West Indies vs Australia

[Leathered]

West Indies gets my vote.

I put myself in the shoes of a batsman and think "who would I prefer to bat against?". That awesome WI side would have the bail trembling before I even reached the crease. Even if it wasn't a pitch that suited fast bowlers they still didn't need a spinner. MM could take wickets bowling in treacle. The Aussies have been fantastically talented and inventive, but the West Indies had the feel of sending people out to the executioner.

When I consider their batting lineup I find things fairly close except for one factor. Sir Viv Richards. I've had the privilege of seeing him play in England quite a few times and the man quite simply has an aura of greatness around him. Just walking out onto the pitch you could hear some of the crowd taking a little gasp of air as he passed them. I've never seen any one player single handedly obliterate the other teams hopes of winning as often as this man.

Players may have better stats, but stats be damned. He was the reason to watch cricket.

 

[Furball]

They were great teams; they played with grace and won with dignity.

Again, lol.

 

[Mike5181]

West Indies 1980s
1. Gordon Greenidge- 5094 runs @ 45.89
2. Desmond Haynes- 5074 runs @ 41.25
3. Viv Richards- 5113 runs @ 49.16
4. Clive Lloyd (c)- 2881 runs @ 52.38 8
5. Richie Richarsdon- 3320 runs @ 48.11
6. Larry Gomes- 2490 runs @ 40.81
7. Jeff Dujon (wk)- 2885 runs @ 36.06
8. Macolm Marshall- 323 wickets @ 19.91 SR 44.5
9. Michael Holding- 184 wickets @ 23.38 SR 50.3
10. Courtney Walsh- 122 wickets @ 24.24 SR 54.2
11. Joel Garner- 210 wickets @ 20.62 SR 51.8

Australia 2000s
1. Michael Hayden - 8364 runs @ 52.93
2. Justin Langer - 5994 runs @ 48.73
3. Ricky Ponting- 9458 runs @ 58.38
4. Steve Waugh- 2825 runs @ 53.30
5. Damien Martyn- 4089 runs @ 48.67
6. Michael Hussey- 3638 runs @ 51.97
7. Adam Gilchrist (wk)- 5130 runs @ 46.63
8. Shane Warne- 357 wickets @ 25.17 SR 50.7
9. Brett Lee- 303 wickets @ 31.27 SR 53.8
10. Jason Gillespie- 209 wickets @ 27.09 SR 57.4
11. Glenn McGrath- 297 wickets @ 20.53 SR 51.4

Although statistics only tell some of the story to the benefit of those of us who never got a chance to watch the West Indian players. Though the Australians averages in batting and bowling are higher we must take into account the greater amount of runs that modern batsmen score these days due to more one dayers etc. So in the context of their different eras. These statistics are done in the 1980s and 00s respectively. You be the judge although there are glaring weaknesses in both teams. I would say that Jason Gillespie and to a lesser extent Brett Lee are Australia's weak points. I say to a lesser extent because in that particular bowling attack Lee was a wicket taker and was all about speed for much of the 00s and this differentiates him from the rest of the bowling attack . That's reflected in Lee's strike rate which isn't totally embarrassed in this discussion despite him not being an all time great test bowler.

In the West Indies team it was clear that Ambrose wasn't as good in the 80s as some may have thought and infact Walse should probably edge him out in this discussion. Their batting may be marginally worse than Australia's taking into account Larry Gomes and Jeff Dujon vs Michael Hussey and Adam Gilchrist in 6 and 7 respectively. We all remember how many times we have taken Ponting's wicket early with a couple other scalps and in come Hussey or Gilchrist in ridiculously low by other teams standards and they save the match and not only that but swing it back in their favour. I would say their middle order is roughly equal talent wise if not statistically and you could say the same for the openers but with contrasting styles in the context of their different eras you never know what style would work against the other teams bowlers etc.

To tough to call but i would say that Australians are slightly better. That's really because the weaknesses they do have are compensated by the variety they add. We all remember that McGrath's strength was his ability to make the ball do just enough, then Gillespie's flaw is his tendency for it to do too much so that's kind of where i am coming from. I do think its clear that West Indies have the advantage in the pace bowling department though looking at some of the spin bowlers around in the 80s i doubt that they would have come across a spin bowler quite in the caliber of Shane Warne. So basically Australia in my opinion may be the better team. They specialised in hunting as a pack and used mental games to put batsmen off their game. Their fielding standards were without doubt one of the best cricket has seen though if you asked me to bat against a side i would pick Australia just because of the intimidation the West Indian bowlers give off.

When i was looking at the stats for the decades i actually saw Michael Clarke there with some pretty good numbers (actually better than some in the team) but i personally don't rate him ahead of Martyn, Hussey, Waugh.

Anyway, Discuss.

 

[Spark]

Clarke was outstanding at 5, of players who have a good amount of tests he was 3rd, behind SWaugh and Sameraweera IIRC.

 

[abmk]

In tests, WI by a slim margin.

Aus batsmen would be found wanting for most part like they were in Ashes 2005 ....

Hayden would be found wanting big time vs WI, marto wouldn't do that well either

Steve might play some gritty innings, ponting the occasional great innings, langer might grit it out and gilchrist the occasional amazing counter-attack, but they'd be under pressure big time

On the flip side, WI batsmen wouldn't have it easy against the leggie in warney and against mcgrath, who had the knack of picking up big wickets

 

[abmk]

oh and viv > ponting vs sheer pace and by some distance ..

ponting IMO isn't even the best player of his generation vs quality pace bowling . Both Sachin and Steve were better in tests against sheer quality pace bowling . Ponting edges them out when the conditions are easier though

 

[Spark]

Why wouldn't Martyn do well? Played some brilliant knocks against good attacks in tough conditions.

 

[abmk]

Why wouldn't Martyn do well? Played some brilliant knocks against good attacks in tough conditions.

He has, just that I think he isn't that good enough to score consistently vs the WI attack ...

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Theoretically, in terms of listing 11 players from the same era and comparing the teams, I would give the edge to the West Indies.

However, a team like that with Holding, Garner, Marshall and Ambrose as the attack never existed, and the peaks of those four bowlers were quite far apart in time. You may as well throw Lara into the batting lineup, frankly.

So it really depends what we're comparing. If it's an overall group of 11 players from within the period of dominance I would go with the West Indies, but if it's an actual team that played a bunch of tests together I would go with the Australian team from around the 2001-2004 era, between the 5-1 demolition of South Africa and the series wins in Sri Lanka and India, which I consider the best test team of all time.

 

[abmk]

Theoretically, in terms of listing 11 players from the same era and comparing the teams, I would give the edge to the West Indies.

However, a team like that with Holding, Garner, Marshall and Ambrose as the attack never existed, and the peaks of those four bowlers were quite far apart in time. You may as well throw Lara into the batting lineup, frankly.

So it really depends what we're comparing. If it's an overall group of 11 players from within the period of dominance I would go with the West Indies, but if it's an actual team that played a bunch of tests together I would go with the Australian team from around the 2001-2004 era, between the 5-1 demolition of South Africa and the series wins in Sri Lanka and India, which I consider the best test team of all time.

not ambrose, but you'd have bowlers like roberts/croft etc.. ... who for most part were better than Aus's 4th bowler in Lee by some distance

Holding, Garner and Marshall played quite a number of tests together

 

[Mike5181]

Theoretically, in terms of listing 11 players from the same era and comparing the teams, I would give the edge to the West Indies.

However, a team like that with Holding, Garner, Marshall and Ambrose as the attack never existed, and the peaks of those four bowlers were quite far apart in time. You may as well throw Lara into the batting lineup, frankly.

So it really depends what we're comparing. If it's an overall group of 11 players from within the period of dominance I would go with the West Indies, but if it's an actual team that played a bunch of tests together I would go with the Australian team from around the 2001-2004 era, between the 5-1 demolition of South Africa and the series wins in Sri Lanka and India, which I consider the best test team of all time.

The 80s was when they were dominate so i guess we take the players who featured the most. I originally recognised that Ambrose was a late inclusion in the team within the context of the 80s but all the others played together. As seen in this match.

1st Test: Australia v West Indies at Perth, Nov 9-12, 1984 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

Though yeah, i guess we have to recognise that people like Roger Harper played 24 test matches in the 80s for the West Indies.

 

[Mike5181]

not ambrose, but you'd have bowlers like roberts/croft etc.. ... who for most part were better than Aus's 4th bowler in Lee by some distance

Holding, Garner and Marshall played quite a number of tests together

Debatable to be honest. I doubt people would go after Lee at his pace with the sort of protective gear that had then. His economy rate, strike rate and average are a little higher than they would be if he was a bowler in those days. When were helmets introduced btw if anyone knows?

 

[honestbharani]

warne and gilchrist add an edge to the bowling and batting lineups of the australian team for sure. a match winning batsman at no.7 is a scary thought for any opposition. west indies were infamous for collapsing against leg spinners of all kind (qadir, holland, hirwani). and warne was the greatest of them all. so it wont be easy for them against these two greats. they never had to deal with anyone this good when they had their time at the top.

but lee is a chink in the armour. you cant have a 30+ average guy bowing at richards, lloyd and greenidge as a front line bowler. also gillespie (avg 27+ against non minnows) is a pie chucker compared to the west indian pacers.
garner, marshall, holding and ambrose look like an impregnable fortress to me.

overall, very very very close. either team could win 4-3 over a seven test series. i would back the west indies, though.

This..


Plus do rate the Windies openers to be greater than Hayden and Langer, as much as I love Haydos' batting style...

 

[honestbharani]

West Indies 1980s
1. Gordon Greenidge- 5094 runs @ 45.89
2. Desmond Haynes- 5074 runs @ 41.25
3. Viv Richards- 5113 runs @ 49.16
4. Clive Lloyd (c)- 2881 runs @ 52.38 8
5. Richie Richarsdon- 3320 runs @ 48.11
6. Larry Gomes- 2490 runs @ 40.81
7. Jeff Dujon (wk)- 2885 runs @ 36.06
8. Macolm Marshall- 323 wickets @ 19.91 SR 44.5
9. Michael Holding- 184 wickets @ 23.38 SR 50.3
10. Courtney Walsh- 122 wickets @ 24.24 SR 54.2
11. Joel Garner- 210 wickets @ 20.62 SR 51.8

Australia 2000s
1. Michael Hayden - 8364 runs @ 52.93
2. Justin Langer - 5994 runs @ 48.73
3. Ricky Ponting- 9458 runs @ 58.38
4. Steve Waugh- 2825 runs @ 53.30
5. Damien Martyn- 4089 runs @ 48.67
6. Michael Hussey- 3638 runs @ 51.97
7. Adam Gilchrist (wk)- 5130 runs @ 46.63
8. Shane Warne- 357 wickets @ 25.17 SR 50.7
9. Brett Lee- 303 wickets @ 31.27 SR 53.8
10. Jason Gillespie- 209 wickets @ 27.09 SR 57.4
11. Glenn McGrath- 297 wickets @ 20.53 SR 51.4

Although statistics only tell some of the story to the benefit of those of us who never got a chance to watch the West Indian players. Though the Australians averages in batting and bowling are higher we must take into account the greater amount of runs that modern batsmen score these days due to more one dayers etc. So in the context of their different eras. These statistics are done in the 1980s and 00s respectively. You be the judge although there are glaring weaknesses in both teams. I would say that Jason Gillespie and to a lesser extent Brett Lee are Australia's weak points. I say to a lesser extent because in that particular bowling attack Lee was a wicket taker and was all about speed for much of the 00s and this differentiates him from the rest of the bowling attack . That's reflected in Lee's strike rate which isn't totally embarrassed in this discussion despite him not being an all time great test bowler.

In the West Indies team it was clear that Ambrose wasn't as good in the 80s as some may have thought and infact Walse should probably edge him out in this discussion. Their batting may be marginally worse than Australia's taking into account Larry Gomes and Jeff Dujon vs Michael Hussey and Adam Gilchrist in 6 and 7 respectively. We all remember how many times we have taken Ponting's wicket early with a couple other scalps and in come Hussey or Gilchrist in ridiculously low by other teams standards and they save the match and not only that but swing it back in their favour. I would say their middle order is roughly equal talent wise if not statistically and you could say the same for the openers but with contrasting styles in the context of their different eras you never know what style would work against the other teams bowlers etc.

To tough to call but i would say that Australians are slightly better. That's really because the weaknesses they do have are compensated by the variety they add. We all remember that McGrath's strength was his ability to make the ball do just enough, then Gillespie's flaw is his tendency for it to do too much so that's kind of where i am coming from. I do think its clear that West Indies have the advantage in the pace bowling department though looking at some of the spin bowlers around in the 80s i doubt that they would have come across a spin bowler quite in the caliber of Shane Warne. So basically Australia in my opinion may be the better team. They specialised in hunting as a pack and used mental games to put batsmen off their game. Their fielding standards were without doubt one of the best cricket has seen though if you asked me to bat against a side i would pick Australia just because of the intimidation the West Indian bowlers give off.

When i was looking at the stats for the decades i actually saw Michael Clarke there with some pretty good numbers (actually better than some in the team) but i personally don't rate him ahead of Martyn, Hussey, Waugh.

Anyway, Discuss.

On another note, Dujon, averaging 36 is much closer to Gilchrist than I thought..

 

[bagapath]

Can agree with the rest but not this. I think having Ponting and Waugh makes Australia better in the middle-order.

I dont think ponting + s.waugh is better than richards + lloyd. in fact I would put my neck out and say richards + lloyd is a superior combo than the aussie stalwarts. richardson + gomes is more or less equal to hussey + martyn/m.waugh. so there is actually nothing to choose between the middle orders. when gilly walks out at no.7 the game tilts heavily in favor of australia. there is no doubt about that. but man to man, richards is better than ponting and lloyd is equal to s.waugh.

 

[abmk]

Debatable to be honest. I doubt people would go after Lee at his pace with the sort of protective gear that had then. His economy rate, strike rate and average are a little higher than they would be if he was a bowler in those days. When were helmets introduced btw if anyone knows?

Viv would go down the pitch and smack thommo . Lee who ???

And what about the Aus batsmen vs the WI quartet then !?

 

[archie mac]

Were the West Indians of 1980 better than the Australian team of 2000? You bet they were. By a country mile and then quite some more.

There have been great test sides over the years, but the great West Indian sides have, IMHO, never been equalled; either in pure cricketing skills or in the manner in which they played the game, the joy that they gave to the lovers of the game. True, they have had a couple of abrasive characters over the years, but the abiding memory of that team will always be that of their attitude to cricket, their sportsmanship, their love for the game and their exuberance. They didn't sledge; that one needed to stoop to such levels in order to win probably didn't occur to them; they didn't see the need for anything other than their cricketing skills to do that. Fairness, melded with awesome firepower, quicksilver flair, ruthless efficiency, and absolute confidence that comes from the knowledge that they were the best.

The 1980's WI team. A fearsome pace quartet, each one different from the other, attacking in four different ways. Holding, Roberts and Garner with Croft and Marshall battling it out for the last quick's place. Wayne Daniel not good enough to even get a game. Sylvester Clarke, Hartley Alleyne and Norbert Phillip playing county cricket because they couldn't come anywhere near the WI dressing room. Devastating batsmen and superb fielders. The batting line-up that included Richards, Greenidge, Haynes, Lloyd and Kallicharan. Without a shadow of doubt, the best test side that I've ever seen. For me, nothing has equalled watching those guys play cricket. The sheer aura of that team that captured the imagination of cricket fans all over the world. No team comes even close to them in terms of the respect that they commanded, the affection that they received. They were always fair, never arrogant, and they just didn't gloat.

What did you just say? That they didn't have a spinner while Australia had Warne? What material difference did that make? They were the team that beat India 3-0 in India; no team, with or without spinners, has ever come even remotely close to doing that during my cricket watching days. That WI side never felt the absence of a spinner; their over rates were excruciatingly slow by 1980's standards, but Lloyd had a point when he asked the whining English media: "Do you want us to beat you in three days instead of four?"

I know I have stars in my eyes when talking about the good ol days but please.

They were never nice, Greenidge asked a number of Aussies behind the stadium. Aussies were often called white ****s from the slip cordon and they bowled bouncers at tailenders with or without protective equitment.

Great team but not a nice one

 

[Mike5181]

Viv would go down the pitch and smack thommo . Lee who ???

And what about the Aus batsmen vs the WI quartet then !?

I think if the likes of Michael Clarke or someone in that mold faced them then yeah but i rate Hayden, Langer, Ponting, Waugh, Hussey as pretty tough guys in cricketing terms especially Waugh and Ponting. You have to take a bit of stick to rise to the top of Australian cricket in those days as a lot of players actually came out and said. Fierce competitors. Not to say their stats wouldn't drop quite a bit, they would. I doubt many would survive a ball to the face from one of the West Indian bowlers.

The theory that Lee's bowling stats are a bit higher than they would be if he bowled in the 80s is applicable to the Australian batsmen as well of course as i think i noted earlier. I think this game should be played with helmets though . I cringe every time i see footage of Thommo bowling to batsmen.

It would be interesting to see where people rate Brett Lee's pace in comparison to the West Indies bowlers of the 80s. Surely not many would be quite as fast as Lee, Ahktar, Bond, Tait? 150k maybe but 160?

Interesting video on the subject
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GjkBNxKZOE8

 

[honestbharani]

Michael Holding | Small Talk | Paolo Bandini | Sport | guardian.co.uk


very interesting to hear that Ian Chappell's Aussies diidnt sledge.. well, at least they didn't sledge the Windies. Don think the recent great Aussie team were given such respect, tbh.. 4 FAST bowlers does tend to shut up opposition sledgers I suppose.

 

[Ikki]

I dont think ponting + s.waugh is better than richards + lloyd. in fact I would put my neck out and say richards + lloyd is a superior combo than the aussie stalwarts. richardson + gomes is more or less equal to hussey + martyn/m.waugh. so there is actually nothing to choose between the middle orders. when gilly walks out at no.7 the game tilts heavily in favor of australia. there is no doubt about that. but man to man, richards is better than ponting and lloyd is equal to s.waugh.

Well, we rate the batsmen differently. I would say Waugh is distinctly better than Lloyd whereas Ponting may be only a hair's width under Viv. It'd be a bit like comparing Tendulkar and Laxman to Tendulkar and Dravid. I think the others pip their WIndies counterparts too, TBF.