-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Australia (1995-2007) Vs. West Indies (1974-1986)?
- Thread starter BlazeDragon
- Start date
- Status
Ikki
Hall of Fame Member
And who says to not discuss it? The point is you dont win Tests by the speed you bowl out the opposition; only if you outscore the opposition. The difference between their SRs over a 5 day Test is nothing. It is not going to be a factor in 99/100 cases because there is very little in it.
If you doubt they can hold the same SRs then you should also consider that due to their era the Aussie bowlers are going to be cheaper if pitches are sporting.
It is still only slight. Lee and Dizzy are 3rd/4th bowlers, it is unlikely they are going to take enough wickets at a high average for it to matter much. If Lee takes 4 (which in most cases won't happen because of McWarne) it really won't be for 30 runs a piece in a game situation. If these guys are taking the wickets then they'll probably be outbowling McWarne and their stats will be much better than that (30 runs a piece).
All that aside, if you want to compare straight averages then compare the straight averages of the batting lineups. You'll see Australia are a way ahead with 4 batsmen averaging 50+ and many near it.
They dont. Over a career, sure. Over a series, not at all. The difference is going to be who is in slightly better form in that series as the stats are too close to suggest a gulf in ability. Only Lee looks out of place as a bowler, yet he is merely the 4th bowler and on one hand strikes as fast as the best of them.
Not really, till around 02 at least there were still quality bowlers/teams around. The 00s stacks up well against the 80s.
They may have been for their time but they don't stack up well in comparison. The Pak in the Aus era is much better and the SA I'd put ahead of that Aus team you named which was spearheaded by an aged and injured Lillee. The others weren't spring chickens either and Border was not the Border we know.
They won the first test and the next 2 Tests were near impossible to get a result from due to the weather. The example of SL is merely straw clutching.
How does any of that change what I said. During that period India were as hard to beat at home as any of the other great sides Australia faced.
It's not good to take away credit from England but it's true. Hayden didn't score a 100 for eons. Gilliespie was at the end of it. Martyn got many bad decisions. McGrath injured himself. Tait was a debutant. As well as England playing out of their skin.
Sure, these things should count against them - the standard here is high - but it's not enough to suggest the Windies are better IMO. Maybe they wouldnt have lost to that India or that England but they probably could have against those SA Pak and the WI side of the 90s. So whilst it is still remarkable that they were undefeated for so long, I don't think it would have happened in Australia's era. Their win/loss record in terms of Tests would have also taken a big hit. Remember Australia has a 23% advantage even when playing in a era of more competition and higher quality teams
Last edited:
Ikki
Hall of Fame Member
This is a really important point the people arguing for WI are ignoring. For pace bowlers to have to bowl many more overs in one day will affect the bowling performance itself.
shivfan
Banned
So what? The WIndies won most of their matches with time and sometimes days to spare....
There was only one match I could find during that time when the Windies held on for a draw, so slow over-rates were hardly the issue that the ICC claimed it was. This was just a measure that the ICC put in place to try and force the WI not to use a four-pronged pace attack.
The WIndies packed grounds wherever they went, so it can hardly be claimed that less overs meant less entertainment. Comparing the amount of time that a pace bowler takes to deliver an over is as ridiculous as comparing Usain Bolt's 100m time to Mo Farah's 5000m time, and insisting that Farah run faster....
I would rather watch Steyn bowl five overs at top pace, than watch ten mediocre overs from Harris any day. I think this rule which forces teams to use spinners is as stupid and ridiculous as the moronic rule that limits the number of bouncers that can be bowled in an over.
G.I.Joe
International Coach
Did Australia get more wickets because they won more matches, or did they win more matches because they got more wickets?
stephen
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Actually over rates are very important, particularly in the context of a series. In modern playing conditions the great West Indian team would not be able to play as they did. They would have needed to speed themselves up significantly between overs and during overs.
In fact the change in playing conditions weakens the argument that the West Indies are hypothetically stronger because they would need to change strategy to play in modern times. Australia would not have had to change too much of their strategy to adapt to the West Indian times.
If the West Indies had have gone through their overs faster then maybe they would have won more of their games or maybe their bowlers would have broken down more often and they would theoretically have been weaker. We will never know. All we know is that the West Indian side could not play the same way that they did then in this era. It's important to respect that difference in the same way that it's important to respect the difference between the modern great spinners and the great spinners of the uncovered pitch era. Playing conditions were different and that needs to be taken into account.
smash84
The Tiger King
Exactly. As Cribb always points out that the WI job was to play according to their era and be the best team in their era and not according to what the stats brigade would think about them 20 years down the line.
Top_Cat
Request Your Custom Title Now!
On over-rates, many of the popular arguments against it came after the fact (i.e. crowd and TV audience not getting their money's worth, etc.). The main impetus behind improving over rates was more about gamesmanship and psychology. There's no better way as a captain, if the oppo is going well, to disrupt their rhythm than by changing the rate at which you bowl your overs.
Every captain does it because it's one way, if you've lost control of everything else in the game, you can force an opposition to play at your pace or, better yet, frustrate them enough into trying to wrest back the initiative and get out doing it. The WI were masters at getting in the heads of the opposition, was fairly predictable to watch the over-rate drop like a stone if an opposition batter was looking in good touch or if the WI were behind in the game. Once people also realised they were losing eyeballs on TV screens when there'd be an ad break and at the end of it, Dujon was still ambling into position, its fate was sealed.
Captains still do it all the time, they might slow down the over-rate for a while and then bring on a spinner and part-timer to make up the short-fall towards the end of the day, for example. At least under the current regime they can't do it from first hour to close like the WI did. In terms of what it takes to win, there's a balance in a game which goes for hours on end between psychology and skill and, in my view, the WI of the 80's pushed it a bit too far toward the former sometimes. That they were so awesome made it look like unnecessary bullying so it's not surprising, coupled with the economic arguments, that administrators sought to eradicate it.
Every captain does it because it's one way, if you've lost control of everything else in the game, you can force an opposition to play at your pace or, better yet, frustrate them enough into trying to wrest back the initiative and get out doing it. The WI were masters at getting in the heads of the opposition, was fairly predictable to watch the over-rate drop like a stone if an opposition batter was looking in good touch or if the WI were behind in the game. Once people also realised they were losing eyeballs on TV screens when there'd be an ad break and at the end of it, Dujon was still ambling into position, its fate was sealed.
Captains still do it all the time, they might slow down the over-rate for a while and then bring on a spinner and part-timer to make up the short-fall towards the end of the day, for example. At least under the current regime they can't do it from first hour to close like the WI did. In terms of what it takes to win, there's a balance in a game which goes for hours on end between psychology and skill and, in my view, the WI of the 80's pushed it a bit too far toward the former sometimes. That they were so awesome made it look like unnecessary bullying so it's not surprising, coupled with the economic arguments, that administrators sought to eradicate it.
Last edited:
Slifer
International Captain
Really?? If the WI were made to bowl under todays rules of overrates Im pretty sure they would be up to the task and still be effective. Curtley Ambrose and Courtney Walsh were contemporaries of the likes of Marshall and co, and they didnt have ne problems gettin thru their overs when made to,
Wi of the 80s were functioning at such a pedestrian rate because it was the rules of their time. Same rule that applied to every other team, dont see y people keepin harping on this.
Outswinger@Pace
International 12th Man
Hypothetically speaking, if Wes Hall, Mike Holding, John Price and Bob Willis would form the four pronged pace attack for any side, what would the over rate be? 
- Status