Australia (1995-2007) Vs. West Indies (1974-1986)?

[smash84]

you might want to see Sehwag's record. He averages 90 odd against Pak. Overall avg is 54

 

[subshakerz]

Interesting article by Warne, apparently he believes the current English side matches up well with his...
Shane Warne: England could be as good as our great Australian team following resounding defeat of India - Telegraph

 

[subshakerz]

A fine statistical analysis of the WI fast bowlers during their reign. They really were a class apart, as fine as McGrath, Warne, Gillespie and Lee were, they don't quite hold up. Interesting stat: Of those batsmen who scored 1000 plus against this attack, not a single averaged over 50. Can you same the same of Australia's attack?

Stats from the past: West Indies' battery of fast bowlers | Highlights | Cricinfo Magazine | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[GotSpin]

Hold the phones. Warne said something. Must be true now

 

[Ikki]

Waqar was back after the back injury that essentially ended his peak and reduced his pace by 10mphs or so. After 94, he was always a shadow of his former bowling self. Saqlain was just making his debut. They only time Australia faced the 2 W's at their peak was 94 when they lost.

Also, do recall that a weaker WI team in 92/93 beat a strong Pakistani side with both Akram and Younis at their peak.

Waqar was still an ATG at the time, even if slightly slower. Wasim was at his peak; forget about Saqlain, Mushtaq Ahmed killed it in that series. It was a fantastic attack.

A fine statistical analysis of the WI fast bowlers during their reign. They really were a class apart, as fine as McGrath, Warne, Gillespie and Lee were, they don't quite hold up. Interesting stat: Of those batsmen who scored 1000 plus against this attack, not a single averaged over 50. Can you same the same of Australia's attack?

Stats from the past: West Indies' battery of fast bowlers | Highlights | Cricinfo Magazine | ESPN Cricinfo

Which attack are you referring to? There are several groups of attacks named in that article and they barely played together for long enough for 1 batstman to play them enough to score 1000 runs against them. The biggest sample you have is of Garner, Holding and Marshall and they only played 26 test matches.

 

[morgieb]

While West Indies seem like a better side, Australia was probably the better team. Just a thought.

 

[Camo999]

Bit harsh taking Windies from 74 - 86 when they were undefeated for a further 9 years after that time. For a 12 year period how about say 1979 to 91 when Richards, Greenidge, Marshall & Dujon retired?

Match up between the two would be fascinating. Windies would need to increase their over rate, yes but I think the biggest adjustment would be the approach of the Aussie batting. If they strolled out and tried to dominate at 5-6 an over as per usual I don't think they would last very long. I reckon Ponting would play the pace attack as well as anyone but would be interesting to see if Hayden, Gilchrist etc could adjust and if their defensive techniques would stand up over the course of a five match series.

 

[smash84]

Bit harsh taking Windies from 74 - 86 when they were undefeated for a further 9 years after that time. For a 12 year period how about say 1979 to 91 when Richards, Greenidge, Marshall & Dujon retired?

Match up between the two would be fascinating. Windies would need to increase their over rate, yes but I think the biggest adjustment would be the approach of the Aussie batting. If they strolled out and tried to dominate at 5-6 an over as per usual I don't think they would last very long. I reckon Ponting would play the pace attack as well as anyone but would be interesting to see if Hayden, Gilchrist etc could adjust and if their defensive techniques would stand up over the course of a five match series.

Good point.

I also reckon that Ponting at his peak wouldn't really mind the short stuff. Was such an awesome puller of the ball although would have been interesting to see how he would have tackled Marshall's skiddy bouncer since it came in very awkwardly.

Hayden had lots of problems against Ambrose and Co at the beginning of his career so I am not sure how well he would hold up against those guys.

 

[stephen]

you might want to see Sehwag's record. He averages 90 odd against Pak. Overall avg is 54

Wow, I didn't realise that.

One thing that made Tubby's efforts so good was that he managed to do that mostly against the three greatest quicks that Pakistan has ever produced, in an era that favoured the bowlers. Sehwag is a monster against everyone so it's less surprising (though no less impressive) that he's been smashing the Pakistanis all over the park.

 

[smash84]

Wow, I didn't realise that.

One thing that made Tubby's efforts so good was that he managed to do that mostly against the three greatest quicks that Pakistan has ever produced, in an era that favoured the bowlers. Sehwag is a monster against everyone so it's less surprising (though no less impressive) that he's been smashing the Pakistanis all over the park.

Although I must say the runs that Tubby scored against the attack was much better than the ones Sehwag has scored against. Since Ikki loves stats cricinfo have just done a great piece on the WI quicks of the 80s

Stats from the past: West Indies' battery of fast bowlers | Highlights | Cricinfo Magazine | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[BlazeDragon]

Interesting article by Warne, apparently he believes the current English side matches up well with his...
Shane Warne: England could be as good as our great Australian team following resounding defeat of India - Telegraph

Hold the phones. Warne said something. Must be true now

Warne says a lot of stuff that he is proven wrong on.

Besides, he is just saying that they have potential to be as strong as his side he didn't say it is. A lot of people believed India was gonna be as strong as Australia and look what's happened to them.

Since Ikki loves stats cricinfo have just done a great piece on the WI quicks of the 80s

Stats from the past: West Indies' battery of fast bowlers | Highlights | Cricinfo Magazine | ESPN Cricinfo

This was already replied to.

Which attack are you referring to? There are several groups of attacks named in that article and they barely played together for long enough for 1 batstman to play them enough to score 1000 runs against them. The biggest sample you have is of Garner, Holding and Marshall and they only played 26 test matches.

 

[Slifer]

A fine statistical analysis of the WI fast bowlers during their reign. They really were a class apart, as fine as McGrath, Warne, Gillespie and Lee were, they don't quite hold up. Interesting stat: Of those batsmen who scored 1000 plus against this attack, not a single averaged over 50. Can you same the same of Australia's attack?

Stats from the past: West Indies' battery of fast bowlers | Highlights | Cricinfo Magazine | ESPN Cricinfo

Thanks for that article but cricinfo just confirmed for me what I already knew, the WI attacks of the 80s were the best ever fielded in tests.

 

[BlazeDragon]

I can't believe we have sunk to this. If we use the logic that you guys are using then Geroge Lohmann is the greatest bowler of all time because he only averages 10.75
Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

But guess what, he only played 18 matches and played in about one of the most bowler friendly pitches ever seen to mankind.

There are several groups of attacks named in that article and they barely played together for long enough for 1 batstman to play them enough to score 1000 runs against them. The biggest sample you have is of Garner, Holding and Marshall and they only played 26 test matches.

Pretty much sums up my feelings on it. Longevity seems suffer from a lack appreciation in this forum page. Plus another issue nobody seems to bring up is the WI era being so bowler friendly.

 

[Slifer]

I can't believe we have sunk to this. If we use the logic that you guys are using then Geroge Lohmann is the greatest bowler of all time because he only averages 10.75
Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

But guess what, he only played 18 matches and played in about one of the most bowler friendly pitches ever seen to mankind.



Pretty much sums up my feelings on it. Longevity seems suffer from a lack appreciation in this forum page. Plus another issue nobody seems to bring up is the WI era being so bowler friendly.

Right. WI performed everywhere against everyone specifically in Pakistan and India, where pitches are known to be notoriously non pace friendly. I mean the best team of the time had an attack that relied on pace, what country in their right mind would prepare pitches to help that attack?? WI had great bowlers whp worked as a unit many times regardless and many times inspite of the conditions.


And this longevity. Its like some of u people dont understand or refuse to understand, As a WI paceman in the 80s, the minute there was a hint of decline u were likely to be pushed out by the next 'hot' thing. Thats what happened ROberts, same for Marshall, etc.

 

[subshakerz]

Hayden had lots of problems against Ambrose and Co at the beginning of his career so I am not sure how well he would hold up against those guys.

Would love to see Hayden try and come out of his crease and smack Holding over mid off. Don't think he will last long, Langer is a better bet as he is a grafter.

 

[subshakerz]

Warne says a lot of stuff that he is proven wrong on.

Besides, he is just saying that they have potential to be as strong as his side he didn't say it is. A lot of people believed India was gonna be as strong as Australia and look what's happened to them.

Don't worry, I was just surprised at Warne giving so much cred to this current English side. I remember him rating Brett Lee ahead of Donald and Lehmann ahead of Steve Waugh, so I dont trust his rankings.

 

[BlazeDragon]

Right. WI performed everywhere against everyone specifically in Pakistan and India, where pitches are known to be notoriously non pace friendly. I mean the best team of the time had an attack that relied on pace, what country in their right mind would prepare pitches to help that attack?? WI had great bowlers whp worked as a unit many times regardless and many times inspite of the conditions.

Sub-continent or not it was still a bowler friendly game back then unlike the game of batsman in the Aus era. If you don't know how to look up stats I can provide them for you.

And this longevity. Its like some of u people dont understand or refuse to understand, As a WI paceman in the 80s, the minute there was a hint of decline u were likely to be pushed out by the next 'hot' thing. Thats what happened ROberts, same for Marshall, etc.

Oh yeah the likes of Mcgrath/Warne all played till their late 30's because Australia were clearly a talentless nation and needed anybody they could get their hands on. Or maybe they bribed the selectors so that they would get picked over so many young guys improving everyday to get an international spot.

It would seem that some of you people only want to see things your way.

 

[Slifer]

Sub-continent or not it was still a bowler friendly game back then unlike the game of batsman in the Aus era. If you don't know how to look up stats I can provide them for you.



Oh yeah the likes of Mcgrath/Warne all played till their late 30's because Australia were clearly a talentless nation and needed anybody they could get their hands on. Or maybe they bribed the selectors so that they would get picked over so many young guys improving everyday to get an international spot.

It would seem that some of you people only want to see things your way.

Son what the hell r u on seriously?? Aus era started in 95, the likes of Ambrose and Walsh (contemporaries of Maco and co) coincided with this era and they thrived. Therefore its logical to conclude that their contemporaries would have thrived as well (esp if they were bowling in tandem with each other).

I dont know y its so hard for u to accept. The WI attacks of the 80s were better and more effective than their Oz counterparts of the 95 to 07 era, just like Oz had a better batting lineup.

 

[subshakerz]

Sub-continent or not it was still a bowler friendly game back then unlike the game of batsman in the Aus era. If you don't know how to look up stats I can provide them for you.

So you are saying that the pitches in India and Pakistan in the 80s were bowling-friendly? Are you serious? I believe Pakistan was known as the graveyard of fast bowlers.

Oh yeah the likes of Mcgrath/Warne all played till their late 30's because Australia were clearly a talentless nation and needed anybody they could get their hands on. Or maybe they bribed the selectors so that they would get picked over so many young guys improving everyday to get an international spot.

It would seem that some of you people only want to see things your way.

Please. Roberts, Holding, Marshall, Ambrose, Walsh each played over a decade of cricket, it's not as if they simply hopped in and out of the team. The fact is that no team in world cricket ever had the quality bowling depth that WI had.

If McGrath was waning or injured, for example, who could replace him? We saw the answer to that in the Ashes 2005 and in India 1997.

 

[subshakerz]

I dont know y its so hard for u to accept. The WI attacks of the 80s were better and more effective than their Oz counterparts of the 95 to 07 era, just like Oz had a better batting lineup.

Because once you accept the seemingly obvious, that WI had a better bowling attack in all ways possible, it becomes very hard to argue that Australia would beat that team. Test cricket just favors stronger bowling sides.

That's why they are using every random stat they can find to present a false parity between them, while ignoring points like Australia's relative lack of quality depth and the weak links like Brett Lee.