Sobers slams Australia and Shane Warne Performances

[Richard]

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.

I think Warne, Murali and Kumble (on turning pitches) would all have been effective against them in top form, as great bowlers usually are.
Equally, though, the chances are West Indies would still have scored plenty of good totals.
It should be obvious to anyone that West Indies' decline started with Pakistan bowling them out for 46. But of course they didn't lose a series (they should have lost several) for another 8 years.

 

[Richard]

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.

I don't find it's up for dispute that West Indies would not have struggled terribly against Warne. I do find it, though, stupid to suggest Warne would not have done reasonably well if he'd bowled at his best against them.

 

[C_C]

He would've done reasonably well along with McGrath(who i think would've been chief destroyer). But Gillespie/Lee/<insert any two OZ bowlers from 1990-present here> would've been absolutely clobbered outta the ballpark.
In essence, the one bowler i see having a monster series vs the WI is McGrath with Warne doing pretty well.
But for that one OZ bowler who has a monster series, i can see atleast 5-6 WI bowlers who'd have a monster series.

 

[Richard]

To suggest Gillespie would be clobbered out of the park is to show extreme ignorance. And to suggest Fleming and Reiffel couldn't have had an influence is naive, too.
Equally, if Croft, Clarke, Daniel, Gray, etc. played as little as they did, it's fair to suggest West Indies could probably beat the current Aus with a second-string attack.

 

[C_C]

Gillespie is a good bowler but i would expect him to be royally clobbered in two or three matches and have 1 average and 1 good match.
By clobbering, i mean having less than 4 wickets/match and averaging over 30.
Reiffel would most likely have been annihilated, as Riffiel was a one trick pony.
Same with Lee.
McGill is too inconsistent to contribute consistently and Fleming IMO would've suffered the same fate as Gillespie.
In short, if it were a 5 test series, i would expect something like this for the bowling analysis ( ofcourse, this is just an example to illustrate better what i mean):

McGrath : 5 matches, 25 wickets @ 20
Warne : 5 matches, 20 wickets @ 30
Gillespie: 5 matches, 16-17 wickets @ 30-35
Lee : 5 matches, 15-16 wickets @ 35-40
Waugh brothers/clarke/stop-gaps : 4-5 wickets @ 50-ish.

Marshall : 5 mat 25 wickets @ 20
Holding : 5 mat 25 wickets @ 20-21
Garner : 5 mat 20 wickets @ less than 25
Roberts/Croft : 5 mat 20-25 wickets @ 25
Viv/Lloyd/trundlers : much the same as Aussie ones

 

[steds]

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

Maybe, Macca. But you just don't know these days.

 

[Richard]

Gillespie is a good bowler but i would expect him to be royally clobbered in two or three matches and have 1 average and 1 good match.
By clobbering, i mean having less than 4 wickets/match and averaging over 30.
Reiffel would most likely have been annihilated, as Riffiel was a one trick pony.
Same with Lee.
McGill is too inconsistent to contribute consistently and Fleming IMO would've suffered the same fate as Gillespie.
In short, if it were a 5 test series, i would expect something like this for the bowling analysis ( ofcourse, this is just an example to illustrate better what i mean):

McGrath : 5 matches, 25 wickets @ 20
Warne : 5 matches, 20 wickets @ 30
Gillespie: 5 matches, 16-17 wickets @ 30-35
Lee : 5 matches, 15-16 wickets @ 35-40
Waugh brothers/clarke/stop-gaps : 4-5 wickets @ 50-ish.

Marshall : 5 mat 25 wickets @ 20
Holding : 5 mat 25 wickets @ 20-21
Garner : 5 mat 20 wickets @ less than 25
Roberts/Croft : 5 mat 20-25 wickets @ 25
Viv/Lloyd/trundlers : much the same as Aussie ones

"Clobbered" to me means being hit for lots of runs per over - nothing to do with taking wickets. I would not expect Gillespie to have that happen - nor Fleming.
To describe Reiffel as a "one-trick pony" in the Dorey\Johnson\Lewis\ Clark\Watson\Hopes\Williams\Bichel\etc. mould is simplistic indeed.
I might not expect all to do especially well, and I certainly would expect MacGill to get royally belted. Brett Lee too, and quite possibly Kasprowicz and Bracken.
Equally, I'd expect Marshall, Holding, Garner and Roberts to knock-over Australia pretty often, especially given seaming pitches.
But if you put McGrath, Reiffel, Fleming, Gillespie and Warne together (not possible, obviously, because they were all at peaks at different times, much the same as Roberts and Marshall) I reckon they'd cause plenty of problems to West Indies, especially on seamers\turners-as-the-case-may-be. I'd certainly back Gillespie, Fleming and Reiffel to average under 30, Reiffel if he could control no-balls.

 

[aussie]

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.

for me the only game where he was really ``poor`` was in antigua, in guyana & Trinidad he was average though while has you said in Barbados he bowled pretty well, but he ended up with 21 wickets so overall i cant see how we can call it a poor series bowling performance.

 

[C_C]

Reiffel was very much a one trick pony IMO. He had a good outswinger and got good bounce. Thats it. Nada beyond that.
Put it this way - if all the OZ pacers from 1990 to current day were born in the West Indies and were of playing age anytime between 1975-1990 ( barring packer years ofcourse), McGrath is the only one that would make the national team consistently and the rest all wouldnt even be in the XV, injuries notwithstanding. Bowlers like Reiffel, Lee, Kaspa,etc. would not even make some of their caribbean domestic squads.
If those bowlers you mentioned take on the WI on a seamer friendly pitch, i can see them skittle out the WI for around 300 but then i dont give OZ much chance to score 200 on the same pitch with Macco, whispering death, big bird and Croft bowling in tandem.

 

[aussie]

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

lol, misake their obviously..

 

[Richard]

for me the only game where he was really ``poor`` was in antigua, in guyana & Trinidad he was average though while has you said in Barbados he bowled pretty well, but he ended up with 21 wickets so overall i cant see how we can call it a poor series bowling performance.

Because if you remove Barbados he was extremely poor. And he was extremely poor in his last series (England) and his next two (India and Sri Lanka).
Bowling isn't about numbers of wickets, it's about averages and strike-rates. You will always get wickets if you bowl the overs.

 

[aussie]

Gillespie is a good bowler but i would expect him to be royally clobbered in two or three matches and have 1 average and 1 good match.

I doubt that about a Gillespie in top form TBH..

 

[Richard]

Reiffel was very much a one trick pony IMO. He had a good outswinger and got good bounce. Thats it. Nada beyond that.
Put it this way - if all the OZ pacers from 1990 to current day were born in the West Indies and were of playing age anytime between 1975-1990 ( barring packer years ofcourse), McGrath is the only one that would make the national team consistently and the rest all wouldnt even be in the XV, injuries notwithstanding. Bowlers like Reiffel, Lee, Kaspa,etc. would not even make some of their caribbean domestic squads.
If those bowlers you mentioned take on the WI on a seamer friendly pitch, i can see them skittle out the WI for around 300 but then i dont give OZ much chance to score 200 on the same pitch with Macco, whispering death, big bird and Croft bowling in tandem.

What, prey, would place Croft ahead of Roberts (or Daniel, indeed)?
What did Croft have other than a weird action and a bit of nastiness?
If Reiffel was a one-trick pony, Croft certainly was.
I'd back both attacks to be a real handful on a seamer, I'd back Aus to get less than 200 most of the time.
I'm interested as to what you know of WI domestic squads in the 1975-90 time?
I also don't really know why you continue to mention Lee in the same breath as McGrath, Gillespie, Reiffel, Fleming and Kasprowicz. He's not. He's in the Dorey\Johnson\Lewis\Clark\ Williams\Watson\Hopes\Bichel\Bracken class.

 

[aussie]

Because if you remove Barbados he was extremely poor.

he wasn't great i agree but my memory of seeing him bowl in guyana & trinidad where IMO he wasn't poor as he was in antigua, its a bit unfair to classify those performances in those 2 test as ``extremely poor``, i'd just say he was average.

 

[C_C]

Look. If you take 75-90 period for the WI and 90-05 period for the OZ, the bowling gap is huge in terms of quality.
Just to illustrate my point, Gillespie is the indisputable '2nd best OZ pace bowler in the last 10-15 years' and if you compare him to the WI pool, i can easily think of atleast Roberts, Garner, Marshall, Holding, Ambrose, Walsh, Croft and Bishop to be of higher quality, most of them significantly so.
When your #2 paceman is behind 8-9 pacers of the opposition team, you got a serious disadvantage, nomatter what, especially since you are playing 1 spinner ( ie, this isnt a spin quartet we are talkig about)

 

[aussie]

He's in the Dorey\Johnson\Lewis\Clark\ Williams\Watson\Hopes\Bichel\Bracken class.

Bing before now may not have been that great a test bowler, but surely he wouldn't be in a category as low as these blokes, come on..

 

[C_C]

What, prey, would place Croft ahead of Roberts (or Daniel, indeed)?

Look -IMO Marshall and Holding are garantees alongside Garner. Croft, Roberts, Ambrose,Bishop,Walsh, etc. are a tossup, depending on era conflicts ( some might deem Ambrose's and Walsh's 80s campaign to be too breif - whatever) or marginal difference in quality and they would still roll over the OZ batting lineup for less than what the WI would score.
And Wayne Daniel was a good bowler but Croft was hovering around the edges of greatness. NOT in the same class.
Croft had excellent outswingers and inswingers, bowled at super pace and the bounce he extracted would make even a NBA player uncomfortable.

As per their domestic squads - most of their pros plied their trades overseas but did take part in domestic cricket sporadically.
Barbados had Marshall, Garner, Daniel and Davis IIRC. That lineup would be tough at best for Gillespie to crack.

 

[Richard]

Look. If you take 75-90 period for the WI and 90-05 period for the OZ, the bowling gap is huge in terms of quality.
Just to illustrate my point, Gillespie is the indisputable '2nd best OZ pace bowler in the last 10-15 years' and if you compare him to the WI pool, i can easily think of atleast Roberts, Garner, Marshall, Holding, Ambrose, Walsh, Croft and Bishop to be of higher quality, most of them significantly so.
When your #2 paceman is behind 8-9 pacers of the opposition team, you got a serious disadvantage, nomatter what, especially since you are playing 1 spinner ( ie, this isnt a spin quartet we are talkig about)

I don't dispute that for a second.
I'd class Malcolm, Curtley, WD, BB, Roberts, Bish, Daniel, Croft, Courtney, Clarke, Gray, the whole lot - above Gillespie, Fleming and Reiffel. They're probably about equal to Winston Benjamin, Winston Davis and Patterson (Patrick Patterson, not Patterson Thompson) in my estimation.
I find WI enormously superior - but nonetheless I think the three Aus bowlers said would cause problems to even Fredericks, Greenidge, Kalli, Lloyd, IVA and Dujon on a seaming pitch. I also think Warne would cause problems in top form on any surface.

 

[Richard]

Bing before now may not have been that great a test bowler, but surely he wouldn't be in a category as low as these blokes, come on..

If there's no in-between I'd say so.
To compare him to Reiffel, Fleming and Gillespie is ridiculous.

 

[C_C]

Actually something just occured to me - i think Warne's effectiveness is being exgaggerated here.
Warne's standard bowling style is 'pitch it outside the leg stump rough of the rightie and get it to break across' . He hasnt been very successful bowling an offstump line.
One of the prime reason Warne has struggled against IND batsmen so much is because IND batsmen are monster players off their pads/legs.
And the WI players of that era were absolutely monsters when it came to playing off their pads.
Viv would murder you with his inside-out cover drives or hoicking you to cow corner.
Greenidge was one of the strongest players off his pads i've seen.
Lloyd had the correct technique and did very well against the spin quartet in India i think.
Overall, unless Warne shows unnatural adaptation to off stump line, it would've been India vs Warne all over again, atleast at a lesser extent.