Was WI ATG team overhyped?

[kyear2]

So you won’t consider 97 series in Pak where both Ambrose and Walsh played ?
You don’t consider Walsh ATG pacer do you?

Great spin bowlers can also win you matches anywhere as shown by Warne/Murali .

With Murali not as consistently and Warne wasn't the driving force, McGrath was, but they are also (along with Tiger), a tier above the others.

But that in itself wasn't an argument was it?

 

[Prince EWS]

Lloyd did not play spinner as good as Murali at any time of his life. And on Indian dustbowls I would rate Ashwin and Jadeja ahead of Murali.

I'd take young Murali for his fielding.

@TheJediBrah

 

[Socerer 01]

nah, they deserved the hype

 

[Slifer]

The premise of this thread is insulting tbh. For me, WI weirdly hit their heights starting after the humiliation in Australia. After that series up until 1986, they beat every other team in world cricket home and away, with the notable exception of NZ in 1980 (Viv missed that series). Wi started a steady decline around 86 with the retirements of Lloyd, holding and Garner.

As for the argument about WI not winning in Asia since 1983 and that debate about pace being ineffective in Asia, WI had Pakistan on the ropes twice in 1986 and 1990 I'm not going to get into why they didn't win. By 1997, WI were a spent force especially away, they got destroyed in all their away series in Pakistan, RSA, Nz, Australiaz England and SL. It wasnt just in Pakistan.

1987, in India that series (which Marshall missed) was a draw because most of the 2nd test was washed out due to rain if I recall. Ambrose completely missed the next series in 1994. Wi should've lost but for the Indian crowd that caused a delay in the 2nd test when they had WI on the mat. Anything after around 1995 or so, and WI were done more so outside the Caribbean.

 

[OverratedSanity]

I'd take young Murali for his fielding.

@TheJediBrah

This but unironically tbh

 

[Sunil1z]

The premise of this thread is insulting tbh. For me, WI weirdly hit their heights starting after the humiliation in Australia. After that series up until 1986, they beat every other team in world cricket home and away, with the notable exception of NZ in 1980 (Viv missed that series). Wi started a steady decline around 86 with the retirements of Lloyd, holding and Garner.

As for the argument about WI not winning in Asia since 1983 and that debate about pace being ineffective in Asia, WI had Pakistan on the ropes twice in 1986 and 1990 I'm not going to get into why they didn't win. By 1997, WI were a spent force especially away, they got destroyed in all their away series in Pakistan, RSA, Nz, Australiaz England and SL. It wasnt just in Pakistan.

1987, in India that series (which Marshall missed) was a draw because most of the 2nd test was washed out due to rain if I recall. Ambrose completely missed the next series in 1994. Wi should've lost but for the Indian crowd that caused a delay in the 2nd test when they had WI on the mat. Anything after around 1995 or so, and WI were done more so outside the Caribbean.

No , it isn’t . Somehow a theory is being repeated by certain posters ( not you ) that a Team with great fast bowlers can win anywhere and you don’t need spinners . And all this is based on 1 Test series victory in Pakistan ( I am making myself clear again , I absolutely don’t rate 80s Indian Test side ) .

So , I am giving alternate theory that a Bowling line up of Warne+ Murali + Oreilly + Ashwin can also win anywhere. And you don’t need great fast bowlers in your Team .

 

[Coronis]

Why don’t we just compromise and have

Hobbs
Gilly
Bradman
Ashwin
Marshall
Warne
Garner
Holding
Roberts
O’Reilly
Murali

 

[TheJediBrah]

So , I am giving alternate theory that a Bowling line up of Warne+ Murali + Oreilly + Ashwin can also win anywhere. And you don’t need great fast bowlers in your Team .

Ashwin is not as useful away from Asia though, compared to even a decent fast bowler let alone a "great".

But ignoring him and assuming you do have 4 spin bowlers of Warne/Murali/O'Reilly level then I don't see a reason why they wouldn't be able to be successful most places without any proper fast bowlers tbh. It's just never happened before and probably never will for a side to have 3 or 4 spinners of that quality to choose from at the same time. No side has ever even had 2.

But 80s WI did have 3 or 4 great quicks to choose from at any one time. That actually happened.

 

[kyear2]

No , it isn’t . Somehow a theory is being repeated by certain posters ( not you ) that a Team with great fast bowlers can win anywhere and you don’t need spinners . And all this is based on 1 Test series victory in Pakistan ( I am making myself clear again , I absolutely don’t rate 80s Indian Test side ) .

So , I am giving alternate theory that a Bowling line up of Warne+ Murali + Oreilly + Ashwin can also win anywhere. And you don’t need great fast bowlers in your Team .

The entire premise of the west indies great teams were that you didn't need a spinner, even the Australian team before that and the South African team before that were predicated on fast bowling.

That doesn't mean that a spinner can be of use, that also means one is a must have for success, because it's been proven that it isn't.

Cricket is made up primarily and historically of the India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Australia, WI, South Africa, New Zealand, England. Of those countries spin as a primary weapon has been proven effective in 2, and lead to any firm of dominance in 1. Yet somehow it's being seen as a draw back and a major hindrance not to have a spinner, but not to bee overly reliant on spinners who are only effective at home.

Additionally the only spinners that's been proven effective or even dominant in non spinning conditions vs quality teams are Warne, Murali and O'Reilly. So I don't understand the argument

 

[Sunil1z]

Ashwin is not as useful away from Asia though, compared to even a decent fast bowler let alone a "great".

But ignoring him and assuming you do have 4 spin bowlers of Warne/Murali/O'Reilly level then I don't see a reason why they wouldn't be able to be successful most places without any proper fast bowlers tbh. It's just never happened before and probably never will for a side to have 3 or 4 spinners of that quality to choose from at the same time. No side has ever even had 2.

But 80s WI did have 3 or 4 great quicks to choose from at any one time. That actually happened.

Ashwin is needed as an insurance policy in India in case Warne/Murali are having bad series again

 

[capt_Luffy]

Ashwin is not as useful away from Asia though, compared to even a decent fast bowler let alone a "great".

But ignoring him and assuming you do have 4 spin bowlers of Warne/Murali/O'Reilly level then I don't see a reason why they wouldn't be able to be successful most places without any proper fast bowlers tbh. It's just never happened before and probably never will for a side to have 3 or 4 spinners of that quality to choose from at the same time. No side has ever even had 2.

But 80s WI did have 3 or 4 great quicks to choose from at any one time. That actually happened.

Australia in the 30s had O'Reilly and Grum; and Ironmonger played a fair few alongside them.

 

[Sunil1z]

The entire premise of the west indies great teams were that you didn't need a spinner, even the Australian team before that and the South African team before that were predicated on fast bowling.

That doesn't mean that a spinner can be of use, that also means one is a must have for success, because it's been proven that it isn't.

Cricket is made up primarily and historically of the India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Australia, WI, South Africa, New Zealand, England. Of those countries spin as a primary weapon has been proven effective in 2, and lead to any firm of dominance in 1. Yet somehow it's being seen as a draw back and a major hindrance not to have a spinner, but not to bee overly reliant on spinners who are only effective at home.

Additionally the only spinners that's been proven effective or even dominant in non spinning conditions vs quality teams are Warne, Murali and O'Reilly. So I don't understand the argument

How many Test series did that great Aussie side of 70s won in IND / PAK ?
They never toured INDIA iirc and were smashed in PAK . So once again your pace bowlers were found to be useless in Asia

 

[Line and Length]

....and Laker and Lock were a combination.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Australia in the 30s had O'Reilly and Grum; and Ironmonger played a fair few alongside them.

Neither Ironmonger or Grimmet are Warne/Murali level. Ironmonger was basically an Australian version of Axar Patel who bullied on helpful wickets. And the whole point of this is saying they would work in all conditions . . .

Not the same as the WI 80s quicks at all

 

[mr_mister]

Neither Ironmonger or Grimmet are Warne/Murali level. Ironmonger was basically an Australian version of Axar Patel who bullied on helpful wickets. And the whole point of this is saying they would work in all conditions . . .

Not the same as the WI 80s quicks at all

Ironmonger was maybe 5 tests away from having a Headley/Pollock bowling equivalent record I reckon. Assuming his average didn't blow out too much beyond 20

 

[Coronis]

Ironmonger was maybe 5 tests away from having a Headley/Pollock bowling equivalent record I reckon. Assuming his average didn't blow out too much beyond 20

Does 10 matches for a bowler equal 20 matches for a batsman?

Besides Ironmonger averaged 33 against England, 9 against SA and 14 against Windies. He’s a historical spin version of Voges.

 

[mr_mister]

Does 10 matches for a bowler equal 20 matches for a batsman?

Besides Ironmonger averaged 33 against England, 9 against SA and 14 against Windies. He’s a historical spin version of Voges.

No, it's just that I thought 5 tests(so only one extra series needed) added to his record would basically give him the same amount as Headley and Pollock. It'd be 19 to Headleys 22. So, ballpark

As for your point about him being Voges, I accept that the England record isn't great, but SA's batting in the 30s was nothing to sneeze at. Mitchell, Rowan, Taylor, Nourse, Cameron. Not sure exactly how many Ironmonger played against but I have a feeling they were stronger challenge than the 2016 Windies bowling unit

He also clearly had no great challenge dealing with Headley

 

[ma1978]

An essentially all spin bowling attack won India test series in England and the West Indies in the 1970s but to answer your question, no that Windies ATG team isn’t overrated, even Australia could only win once in India.

 

[Sunil1z]

An essentially all spin bowling attack won India test series in England and the West Indies in the 1970s but to answer your question, no that Windies ATG team isn’t overrated, even Australia could only win once in India.

Aus won against a side that had Kumble + Harbhajan ( 2 very good spin bowlers ) . WI won against a Kapil and nobody . Plus the Indian side Aus beat had a very good home record. The Indian side that WI beat didn’t win 17 consecutive Test .

 

[Coronis]

No, it's just that I thought 5 tests(so only one extra series needed) added to his record would basically give him the same amount as Headley and Pollock. It'd be 19 to Headleys 22. So, ballpark

As for your point about him being Voges, I accept that the England record isn't great, but SA's batting in the 30s was nothing to sneeze at. Mitchell, Rowan, Taylor, Nourse, Cameron. Not sure exactly how many Ironmonger played against but I have a feeling they were stronger challenge than the 2016 Windies bowling unit

He also clearly had no great challenge dealing with Headley

mb lol I misread him as playing only 6 tests when looking at his English stats.

But, he played all 14 at home. Headley did score a ton against him. He played a 22 year old raw Bruce Mitchell, before he was a regular opener and a 42 year old Herbie Taylor. Please don’t make me laugh by trying to call Jock a good batsman.

He’s literally Voges. Not picked until he was in a late peak at FC level and even then only great performances vs minnows.