What did Bradman think of that Windies team?

[shortpitched713]

Don’t know if Sunny is truly a bigot. Have heard him praising Viv and Sobers on plenty of occasions during interviews and commentary.

Or he's changed since younger days, is more likely.

 

[Slifer]

I would disagree as usual because your information is wrong. Warne struggled in WI, that I will give you. But Murali even in his first ever tour to WI in 1997, without the doosra took 16 wickets in two matches averaging @ 15.4. So your argument falls flat on face about Murali. Kumble averaged 30.3 taking 19 wickets in five matches in West indies prior to 1998. Just because Warne struggled in WI it doesn't mean Murali and Kumble did.

In 1994 WI batsmen went to India and got bamboozled by spin. It was fast bowlers brilliance, and Jimmy (P)Adams' tenacity that took them to a 1-1 draw. Lara the best player of spin in the side was done by Raju multiple times.

So no, your argument don't have support in historical context.

WI getting owned by Holland and Bennet was a one off thing. I would not think they will get owned by ordinary spinners.

Did you even watch that series? WI scored 400+ in 2 of the three tests and in the final test, they scored 300/3 at almost 5 rpo. Further, Lara then wasn't the great player of spin he'd later become. Regardless, WI without Haynes and Richardson batted just fine vs Kumble and company in India.

As for Murali doing well in the WI, surely even you understand there's a huge gulf in batting quality between the teams of the late 70s/80s vs the late 90s/early 2000s. Murali ain't wrecking Lloyd, Viv, etc in the WI. Kumble...lol lol.

 

[Saket1209]

Did you even watch that series? WI scored 400+ in 2 of the three tests and in the final test, they scored 300/3 at almost 5 rpo. Further, Lara then wasn't the great player of spin he'd later become. Regardless, WI without Haynes and Richardson batted just fine vs Kumble and company in India.

As for Murali doing well in the WI, surely even you understand there's a huge gulf in batting quality between the teams of the late 70s/80s vs the late 90s/early 2000s. Murali ain't wrecking Lloyd, Viv, etc in the WI. Kumble...lol lol.

Viv , Lloyd and Gordon Greenridge all averaged above 45 against India in India against good spin attack. Lloyd averaged above 70.

 

[Migara]

Did you even watch that series? WI scored 400+ in 2 of the three tests and in the final test, they scored 300/3 at almost 5 rpo. Further, Lara then wasn't the great player of spin he'd later become. Regardless, WI without Haynes and Richardson batted just fine vs Kumble and company in India.

I am seriously doubting whether you have actually watched the series. It was painful to see how Lara struggled against Indian spinners. Adams played using the pads, and under current laws would have been out multiple times. Haynes and Richardson didn't do much better either. They came to SL in 1993 and struggled against an ordinary Don Anurasiri and a very green Murali. What even you say, from early 90s on wards, West Indies struggled against spin, even their mightiest of batsmen. Only exceptions I can think of are Lara and Hooper. Even then they had their days occasionally. The sudden struggle of against spin of West Indies co-incided with debut of the three great spinners of the era magically.. Before that it was only Qadir, and mood of a BPAD patients are more consistent than his performance.

As for Murali doing well in the WI, surely even you understand there's a huge gulf in batting quality between the teams of the late 70s/80s vs the late 90s/early 2000s. Murali ain't wrecking Lloyd, Viv, etc in the WI. Kumble...lol lol.

Lol, lol . . Even the best players of spin struggled against Murali other than for Lara in a single series. You don't get better players of spin from WI than Haynes, Richardson and Hooper, all struggled against a very young Murali even without a doosra. WI of 70s and 80s had great batting, but they are facing the greatest spinner of the test history. It won't be a walk in the park as against Dilip Doshi, Holland or John Embery.

 

[Migara]

And you are underestimating how good was WI of 80s. On spinning wicket maybe there was even a chance for great teams like Aus but on fast bowling pitch no chance. Marshall would alone to destroy the Aus. batting lineup.

Marshall is good. However none of the others are not as good as McGrath. That is how ridiculously good was he.

 

[Migara]

It's uncontroversial to say the WI side of the 80s had the best fast bowling attack of all time, but they also had guys like Gus Logie, Keith Arthurton and Carl Hooper in the middle order for the latter part of that decade. Their bowlers were just good enough they didn't really need even very good players below four in the batting order.

A match up between that side and the Aus team of the late 90s/ 2000s would be a great series. Contrasting styles and different strengths within the playing XIs. Would be a ball tearer.

Fair point. Against an ATG side like Aussies of 00s, those guys will be singled out. In contrast the Aussie batting jaggernaut was they never had Logies, Authurtons, Hoopers or Gomes'. The one with the least average was Langer and he averaged 40+. And then you have Gilchrist down the order who tore in to fast bowlers. I don't want to play a fast only attack against a rampaging Gilchrist, that is going to hurt.

I would pay a truck load to see such a series. Contrasting styles at their best.

 

[Saket1209]

Marshall is good. However none of the others are not as good as McGrath. That is how ridiculously good was he.

Ambrose was as good as Mcgrath.

 

[Slifer]

I am seriously doubting whether you have actually watched the series. It was painful to see how Lara struggled against Indian spinners. Adams played using the pads, and under current laws would have been out multiple times. Haynes and Richardson didn't do much better either. They came to SL in 1993 and struggled against an ordinary Don Anurasiri and a very green Murali. What even you say, from early 90s on wards, West Indies struggled against spin, even their mightiest of batsmen. Only exceptions I can think of are Lara and Hooper. Even then they had their days occasionally. The sudden struggle of against spin of West Indies co-incided with debut of the three great spinners of the era magically.. Before that it was only Qadir, and mood of a BPAD patients are more consistent than his performance.

Lol, lol . . Even the best players of spin struggled against Murali other than for Lara in a single series. You don't get better players of spin from WI than Haynes, Richardson and Hooper, all struggled against a very young Murali even without a doosra. WI of 70s and 80s had great batting, but they are facing the greatest spinner of the test history. It won't be a walk in the park as against Dilip Doshi, Holland or John Embery.

We've done this dance before. You know squat about WI cricket so please stay in your lane. Haynes and Richardson didn't tour India in 1994 fwiw.

And again WI batting did just fine vs India in India even without their two most senior batsmen. And, Murali would likely do well vs the WI IN SRI LANKA. But I doubt he'd dominate a WI batting lineup from the late 70s/80s IN THE WI. What part of that aren't you getting. You think because Murali did well vs Sarwan and Wavell Hinds etc he'd do well vs Viv, Lloyd, Kallicharan, Rowe, Greenidge IN THE CARIBBEAN? Highly unlikely. The best players of spin from the Caribbean fwiw are not Richardson or Hooper, it's Alvin Kallicharan daylight then Lara, Kanhai, Sobers, Lloyd etc.

Anyway Murali and Kumble are moot points because neither of them are Australian and therefore won't feature in a hypothetical match-up between the two best teams of all time : 70s/80s WI and Australia late 90s/early 2000s.

 

[Slifer]

Ambrose was as good as Mcgrath.

Don't waste your time. Garner is as well. The only difference between Garner and McGrath is a lack of 10 fors by Joel. But Joel took wickets everywhere, did it cheaply and at a very good strike rate.

 

[trundler]

I like that 1984 side the most. In my mind the final version of the team under Lloyd is different from Richards's team. Richardson, Richards, Gomes and Lloyd was a hell of a middle order. Also, it's easy to overlook this now but Dujon had a great start to his career too and averaged over 40 for quite a while. The weakest member of that team is roughly level with Martyn imho and blows Lee out of the water. Gilchrist narrows that gap somewhat but I think the difference in bowling strength is bigger than the difference in batting strength. Lee is the weak link obviously but Gillespie is distinctly meh by ATG standards too. 1 meh middle order batsman is a lot easier to hide than one meh bowler and one bad bowler out of 4. The early 80s WI side with Kallicharan and Roberts is gun too but I like this side a little more. It had all 3 of the top 3 batsmen at the time and a flawless pace attack.

 

[Saket1209]

Don't waste your time. Garner is as well. The only difference between Garner and McGrath is a lack of 10 fors by Joel. But Joel took wickets everywhere, did it cheaply and at a very good strike rate.

Yeah i didn't say garner because he didn't played that long but he was definitely on par with McGrath. That because he wasn't the strike bowler. When he became then Marshall was something else.

 

[Slifer]

I like that 1984 side the most. In my mind the final version of the team under Lloyd is different from Richards's team. Richardson, Richards, Gomes and Lloyd was a hell of a middle order. Also, it's easy to overlook this now but Dujon had a great start to his career too and averaged over 40 for quite a while. The weakest member of that team is roughly level with Martyn imho and blows Lee out of the water. Gilchrist narrows that gap somewhat but I think the difference in bowling strength is bigger than the difference in batting strength. Lee is the weak link obviously but Gillespie is distinctly meh by ATG standards too. 1 meh middle order batsman is a lot easier to hide than one meh bowler and one bad bowler out of 4. The early 80s WI side with Kallicharan and Roberts is gun too but I like this side a little more. It had all 3 of the top 3 batsmen at the time and a flawless pace attack.

Yeah but that team that decimated Australia in Australia was something else. And Kallicharan would be a huge asset assuming the opposition had a credible spinner. And Croft, Roberts Garner and Holding is not too much of a drop-off from Marshall Walsh, Holding and Garner.

 

[Saket1209]

I like that 1984 side the most. In my mind the final version of the team under Lloyd is different from Richards's team. Richardson, Richards, Gomes and Lloyd was a hell of a middle order. Also, it's easy to overlook this now but Dujon had a great start to his career too and averaged over 40 for quite a while. The weakest member of that team is roughly level with Martyn imho and blows Lee out of the water. Gilchrist narrows that gap somewhat but I think the difference in bowling strength is bigger than the difference in batting strength. Lee is the weak link obviously but Gillespie is distinctly meh by ATG standards too. 1 meh middle order batsman is a lot easier to hide than one meh bowler and one bad bowler out of 4. The early 80s WI side with Kallicharan and Roberts is gun too but I like this side a little more. It had all 3 of the top 3 batsmen at the time and a flawless pace attack.

Yeah that side was something else. Every player was in there top form. Gordon, Lloyd, Richards, Gomes, Richardson all were in there prime. Plus Marshall and Garner was in top form. Marshall got 11 fifers in 14 matches between India series and Aus tour of WI. The only team I think who defeated Eng 5-0 in England.