WI of the 80's or Australia Current?

[benchmark00]

yes because you've never played test cricket.
Not so here.
A loss is a loss and going over-aggressive to lose a match doesnt make the loss any less than losing in a normal fashion.
Loss means you came second best. End of story.
WI didnt come second best in a series for 13 years and came 2nd best only once in 19.
Thats far longer a period than what OZ can boast of.

And OZ wernt able to smash an inferior ENG side 5-0 like the WI did.
from late 90s until recent times, PAK faced inferior opposition than the WI did.
WI team currently is inferior to what the OZ team in the 80s were.Same goes for PAK, same goes for NZ and same goes for ENG until recently < and that is irrelevant- ENG team hasnt played OZ yet with their new getup....the ENG teams that lost to OZ so far in the recent times were inferior to the ENG team that lost to WI>.
IND are a better team than before but OZ has lost more BG series than they won and since the BG series came into existance, IND has won 7 matches to OZ's 8.
PAK, the 2nd best team of the 80s, didnt have that much of a parity with the WI.
RSA is irrelevant as they didnt play in the 80s.
SL now is superior to their side from the 80s but the WI hardly played the SL back then.

Therefore, WI dominated far more than OZ are doing.

And it seems a draw means youre not better then the other team also... stop blaiming the weather for draws

 

[garage flower]

No, the attack of the late 50s wasn't as good - but equally it wasn't half bad, and the batting was IMO far superior (and being far superior to Fredericks, Greenidge, Kallicherran, Richards, Lloyd, Dujon is saying something).

Hall's stats against England and Australia are relatively mediocre and, either way, I'd say that - statistically speaking - the bowling attack of the early 80s has a bigger advantage than the batting line-up of the late 50s/early 60s.

 

[C_C]

d it seems a draw means youre not better then the other team also... stop blaiming the weather for draws

Win = you are better
Draw = you are as good
Loss = you are worse.

Simple.

OZ hasnt won as many series as WI has and hasnt been able to maintain their better/as good streak for even HALF as much time.

as per blaming the weather, i am doing so for WI home tests, particularly the ones held in guyana- as it was weather affected.
But ofcourse, you having not WATCHED 80s cricket would be unaware.

Like i said, go educate yourself first.

 

[SJS]

Wow !

50-60 pacers better than Kasprowicz ! Wonder which country/countries they play for ? Why doesnt ICC give them test status ?

I would love to get the list of names

 

[C_C]

i provided atleast 20 aussies in there........
atleast half a dozen indians qualify...8-10 pakistanis, 2-3 sri lankans, 20-25 west indians, 10-20 englishmen, half a dozen kiwis etc etc etc.

In alltime stakes, he is definately outta top 50 list.

 

[benchmark00]

Win = you are better
Draw = you are as good
Loss = you are worse.

Simple.

OZ hasnt won as many series as WI has and hasnt been able to maintain their better/as good streak for even HALF as much time.

as per blaming the weather, i am doing so for WI home tests, particularly the ones held in guyana- as it was weather affected.
But ofcourse, you having not WATCHED 80s cricket would be unaware.

Like i said, go educate yourself first.

good assumptions..................

i suppose you know my middle name, star sign, brothers names, mothers maiden names?? haha you dont know me, dont make assumptions...

ohk put them down to the weather... what about the other drawn series?

 

[C_C]

i suppose you know my middle name, star sign, brothers names, mothers maiden names?? haha you dont know me, dont make assumptions...

ohk put them down to the weather... what about the other drawn series?

when i said 'educate yourself', i meant in the proper context- ie, cricket.
so far you've shown very little understanding of the game.

As per drawn series- its better than a LOST series.


WI were unbeaten for 13 years straight- that is domination.
OZ might win all and sundry for 2 years and then lose and repeat the process for the n-th time but that is still nowhere close to being unbeaten for 13 straight years and ONE series loss in 19 years.

So far, the OZ have gone 14 series without losing ( current streak) ...
that is halway there to the WI record ( 29).

And its 3 years unbeaten streak..that is less than a quarter way there.

Like i said, keep on going... its a long long journey ahead to even MATCH the WI of the 70s/80s, let alone overhaul them.

 

[benchmark00]

when i said 'educate yourself', i meant in the proper context- ie, cricket.
so far you've shown very little understanding of the game.

As per drawn series- its better than a LOST series.


WI were unbeaten for 13 years straight- that is domination.
OZ might win all and sundry for 2 years and then lose and repeat the process for the n-th time but that is still nowhere close to being unbeaten for 13 straight years and ONE series loss in 19 years.

So far, the OZ have gone 14 series without losing ( current streak) ...
that is halway there to the WI record ( 29).

And its 3 years unbeaten streak..that is less than a quarter way there.

Like i said, keep on going... its a long long journey ahead to even MATCH the WI of the 70s/80s, let alone overhaul them.

Australia would rather lose trying to win the game, then draw not trying to win the game, so one loss in many series isnt bad for their style, if anything your comment of australia being boring is hypocritical, because back in the 70's it was 'dont lose at all costs' and the notion of 'batting it out for a draw' was quite prevalent

 

[C_C]

Australia would rather lose trying to win the game, then draw not trying to win the game, so one loss in many series isnt bad for their style, if anything your comment of australia being boring is hypocritical, because back in the 70's it was 'dont lose at all costs' and the notion of 'batting it out for a draw' was quite prevalent

you havnt watched WI play in the 70s if you claim that. Their version of attacking cricket, calypso cricket, enthralled the world and gave them the reputation of being the most entertaining players of cricket - aka brazil of cricket.

THey scored slower,primarily because the pitches wernt as flast as now and test cricket wasnt so influenced by ODI cricket but they scored FASTER than the other teams of the era than OZ does now.

And i dont care if you lose trying to win a game or lose tyring to save a game, a LOSS is a LOSS.
Means in that game, you wernt good enough.
Finito.
Nomatter how you cut it, being beaten is worse than being unbeaten.

Like i said before, go educate yourself on matters of cricket.

 

[benchmark00]

you havnt watched WI play in the 70s if you claim that. Their version of attacking cricket, calypso cricket, enthralled the world and gave them the reputation of being the most entertaining players of cricket - aka brazil of cricket.

THey scored slower,primarily because the pitches wernt as flast as now and test cricket wasnt so influenced by ODI cricket but they scored FASTER than the other teams of the era than OZ does now.

And i dont care if you lose trying to win a game or lose tyring to save a game, a LOSS is a LOSS.
Means in that game, you wernt good enough.
Finito.
Nomatter how you cut it, being beaten is worse than being unbeaten.

Like i said before, go educate yourself on matters of cricket.

ok buddy you keep saying that, ofcourse someone who disagrees with you has no idea about the game..... pfft.. what a load of crap... i agree a loss is a loss... but in some games australia have been more then able to draw the game, but lost out by going for the win...

'predicited reply: oh go learn about the game yada yada yada'

talk about monotonous! youre putting me to sleep here

 

[C_C]

there is nothing about opinion in this particular line of thought.
Its pure logic and facts.
Not losing is better than losing.
WI have not lost for 4x longer timespan than AUS.
therefore they had a better period than the OZ.

simple as 1-2-3.

 

[benchmark00]

there is nothing about opinion in this particular line of thought.
Its pure logic and facts.
Not losing is better than losing.
WI have not lost for 4x longer timespan than AUS.
therefore they had a better period than the OZ.

simple as 1-2-3.

Its the games that counts, not the time period... so its not 4x's... its a fact that more games are played today

 

[C_C]

Its the games that counts, not the time period... so its not 4x's... its a fact that more games are played today

games count as well as timeperiod.
its not like they played 2 matches per year, they played on average 8-10 tests per year...thats not far off from 11-12 tests played by OZ currently.
So in terms of # of matches they played without losing a series, they are far far ahead of the OZ.

 

[C_C]

besides, too many matches a year devalues these records somewhat.
A team can get into a great purple patch or catch a team or two on their way down and by playing a lot of matches in a short time boost its record.
Doing it over a period of time implies you maintain a comprehensive lead over the field based on class alone...not just form.

 

[Anil]

i provided atleast 20 aussies in there........
atleast half a dozen indians qualify...

if you are talking pace, who else in india qualifies except kapil & srinath?

 

[Swervy]

what utter bull..

you have your opinion (which you appear to think is more valid than mine)...I have mine

AUS dominated the scene more strongly ?
What is their total unbeaten series record ?
How many years have they gone unbeaten ?..

To be honest I am not overly concerned by the statistics of the issue...comparing statistics of teams 20 years apart is futile, the game is a lot different now..IMO it is probably a lot harder to rack up a string of undefeated series NOW compared to back then, teams are playing all year round, there is a higher chance of a team playing now when the team just doesnt click etc

Their dominance is FAR behind the WI's..... WI dominated BETTER teams far better.
MOST ENG fans agree that the ENG team in the 80s was better than the ENG team of recent times <maybe the current team is exempt but OZ beat a lot inferior ENG team in the past few years a lot less convincingly>

Again, you see it differently to me.Some of those England teams of the 80's were an utter joke,maybe not talent wise..but more importantly in the ability to fight, they simply packed in at the slightest hint of trouble from any team (apart from in 85 vs the weakest Australian team I have ever seen)...you say the teams WI's back then played were better..if you can show me a fool prove way of proving it,then I will concede that point.

PAK- PAK had their best team during the 80s and were the only team to maintain some semblance of parity with the WI

Haha..so you are saying Pakistan had a stronger team in the early 80's thanthey ever have had. My **** they did...did you watch them get humiliated in the early 80's vs Australia, did you see them get outplayed for the most part in 82 vs a so so England team....Pakistan in the 90's was so much stronger.

NZ ? well it is well known that the 1981 series was as blatant cheating as you get and thats what prompted the likes of Imran Khan, Lloyd etc. to argue in favour of neutral umpires- even Richard Hadlee's brother admitted that the umpire was in collusion with NZ cricket authorities.

OK, so we have to resort to this kind of rubbish do we...this of course is no proof that WI's werent outplayed by NZ..give the NZ team some credit please

OZ was a weaker team and IND was a weaker team.
NZ was a stronger team in the 80s....

and not only did WI beat them, they beat them for 13 years straight without a series loss.
And one series loss in 19 years.
NO team has dominated to that effect and that is akin to OZ remaining unbeaten from 2001 to 2014. So far this is 2004. Another 10 years to go.

As per Lillee shaking up the WI, care to post Lillee's stats against WI ?
he struggled against them more often than not.
And Lillee was at his best vs the WI in 1975 and Viv stood tall and hooked him around the park.
So did Fredericks.
infact, the only bowlers to have the better of Richards < note: better of. not domination> was Chandrasekhar in IND and Akram near the late 80s when Richards was past it..

When I mentioned about Lillee and Richards, I wasnt trying to prove anything there, I was just making a comment about that dismissal of Richards....but please dont mention 75 if you are trying to prove any points about the WI's...WI's lost that series 5-1.

Again it is your opinion that Lillee was at his best in 75...there are many who thought he was at his peak during the Packer stuff in the late 70's,there are those who beleive that when he slowed down a tad, he was the best he had ever been (early 80's)

Richard- most WI folks who've seen cricket from the 50s and 60s will tell you that Sobers, Kanhai and Hunte apart, none from the 60s would make it to the WI team- that includes the likes of three Ws.

And you are right- the four prong didnt all come at the same time and Roberts was past it soon after Marshall was in full cry. and like i said, its irrelevant taking the weakest WI team of the 70s/80s and comparing it with the OZ team of the past 4-5 years in full strength. By that logic, i can take the OZ team that played vs IND in OZ and say that OZ would've been decapitated 5-0. My comparison is based on the BEST WI team that TOOK THE FIELD in that time period and the BEST OZ team that TOOK THE FIELD in this time period. The four prong played 19 or 20 matches together and didnt lose one.

Ofcourse this is an opinion but this OZ team <or that of 2001> vs the WI of the 80s full strength would see WI win the series in 9 outta 10 instances.

Ok..please give us the team that you think was the best and tell me when they played together. I think you are right, that Aussie team that played India last year wasnt at its best,but I think it is acknowleged that the team for 2 to say 4 years ago was better....the WI's also went through short periods when the team they had wasnt as strong as the one the series previous..it works both ways...anyway give us that 'best' team and the series they played together in, I would like to see your opinion on it.

And I am glad you have noted that this is all your opinion..they way you are going on, it doesnt really give the impression that you are in anyway considering any one elses opinion other than your own. The way you are posting is coming over as slightly arrogant at best, if not extremely patronising to some of the people who are replying to you...it wont wash with me.

Just one more point..earlier you said in a post 'yes because you've never played test cricket.
Not so here.'

What does that mean???? Have you played test cricket????

 

[Swervy]

by the way..I have no idea why all my writing is in bold

 

[Beleg]

You messed up with the formatting, makes it very difficult to read.

Pakistan drew three continuous series with WI in late 80's [With a team nothing compared to some we fielded in 90's], early 90's [with a v. strong bowling line-up].

 

[Swervy]

You messed up with the formatting, makes it very difficult to read.

Pakistan drew three continuous series with WI in late 80's [With a team nothing compared to some we fielded in 90's], early 90's [with a v. strong bowling line-up].

and your point being?

 

[Beleg]

That you are right here.

Haha..so you are saying Pakistan had a stronger team in the early 80's thanthey ever have had. My **** they did...did you watch them get humiliated in the early 80's vs Australia, did you see them get outplayed for the most part in 82 vs a so so England team....Pakistan in the 90's was so much stronger.