Australia 2002 vs West Indies 1984

[subshakerz]

For me this contest centres around Warne, he is the one massive difference between the two sides. If the pitch allows him to be a factor then WI have nothing to compare. If it doesn't, then the WI attack has too much all round strength.

Warne never really took apart WI in his time, was sort of middling.

 

[Raz0r6ack]

Warne never really took apart WI in his time, was sort of middling.

His first major spell in Test cricket was taking apart the WI.

7/52 at the G in 92

 

[Godard]

For me this contest centres around Warne, he is the one massive difference between the two sides. If the pitch allows him to be a factor then WI have nothing to compare. If it doesn't, then the WI attack has too much all round strength.

There was no pitch where Warne was successful and Marshall wasn’t. So even if Warne is aided by the pitch, Marshall will still do well on it(although maybe not as good as Warne, depending on the pitch). However what the Aus side lacks is more than one ATG pacer and also an ATG express pacer. So if the pitch is a turning SC pitch, Warne will do better than any other bowler, and would give Aus an edge, but still it would be close cause of Marshall(and cause WI literally have 4 ATG bowlers, all top 15 pacers). But if the pitch is aiding fast bowlers, then WI’s pace battery being far superior to Aus, would lead WI most definitely winning on such a track. That for me gives WI the edge.

 

[Slifer]

Viv is not a tier above Ponting. Ponting was a great batsman as well and is probably under-rated here. No two equals are exactly equal. You can take it as two of them in the same tier.

Ok and in the same token no way is Warne >> Garner as you posted.

 

[Slifer]

His first major spell in Test cricket was taking apart the WI.

7/52 at the G in 92

Yeah but there were 3 other tests in which he played including the usually spin friendly SCG and......The point being, Warne was never the difference maker between the decent WI teams he played: McGrath and Steve Waugh were.

 

[subshakerz]

His first major spell in Test cricket was taking apart the WI.

7/52 at the G in 92

Talking about a series. 92, 95 and 96 were all middling. 99 he was injured and 2005 it was a pretty bad team sans Lara.

 

[subshakerz]

Ok and in the same token no way is Warne >> Garner as you posted.

Depends on the conditions. I would take Garner in the 1st innings and most pitches in Aus/WI over Warne.

Warne individually overall yes but Garner complements that attack really well.

 

[Slifer]

Depends on the conditions. I would take Garner in the 1st innings and most pitches in Aus/WI over Warne.

Warne individually overall yes but Garner complements that attack really well.

Yeah but >> is a bit much no?? Statistically, Garner isn't that far behind McGrath.

 

[Raz0r6ack]

Yeah but there were 3 other tests in which he played including the usually spin friendly SCG and......The point being, Warne was never the difference maker between the decent WI teams he played: McGrath and Steve Waugh were.

Talking about a series. 92, 95 and 96 were all middling. 99 he was injured and 2005 it was a pretty bad team sans Lara.

Warne might be middling for the series overall but I think he pulls out 1 or 2 match winning performances which drags Australia over the line.

 

[Slifer]

Warne might be middling for the series overall but I think he pulls out 1 or 2 match winning performances which drags Australia over the line.

But if he failed to pull out match winning performances vs 90s WI teams how is he expected to do it vs a superior team? Warne isn't facing England or South African novices.

 

[The Sean]

On the other hand, that great Windies team did have some issues against spin and far lesser bowlers than Warne ran through them. I don't think it's just cut and dried either way.

 

[subshakerz]

Warne might be middling for the series overall but I think he pulls out 1 or 2 match winning performances which drags Australia over the line.

1-2 matchwinning performances would be the expectation for each of the WI pacers.

 

[subshakerz]

On the other hand, that great Windies team did have some issues against spin and far lesser bowlers than Warne ran through them. I don't think it's just cut and dried either way.

They lost 4 games to spin in the 80s, two in Sydney and 1 in India and Pakistan each.

So I don't have a problem with saying that Warne will win them a game in Sydney for example or on a particularly turning SC wicket.

I just don't think Warne is the decisive factor when it comes to a series.

Even in India, look at the spectacular returns from Holding, Marshall and Walsh in their series there.

 

[Raz0r6ack]

But if he failed to pull out match winning performances vs 90s WI teams how is he expected to do it vs a superior team? Warne isn't facing England or South African novices.

Because Brian Lara isn't playing.

 

[Slifer]

Because Brian Lara isn't playing.

Clive Lloyd is a little behind lara when it comes to playing spin. And if we're talking 79-84, Alvin Kallicharan would be available as well. He too was immense vs spin.

 

[subshakerz]

Because Brian Lara isn't playing.

Except for that 277 in Sydney, Lara wasn't really a constant factor in those series like in 99. Warne simply had quiet series by his standards, and that too in his peak.

 

[Kenneth Viljoen]

What conditions ? What venue ? What rules are we using ie. DRS in play ? ..Which era is the match to be played in ? Cause if it's in 21st century era that means bouncer rule of 1994 applies where bowling side can only bowl 2 bouncers per over , this puts 84 West Indies side at a disadvantage cause they can't intimidate as much as they did in the 80's ...Also better quality helmets and equipment to counter fast bowling ..There is a lot of factors to consider ..

 

[subshakerz]

What conditions ? What venue ? What rules are we using ie. DRS in play ? ..Which era is the match to be played in ? Cause if it's in 21st century era that means bouncer rule of 1994 applies where bowling side can only bowl 2 bouncers per over , this puts 84 West Indies side at a disadvantage cause they can't intimidate as much as they did in the 80's ...Also better quality helmets and equipment to counter fast bowling ..There is a lot of factors to consider ..

WI will win regardless. They were quality enough to still get wickets regardless of bouncer barrage.

 

[anil1405]

What conditions ? What venue ? What rules are we using ie. DRS in play ? ..Which era is the match to be played in ? Cause if it's in 21st century era that means bouncer rule of 1994 applies where bowling side can only bowl 2 bouncers per over , this puts 84 West Indies side at a disadvantage cause they can't intimidate as much as they did in the 80's ...Also better quality helmets and equipment to counter fast bowling ..There is a lot of factors to consider ..

At the beloved Oval in June 2023.

 

[Slifer]

What conditions ? What venue ? What rules are we using ie. DRS in play ? ..Which era is the match to be played in ? Cause if it's in 21st century era that means bouncer rule of 1994 applies where bowling side can only bowl 2 bouncers per over , this puts 84 West Indies side at a disadvantage cause they can't intimidate as much as they did in the 80's ...Also better quality helmets and equipment to counter fast bowling ..There is a lot of factors to consider ..

A hypothetical like this can only be played over 5 tests each in Australia and WI. And Australia get to play under conditions as they were during their peak: helmets, limited bouncers, flat wickets (for the most part)etc. And at the 5 traditional test venues: MCG, SCG, WACA, Adelaide and the Gabba.

WI get to play at home under 80s conditions ie very little protection, unlimited bouncers at the 5 main venues: QPO, Kensington, Sabina, Bourda and ARG.