decade and so longevity and all that stuff doesn’t matter.You need to look at the stats and performances in a particular decade. So arguments around retirement timing are moot. The 80s team lacks a spinner and yes the windies showed they can do well without one but a similarly strong pace attack with Warne is just better period
Sorry I meant to say the elite best of the best.
The gap between Marshall/ Ambrose/ Garner/ Donald/ Hadlee/ McGrath/ Wasim/ 90s Pollock is pretty damn small. The 90s did have more gun bowlers though. As an example, the top two wicket takers from Australia in the 80s were a geriatric Lillee and a guy averaging 30. The only top sides in the 90s without a truly gun bowler were England and India. And even then, India had Kumble and England had a string of very good bowlers (Gough, Fraser etc...). The 80s had a lot of awful bowlers, way more than the 90s.
India and England weren't top sides in the 90s. They weren't much better than NZ and we were dreadful for the most part. At the end of the 90s England were worse than Zimbabwe.
Wasn't talking about decadal XI in that post. I was explaining why Greenidge is rated higher than Anwar overall career. And yes, while picking a decadal XI, only performance for that period should be considered. It is unfortunate that 80s does not have a spinner, but that is mainly because there are no real good picks there. Qasim is arguable.
Anwar scoring daddy hundreds is not exactly true. he didn't score any double centuries which is a definite blip for any elite test batsman and more so for an opener. greenidge's three double centuries were masterpieces and all resulted in wins.
While he does not have a double, he has 3 150+ scores which also all resulted in wins. Sachin didn't have a double century for a long time and if I remember correctly, Kallis too. That doesn't tarnish their image.
One of those was the 188* which was, to me, as good as any double century. Its not his fault his team mates got bowled out around him. Remember it was a 188 in a game where teams were scoring only 200.
.
