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

[BlazeDragon]

Yes I see something wrong with your stats. I am going to go back to the same old argument of mine since you seem to be stuck on the win/loss ratio.

Who lost more matches and who lost more series at their peak?

And I'm the one stuck on things.

Okay. I will counter loss with win like everybody else then.

I just love how you think loss alone is more important than win and loss combined.

 

[EnglishCricket]

Pros and Cons

Wins for Aussie's batsmen and spinner and Windies win based on their fast bowling.

Both teams had a similar middle/lower order hitter in Richards and Gilchrist.

In my opinion the Aussies overall because they played against more professional opposition in a tougher era but my god its a tight one as the Windies had other era related problems.

 

[smash84]

I agree that it is pretty tight. Aus have the edge in batting through Gilchrist I reckon and Shane Warne is a weapon that would wreak havoc on a spinner's wicket. WI on the other hand have quicks who can run through batting line-ups even on flat tracks

 

[stephen]

I agree that it is pretty tight. Aus have the edge in batting through Gilchrist I reckon and Shane Warne is a weapon that would wreak havoc on a spinner's wicket. WI on the other hand have quicks who can run through batting line-ups even on flat tracks

It's interesting because Australia are said to have played in an era of flat tracks and our bowling lineup never seemed to have much difficulty taking 20 wickets. Unless you want to count the series at home against India in 02/03 where McGrath, Gillespie and Warne were all unable to play for various reasons and we had an attack lead by Brad Williams. Even that series we didn't manage to lose.

 

[Top_Cat]

Think you'll find Gillespie played that Test series.

 

[smash84]

that statement didn't actually come out right. What I meant was that WI didn't seem to need a spinner given their bowling attack

 

[stephen]

Think you'll find Gillespie played that Test series.

Yeah you're right. He missed the third test, which Australia won. I was also wrong about the year, it was 03/04.

I never understood why we didn't play a game in Perth against India that season. Gives us a huge advantage.

 

[stephen]

that statement didn't actually come out right. What I meant was that WI didn't seem to need a spinner given their bowling attack

They did have a spinner for most of that time though. Usually they were a part timer though. Particularly towards the end of their reign they used Hooper quite a bit.

 

[smash84]

yeah but as you say they were more of part timers rather than actually be specialist spin bowlers. Hooper was mainly a batsman who could bowl a bit of spin

 

[stephen]

yeah but as you say they were more of part timers rather than actually be specialist spin bowlers. Hooper was mainly a batsman who could bowl a bit of spin

He still bowled more overs than someone like Watson.

 

[smash84]

even if he did would you call hooper a bowler picked for his batting or a batsman who could bowl a bit?

 

[robelinda]

He was a better bowler for the first decade of his career!

 

[subshakerz]

No doubt any contest between Australia and WI will be tight, but the nature of test cricket is such that it favors the superior bowling attack. WI have a significantly better bowling attack as Australia will struggle to maintain pressure with a fourth bowler like Brett Lee.

If the clips from Roeblinda proved anything, its that the WI bowlers were more than just raw pace, they were supremely skilled.

 

[subshakerz]

No other team in the WI era comes even close to South Africa. So if by your logic WI deserves extra credit because they never played 'lesser' team like Ban and Zim they also have to lose credit because they never played an opposition as strong as SA.

Nonsense. Australia in 79 and 81 were better than any of the SA sides, and Pakistan in the 80s could be considered better t least than the 2001/2002 SA sides, given that Donald was in breakdown mode.

So that means my dear friend Australia wins the argument of statistics no matter which way you want to look at it.

You can look at it both ways, Australia had a higher winning percentage, or WI lost less. WI played in an era where the rate of play was much slower and draws more common. Either way, I don't want to boil this down to 0.8 percent of some random stat as the difference between the two sides.

 

[subshakerz]

This argument is pretty much settled with the win/loss criteria stats I provided above.

Nope.

Only Pakistan and England were really that competitive in the WI era.

Nope. Australia in 79 and 81 were quite strong, stronger than any team Australia faced in the 2000s.

If you wanna whine about WI and NZ of the Aus era you could do the same for India and NZ of the WI era.

Not whining, merely pointing out your flawed argument of saying that Australia faced tougher opposition for most of their dominating period in the 2000s. Pakistan, WI, NZ, and even England aside from 2005 were all weaker than their 80s versions. Even India's team in the 2000s wasn't much better, India in the 80s had their best ever paceman (Kapil) and a strong batting lineup of Gavaskar, Vengsarkar, Amarnath, Viswanath.

And we already established that WI never faced any minnows either.

As for England, Pakistan, and England the stats shows that they were better than even Australia of WI era the fourth best team of that era. Btw, Pakistan in the Aus era had better stats than India.

Again, Australian sides of 79 and 81 were better than any of the teams Australia faced. And the Pakistan sides of 2002 and 2004 were quite ordinary, can't believe they would be rated ahead of India.

So yeah you really have no argument here statistically on WI being better.

Not if you are going to be so selective in your argument.

 

[stephen]

even if he did would you call hooper a bowler picked for his batting or a batsman who could bowl a bit?

I was always under the impression that he was primarily picked as an allrounder, with his bowling being the most important component of his game for the WI sides I saw.

 

[Ikki]

No doubt any contest between Australia and WI will be tight, but the nature of test cricket is such that it favors the superior bowling attack. WI have a significantly better bowling attack as Australia will struggle to maintain pressure with a fourth bowler like Brett Lee.

If the clips from Roeblinda proved anything, its that the WI bowlers were more than just raw pace, they were supremely skilled.

Bolded part: yes, but only in terms of taking 20 wickets. The Aussies have an attack that will do so as comfortably as the WIndies attack. It's then a matter of cheapness. Where I think WI are slightly ahead but I think the Australian batting line-up more than makes up for that.

In the end: WIndies had a better series record in terms of not losing for a long time, but Australia had a better much better record in terms of winning Tests. As someone posted before, the difference between their losing is ~2% but Australia win far more and the WIndies drew far more. Yet when you look at the teams in the eras they played Australia's record is more impressive IMO.

Personally, I just think Australia is a much better balanced side and played far tougher opposition during their reign. Unfortunately, for some, nostalgia seems to think of the WIndies as some noble team whereas Australians were of a "win by any means" character (and said with the emphasis being negative).

 

[subshakerz]

Bolded part: yes, but only in terms of taking 20 wickets. The Aussies have an attack that will do so as comfortably as the WIndies attack. It's then a matter of cheapness. Where I think WI are slightly ahead but I think the Australian batting line-up more than makes up for that.

Of course, nobody is suggesting that Australia bowling will fail to take 20 wickets, just as nobody is suggesting that the WI batting will spotaneously collapse every time they bat. Where we differ is how much Australia's batting advatange (thanks mostly to Gilchrist) makes up for WI's bowling advantage.

In my opinion, a weaker batsman like Dujon rather than Gilchrist can be compensated for by the strength of the rest of the batting lineup. But a weaker bowler like Gillespie or Brett Lee is much more of a handicap, as you only have four bowlers to start with, and there is a greater likelihood of a bad day for the above mentioned, putting a lot of pressure on McWarne. With the WI, there were no weak links.

Can you honestly say that McGrath/Gillespie/Warne/Lee will take wickets as easily as Marshall/Holding/Garner and 1 of Roberts/Walsh/Croft?

I reiterate, test cricket in general favors the better bowling side. It's why Australia were able to beat WI in 74-75 and lost in 79-80. If this was one day cricket, my money would be on Australia.

In the end: WIndies had a better series record in terms of not losing for a long time, but Australia had a better much better record in terms of winning Tests. As someone posted before, the difference between their losing is ~2% but Australia win far more and the WIndies drew far more. Yet when you look at the teams in the eras they played Australia's record is more impressive IMO.

I'm sorry, no matter which way you cut it, the record of not losing a series in 15 years is >>>>> more impressive than a 0.8 percent difference in winning stats.

Personally, I just think Australia is a much better balanced side and played far tougher opposition during their reign. Unfortunately, for some, nostalgia seems to think of the WIndies as some noble team whereas Australians were of a "win by any means" character (and said with the emphasis being negative).

The tougher opposition clause doesn't apply in the 2000s, as I've shown.

It's not nostalgia, WI simply had a bowling attack unmatched in cricket history, the best no.3 since Bradman, and other fine batsman to help him.

 

[miscer]

It's interesting because Australia are said to have played in an era of flat tracks and our bowling lineup never seemed to have much difficulty taking 20 wickets. Unless you want to count the series at home against India in 02/03 where McGrath, Gillespie and Warne were all unable to play for various reasons and we had an attack lead by Brad Williams. Even that series we didn't manage to lose.

i still hate the, then, indian captain for gifting that series to you. enforce the follow on ffs.

 

[G.I.Joe]

You don't need to bowl 90 overs in a day when you have a bowling attack like this (thanks again Rob this is such a wonderful video. I have already watched it 3 times and just can't get enough of this video)

‪WEST INDIES FAST BOWLERS OF THE 80'S - BRUTAL COMPILATION!‬‏ - YouTube

Eat dust in 3 days

Why then, did the WI play out a greater proportion of draws than Australia did?