Sobers slams Australia and Shane Warne Performances

[Slifer]

I think if a hypothetical series was played home and away between these 2 sides (WI LLoyd and Waugh's Aussies) in Aust. the score would be 2-1 either way with AUst winning in Sydney and WI winning in Perth. In the WI, the WI would win 2 or 3 nil. Shane Warne would be a no factor in WI conditions.

 

[Langeveldt]

"The Aussies have done so well for all these years because of two players: Shane Warne and Glenn McGrath."

no one can argue with that statement.

Ah yes, forgot about Gilchrists English passport.. Oh and Ponting, mediocre for mine..

Another former player who should stick to golf

 

[Richard]

Has anyone ever wondered if it's not that bowlers of yore were better, but that batsmen today have improved? I think that modern computer analysis helps batsmen significantly more than it helps bowlers.

That makes no sense at all.

 

[Richard]

Most of his points I agree with actually, except for his comment on Shane Warne and to say something like ""I don't think they would have even won a single Test against Clive Lloyd's team" is OTT.

However, if you compare the bowling attacks of the 70's and 80's to the 90's and 00's there's simply no comparision IMO. There were so many absolute "world class" bowlers in those days while today you're really struggling to find bowlers that measure up to the standard of say Lillee, Hadlee, Botham, Garner, etc etc. Of the current bowlers playing at the moment only Warne and McGrath fit the bill IMO as all-time greats.

The Australian team under Taylor, Waugh and Ponting are great sides but if you were to put their teams up against teams of the 70's and 80's there's no way they would have been as dominant. That's what Sobers is trying to say I believe.

IMO Australia 1999-2003 vs Australia of the mid-1970s would've been a good match-up.

 

[Richard]

England and NZ are the only nations producing anything close to seam friendly wickets now-a-days, and India and SL are the only ones producing spin friendly tracks, and even those are either reducing or when they do occur, idiots like Clive Lloyd make complaints that they are too spin friendly and not sporting.

Aside from Lord's 2005, Trent Bridge 2003, Headingley 2003 and the odd other pitch that seamed for a session or so (Edgbaston and Headingley 2002, Lord's 2003, Headingley 2004), plus the 3 turners of 2004 (Trent Bridge, Lord's 2nd, Edgbaston) English pitches have generally conformed quite comfortably to the World trend since 2002. Indeed, run-scoring in England has often been easier than anywhere.
The fact that there are so many moderate bowlers around, meaning that seaming and turning conditions are very rarely fully exploited, is also a contributory factor.
I'm also struggling to remember the last time India produced some really sharp-turning pitches outside 2004\05 when we had 2 in the same series (Chepauk and Wankhede), and with Galle being destroyed turners seem to occur less in SL, too.

 

[Richard]

I don't think you can say so for sure, unless you have seen Gupte bowl, that is.
By all accounts he was a terrific leg-spinner, definitely the best of his era.

People said Arthur Mailey was better than Clarrie Grimmett, too.
Being the best leg-spinner of a certain era isn't saying that much, as legspin is rarely something anyone manages to bowl well.
Gupte might have been above the average but I can't see that he was especially outstanding, he had too many bad games for that. Read the same thing for Mailey.

 

[Richard]

I think if a hypothetical series was played home and away between these 2 sides (WI LLoyd and Waugh's Aussies) in Aust. the score would be 2-1 either way with AUst winning in Sydney and WI winning in Perth. In the WI, the WI would win 2 or 3 nil. Shane Warne would be a no factor in WI conditions.

Warne in top form will be a factor in any conditions.

 

[aussie]

fair article Warne & McGrath have been keys to australia's dominace yes but their batting has been pretty good. Also he is right about the fact that the current and IMO not even the best aussie batting line-up over the last decade could have handled the great WI pace attack, but then again who could..

 

[Richard]

Australia's batting has been what West Indies' bowling was - the intimadatory factor.
However, West Indies' bowling would probably have intimidated Australia's batting, so Australia's batting would no longer be intimidatory.
Indeed - were Australia to play at the same time as West Indies, would Australia be anywhere near so good?
Possibly, yes, but possibly not.

 

[Slifer]

Warne in top form will be a factor in any conditions.

See Warne's stats in WI throughout his career.

 

[sirjeremy11]

See Warne's stats in WI throughout his career.

17 wickets in 7 tests @ 39.64 BB 4/70

17 wickets in 11 ODI's @ 26.94 BB 3/28

Remember in the 98/99 series, Lara got to him though. In the other series (94/95) he played there he took 15 wickets in 4 games at 27.06

 

[Slifer]

And what happaned in that 8th test? Ne way the point is that the so -called Shane Warne factor would be there in Aussie conditions but in the WI (against the 1980s team) he would be mince meat. WI wickets then werent exactly conduscive to spin.

 

[Tom Halsey]

See Warne's stats in WI throughout his career.

Notice he said "in top form". In 98/99 he was in the worst form of his life, and that badly affects his numbers.

 

[Tom Halsey]

And what happaned in that 8th test? Ne way the point is that the so -called Shane Warne factor would be there in Aussie conditions but in the WI (against the 1980s team) he would be mince meat. WI wickets then werent exactly conduscive to spin.

In 94/95 (when he was in somethign resembling form) he seemed to do alright, especially considering some of the greentops they played on.

 

[aussie]

See Warne's stats in WI throughout his career.

yea it may be poor overall, but when he went their in 95, he was decent 15 wickets @ 27 & i have the tape of the series & i have the tape of that series & he bowled pretty well againts some pretty aggressive WI batting, while 99 it was his 1st series after his 2nd operation, while he unlucky missed out the 2003 tour where i'm sure he would have bowled well looking at the fact that MacGill took 21 wickets in that series.

If you want to include ODI's his record in the WI is pretty good 11 games, 17 wickets @ 26

 

[Richard]

while he unlucky missed out the 2003 tour where i'm sure he would have bowled well looking at the fact that MacGill took 21 wickets in that series.

MacGill took wickets, indeed, but he managed 3 very poor games and 1 good one, so you can't really say much about that.
It would be much fairer to say MacGill bowled poorly that series than that he bowled well.

 

[vic_orthdox]

yea it may be poor overall, but when he went their in 95, he was decent 15 wickets @ 27 & i have the tape of the series & i have the tape of that series & he bowled pretty well againts some pretty aggressive WI batting, while 99 it was his 1st series after his 2nd operation, while he unlucky missed out the 2003 tour where i'm sure he would have bowled well looking at the fact that MacGill took 21 wickets in that series.

If you want to include ODI's his record in the WI is pretty good 11 games, 17 wickets @ 26

So your saying that you have the tape of that series..?

 

[Richard]

See Warne's stats in WI throughout his career.

As TH mentions - I said "in top form".
There's simply no disputing the fact that Warne in West Indies in 1999 doesn't really count for much, as he bowled a pile of crap.
Really, he's only played 1 series in West Indies which can have much judged upon it, and in that he bowled reasonably without being outstanding - 38.3-121-5, 35-101-3, 15.5-42-1, 48.4-142-6.
To say "Warne has been poor in West Indies" is extremely simplistic and, frankly, is missing the facts of the matter.

 

[kvemuri]

And Border?

And Bennett?

And Holland?

And others?

I loved watching the WI play (despite the fact that they routinely smashed Aus) but they werent very good players of spin and against Warne (circa mid-90s) they'd have struggled to post competitive totals in too many conditions.

Their fantastic fast bowlers would've evened up the game in many tests but to say they'd never lose is ignoring history.

How many games did the tandem of Border, Bennett and Holland beat the mighty windies? did this tandem win a series for Australia (in comparision to the rout that Kumble-Raju-Chauhan handed to the England in 92-93 in India)?

"Never lose" definitely is an exaggeration by Sobers, but the comment that but they werent very good players of spin and against Warne (circa mid-90s) they'd have struggled to post competitive totals in too many conditions. is a mighty exaggeration too.

That era WI team was as potent on playing spin as they were against pace, Greenidge, Haynes, Richards and Lloyd could way lay an attack on any given day, with Dujon, Marshall and Holding chipping in.

Case in point after the 1983 WC surprise win when the Windies toured India the following season they routed us 3-0 in 5 match series, we did have spin option as usual and the tracks weren't bowler friendly. Yet they went onto plunder runs off with an innings of 161 from Lloyd which I will never forget, it was either in Calcutta or Ahmedabad, his innings was that of destroyer incarnate with his lazy gait and vicious strokes. He toyed with Indian bowlers, particularly a young Maninder Singh, as though he was playing backyard cricket with a bunch of school boys.

I seriouly don't think that either Shane Warne or Muthaiah Muralitharan or Anil Kumble would've been that effective against the might of Greenidge, Haynes, Richards, Lloyd etc and if they didn't click, any score was enough fodder, in most cases, for the likes of Marshall, Holding, Roberts, Garner with Baptiste, Davis and Gomes chipping in to take care of the opposition batsmen.

In my opinion, Windies decline started with the retirement of Lloyd, it really did not get reflected under Richards that much as the West Indies were still able to win many games in both formats, but the seeds of decline were sown. After Richards, the 90s windies under Richardson, Lara, Hooper (for a briefest moment they seem to be under revival) and now Chanderpaul they seem a very distant pale shadow of the time of Clive Lloyd.

 

[C_C]

Seems like everytime Warne comes up, there are a lotta exceptions, catch phrases and 'no cant consider this or that or that'.

By the way - he was thwacked by Lara and handled pretty well by Hooper. In the 70s/80s team, Kalli was Lara's equal when it came to playing spin, if not superior and Lloyd was easily better than any other WI player post 1990 barring Lara when it came to playing spin.

Ofcourse, if Warne started being too much of a problem, i am sure one of Holding,Garner,Croft,Marshall,Roberts, Ambrose, etc. can konk him outta the game.
I can see OZ sneaking in a narrow series victory in OZ if they avoided Perth and Brisbane....but winning in the WI ? i dont think so. Bridgetown, TT, Jamaica all are pacer friendly.
And as it has been amply demonstrated throughout the times, even a vastly superior batting side like India came up short agianst a vastly superior bowling side like South Africa throughout the 90s or early 2000s. Same with India-Pakistan.
It matters not the marginal superiority OZ enjoys in batting stakes.
WI bowling attack is vastly superior and it would be very much like IND taking on PAK or RSA in the heydeys of Akram,Waqar,Donald,Pollock,deVilliers, etc.
As Viv once said, their batting was carefree and unconcerned, because the WI's operating philosophy was 'doesnt matter how much we make. You will make less'.