Which team would win

[capt_Luffy]

Dominate is just a level of scoring well beyond the norm. Viv had such series against ATGs.

None except 81 Australia, but that wasn't a plethora of high scores either but consistent 96, 121, 75 and 76.

 

[capt_Luffy]

He got the eye issue in 84 after playing a decade.

82, he was back in 84. 76 was literally his best year, the very best ever imho. And that's 1/3 for that series. But as I said before, his other 4 years in peak is not close to what he was in 76.

 

[sayon basak]

Getting the feeling @OverratedSanity just quit....

You should as well. Let us discuss who was better between Alfred Mynn and Billy Beldham in the Convo.

 

[capt_Luffy]

You should as well. Let us discuss who was better between Alfred Mynn and Billy Beldham in the Convo.

TBT, I don't know how to read the stats peterhrt gave on them...... John Small was better

 

[govinda indian fan]

None except 81 Australia, but that wasn't a plethora of high scores either but consistent 96, 121, 75 and 76.

Thats still atg series vs Lillee thommo and alderman

 

[sayon basak]

TBT, I don't know how to read the stats peterhrt gave on them...... John Small was better

Did you just add stats of both John Small Jr. and John Small Sr.? Otherwise there's no other way to come up with such a wrong answer.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Thats still atg series vs Lillee thommo and alderman

Who denied that?? He said about dominating according to him and no series of Viv vs an ATG fits that criteria.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Did you just add stats of both John Small Jr. and John Small Sr.? Otherwise there's no other way to come up with such a wrong answer.

Fk u bitç!!! Small literally invented batting (kinda atleast)

 

[subshakerz]

If he got out 4 times out of 8 to Chandra at his peak, it's safe to say he'd struggle against Kumble as well.

Lol three of those were his debut series and he still pounded Chandra overall.

 

[sayon basak]

Fk u bitç!!! Small literally invented batting (kinda atleast)

Still Beldham was a better batter, better bowler, better wicket keeper and a better slip fielder.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Lol three of those were his debut series and he still pounded Chandra overall.

Then you will say Chandra got him in one series (192 match didn't play) and he him once, so equal.

 

[Coronis]

Warne is one of most talented bowlers ever to exist. He would eventually find a way to combat richards. Same with sobers

Don’t disagree.

 

[sayon basak]

@Coronis entered the chat.

 

[kyear2]

There is a lot of undue love towards Viv. Like, it's due, but not in isolation. On the whole, is he better than Smith. Nope. Both excelled and had mad averages which then fell away. Surmissing that Richards would own Warne is ****ing stupid when he was below par in teams with holland bennet and hogan (who are these nobodies of spin?). In sydney he was holland and bennets bitch.

There is a lot of under rating of Lillee too. If you are going to take him when he was recovering from a back injury, then we are taking ambrose when he was cooked. whatever the windies have as advantage with their 4 horseman is undone by what australia has in warne. Australia is not playing Warne circa injury. they are taking early or late warne. Otherwise they are taking O'Rielly.

In all, even if you want to dream that the Windies are actually ahead in the bowling stakes, Gilly (Australia's viv) and Bradman kind of mean The Windies are pushing **** uphill. Pull your head in revisionists.

Who's taking Lillee post back surgery? Or underrating him for that matter? No one here believes he was a better bowler than Ambrose and right around where Holding and Garner are.

What I find hilarious is that it preposterous that Sobers or Viv can handle Warne on neutral pitches, but Donald Bradman who played all of his cricket in what is literally the flattest era of the sport, in only two countries and vs exactly 0 ATG bowlers, would decimate an attack made up of peak Marshall, Ambrose, Holding and Garner, in Bridgetown, Perth, Leeds and Johannesburg.

What I find ridiculous is that any team would beat a team made up of

Sir Frank Worrell
Sir Gordon Greenidge
George Headley
Sir IVA Richards
Brian Lara
Sir Garfield Sobers
Sir Clyde Walcott
Malcolm Marshall
Michael Holding
Joel Garner
Sir Curtly Ambrose

Is loosing 3 - 1 to anyone.

And yes, I've said Gilly is a wildcard and at 7 can be a problem, in one of those matches he will fire, he's not your Viv though. One's a top 5 batsman of all time, the other struggles to make top 50. That's the revisionism.

Unlike you, I see it as a right contest, and taking into account the pitches,.and that the WI batsmen are more tested against this level of bowling (and actual bowlers) than the Australian batsmen are, that I would either anticipate a 3 - 2 WI victory or a 2 - 2 draw.

You and Coronis are the ones predicting blowouts and based on what?

 

[Coronis]

Who's taking Lillee post back surgery?

iirc he didn’t have any surgery but anyway..

Pre injury: 11 tests 51 @ 24.15 4 5’fers
Post injury: 59 tests 309 @ 23.88 19 5’fers

I’m happy to take him post-injury

You and Coronis are the ones predicting blowouts and based on what?

Pretty sure all I ever said was Australia would be the favourite.

 

[subshakerz]

Then you will say Chandra got him in one series (192 match didn't play) and he him once, so equal.

Dude it was his debut series. Big deal.

 

[Johan]

O'Reilly was from a time of no video analysis. It's a massive advantage for any spinner.

Look at Mendis and see what happened to him due to video analysis. In another era, he would have taken hundreds of wickets as batters wouldn't have had technology to analyse his variations and action in super slow mo. He'd been a great.

Murali and Warne managed to dominate in an era of video analysis. It's whole another level of difficulty compared to any player from 1930s

you're making it seem like mystery spinners and bowlers didn't exist back then and weren't often figured out, like Jack Iverson, slow motion existed at the time btw, it was in black and white but it did exist.

 

[Johan]

This is like using the fact that some bloke made hundreds against Anderson and Broad as evidence that he would have no issues facing Malcolm Marshall and Joel Garner.

doesn't this go both ways? Viv has never batted against a spinner as good as Warne and Warne has never bowled to a batter as good as Viv bar two and we all know how that went, so it's always just gonna be guesswork no?

 

[Johan]

Dude it was his debut series. Big deal.

two dismissals in his debut game btw

 

[OverratedSanity]

doesn't this go both ways? Viv has never batted against a spinner as good as Warne and Warne has never bowled to a batter as good as Viv bar two and we all know how that went, so it's always just gonna be guesswork no?

Probably yes. Which is my whole point. I'm not here arguing Warne would do a Cullinan on Viv. It's @kyear2 and @subshakerz and @govinda indian fan who are somehow confident he'd leave Warne helpless and "neutralized". Which they have no way of knowing.

This is without wanting to get into the merits of batsmen like Kallis, Sanga, Mahela, Inzi , Dravid, etc. (I actually think they're close to as good as Viv against spin in particular).