• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

When did the 'great' West Indies team(s) stop being great?

Slifer

International Captain
The matches in 2000 at Lord's and, to a lesser extent Leeds, are classic cases of this. Give d Walsh support at Lord's and WI go two up and the series result is probably reversed. Without checking, maybe the whitewash in SA too. I vaguely recall SA's lower order keeping them competitive after they had lost early wickets, presumably to Ambrose and Walsh
Precisely. England as much as possible saw off Walsh and Ambrose, then milked King and Rose. Had at least an 90% fit Ian Bishop been present, that might have made some difference. Then again, WI did get bowled out for sub 70 twice. So yeah the batting...yikes!!!
 

Moss

International Captain
They stopped being a great team after 87 when garner and Gomes left and stopped being a very good one in 1991 when greenidge viv , Marshall and Dujon all left. Probably stopped being a good one and just became and ok to average side after 1996 when both Haynes and Richardson had gone and bishop had suffered another stress fracture.

and of course they became poor in 2001 once Ambrose and Walsh had gone.
Sounds about right, though you could argue that they were still great between ~87-90. The 1991 home series vs Australia and away vs England must have seemed to suggest cracks were beginning to develop. The 1992 test vs South Africa (around the time I just started getting into cricket) is pretty instructive IMO; though the West Indies won this one, the batting lineup (first since the retirement of Viv/Dujon/Greenidge) - Haynes, Simmons, Lara, Richardson, Arthurton, Adams, Williams - though pretty good on paper underperformed against a solid but all-debutant attack, and it needed the bowlers to bail them out. Seemed to set the tone for much of the decade.

Have also read in various places that under Richardson the team was never really as united or focused as they should have been, and that appears to have been a recurring theme for 30 years now. 1990's Windies (mainly the first half of the decade) were probably the team equivalent of Andrew Flintoff, protagonist of great games and moments without being truly great.
 
Last edited:

Immenso

International Vice-Captain
The after-87 cutoff is premarmture.

1990 home v England was when it started to creak. Post 1991 retirements was when it happened, in retrospect.

For me personally. The aura was burst in the 1992 world cup. Seeing Greatbatch charge Marshall was just wrong and a bit sad. Seeing Anderson Cummins in that tournament as next in line, and he just didn't conform to the stereotype that instilled dread.

Still good after that for a while. But with some real passengers dragging them down to just "very good'. Eg their openers, David Williams being too short to catch the bouncers and his pip-squeak batting on 92/93 tour of Aus.
 

jcas0167

International Debutant
The after-87 cutoff is premarmture.

1990 home v England was when it started to creak. Post 1991 retirements was when it happened, in retrospect.

For me personally. The aura was burst in the 1992 world cup. Seeing Greatbatch charge Marshall was just wrong and a bit sad. Seeing Anderson Cummins in that tournament as next in line, and he just didn't conform to the stereotype that instilled dread.

Still good after that for a while. But with some real passengers dragging them down to just "very good'. Eg their openers, David Williams being too short to catch the bouncers and his pip-squeak batting on 92/93 tour of Aus.
The 92 World Cup and that moment probably brought that home for me as well. Henry Blofield was commenting and couldn't believe Greatbatch had just hit Marshall for six over cover. I had only hazy memories of their 87 tour to NZ but read about the exploits of Haynes, Greenidge, Marshall and Garner. I knew that Viv Richards was the 'Master Blaster', he had the highest ODI score (I'd seen highlights of this on a rented VHS tape of great cricket moments), the fastest test century. Without Richards, Garner and Greenidge they didn't seem as formidable and Marshall was past his best.

The 92/93 Frank Worrell series in Australia was great to watch as you could see after years of defeats that the gap had closed and it could have gone either way.
 

quincywagstaff

International Debutant
They stopped being great from approx 1991 or so after the retirements of Viv, Marshall Greendige and Dujon.

The replacements were invariably not as strong but they still had an enormous intimidation factor that carried them through for a few years. Australia were imo a better team than them in 92/93 but mentally wilted at pivotal stages and West Indies got by.
 

kyear2

International Coach
how much of that is down to the absence of a genuine all-rounder in their midst? just target the fifth bowler and long tail...
Don't see why that would have been much of a factor. During our dominance the closest we came to an all rounder was Marshall. Doesn't seem that all rounders have ever been a great determinate of successful teams.
 

Moss

International Captain
They stopped being great from approx 1991 or so after the retirements of Viv, Marshall Greendige and Dujon.

The replacements were invariably not as strong but they still had an enormous intimidation factor that carried them through for a few years. Australia were imo a better team than them in 92/93 but mentally wilted at pivotal stages and West Indies got by.
The emergence of Warne in that 92/93,l series seems to have been a crucial development which changed the balance of power towards Australia over the decade. Did read in that the 80s the Windies had their problems against Abdul Qadir and you had guys like Bob Holland and Narendra Hirwani who starred in one-off wins against them (even Border took a ten-for once?). It seems to have been a possible achilles heel, but i think the decade was too unkind to spin bowling for it to be used as a genuine weapon against them. That pretty much changed in the 90s though - the 1994 Jimmy ‘Pad’ams series against India from memory was the last time they were competitive in Ind/Pak/SL.
 

cleetus hicks

Cricket Spectator
Isn't this simular to what the middlesex director got accused of being racist for
yes indeed my friend.it is not racist,it is fact!
too easy to play the race card or any card because it seems that if you do play that particular card it gets you out of arguments quickly!
kudos to the middlesex director whose name i cannot think of!
 

Migara

International Coach
The emergence of Warne in that 92/93,l series seems to have been a crucial development which changed the balance of power towards Australia over the decade. Did read in that the 80s the Windies had their problems against Abdul Qadir and you had guys like Bob Holland and Narendra Hirwani who starred in one-off wins against them (even Border took a ten-for once?). It seems to have been a possible achilles heel, but i think the decade was too unkind to spin bowling for it to be used as a genuine weapon against them. That pretty much changed in the 90s though - the 1994 Jimmy ‘Pad’ams series against India from memory was the last time they were competitive in Ind/Pak/SL.
WI toured SL for the first time in 1993. Other than for Lara and Hooper, even the greats like Haynes and Richardson found batting against a young Muralitharan very tough (even Lara did not sort him out in that test). Simmons, Arthurton et al were sitting ducks. West Indies even at their peak would have got devastated by yop class spin bowler like Murali or Warne. Only time they encountered something close to that was Chandrashekar and Qadir. Chandra was at the end of his career and Qadir was not good enough. Still they managed to create massive dents,.

80s simple did not have good spinners. 90s produced Kumble, Warne, Murali, Mushtaq, Saqlain and Vettori. These guys debuting 10 years earlier would have changed the balance of cricket significantly. (Ex. SL would have been out of minnowhood pretty early, NZ with Hadlee and Vettori would have given WI a run for their money, Pakistan Saqlain instead of Qadir (or playing both) would have demolished West Indies few more times than they did, and India with peak Kapil and Kumble would have been on a different level)
 
Last edited:

jayjay

U19 Cricketer
WI toured SL for the first time in 1993. Other than for Lara and Hooper, even the greats like Haynes and Richardson found batting against a young Muralitharan very tough (even Lara did not sort him out in that test). Simmons, Arthurton et al were sitting ducks. West Indies even at their peak would have got devastated by yop class spin bowler like Murali or Warne. Only time they encountered something close to that was Chandrashekar and Qadir. Chandra was at the end of his career and Qadir was not good enough. Still they managed to create massive dents,.

80s simple did not have good spinners. 90s produced Kumble, Warne, Murali, Mushtaq, Saqlain and Vettori. These guys debuting 10 years earlier would have changed the balance of cricket significantly. (Ex. SL would have been out of minnowhood pretty early, NZ with Hadlee and Vettori would have given WI a run for their money, Pakistan Saqlain instead of Qadir (or playing both) would have demolished West Indies few more times than they did, and India with peak Kapil and Kumble would have been on a different level)
Somewhat true but to say some of the greatest batsmen would have been beaten repeatedly just isn't true. WIs were a great all condition team...obviously helped by some favourable home umpiring. Having said that, they had to face outright criminal umpiring in places like NZ (the 80 tour was the worst), Eng and Aus. The fact that they kept winning just showed how great they were.

To answer the OP, I think the WIs stopped being a great team around 90/91, but were still the best test side on the planet. They slowly declined, the famous 95 series of course and they were still pretty good around 2000 ish but by the mid 00s they were heading towards becoming one of the lower ranked sides.
 

wpdavid

Hall of Fame Member
WI toured SL for the first time in 1993. Other than for Lara and Hooper, even the greats like Haynes and Richardson found batting against a young Muralitharan very tough (even Lara did not sort him out in that test). Simmons, Arthurton et al were sitting ducks. West Indies even at their peak would have got devastated by yop class spin bowler like Murali or Warne. Only time they encountered something close to that was Chandrashekar and Qadir. Chandra was at the end of his career and Qadir was not good enough. Still they managed to create massive dents,.

80s simple did not have good spinners. 90s produced Kumble, Warne, Murali, Mushtaq, Saqlain and Vettori. These guys debuting 10 years earlier would have changed the balance of cricket significantly. (Ex. SL would have been out of minnowhood pretty early, NZ with Hadlee and Vettori would have given WI a run for their money, Pakistan Saqlain instead of Qadir (or playing both) would have demolished West Indies few more times than they did, and India with peak Kapil and Kumble would have been on a different level)
And you can add to that argument the guys who briefly made an impact because batsmen generally didn't have a clue against them; Hirwani and Sivaramakrishnan spring immediately to mind. Even Nick Cook, who is no-one's idea of an ATG, enjoyed some stellar returns in his first few tests.
 

Lillian Thomson

Hall of Fame Member
And you can add to that argument the guys who briefly made an impact because batsmen generally didn't have a clue against them; Hirwani and Sivaramakrishnan spring immediately to mind. Even Nick Cook, who is no-one's idea of an ATG, enjoyed some stellar returns in his first few tests.
Not really much to do with anything, but a side story to Nick Cook. He was the cousin of my next door neighbour in the early 80's and had enough influence to get her a meeting with her hero Steve Davis.
 

Starfighter

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Somewhat true but to say some of the greatest batsmen would have been beaten repeatedly just isn't true. WIs were a great all condition team...obviously helped by some favourable home umpiring. Having said that, they had to face outright criminal umpiring in places like NZ (the 80 tour was the worst), Eng and Aus. The fact that they kept winning just showed how great they were.
The umpiring they had in England was the fairest anywhere at that time. The NZ series was probably no worse than their standard home fare by most accounts, they just behaved like petulant children when the shoe was on the other foot.
 

Nikhil99.99

U19 Cricketer
When the great West Indies fast bowlers chose basketball similar to the great English batsman went to football,rugby.
 

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Having said that, they had to face outright criminal umpiring in places like NZ (the 80 tour was the worst), Eng and Aus. The fact that they kept winning just showed how great they were.
The Windies players of that era such as Holding always have a dig at umpires when it comes to series they lost or drew. He had a sook about decisions he said he copped in 75/76. They got dicked 5-1 ffs. He’s a bit of a petulant child about it tbh

In the 80s they couldn’t complain about the reception they got - they had Aus 2000s levels of 50:50s going their way.
 

Top