West Indies vs South Africa - The greatest battle than was never played

[archie mac]

See in Aussies no sense?

So I Am Not Surprised

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Clive Lloyd was on Talk Sport Radio in the UK yesterday talking about his new book. He was comparing his great team to others like the 1948 or current Australians and on the subject of winning x number of matches in a row he said that his team didn't get to play against the likes of Sri Lanka, South Africa, Bangladesh or Zimbabwe. He said that if they had they would have broken even more records. It's a fairly gross underestimation of how good South Africa could have been if they'd carried on playing.

 

[subshakerz]

That's when the dramatic dethronement happened, yeah, but IMO Australia had been the better side for a good 2 or 3 years before that and should have beaten WI in 1992\93. Equally, as we all know, but for that one dropped catch by Browne on debut, WI could easily still have won that fateful series in 1995, and the handover would have been decidedly less dramatic in Australia in 1996\97.

West Indies could easily (and should, several times, escaping through getting lucky) have lost any number of series between 1986 and 1997, though - somehow, though, they lost just twice, both to Australia.

The side of the late eighties was still vastly superior to any other in the world though, with Haynes, Greenidge, Richie Richardson, Viv, Marshall, Walsh, Ambrose and Patterson.

They really slipped when the last vestiges from the 80s retired, Marshall, Viv, Haynes and Greenidge. No suitable replacements came.

 

[grecian]

Clive Lloyd was on Talk Sport Radio in the UK yesterday talking about his new book. He was comparing his great team to others like the 1948 or current Australians and on the subject of winning x number of matches in a row he said that his team didn't get to play against the likes of Sri Lanka, South Africa, Bangladesh or Zimbabwe. He said that if they had they would have broken even more records. It's a fairly gross underestimation of how good South Africa could have been if they'd carried on playing.

Well I heard that interview and don't remember him mentioning South Africa at all

He was just mentioning there were no so-called minnows then.

Gomes for Rowe in Aussies side anyway, was an underestimated foil for the big strokeplayers in that 80s side.

 

[wpdavid]

Many of the very knowledgeable cricket fans are well aware of the the amount of great cricketers than South Africa had during their isolation from world cricket. But every time i look at it & shake my head with disappoint i can't help but wonder during that period while they were out, the windies were dominant & really had no competition for 20 years.

If South Africa weren't banned, damn we could have saw some great cricket & a great rivalry could have have been formed. For example these two sides:

(snips for space)

Not saying they would beat the windies but geez i really feel cricket was robbed of a great contest at that time..

But SA wouldn't have played WI even if they hadn't been banned. They never played any non-white sides even after India & WI started playing tests, and only began to play some token gams against nonwhites domestically after they got kicked out. Obviously by the 1970's, the Gleneagles agreement was in place and WI wouldn't have played them either, but SA had set their stall out from the start, so it wasn't the ban that robbed us of SA vs WI.

As someone else said, mid-70's Aus vs Sa would have been something to behold, and that's, a shame, but there you go.

 

[Richard]

The side of the late eighties was still vastly superior to any other in the world though, with Haynes, Greenidge, Richie Richardson, Viv, Marshall, Walsh, Ambrose and Patterson.

It wasn't, though - they drew away and home with Pakistan, away with New Zealand and away with India in a short space of time. The only really notable victory West Indies managed between '86 and '97 was over Australia in '91. The last hurrah of the dominance came in the 5-0 blackwash of '86.

It was also around the end of the 1980s when the likes of Richards and Greenidge entered their late-30s, becoming lesser players than they had once been. And Patrick Patterson was never a top-shelf bowler.

They really slipped when the last vestiges from the 80s retired, Marshall, Viv, Haynes and Greenidge. No suitable replacements came.

Well, Lara took Richards' place, Campbell took Haynes', and even though Phil Simmons was hardly a first-rate opener he took Greenidge's place.

Bishop was already in the side by the time Marshall retired, too, and they had him, Ambrose and Walsh for a fair while.

 

[subshakerz]

It wasn't, though - they drew away and home with Pakistan, away with New Zealand and away with India in a short space of time. The only really notable victory West Indies managed between '86 and '97 was over Australia in '91. The last hurrah of the dominance came in the 5-0 blackwash of '86.

It was also around the end of the 1980s when the likes of Richards and Greenidge entered their late-30s, becoming lesser players than they had once been. And Patrick Patterson was never a top-shelf bowler.

Well, Lara took Richards' place, Campbell took Haynes', and even though Phil Simmons was hardly a first-rate opener he took Greenidge's place.

Bishop was already in the side by the time Marshall retired, too, and they had him, Ambrose and Walsh for a fair while.

They were definitely not the force they were under Lloyd, but were still markedly superior to any side in the world. They beat England 4-0 in England in '88 and Australia in Australia 3-1 in 88-89. They also beat a really talented Pakistan side convincingly 2-0 at home in '93. They were superior to any side IMO until Haynes retired, leaving their batting pretty barren.

The team that came later in the 90s was sub-par. Bishop broke down early in his career, Campbell and Simmons were not fit to fill the boots of Haynes and Greenidge, while Lara was the only real star in the batting lineup you could say would fit in the 80s side. Ambrose and Walsh had no really good third bowler to share the duties, unlike the assembly line of the 80s.

 

[Richard]

They were definitely not the force they were under Lloyd, but were still markedly superior to any side in the world. They beat England 4-0 in England in '88 and Australia in Australia 3-1 in 88-89. They also beat a really talented Pakistan side convincingly 2-0 at home in '93. They were superior to any side IMO until Haynes retired, leaving their batting pretty barren.

Disagree, Australia could and should have beaten them in 1992\93. Pakistan could conceivably have beaten them in '86\87 and '88 too. The victories over England in '88, Australia in '88\89 and India at home in '89 were formalities - England and Australia were a shambles at the time, and India were a pushover outside the subcontinent as they have been more often than not.

The team that came later in the 90s was sub-par. Bishop broke down early in his career, Campbell and Simmons were not fit to fill the boots of Haynes and Greenidge, while Lara was the only real star in the batting lineup you could say would fit in the 80s side. Ambrose and Walsh had no really good third bowler to share the duties, unlike the assembly line of the 80s.

Well, except when Bishop was fit. He broke down early in his career but remained an absolutely magnificent performer when fit until 1997 sort of time. Campbell may not have been fit to lace Haynes' boots but he was a pretty good opener. Simmons wasn't, of course, and when Greenidge departed there was a huge hole. But Simmons was at least a constant presence.

There was a changing of the guard between 1991 and 1992, undoubtedly, but the side had lost most IMO in 1986 when Holding and Garner departed. It went from invincible, virtually impossible to even challenge, to merely able to thrash those they should be beating and capable merely of drawing most of the tough series.

Australia in '91 and Pakistan in '93 were two exceptions to this.

 

[subshakerz]

There was a changing of the guard between 1991 and 1992, undoubtedly, but the side had lost most IMO in 1986 when Holding and Garner departed. It went from invincible, virtually impossible to even challenge, to merely able to thrash those they should be beating and capable merely of drawing most of the tough series.

Australia in '91 and Pakistan in '93 were two exceptions to this.

Yes, they lost the ability to dominate so completely when Holding, Croft and Garner retired. No doubt about that, but they were still the best side in the world for quite a few years following this. The fact that nobody beat them during this time is testament to that.

There was a big difference between the side Pakistan faced in 87/88 and the one Australia beat in 1995. The one Pakistan faced was much better. The difference was the 80s legends had gone, and none of their replacements except for Lara, Ambrose and Walsh were world-class.

Against Australia in 92/93, they still had the slightly better side, the difference was their side was on the decline while Australia was on the upswing. Next time they met in 1995, West Indies had weakened further while Australia had consolidated. Even then, Australia won a tough series.

Till 1986, they were invincible. When Holding, Croft and Garner left, they were still the best by a mile but not so dominant as before. And when the rest of the 80s crew left in the early 90s, they had only a tenable claim to be world champs, which Australia claimed in 1995.

 

[Richard]

Croft played his last Test in 1981\82. They survived fine post-Croft - indeed, it strengthened the side still further, as Marshall became the first-choice he had never previously been.

Holding and Garner's (and shortly afterwards Gomes') departures made more impact, IMO, than any others, including the almost-exactly-coinciding retirements of Greenidge, Richards, Dujon and Marshall. The side's immediate achievements dropped-off more between '86 and '86\87 than any other time.

In fact, one could argue that Australia should not have won the 1995 series - that had Junior Murray been fit and taken the series-defining catch Courtney Browne dropped off Stephen Waugh in the Sabina Park game, then West Indies would very possibly have won that too.

Equally, as I said, Australia were very much the better side in 1992\93. They dominated the first 2 games, winning 1, could easily have won the Fourth, and only capitulated at the last. At the very least, that series should have been a draw.

In 1995, West Indies still had Richardson (though sadly he was opening by then), Lara, Chanderpaul, Hooper, Murray, Ambrose, Walsh, Winston Benjamin (no poor bowler) and Bishop to return when fit again. It wasn't quite the side that beat England in 1986, but nor, as I say, was the side that went to Pakistan in 1986\87. I feel that both were strong, and both could have claimed to have been the best side in The World.

 

[subshakerz]

Yet the fact is that West Indies only lost a series when Viv, Marshall, Greenidge, Haynes, and Dujon had left. They were unbeaten until they had lost these 80s cricketers. True, they didnt dominate as before, but we far and away the best team in the world when they played. When they left in the early 90s, other teams like Pakistan, Australia and even South Africa each had a stake in saying they were the world's finest team. By 1995, Australia proved to be.

The departures of Holding and Garner removed the indestructibe aura of the West Indies, but the departure of the rest of the 80s icons signalled the end of their era as the best. The legends couldnt be replaced, and West Indies gradually suffered.

When Pakistan faced West Indies in 88, they had Viv, Greenidge, Haynes, Marshall, Walsh, Ambrose and Dujon. In 1995, they only had Lara, Ambrose and Walsh (the other players you mentioned are hardly what I call world class, and Bishop didnt play in 1995). No way do the two teams compare.

Having said that, West Indies in 92/93 were man for man better than Australia, but like I mentioned, Australia were on the upswing while West Indies were on the decline. The bottomline is they still beat a strong Australia side in their own backyard. By 1995, the situation had reversed.

 

[Richard]

By 1988, it should be remembered, Richards, Greenidge and Dujon were on the way down; Ambrose, too, had yet to become a true force - that didn't happen until 1990.

The only truly top-notch players that remained what they once had been were Haynes and Marshall, with Walsh an impressive newcomer (or relative newcomer).

As I said - for me, West Indies were somewhat fortunate to beat Australia in 1992\93. The Aussies could easily be called the best team that series. I'd say that the crown had slipped by then, even if the dethronement didn't happen until 1995 (and it could easily have been 1996\97, and decidedly less dramatic, as I also said).

West Indies still had many fine players between 1986\87 and 1997. However, as far as I'm concerned, that time between 1986 and 1986\87 was when the biggest change of the lot happened. After that, it was all very, very gradual, and the few tremors that did happen could easily have been reversed. The decline of once great players and their retirement to be replaced by merely good players produced similar outcomes (as it always will).

The first time West Indies were truly, genuinely bettered and beaten by a side was 1996\97 in Australia. Yet they were bettered in 1992\93 and beaten in 1995. The series scoreline is not the only thing of importance.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Well I heard that interview and don't remember him mentioning South Africa at all

He was just mentioning there were no so-called minnows then.

You obviously werern't listening closely enough, one of my colleagues actually texted in to the show to point out South Africa were quite strong but the presenter never mentioned it.

 

[SJS]

I think 1976 is about the cut off date for trying to get as many big names from both sides in while they could be epected to be in good shape. Here is actual the West Indian side of 1976 followed by a possible SAfrican side with therir ages at that time.

West Indies

1. Greenidge
2. Fredricks
3. Richards
4. Kallicharan
5. Lloyd
6. King
7. Murray
8. Roberts
9. Holding
10. Daniell
11. Holford or Holder

South Africa

1. Richards (31)
2. Barlow (36)
3. Pollock (32)
4. Bacher (34)
5. Invine (32)
6. Rice (27)
7. Proctor (30)
8. Jennings (22) or Lindsay (37!!)
9. Le Roux (21)
10. Van der Bijl (28)
11. Kourie (25) or Traicos (29)

 

[Richard]

1976 was the time West Indies became the side.

One can only imagine what would have happened had Packer not interfered, and had Holding not suffered the injury he suffered in 1977.

As it was, West Indies' most famous trait - the pace quartet - didn't form until 1979, and nor did a batting-side without weak-links (the above one has just the one, Collis King - Lawrence Rowe returned post-WSC).

 

[aussie]

I think 1976 is about the cut off date for trying to get as many big names from both sides in while they could be epected to be in good shape. Here is actual the West Indian side of 1976 followed by a possible SAfrican side with therir ages at that time.

West Indies

1. Greenidge
2. Fredricks
3. Richards
4. Kallicharan
5. Lloyd
6. King
7. Murray
8. Roberts
9. Holding
10. Daniell
11. Holford or Holder

South Africa

1. Richards (31)
2. Barlow (36)
3. Pollock (32)
4. Bacher (34)
5. Invine (32)
6. Rice (27)
7. Proctor (30)
8. Jennings (22) or Lindsay (37!!)
9. Le Roux (21)
10. Van der Bijl (28)
11. Kourie (25) or Traicos (29)

What was Peter Kirsten & Jimmy Cook position's around 1976?

 

[aussie]

But SA wouldn't have played WI even if they hadn't been banned. They never played any non-white sides even after India & WI started playing tests, and only began to play some token gams against nonwhites domestically after they got kicked out. Obviously by the 1970's, the Gleneagles agreement was in place and WI wouldn't have played them either, but SA had set their stall out from the start, so it wasn't the ban that robbed us of SA vs WI.

I see i wasn't aware of that. But it would have been interesting if they weren't banned, they may have dominated & West Indies would have dominated as well especially in the mid to late 70's when the windies won those two world cups.

As someone else said, mid-70's Aus vs Sa would have been something to behold, and that's, a shame, but there you go.

Word out..

 

[SJS]

What was Peter Kirsten & Jimmy Cook position's around 1976?

• Kirsten was 21 and Cook 23.
• They were in their third and fourth year of first class cricket respectively
• Kirsten actually scored six centuries in seven consecutive innings in the 76-77 season - including 5 in consecutive innings !

Cook at 23 must have been pretty good for he was indeed a very gifted opener. Doubt if he was good enough to replace a 31 year old Richards but a 36 year old Barlow - why not

 

[Richard]

I see i wasn't aware of that.

Seriously?

You never heard that under Apartheid, basically, non-white was second-class? Therefore, no white man ever played against a non-white.

 

[aussie]

lol yea g, i wasn't aware of this so called gleenagles agreement that was in place after 1970 that wpdavid spoke of.