WI of the 80's or Australia Current?

[marc71178]

I think he was trying to dispel the notion that newer players are necessarily more fit than those of the 80s.

Whilst ignoring the whole factor of number of games being played.

 

[marc71178]

there is a saying 'every dog has his day'.....thats relevant here.

But how long does it take for the consistency of these days to mean something?

 

[marc71178]

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.

How on Earth is a side that lost better?

 

[Marcus]

WI OR Australia

Both teams are great in there own right but what about the current England team? 8 test wins in a row.....and although against a declining windies side........we still had to win......brilliance through the team and not like australia relieing on key players......we can bring bell pieterson...and the countys are producing good players.....less not debate the past....lets debate the future.....In fact the debate should be if we can beat the aussies next year

 

[Richard]

How on Earth is a side that lost better?

Because statistics aren't the be-all-and-end-all.

 

[Richard]

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.

West Indies of '57 had: Hall, Sobers, Gibbs, Ramadhin, Valentine. Not bad if you ask me! Of course, they also had Goddard, Worrell, Weekes, Walcott and Sobers the batsman.
South Africa of '69 had: Peter Pollock, Procter, Goddard, Chevalier, Trimborn, Tiger Lance and Barlow. Not to mention Graeme Pollock, Richards, Lindsay, Bacher, Irvine and Goddard and Tiger Lance the batsmen.
Enough for you?!

 

[garage flower]

West Indies of '57 had: Hall, Sobers, Gibbs, Ramadhin, Valentine. Not bad if you ask me! Of course, they also had Goddard, Worrell, Weekes, Walcott and Sobers the batsman.
South Africa of '69 had: Peter Pollock, Procter, Goddard, Chevalier, Trimborn, Tiger Lance and Barlow. Not to mention Graeme Pollock, Richards, Lindsay, Bacher, Irvine and Goddard and Tiger Lance the batsmen.
Enough for you?!

Hall debuted against India in November '58; Gibbs against Pakistan in February '58. The Windies side of 1957 wouldn't have had an attack to compare with the great 4-prong of the early 80s.

South Africa '69, similarly, would appear to be short on strike bowling depth in comparison to the "pace like fire" era.

 

[Richard]

Why? They had 5 bowlers with superb Test and First-Class averages.
So what if they didn't have 5 or 6 bowlers of extreme pace - we've seen time and again that not having extreme pace doesn't really matter much.
I seem to have got Hall and Gibbs wrong - the side of the late-50s wouldn't have missed many of the players I named (Goddard, don't think anyone else finished in 1957).

 

[garage flower]

Why? They had 5 bowlers with superb Test and First-Class averages.
So what if they didn't have 5 or 6 bowlers of extreme pace - we've seen time and again that not having extreme pace doesn't really matter much.

From memory, the test averages don't really compare. I think Hall was the best of the era, averaging around 26. This was bettered by Marshall, Garner, Holding, Croft and Roberts.

Obviously stats don't tell the full story and of course pace alone isn't often all that effective. I don't think the names listed above relied solely on pace though.

 

[Richard]

Hall in the period in question had a far better record than overall.
Same thing is true of Gibbs
Ramadhin was one of the more inconsistent bowlers you'll ever see.
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).

 

[Richard]

Obviously stats don't tell the full story and of course pace alone isn't often all that effective. I don't think the names listed above relied solely on pace though.

Of course they didn't, otherwise they wouldn't have been that good. But equally you don't have to be as fast as them to be not-far from being as good.

 

[benchmark00]

Both teams are great in there own right but what about the current England team? 8 test wins in a row.....and although against a declining windies side........we still had to win......brilliance through the team and not like australia relieing on key players......we can bring bell pieterson...and the countys are producing good players.....less not debate the past....lets debate the future.....In fact the debate should be if we can beat the aussies next year

lol dont get carried away with yourself mate, 8 wins in a row is a good achievment but the quality of opponents werent extremely great... lol and im pretty sure that Australia dont rely on one or two key players... it shows when martyn, clarke and kasper won us the series over in india.... before that they were on the fringe, shows how everyone puts in and does their job in the Aussies team... lol i think that alot of people are getting carried away with the English team, just wait till the ashes, i think it would come as a bit of a suprise to the English fans IMO

 

[marc71178]

Because statistics aren't the be-all-and-end-all.

But if a side loses 3-0 there's no way on Earth they can be the best side of all time.

 

[C_C]

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

what utter bull.

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

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>.

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

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.

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.

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.

 

[benchmark00]

what utter bull.

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

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>.

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

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.

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.

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.

its misleading to say that WI went through 13 years without losing a series, they had a plethora of draws, and not all to do with rain and poor weather, Australia dont draw series, they smash the opposition and win, or they lose by trying to win and being overly aggressive and not playing defensive tactics

 

[Beleg]

its misleading to say that WI went through 13 years without losing a series

No, it is not. It is a fact.

 

[C_C]

But how long does it take for the consistency of these days to mean something?

it hasnt even been a COUPLE of years since Kaspa came back...and yes i do rate him slightly better than Zaheer Khan.
There is not much that seperates them in quality except that Kaspa has a far superior attack to back him up.

As per 50 bowlers, I'll start with JUST aussies and keep it JUST to pacers.

McGrath,Lillee, Thommo, Gillespie, Fleming, Hughes, McDermott, Miller, Lindwall, Spofforth, McKenzie,Lawson,Johnston,Davidson,Alderman,Reid,Reiffel,Walker,Hogg,Whitty,Turner and a few others.

There is 20-odd right there.
Actually i was being generous on Kaspa by saying there are 50 pacers ahead of him......more like atleast 70-80 if you take the entire world into consideration.

 

[C_C]

its misleading to say that WI went through 13 years without losing a series, they had a plethora of draws, and not all to do with rain and poor weather, Australia dont draw series, they smash the opposition and win, or they lose by trying to win and being overly aggressive and not playing defensive tactics

They had a plethora of draws- many of which were weather affected. Like i said, MOST matches in guyana were draws due to weather. its only recently that WI has started avoiding the trade winds of guyana.
OZ smashes inferior opposition than the WI did and even then not as convincingly.
and a loss is a loss. beaten. came second best.
Doesnt matter if you lost because of overly aggressive or defensive tactic, a loss is a loss.
Oh and dont forget that the WI played more attractive cricket than OZ....
they scored slower overall but a few notches faster than the 2nd fastest team....ie, they scored a helluva lot quicker than the rest did compared to OZ.
And their bowling wasnt mindnumbing boredom of McGrath and Gillespie<only to be broken up by Warne's bowling> but that of breathtaking hostility and awe.

 

[benchmark00]

No, it is not. It is a fact.

ok if i was to say that i have never been hit for more than 0 in a test match over.... it would be true but still misleading...

 

[C_C]

ok if i was to say that i have never been hit for more than 0 in a test match over.... it would be true but still misleading...

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.