WI of the 80's or Australia Current?

[age_master]

not entirely true.
You are assuming that with experience the batsman will improve but the bowler wont........i disagree..

AMbrose and walsh were very experienced at that stage, the likes or Martyn and Hayden just starting out - both vastly superior these days over those

true...which is why i would take a pacer like Marshall over Warne any day of the week.

nah you need the variety in an attack

 

[C_C]

nah you need the variety in an attack

variety only enters the picture when QUALITY isnt into consideration.

Why? How? Does Warnie's titanic efforts against Sri Lanka (1992 and 2004), South Africa (1999 WC semi and 2002), and England (most of his waking hours) somehow wither in the eyes of Marshall?

i was talking best innings hauls.
Make no mistake- Warne is a great bowler but he flopped massively against the best players of spin from his era.
Marshall on the other hand, did well against ALL opposition.
That is why i'll take Marshall over Warne.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

variety only enters the picture when QUALITY isnt into consideration.

i was talking best innings hauls.
Make no mistake- Warne is a great bowler but he flopped massively against the best players of spin from his era.
Marshall on the other hand, did well against ALL opposition.
That is why i'll take Marshall over Warne.

I think statistics don't tell the whole story here, though I see where you're coming from.

Warne grabbed the wickets when Australia REALLY needed them. I have no doubt in Marshall's ability, but Warne was exceptional at this sort of thing.

 

[C_C]

Warne grabbed the wickets when Australia REALLY needed them. I have no doubt in Marshall's ability, but Warne was exceptional at this sort of thing.

yes. But warne has got ample opportunity to display this aspect, owing to OZ being a good but not great team for the first 6-7 years of his career and a weaker bowling lineup.
Marshall came into a great team and was a part of a great bowling lineup for the bulk of his games...so he doesnt get to display this aspect quiete as often.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

How do you think Marshall would have gone if he assumed a Warne-like bowling duty for most of his career?

 

[C_C]

i think he would've done just as well against others and far better than warne did against IND(ie, against the best opposition batting lineup of his time)..since in the limited opportunities he's got, he's done a good job.
Marshall to me is the ultimate bowler. Numero uno.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Should correct myself about Kasprowicz. His record in 2004 is now 45 wickets in 12 tests at 22.40, with a strike rate of 60.

As comparison, McGrath has 42 @ 18.55 in 9 tests, Warne has 64 @ 23.69 in 11 tests, Gillespie has 50 @ 25.54 in 13 tests and Harmison has 62 @ 23.40 in 12 tests.

Certainly fairly comparable results, although McGrath has a significantly better average and stike rate and Warne and Harmison have more wickets per test. Not at all bad for a supposedlÿ "mediocre" bowler.

 

[C_C]

Should correct myself about Kasprowicz. His record in 2004 is now 45 wickets in 12 tests at 22.40, with a strike rate of 60.

As comparison, McGrath has 42 @ 18.55 in 9 tests, Warne has 64 @ 23.69 in 11 tests, Gillespie has 50 @ 25.54 in 13 tests and Harmison has 62 @ 23.40 in 12 tests.

Certainly fairly comparable results, although McGrath has a significantly better average and stike rate and Warne and Harmison have more wickets per test. Not at all bad for a supposedlÿ "mediocre" bowler.

there is a saying 'every dog has his day'.....thats relevant here.
Peaks are irrelevant as they have to be balanced by the troughs to get an idea on how good someone is on overall.
Kaspa overall is pretty mediocre by international standards.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

i think he would've done just as well against others and far better than warne did against IND(ie, against the best opposition batting lineup of his time)..since in the limited opportunities he's got, he's done a good job.
Marshall to me is the ultimate bowler. Numero uno.

Well, Indians are taught to play spin before they can walk........

But I respect your opinion.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

there is a saying 'every dog has his day'.....thats relevant here.
Peaks are irrelevant as they have to be balanced by the troughs to get an idea on how good someone is on overall.
Kaspa overall is pretty mediocre by international standards.

It's not really a peak. That is his TOTAL record since returning to the Australian team. Before that he did not play test cricket for several years.

 

[C_C]

It's not really a peak. That is his TOTAL record since returning to the Australian team. Before that he did not play test cricket for several years.

peak is defined as a reasonably sustained period of excellence ( 15-25 matches/3-4 years)
this is kaspa's statistical peak.
His previous was his trough.
If we start talking JUST the statistical peaks, then Imran Khan blows away Marshall,Lillee and Hadlee as a bowler.
And Jimmy Adams blows away Lara/Tendulkar/Steve Waugh as a batsman.

 

[Richard]

Without having read any of the thread:
IMO it doesn't matter who was the better as the South African side of the late 60s and the West Indian team of 1957 (which lost 3-0 in England) were better sides.
So was the Australian "Invincible" side of 1948.
And quite conceivably the Australian and English sides of the 1900s, but we can't be totally certain about them because so much has changed.

 

[garage flower]

Without having read any of the thread:
IMO it doesn't matter who was the better as the South African side of the late 60s and the West Indian team of 1957 (which lost 3-0 in England) were better sides.

Would either of those sides have had a bowling attack to compare with the 4-prong?

From my own - admittedly limited - knowledge I can think of Procter and Peter Pollock for South Africa and Ramadhin, Valentine and Sobers (?) for the Windies. The Windies may also have had Gerry Gomez as a (medium pace?) all-rounder and perhaps Gilchrist, but wasn't it too early for Hall and Griffith?

Either way, I'd have thought West Indies' early 80s team would certainly have the edge over the late 50s vintage and perhaps South Africa might lack the strength in depth.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Only to those that base their opinions on hype and don't look at the facts. As a matter of easily proveable fact Murali is a much better spinner than the overrated Australian. For a start, Warne has failed dismally against the best players of spin – India (43 wickets at 47.18). Murali has done far better against them (51 wickets at 32.94). Secondly, Murali has a better average, strike rate, economy rate, and takes more wickets per match than Warne; despite the fact that Warne has not had to play against the world's best team. Thirdly, Murali has a better record against all countries, except South Africa and Pakistan. Fourthly, Murali is far more consistent. Warne has been known to be hammered occasionally and although Murali has previously been nullified to a degree, he is very rarely hit around the park.

Warne
45 7 150 1 3.33 3rd Test v Ind in Aus 1991/92 at Sydney
30 7 122 1 4.07 1st Test v Ind in Ind 1997/98 at Chennai
42 4 147 0 3.50 2nd Test v Ind in Ind 1997/98 at Kolkata
34 3 152 1 4.47 2nd Test v Ind in Ind 2000/01 at Kolkata
30 6 108 2 3.60 3rd Test v SA in SA 2001/02 at Durban
32 4 115 2 3.59 1st Test v Ind in Ind 2004/2005 at Nagpur

Murali
36 6 123 1 3.42 1 L 1st Test v Pak in SL 1994 at Colombo
54 3 224 2 4.15 2 L 1st Test v Aus in Aus 1995/96 at Perth
33 6 136 0 4.12 1 L 1st Test v NZ in NZ 1996/97 at Dunedin

Fifthly, Warne is part of a stronger bowling attack. If Warne was of equal ability to Murali he would take less wickets per match than Murali (because there are four good bowlers competing for wickets), but would have a lower average and strike rate (because greater pressure is put on the batsman by bowlers at the other end). For an example of this take two great fast bowlers, Marshall and Hadlee - Marshall having a better average because the high class West Indian bowlers put greater pressure on the batsmen, but Hadlee took more wickets per match because there was less competition for them. Same with Lindwall vs Bedser, Ambrose vs Akram, Laker vs Tayfield, and many, many others. Murali takes more wickets per match and has a lower average and strike rate. Sixthly, a high proportion of Warne's test wickets are numbers 10 and 11 in the batting order; Murali does well against all batting positions. When they were both on 527 wickets, Warne had taken the wickets of batsmen 8-11 190 times, Murali had done it 162 times - a significant difference of 17%. And we all know it is far more valuable to be able to defeat players of high ability, because they can really make you suffer. Tailenders will usually get out sooner rather than later anyway, and very rarely turn a match on its head (with the bat anyway). What’s the point in Warne taking the wickets of Nehra or Walsh game after game, if he cannot trouble Tendulkar or Lara? Seventhly, although Warne has been less effective since his shoulder injury, even at his peak (1993-97) he was not as good as Murali has been this century.

Mat O M R W Ave Best 5wi 10w SR Econ
Murali 2000-2003 37 2347.3 684 4990 258 19.34 9-51 22 10 54.5 2.13
Warne 1993-97 57 2876.5 938 6457 277 23.31 8-71 11 3 62.3 2.24

Eighthly, you could take a look at their respective records in the English county championship (note Murali has played in the first division and Warne the second, and Murali was by far the star bowler in every season he played, while several Hampshire bowlers took wickets more cheaply than Warne in both his seasons):

Mat O M R W Ave Best 5wi 10w SR Econ
Murali 19 1049.1 322 2195 149 14.73 7-39 17 6 42.2 2.09
Warne 24 962.5 259 2682 113 23.73 6-34 8 0 52.7 2.69

Ninethly, one reason why Warne is rated so highly is Gatting’s reaction to the so called “ball of the century.” The shock that that ball sent through the cricketing world was immense because it was thought no one else could bowl that delivery. Actually, Warne was not the only one to bowl such a delivery in recent years, Abdul Qadir had bowled the same delivery a few years earlier, it just wasn’t highlighted at the time because it wasn't on such a big stage. Murali bowled similar balls which were every bit as good to both Sadgapan Ramesh and Mark Butcher a few years ago. Finally, Murali was recently voted the best bowler ever in an objective Wisden analysis.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/cricket/2572069.stm

Oh dear, here we go again...

 

[Swervy]

This really is a ridiculous debate....its all about opinion isnt it. First off, you can only compare teams as they were against the opposition at that time, and measure relative dominance. In my opinion Australia have dominated the international scene more strongly than the great WI's team did of the early 80's....it doesnt mean the Aussies would beat those WI's or vice versa, there is absolutely no way we can say.

We are talking about the WI's of the early 80's (ie 80 to 85)..in actual fact the sides the WI's had changed a great deal in that time.As the eighties went on Roberts certainly wasnt at his peak...Holding wasnt the bowler he was in the late 80's..and in the early eighties, marshall was actually considered a weak link in the bowling for WI's..it was onlt really as we approached the mid 80's that marshall really came to the front..by that time Roberts had certainly gone, Holding was on the wane, garners knees we packing up...and then players like Patrick patterson etc came along, and then Bishop/Ambrose in the late 80's (we cant really talk about Walsh in such high terms in the 80's because he was actually quite an average international bowler at that time).
Now Patterson wasnt in the same class as garner, holding etc..and by the time Bishop and Ambrose came along, the WI's batting ceratinly wasnt as strong as it had been, in fact it would come nowhere near the Aussies of the present day.

So I would take a wild stab in the dark that the WI's of 81/82 talent wise were the top team they fielded of that era..even if we extend that period to take in a few more series say 1980 to end of 1983,WI actually only won 11 of 31 tests (admittedly they only lost two)... if you compare that to Australia of the last 3 or 4 years I think you will find a hell of a lot more wins,and vs a wider selection (both good and bad) of teams..those WI's were handled with ease by the NZders, won vs a struggling England side in England,drew with the Aussies (that series involved the only time I ever saw Richards truely shaken up, after he was out with the score 4 for 10, he looked like he had seen a ghost..for any Lillee doubters, try get hold of footage of him bowling in this game, possibly the greatest displays of controlled fast bowling I have ever seen), beat a so-so pakistan team,admittedly in pakistan, beat an England team rocked by the jacman affair and the death of Barrington...and not forgetting that teh England team was weak, and dominated a fairly weak Indian team...after that there was the 5-0 vs a shocking (apart from lamb) England team.

So yeah WI's won when they had to, but so have Australia..and a lot more convincingly than the WI's of the early eighties.

Talent wise, not much in it, and impossible to say who would win between them. My opinion is the Australia would edge it.....but the way CC is going on, its almost like its set in stone somewhere that WI's would beat Australia...which of course it isnt

 

[Scallywag]

How dare you suggest that C_C could possibly be remotely off track with his assumption that the WI of the 80's would beat Aust of the 00's.

I think C_C has made it quite clear that any WI team could beat any Aust team anytime anywhere.

In fact if it wasnt for the cheating umpires India would beat them all.

 

[marc71178]

MOST WI draws were weather affected draws.
WI has poor scheduling and a lot of the WI games held in guyana were during the rainy season.

Convenient that how the amount of rain back then is so much more than it is now (!)

and i said ALMOST 20 year period stretching from 1976 to 1994<ending with loss to OZ>.
In that span, they lost only ONE series - 1981 NZ.

1978/79, India.
1979/80, New Zealand.

That looks like 2 to me.

And of course there's also the spell 1986/87 to 1987/88 with 4 consecutive drawn series - hardly dominant there.

aye. Good thing that from the aussie perspective.
The WI back then predominantly played ENG,OZ,PAK and IND.
the four strongest team of its time.
If it played NZ and SL more often, OZ would probably still be chasing the most consecutive victory record.

Which bit of toured did you not understand - hardest places to tour was what I said.

 

[marc71178]

And fitter ? dude- most of those WI players played till their late 30s or 40s.....

It's a lot easier when they're only playing 2 or 3 series a year...

 

[marc71178]

McGrath is better slightly than Roberts/Garner and Kaspa is better slightly than Zaheer.

If you're saying Kaspa is only slightly better than Zaheer I guess you have a very large definition of slightly.

 

[marc71178]

Kaspa is very very mediocre by international standards. a 30+ average while bowling with 2 great and 1 worldclass bowler on the side is mediocre to say the least.
He is just a shade better than Zaheer and i can name you about 50-60 pacers who were superior to Kaspa.

Go on then.