Clash of the Titans: The Great West Indies v The Great Aussies???

[aussie-pak]

well? i havnt seen the great west indies side so i ask this question to the people who have! WI did take cricket to a whole new level, but the austalians went one step further one can say.

so, who would triuph?

the west indies had the great 4 prong pace attack, but how would they go on a turning wicket on day five at sydney? australia had warne.

another reason i want people who watched the west indies play is how they were as fielders? no doupt australia is the best fielding side by a margin in the modern era, but if these 2 great teams of 2 eras battle it out i think fielding will play a big factor.


WI VS AUS - 5 test series and 5 ODI's. who will triumph?

[Imy]

West Indies 5 nill in tests and 4-1 in Australia. Australia had one great medim pacer in Mcgrath and the Westindies had 4 great fast bolwers

[aussiecricketer]

Aussies 5-0. 5-0

West Indies were great. But this Aussie team was greater. We will realise this in 30 years.

[Imy]

Um hw would hayden score for example do you see him walking down the pitch to the west indian bowkers?? , i dont think so , Viv Richard , haynes and Grenidge would have shane warne for lunch

[lakha84]

Aussies 5-0. 5-0

West Indies were great. But this Aussie team was greater. We will realise this in 30 years.

haan u wish

it would 5-0 agreed but to the WI

[Megadeth]

Can't agree more..Greenridge,Viv,Haynes,lloyd are more than enough to handle mc.grath and Warne. Besides I don't think anyone wud have the guts to sledge the likes of Viv richards after we've seen what he's done too the odd bowler who sledged him in some county game...As for Aussie batsmen...well...Apart from Ponting and Hayden..I don't see the batting line-up firing..

[12thMan]

is this with old rules or new? old equipment or new? WI will win with either but probably easier with old stuff. It probably will not be a whitewash

[Oxy]

New Rule...Old Rules...made up rules...NO RULES. This era / That era.

However you want to package it - Windies would would provide Australia the biggest spanking in their history.

Aussie batsman wouldnt know what had hit them!

I dont think it would be close.

5-0 in a 5 test series.

5-0 in a 5 ODI series.

[PlanetPakistan]

I think WI will win the test series and AUS will win the ODI series.

[Sultan Yusuf]

No contest!! WI would have wiped the floor with these overrated aussies....

Mcgrath could have bowled his corridor of bakwas all day and haynes would have just watched the ball sail over off stump all day. Richards would have retired the ugly pidgeon..

As for the aussie batting, look at how shoaib intimidated the aussies - esp the alleged "bully" hayden. Well imagin 4 shoaibs!

Aussies have held on to their No.1 tag simply because the other teams are rubbish.

[Oxy]

Bottom line - The Great Aussie era coincided with the most mediocre era from the competition.

The Great Windies battered everything that stepped in their way.

[rahulrulezz]

Realistically, Aussie can whop any team... so Aussie would comfortably beat the great West Indies team.. both in ODIs and Tests

[Sultan Yusuf]

Realistically, Aussie can whop any team... so Aussie would comfortably beat the great West Indies team.. both in ODIs and Tests

You should do stand up, I'm impressed...

[aussie-pak]

i find it hard to grasp that WI will win 5-0 in test and ODI's.

[PlanetPakistan]

aussie-pak,
would like to know which line up will you pick. S Waugh's 01 team that set the record or Ponting's 06 Ashes winning team.

[aussiecricketer]

Okay well you guys are missing the point.

Cricket in the 70's wasn't of such a high standard like it is today.

The same can be said with Bradman. Everyone those days was part time bowlers. Do you honestly think all the batsmen were crazy, or all just thought the bowling couldn't hurt them. They didn't wear helmets which says it all.

[Sultan Yusuf]

Okay well you guys are missing the point.

Cricket in the 70's wasn't of such a high standard like it is today.



And why exactly is that?

[aussiecricketer]

And why exactly is that?

Modernisation.

Things constantly improve.

Like i said in the 30's the batsmen didn't even wear helmets, that shows you how threatening the bowlers were.

How fast were those West Indians bowling 140? Lee can beat that!!.

Australia would win 5-0 5-0.

If Pakistan are the best team in 20 years for a while. Then they would beat the current Aussie team 5-0 5-0.

Get my drift?

[Oxy]

Cricket in the 70's wasn't of such a high standard like it is today.

l.Now you've made a fatal error - care to qualify your statement?

[Oxy]

Modernisation.

Things constantly improve.

Like i said in the 30's the batsmen didn't even wear helmets, that shows you how threatening the bowlers were.

How fast were those West Indians bowling 140? Lee can beat that!!.

Australia would win 5-0 5-0.

If Pakistan are the best team in 20 years for a while. Then they would beat the current Aussie team 5-0 5-0.

Get my drift?
So many factual errors - not even worth discussing this further with you I'm afraid.

Wikipedia doesnt give the true picture I guess of the Great Windies side.

Not your fault.

I understand.

[Sultan Yusuf]

Modernisation.

Things constantly improve.

Like i said in the 30's the batsmen didn't even wear helmets, that shows you how threatening the bowlers were.

How fast were those West Indians bowling 140? Lee can beat that!!.

Australia would win 5-0 5-0.

If Pakistan are the best team in 20 years for a while. Then they would beat the current Aussie team 5-0 5-0.

Get my drift?

1. What has the 30s got to do with the 70s? :20:
2. Who knows how fast they were bowling, but the effect is there for all to see.
3. On the point about helmets, Viv never wore one and he faced arguably the quickest of all (Thompson).
4. Maybe you might want to think about exactly why batsmen wear helmets nowadays as opposed to then? Maybe they're technique playing the short ball is worse?
5. I don't think you really believe what you're on about, but it might convince everyone that you're really "australian".....ahem.

[Gonzo]

It would be a great series. The West Indies have the better pace attack, with Marshall, Holding, Roberts, Ambrose etc, but I think that Australia's batting is just a little better, and they have a credible spinner in Warne.

In the end, I think that Australia would come out on top. Just. They have the winning mentality, in Australia cricket is not a game, it's a way to win something. When they lost the Ashes in 2005 they kept it alive to the last test despite being clearly outplayed, and in 06/07 were driven to whitewash England 5-0.

[Sultan Yusuf]

It would be a great series. The West Indies have the better pace attack, with Marshall, Holding, Roberts, Ambrose etc, but I think that Australia's batting is just a little better, and they have a credible spinner in Warne.

In the end, I think that Australia would come out on top. Just. They have the winning mentality, in Australia cricket is not a game, it's a way to win something. When they lost the Ashes in 2005 they kept it alive to the last test despite being clearly outplayed, and in 06/07 were driven to whitewash England 5-0.

So West Indies didn't have the "winning" mentality despite dominating for almost two decades? :20: What are you trying to say?

They have better batsmen?? Prove it??

[Imy]

On a bowling attack I would take four great express bowlers and I mean express bowlers who would walk into any team of any era over a great spinner and a great medium pacer any day . How would you score against four bolwers who are bowlinag at 145K+ at your throat. You cant thats why the ICC changed the bouncer rule.
PS IF warne could not do well against India how would ge do against greenidge ,Haynes and Richards.

[PlanetPakistan]

I guess the bowling attacks will be

Roberts
Holding
Marshall
Garner

vs

Mcgrath
Lee
Gillespie
Warne

WI certainly have the edge there.

Batting will be

Haynes
Griendge
Richarson
Gomes
Viv
Llyod
Dujon

vs

Slater
Hayden
Langer
Ponting
M Waugh
S Waugh
Gilchrist

Looking at the lineups i am forced to think that the Aussies will have to really rely on their fielding to give the WI a good fight.

[Gonzo]

So West Indies didn't have the "winning" mentality despite dominating for almost two decades? :20: What are you trying to say?

I agree that they did have a winning mentality, but I don't think it was to the same extent as the (current?) Australian side.

They have better batsmen?? Prove it??

When talking about cricket, it's very hard to "prove" anything, but I'll try anyway. If we compare these two sides that all played a test together:

vs South Africa in Adelaide, 2001

Hayden
Langer
Ponting
M Waugh
S Waugh
Martyn
Gilchrist
Warne
Lee
Gillespie
McGrath

vs England at Old Trafford, 1980

Greenidge
Haynes
Richards
Kallicharran
Bacchus
Lloyd
Murray
Marshall
Roberts
Holding
Garner

Let's look at the batting order:

Hayden/Greenidge (Greenidge shades it)
Langer/Haynes (Langer shades it)
Ponting/Richards (Ponting, I feel Richards is overrated. Please don't kill me)
M Waugh/Kallicharran (Kallicharran)
S Waugh/Bacchus (Waugh, no discussion here)
Martyn/Lloyd (Lloyd, by a small distance)
Gilchrist/Murray (Gilchrist pretty easily)

[Hari Sombar]

Tests - 4-0 Windies no doubt , one resulting in a draw :P
ODI - 4-1 Windies - have to give the Aussies 1 :D

But would be a great series to see .

[PlanetPakistan]

Tests - 4-0 Windies no doubt , one resulting in a draw :P
ODI - 4-1 Windies - have to give the Aussies 1 :D

But would be a great match to see .
Why would it be great if it's so terribly one sided :P

[Hari Sombar]

Why would it be great if it's so terribly one sided :P


I would love a team to really give it to the Aussies ;-) :19:

[PlanetPakistan]

Gonzo,
Murray hardly played more than 3 or 4 games in the 80s.

[Gonzo]

Gonzo,
Murray hardly played more than 3 or 4 games in the 80s.

I looked through the cricinfo archives and picked out what I thought was the best West Indian Test XI of the decade. It's not meant to be a representative side of the period of West Indian dominance.

[Oxy]

I looked through the cricinfo archives and picked out what I thought was the best West Indian Test XI of the decade. It's not meant to be a representative side of the period of West Indian dominance.
Windies keeper would be Jeff Dujon (not Derek Murray); Larry Gomes in for Bacchus in the 'Elite WI XI'

[PlanetPakistan]

Windies keeper would be Jeff Dujon (not Derek Murray); Larry Gomes in for Bacchus in the 'Elite WI XI'
Oxy how was the W Indian fielding back in the day? I have read and seen that they were quite good in the slips but what about in the outfield?

[12thMan]

PP - before hardly any one dove or should I say the fielding was different compared to today. It was more about taking catches and doing regulation stops. The new fielding standard is new (12-15 years old at most)

here is a video about Andy Roberts, the first of the WI fast bowling quartet with some interesting comments http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gpdzw2Poia8

[Windistan]

Roberts
Garner
Holding
Marshall

You must be joking. Go pick up a book or watch some videos.

[PlanetPakistan]

PP - before hardly any one dove or should I say the fielding was different compared to today. It was more about taking catches and doing regulation stops. The new fielding standard is new (12-15 years old at most)

here is a video about Andy Roberts, the first of the WI fast bowling quartet with some interesting comments http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gpdzw2Poia8
thanks for the video- really nice!

[subshakerz]

It would be a great series. The West Indies have the better pace attack, with Marshall, Holding, Roberts, Ambrose etc, but I think that Australia's batting is just a little better, and they have a credible spinner in Warne.

In the end, I think that Australia would come out on top. Just. They have the winning mentality, in Australia cricket is not a game, it's a way to win something. When they lost the Ashes in 2005 they kept it alive to the last test despite being clearly outplayed, and in 06/07 were driven to whitewash England 5-0.

I think everybody is missing the obvious here. Australia are far from unbeatable, they lost the Ashes in 2005! How can a team that loses to England's four-prong attack hope for better against a four-prong attack in an altogether different league? They also lost twice in India, and to Sri Lanka in 99. West Indies lost only one freak series, to New Zealand in 79, in 20 years at the top. Australia have lost four in the last ten. There's your answer.

And the look at the standard of opposition they had, every side had at least one all-time great bowler and batsman. Compare that to nowadays, and you will discover why Australia have been so dominant.

The series would be competitive, but West Indies should be on top most of the time. Warne might cause some issues, and perhaps Gilchrist, but Australia dont have an advantage in other departments.

[Oxy]

Oxy how was the W Indian fielding back in the day? I have read and seen that they were quite good in the slips but what about in the outfield?

Like 12th Man says - no body dived in those days - it wasnt really considered 'dignified'!!!

You had about 5 OUTSTANDING fielders - eg Derek Randell / Viv Richards but thats about it. I guess it was about taking catches - mostly at slip & the keeper.

Just look at some of Viv Richards fielding in a couple of World Cup finals in the 70s.....ahead of his time.....may have to upload those clips

Windies only concentrated on ground fielding in the 80s with the likes of Harper & Logie - but they were hardly regulars in the side.

Dont recall the Aussies having ANY decent fielders back then....but I could be wrong! I'm in my 30s, not 60s!!!

[siddharth]

Aussies are over hyped because of other team's ''mediocrity '' . WI team of 80s was just like a dream beyond any body's imagination . Cake walk for windies.

[voodooray]

Test Cricket was played at its highest level between 1975 to 1985, and yet the West Indies managed to dominate the game.
The only time the current Aussie batsmen have come across against a quality pace attack was in the 2005 Ashes and we all saw how they struggled. Against Roberts, Holding, Garner, Croft and Marshall they wouldn't stand a chance.
Can you even imagine Matthew Hayden walking down the pitch (which he does so often these days) against someone like Michael Holding?!

[subshakerz]

Test Cricket was played at its highest level between 1975 to 1985, and yet the West Indies managed to dominate the game.
The only time the current Aussie batsmen have come across against a quality pace attack was in the 2005 Ashes and we all saw how they struggled. Against Roberts, Holding, Garner, Croft and Marshall they wouldn't stand a chance.
Can you even imagine Matthew Hayden walking down the pitch (which he does so often these days) against someone like Michael Holding?!

Without a helmet as well!

[DHONI183]

If fielding is a problem to make a decision then let me remind everyone around here that even some of the West Indian fielders like Viv Richards were famous for their direct-hits :) :) .................

[Javelin]

the west indies had the great 4 prong pace attack, but how would they go on a turning wicket on day five at sydney? australia had warne.


Yes, but with the West Indies pace attack (choose any 4 of 6 from Holding, Roberts, Croft, Garner, Marshall, Wayne Daniel), there WOULD NOT be a day 5!


another reason i want people who watched the west indies play is how they were as fielders? no doupt australia is the best fielding side by a margin in the modern era, but if these 2 great teams of 2 eras battle it out i think fielding will play a big factor.


Clive Lloyd and Viv Richards at their best were better than anything that the Aussies, or anyone else, can/could muster. Throw in the likes of Greenidge and Haynes in the slips, and you've got a pretty decent fielding outfit. The likes of Colis King, as an all-rounder, surpassed the likes of Andrew Symonds.

[12thMan]

stopping 4-8 boundries in a test will not affect the outcome of the game. Fielding is a lesser issue because the main skills will matter more. Australia is not winning tests these days because they have 3-4 great fielders but they win because they bat, bowl and can take regulation catches. When someone does the basics better than them like in Ashes 2005 they can lose. And the exceptional catches only happen once in few games and people can take them if they are lucky

[Safar55]

Windies bowling attack was miles better than anything we've seen since.....Australia had 2 all-time greats in Warne and Gilchrist playing in the same team..... they also had McGrath and Warne in tandem.....creating pressure....... batting wise Windies shade it.............Overall the greatness of the Windies bowling attack blows everything else away.....Windies would win hands down even if the Aussies had Bradman

[jaspa888]

Interesting debate.

As someone who was lucky enough to see the 1984 series where WI whitewashed England 5-0, I initially thought that WI have the edge over Australia.

Several world class batsmen in both teams, but WI defintely had the edge in bowling terms. Windies never struggled on slow, turning pitches bacause Marshall and Garner bowled great yorkers, making the pitch irrelevant.

As for fielding, Windies were no slouches and as someone has said on here, incredible catches rarely have a big impact on a match.

The only thing I can find in favour of Australia would be when this hypothetical match would be played. If in 1984, then Windies no doubt.

However, played now, under present regulations, Windies bowling attack would be largely impeded by the rule on bouncer limitations in an over. The Windies were relentless with their barrage of bouncers, indimidating and injuring many players. Also, the standard of batting equipment back then was not so great, and do not think Windies bowlers would be as effective in 2007.

But still Windies (slightly)...

[subshakerz]

Interesting debate.

As someone who was lucky enough to see the 1984 series where WI whitewashed England 5-0, I initially thought that WI have the edge over Australia.

Several world class batsmen in both teams, but WI defintely had the edge in bowling terms. Windies never struggled on slow, turning pitches bacause Marshall and Garner bowled great yorkers, making the pitch irrelevant.

As for fielding, Windies were no slouches and as someone has said on here, incredible catches rarely have a big impact on a match.

The only thing I can find in favour of Australia would be when this hypothetical match would be played. If in 1984, then Windies no doubt.

However, played now, under present regulations, Windies bowling attack would be largely impeded by the rule on bouncer limitations in an over. The Windies were relentless with their barrage of bouncers, indimidating and injuring many players. Also, the standard of batting equipment back then was not so great, and do not think Windies bowlers would be as effective in 2007.

But still Windies (slightly)...


On the flip side, their batsmen will surely enjoy these batting relaxations. Can you imagine what Viv would do to on flatter ptiches to bowlers who couldnt even bounce him consistently?

[Wazeeri]

Pro Windies

4 great bowlers Vs Aussie two

Pro Aussies

Better Fielders
Lethal Spinner
Not reliant on bouncers to get a lightly padded team out.

[OZGOD]

It would be pretty close. Warne would be what would bring us close to the WI side. I was privileged to watch those guys play, and if they had a weakness it was spin. Plus their four-prong, under today's rules of minimum bouncers and minimum over rates, would not be quite as effective as they were back then.

But I'd give the WI the edge just in terms of bowling. I'd say Windies 2-1, with 2 draws.

[Wazeeri]

I don't think Windies 4 would be as good today as they were then. Marshall would be the only to watch out for but the rest would be as good as a rich man's Harmison.

[IMMYBUTT]

West Indies would win. Much more natural talent and passion in their game.

[BD-fan]

What are the ground rules?
1) Helmet or no helmet.
2) WI pitches of the 70s or Dusty dhaka-karachi pitches?

If we go by no helmet and 70s WI pitches, Aussies would not be able finish a single match. The highest runs would scored by extra in aussie scorecard.

Series cancelled by CA calling foul on umpiring.

A certain black man would come infront of the camera with chewing his gum and say, "any time any place mate, we are ready."

[BD-fan]

Oxy how was the W Indian fielding back in the day? I have read and seen that they were quite good in the slips but what about in the outfield?
On the run one handed catch and in the out field, throwing it back while in the air from that distance was Holdings fieldings. magestic to see. Something cricket has never seen. Garner being too tall had issues on cutting out the ground balls (fumbled, baseball error), but his football technic and long strides made difficult for batsmen to score four around his fielding area.

The only weak point the WI team had was their extras (no balls and wides). Anything less than 35 per innings would be seen as wow!! But they didn't care. all day long 140+ the batsmen were already terrified. Their backup COLIN CROFT was better than many starters of these days. He still holds best figures among all WI great bowlers in an innings 8/29 (Port of Spain).

So WI had the luxury to rotate bowlers lol.

[jackal786]

Make sure no video analysis! Modern Australian team depended a lot on it. If they study enough about Windies team they will sure come out with some plan. Only thing that can bring everything into balance is Warne.

[BD-fan]

As for Ponting vs Richard here it goes:

Ponting: Even BD bowlers are not afraid of him.

Richards: Not only the bowler who is bowling to him, his captain, his fielders and the fans on the stand or infront of the TV were afraid of him. Praying please don't kill us. Spare us for this time. Talk about beastly presence.

[Wazeeri]

Ponting averaging 60 and will end with the most centuries in the game. You don't need to be feared or have a dominating personality to score a lot of runs.

[HAL]

This is all hypothetical and a much discussed topic amongst cricket fans, but would have been interesting to see how the West Indian batting line up deal with Warne. That ultimately might be the biggest trump card for Australia in any such imaginary encounter.

[subshakerz]

This is all hypothetical and a much discussed topic amongst cricket fans, but would have been interesting to see how the West Indian batting line up deal with Warne. That ultimately might be the biggest trump card for Australia in any such imaginary encounter.

Actually, he might be the only trumpcard, West Indies exceed Australia in all other categories. They occasionally have trouble facing Shoaib Akthar, imagine four Shoaib Akthar's' bowling at them, except far more skilled.

[Wazeeri]

West Indies exceed Australia in all other categories.

Don't agree, I think the Aussies win hands down in fielding.

Batting
C G Greenidge 45
D L Haynes 42
I V A Richards 50
C H Lloyd (c) 47
Kallicharran 45

A Gilchrist 49
Hayden 53
Langer 45
M Waugh 42
S Waugh 51
Ponting 59

Bowling

A M E Roberts 25
J Garner 21
M A Holding 23
C E H Croft 23

Warne 25
Mcgrath 22
Lee 32
Gillespie 26

I think the Windies only win in bowling because with the Aussies you can play out Mcgrath and Warne and attack Lee and Gillespie. In the windies all the bowlers were brilliant.

However the Windies attack is very one dimensional and with modern padding is pretty useless. The Aussies have Warne who redressed the balance very finely.

[daddy]

most posters here are anti-aussies because they whipped pakistan and india. and none can beat them. windies won 2 world cups in total and in sequence, aussies won 3 THREE world cups in sequence, and 4 in total.
aussies will definitely kill the windies old teams.

[daddy]

in fact, aussies ALONE have won more world cups than ALL subcontinent teams combined (one a piece for pak india sri lanka none for bangladesh). bitter pill to swallow folks?

[Gonzo]

This argument is irrelevent at any rate, because the Invincibles would whip both teams one-handed.

[daddy]

who are the invincibles then? indian cricket team?

[Gonzo]

who are the invincibles then? indian cricket team?

1948 Australian team that toured England, winning 25 matches and drawing the other 9, including winning the Ashes 4-0.

[daddy]

tell me more about this aussie team of 1948.

[OZGOD]

tell me more about this aussie team of 1948.

The Invincibles was a team that Don Bradman captained that won every single match of its tour to England in 1948.

[Gonzo]

tell me more about this aussie team of 1948.

Wikipedia has a good article on them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Invincibles_%28cricket%29

[Gonzo]

The Invincibles was a team that Don Bradman captained that won every single match of its tour to England in 1948.

No, it didn't win every single match, but it did go undefeated in its 31 matches.

[daddy]

what's so great about beating only one team?

[Gonzo]

what's so great about beating only one team?

They didn't beat just one team, but they beat the whole of the British Isles repeatedly. England had an excellent team back then with players like Hutton, Compton, Laker, Bedser and Edrich, yet they were simply obliterated. In the last test England were bowled out for 52 and 188.

Also, if you look at the team, they are all great players. Bradman is easily the best cricketer ever to play the sport. They also had arguably the greatest all-rounder ever in Miller (personally I think Imran shades it by the smallest of margins), and their pace attack in Miller, Lindwall and Johnston is arguably the equal of the West Indians. They also had a solid spinner in Ian Johnson. And not to mention the batting lineup, Barnes and Morris opening was perhaps Australia's best opening parntership and then you have Bradman going in at 3, supported by Brown, Harvey and Hassett, all of who average >45.

[jackal786]

Between 1977 /78(that is when Windies beat OZ 3-1 in windies) and 1988/89 (that is when they beat India 3-0 at home) Windies had played 95 tests won 47 and lost 10.


Australia has played 99 tests since they started their manic streak won 72 of them. If you take out minnows played 92 won 66. That is seriously mean streak.

[subshakerz]

Between 1977 /78(that is when Windies beat OZ 3-1 in windies) and 1988/89 (that is when they beat India 3-0 at home) Windies had played 95 tests won 47 and lost 10.


Australia has played 99 tests since they started their manic streak won 72 of them. If you take out minnows played 92 won 66. That is seriously mean streak.

Obviously Australia are going to win more, look at the hapless opposition they play. It's easy to dominate when you're playing no-hopers. West Indies dominated when evey side had at least one all-time great bowler and batsman.

The fact is West Indies didnt lose a series from 1980 to 1995, 15 years. Australia have lost four in the last ten.

It's interesting what Ian Chappell had to say about the Aussies. He felt they were overrated, simply a very good but not great side with two all-time great bowlers in Warne and McGrath. I'm inclinded to agree.

[subshakerz]

I think the Windies only win in bowling because with the Aussies you can play out Mcgrath and Warne and attack Lee and Gillespie. In the windies all the bowlers were brilliant.

However the Windies attack is very one dimensional and with modern padding is pretty useless. The Aussies have Warne who redressed the balance very finely.

Except this one-dimensional attack won series everywhere in the world, even the sub-continent. Australia with their supposedly mutli-dimensional attack continually lost in India and even lost to Sri Lanka as well in 99.

You ask why they didnt have a spinner? Simple answer, they didnt need one.

You say that their attack is useless, but then why did Australia struggle against England's in 2005? The West Indies are in another league to that.

Oh, and their batting is better as well, and will thoroughly enjoy these matting wickets as you refer to.

[subshakerz]

They didn't beat just one team, but they beat the whole of the British Isles repeatedly. England had an excellent team back then with players like Hutton, Compton, Laker, Bedser and Edrich, yet they were simply obliterated. In the last test England were bowled out for 52 and 188.

Also, if you look at the team, they are all great players. Bradman is easily the best cricketer ever to play the sport. They also had arguably the greatest all-rounder ever in Miller (personally I think Imran shades it by the smallest of margins), and their pace attack in Miller, Lindwall and Johnston is arguably the equal of the West Indians. They also had a solid spinner in Ian Johnson. And not to mention the batting lineup, Barnes and Morris opening was perhaps Australia's best opening parntership and then you have Bradman going in at 3, supported by Brown, Harvey and Hassett, all of who average >45.

We saw this side struggle in the bodyline series, which makes me think that Bradman apart they might be at sea against the West Indies pacers.

Its evolution, I think. Cricket in the 70s was just of another standard to before.

[Gonzo]

We saw this side struggle in the bodyline series

No, the Boydline series was 15 years before the Invincibles. Nothing to do with Bodyline.

[Wazeeri]

Except this one-dimensional attack won series everywhere in the world, even the sub-continent. Australia with their supposedly mutli-dimensional attack continually lost in India and even lost to Sri Lanka as well in 99.

Yes against lightly padded batsmen. I would like to see them bowl against the batsmen today.

You ask why they didnt have a spinner? Simple answer, they didnt need one.

I didn't ask why, I said they didn't.

Because they didn't have one as good as warne.

You say that their attack is useless, but then why did Australia struggle against England's in 2005? The West Indies are in another league to that.

I said their attack is pretty useless against well padded batsmen.

Oh, and their batting is better as well, and will thoroughly enjoy these matting wickets as you refer to.

How can you say their batting is better?
Steve Waugh, Ponting, Hayden, Gilchrist not good enough for you?

[PlanetPakistan]

I said their attack is pretty useless against well padded batsmen.


The Aussie batsmen in the 05 Ashes series were quite well padded yet they struggled against the likes of Flintoff, Hoggard and Jones and surely the likes of Marshall, Holding and Garner were a lot better.


Don't agree, I think the Aussies win hands down in fielding.

Batting
C G Greenidge 45
D L Haynes 42
I V A Richards 50
C H Lloyd (c) 47
Kallicharran 45

A Gilchrist 49
Hayden 53
Langer 45
M Waugh 42
S Waugh 51
Ponting 59

Bowling

A M E Roberts 25
J Garner 21
M A Holding 23
C E H Croft 23

Warne 25
Mcgrath 22
Lee 32
Gillespie 26
.

First of all it's not fair to simply compare the averages of players from different eras secondly you forgot about M Marshall( perhaps the greatest bowler ever)

[Hari Sombar]

Wow, this is a great argument here but its really hard to compare the Aussies of now with well padded batsman, fielding restrictions and different standards and mentalities with what it was then.

Even The Invincibles of 1948 would still be hard to compare. Sure, the pace and bouncers of the West Indians would be less of impact now but they were the supposed greatest bowlers of all time, and combined with that the greatest batsmen and all-rounders of all time.

As other posters have said, the Aussies are overrated, they are pretty good at all aspects of the game, but I wouldn't think they are even a match for the Windies team. Winning four world cups now, with the likes of Zimbabwe and other mediocre teams like that, hell even Pakistan and India would choke in a final against the Aussies.

And then the two consecutive world cups for Windies in the era where there was no Zimbabwe or Kenya, and all the major teams had at least 1 world class batter and bowler, the Windies simply mowed them down. Yes not forgetting the upset where India defended their low score against the Windies, but the way everyone was simply aghast that India won is of showing of the expectations and class to be shown by the West Indians.

Windies would simply Own Australia, any era, no doubt

[subshakerz]

How can you say their batting is better?
Steve Waugh, Ponting, Hayden, Gilchrist not good enough for you?

They are good, but Lloyd, Richards, Greenidge, Haynes and Kalicharran are better.

[daddy]

hari sombar and others are talking about indian and pakistani inferiority complex against australia's superior cricket team.
when west indies played in fact it can be said there was no quality cricketers. tell us when did batsman FIRST start playing aggressively in first 15 overs, 96 world cup by sri lanka? before that 200+ score in 50 overs will be enough. these days, 300+ and on certain pitches you'll still be in trouble.

windies bowlers can be said to be overrated too. what proof is there of your claims?

[daddy]

again some ppl act stupidly, thinking if X beat Y, and Y beat Z, X will beat Z. anyone who's watched cricket will know that's utter nonsense. there's no relation between those.

australia hasn't left one place they didn't win comprehensively, and like someone mentioend it was just way too much. 66 test matches out of 90 or so is tremendous win record. windies are on different level altogether.

[Hari Sombar]

hari sombar and others are talking about indian and pakistani inferiority complex against australia's superior cricket team.
when west indies played in fact it can be said there was no quality cricketers. tell us when did batsman FIRST start playing aggressively in first 15 overs, 96 world cup by sri lanka? before that 200+ score in 50 overs will be enough. these days, 300+ and on certain pitches you'll still be in trouble.

windies bowlers can be said to be overrated too. what proof is there of your claims?

There you go, even batsman playing defensively in the first 15 overs they still got out pretty cheaply with the Windies bowlers. Also if you read my post properly you will see I said how hard it is to compare the teams in two different era's. Therefore the ' safe ' score is bound to be different with the 200 - 300 margins.

The proof is in the way they just beat the teams so easily. I've read so many stories where the windies quicks tore through a whole batting line up before however many overs were up. No matter how good the Aussies play they can never tear through a good batting line-up bowling them out for low scores so consistantly.

And sure the Aussies post 300 + scores consistantly, but 300 is frequent with teams like NZ, South Africa even India scoring close to that regularly.

[daddy]

you never watched them but is basing it on accounts of matches on newspapers or magazines? i mean you never watched windies at peak but read about them?

and your argument IF TRUE is this - windies had better bowling, aussies had better batting. so who wins? hard to tell from this.

but as days went, cricket all forms of it have become more batsmen friendly and less bowler friendly. therefore more scores of 300 and high scoring tests today than before.

[subshakerz]

hari sombar and others are talking about indian and pakistani inferiority complex against australia's superior cricket team.
when west indies played in fact it can be said there was no quality cricketers. tell us when did batsman FIRST start playing aggressively in first 15 overs, 96 world cup by sri lanka? before that 200+ score in 50 overs will be enough. these days, 300+ and on certain pitches you'll still be in trouble.

windies bowlers can be said to be overrated too. what proof is there of your claims?

Look at their superb records first, then remember that each was a genuine fast bowler, and that there were usually two who didnt have space in the side. They won West Indies series in every country, including dead pitches in India and Pakistan.

As for there being no quality cricketers, here are few greats who played during their reign at the top:

Pakistan:
Imran Khan
Javed Miandad
Wasim Akram

India:
Kapil Dev
Sunil Gavaskar

New Zealand:
Richard Hadlee
Martin Crowe

England:
Ian Botham
Graham Gooch

Australia:
Dennis Lillee
Greg Chappell
Allan Border

Compare that to the current crop and you find there is no comparison. Arguably, there were never as many great players as during the 70s/80s, yet West Indies still dominated. That's why Australia will be hard-pressed to beat them.

[12thMan]

hari sombar and others are talking about indian and pakistani inferiority complex against australia's superior cricket team.
wouldn't inferiorty complex be if they were more appreciating Australia (the white team)??? Maybe I don't understand this

And ODI will not be a good measurement of who is better. Upsets are more likely in ODIs or other shorter forms of the game plus rules have changed a lot more in ODIs compared to tests

when west indies played in fact it can be said there was no quality cricketers. :)

[Ottayan]

Hi,

I have seen the WI team play and also the Australians.

They differ a lot.

WI batsmen were destructive but they had class & flair. You enjoyed seeing them bat, it was a treat, though personally I felt Richards was uni-dimensional, mostly playing across the line.

Greenidge,Fredricks, Kalicharan ( who was all silken grace), Llyod, Larry Gomes, dont remember much of Murray, but Dujon were really top class and they played with style.

The Aussies come poor second. Not one, other than Martyn, had class. They are brutal and give no joy to spectators.

For example. Greenidge was ferocious, but as an Indian fan you just shook your head in disbelief and settled down to enjoy his batting.

Take Hayden, he is brutal, but machine like. From an Indian fans perspective you only felt sorry for the bowler in the middle.

Bowling wise on any given day and even on Indian pitches, you flet that WI's pace men were capable of breaking a bone or two.

The bowling of Aussies never impressed me. Macgrath is a good bowler, but he depended more on making the batsmen making errors.

For all the wickets Warne took, he was not a success in India and I think your batsmen have really taken a toll out of him.

To conclude, WI were unbeatable, but were natural.

Aussies are unbeatable (lets watch how they fair without Warne & Macgrath), but were machine like.

Cheers.

[Hari Sombar]

Hi,

I have seen the WI team play and also the Australians.

They differ a lot.

WI batsmen were destructive but they had class & flair. You enjoyed seeing them bat, it was a treat, though personally I felt Richards was uni-dimensional, mostly playing across the line.

Greenidge,Fredricks, Kalicharan ( who was all silken grace), Llyod, Larry Gomes, dont remember much of Murray, but Dujon were really top class and they played with style.

The Aussies come poor second. Not one, other than Martyn, had class. They are brutal and give no joy to spectators.

For example. Greenidge was ferocious, but as an Indian fan you just shook your head in disbelief and settled down to enjoy his batting.

Take Hayden, he is brutal, but machine like. From an Indian fans perspective you only felt sorry for the bowler in the middle.

Bowling wise on any given day and even on Indian pitches, you flet that WI's pace men were capable of breaking a bone or two.

The bowling of Aussies never impressed me. Macgrath is a good bowler, but he depended more on making the batsmen making errors.

For all the wickets Warne took, he was not a success in India and I think your batsmen have really taken a toll out of him.

To conclude, WI were unbeatable, but were natural.

Aussies are unbeatable (lets watch how they fair without Warne & Macgrath), but were machine like.

Cheers.
If thats true, and this man is saying the truth, than the debate has ended

[jackal786]

Except this one-dimensional attack won series everywhere in the world, even the sub-continent. Australia with their supposedly mutli-dimensional attack continually lost in India and even lost to Sri Lanka as well in 99.

You ask why they didnt have a spinner? Simple answer, they didnt need one.

You say that their attack is useless, but then why did Australia struggle against England's in 2005? The West Indies are in another league to that.

Oh, and their batting is better as well, and will thoroughly enjoy these matting wickets as you refer to.


Actually Windies did struggle in NZ slow pitches :P They were not perfect either. But they decimated the oppositions like there is no tomorrow. In 1982 first test at Antigua everyone expected the match would in draw as only 20 odd overs left but 176 runs required. But Richards came out all guns blazing and Windies reached the target in 25 vers in a Test match! There was nothing clinical about that. That was sheer butchery.

For those who has not seen that scorecard here is it. Look at the 4th innings. Windies had only 28 overs or so to achieve this target. It looked an impossibility considering the slowness with which both teams played in the first innings and india in the second innings.

http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63335.html

[Sultan Yusuf]

Whoever watched the West Indies play and actually think the aussies stand a chance either have some bias or have lost their marbles.

[Ottayan]

Actually Windies did struggle in NZ slow pitches :P They were not perfect either. But they decimated the oppositions like there is no tomorrow. In 1982 first test at Antigua everyone expected the match would in draw as only 20 odd overs left but 176 runs required. But Richards came out all guns blazing and Windies reached the target in 25 vers in a Test match! There was nothing clinical about that. That was sheer butchery.

For those who has not seen that scorecard here is it. Look at the 4th innings. Windies had only 28 overs or so to achieve this target. It looked an impossibility considering the slowness with which both teams played in the first innings and india in the second innings.

http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63335.html

You are correct. They lost a series in NZ is 'nt it.

I wrote about my impression about WI and Australia.

It is not the definitive one.

Obviously, there is much more to an analysis than just impressions.

However, Vivian Richards, unfortunately, never appealed to me.

Good of you to point out where I went wrong.

[Ottayan]

If thats true, and this man is saying the truth, than the debate has ended


This poor soul was just trying to stimulate a debate.

BTW, there is nothing like truth, I was just stating my impression and not trying to pass judgement. :O

[subshakerz]

A team is not just judged by its wins and losses, but by the quality of its opposition.

[HAL]

Whoever watched the West Indies play and actually think the aussies stand a chance either have some bias or have lost their marbles.

How much of a chance would the WI batting line up stand against Warne?

The game has changed much since the time WI played, and in reality there really can't be a comparison between teams from two disparate eras.

[Robert]

well? i havnt seen the great west indies side so i ask this question to the people who have! WI did take cricket to a whole new level, but the austalians went one step further one can say.

so, who would triuph?



I saw a lot of the WI side of the 1980s.

I believe that their pace attack would bulldozer the Aussie batting in a couple of tests.

However they were quite weak against leggies - Qadir once shot them out for 58 or something. So I would expect Warne to cause them bother.

A lot would depend on whether McGrath could get on top of Greenwich and Viv, I think.

I'd say 2-1 to the Windies in the tests and 3-2 to the Aussies in the ODIs.

[Wazeeri]

The Aussie batsmen in the 05 Ashes series were quite well padded yet they struggled against the likes of Flintoff, Hoggard and Jones and surely the likes of Marshall, Holding and Garner were a lot better.

How many of the Windies bowler reversed the ball in their career like the Poms in the ashes?

First of all it's not fair to simply compare the averages of players from different eras secondly you forgot about M Marshall( perhaps the greatest bowler ever)

I know it isn't fair, that's why I posted both bowling and batting averages so we can take into account the ease of batting now.

[Wazeeri]

They are good, but Lloyd, Richards, Greenidge, Haynes and Kalicharran are better.

How exactly?
Just because you say so?

[Robert]

How many of the Windies bowler reversed the ball in their career like the Poms in the ashes?


I don't think any Windies bowlers could reverse it in the 80s as the great Imran could. But Marshall could orthodox-swing the new and old ball both ways.

[subshakerz]

How many of the Windies bowler reversed the ball in their career like the Poms in the ashes?
.

They wouldnt need reverse swing, the opening spells would be enough to make inroads and take Australia out of the contest.

[subshakerz]

How much of a chance would the WI batting line up stand against Warne?

Warne is the only real advantage Australia has, but compare the two matchwinning bowlers Australia have to the four West Indies have, and you know which is the better attack. England exposed the fraility of the Aussie batting lineup against genuine quality pace bowling. Even Shoaib Akthar has on occasion.

[/QUOTE]The game has changed much since the time WI played, and in reality there really can't be a comparison between teams from two disparate eras.[/QUOTE]

You can make a rough comparison, if anything the cricket now is overall of a lesser quality than before. But I think talent shines in any era, which is why I give West Indies the edge.

[subshakerz]

How exactly?
Just because you say so?

No, they achieved the same sort of success, but against better quality bowling.

[Ottayan]

I saw a lot of the WI side of the 1980s.

I believe that their pace attack would bulldozer the Aussie batting in a couple of tests.

However they were quite weak against leggies - Qadir once shot them out for 58 or something. So I would expect Warne to cause them bother.

A lot would depend on whether McGrath could get on top of Greenwich and Viv, I think.

I'd say 2-1 to the Windies in the tests and 3-2 to the Aussies in the ODIs.

Qadir, is someone who could take wickets against any opposition.

Wonder what is he upto nowadays?

[drkilljoy]

Look at their superb records first, then remember that each was a genuine fast bowler, and that there were usually two who didnt have space in the side. They won West Indies series in every country, including dead pitches in India and Pakistan.

As for there being no quality cricketers, here are few greats who played during their reign at the top:

Pakistan:
Imran Khan
Javed Miandad
Wasim Akram

India:
Kapil Dev
Sunil Gavaskar

New Zealand:
Richard Hadlee
Martin Crowe

England:
Ian Botham
Graham Gooch

Australia:
Dennis Lillee
Greg Chappell
Allan Border

Compare that to the current crop and you find there is no comparison. Arguably, there were never as many great players as during the 70s/80s, yet West Indies still dominated. That's why Australia will be hard-pressed to beat them.

Well let's compare these with the quality players in 2001

Pakistan:
Wasim Akram
Waqar younis
Mushtaq Ahmed
Saqlain Mushtaq
Saeed Anwar
Mohd Yousuf
Inzamam Ul Haq

India:
Sachin Tendulkar
Saurav Ganguly
Rahul Dravid
Anil Kumble
Jawagal Srinath
Harbhajan Singh

New Zealand:
Chris Cairns

England:
Mike Atherton
Darren Gough

South Africa:
Allan Donald
Shaun Pollock
Lance Klusener
Gary Kirsten
Jacques Kallis
Daryll Cullinan
Jonty Rhodes

West Indies:
Courtney Walsh
Brian Lara

Zimbabwe:
Andy Flower

Sri Lanka:

Muttiah Muralitharan
Aravinda Desilva
Sanath Jayasuriya

As you can see there were tons of quality players in 2001 and all were beaten by the Aussies. And I find the claim that Windians would spank Mcgrath around hilarious considering nobody has ever been able to crack the code.

Also, no spinner in the 80's was anywhere near the quality of Muralitharan and Warne.

I call it the "ten year effect" where everyone no matter how cr@p they were when they played, looks way better on retrospect. An example would be Amir Sohail. When he played he was an average fringe player who would come in the team, perform badly and then would get booted out again. And in the broadcast during the SA-Pak series, they were showing him and talking about how good he was and how much the current Pak team would love to have him.

[jaspa888]

Well let's compare these with the quality players in 2001

Pakistan:
Wasim Akram
Waqar younis
Mushtaq Ahmed
Saqlain Mushtaq
Saeed Anwar
Mohd Yousuf
Inzamam Ul Haq

India:
Sachin Tendulkar
Saurav Ganguly
Rahul Dravid
Anil Kumble
Jawagal Srinath
Harbhajan Singh

New Zealand:
Chris Cairns

England:
Mike Atherton
Darren Gough

South Africa:
Allan Donald
Shaun Pollock
Lance Klusener
Gary Kirsten
Jacques Kallis
Daryll Cullinan
Jonty Rhodes

West Indies:
Courtney Walsh
Brian Lara

Zimbabwe:
Andy Flower

Sri Lanka:

Muttiah Muralitharan
Aravinda Desilva
Sanath Jayasuriya

As you can see there were tons of quality players in 2001 and all were beaten by the Aussies. And I find the claim that Windians would spank Mcgrath around hilarious considering nobody has ever been able to crack the code.

Also, no spinner in the 80's was anywhere near the quality of Muralitharan and Warne.

I call it the "ten year effect" where everyone no matter how cr@p they were when they played, looks way better on retrospect. An example would be Amir Sohail. When he played he was an average fringe player who would come in the team, perform badly and then would get booted out again. And in the broadcast during the SA-Pak series, they were showing him and talking about how good he was and how much the current Pak team would love to have him.

While I agree with some of your points at the bottom of your post, your list of players is a joke.


While the players quoted in the list by subshakerz are all all-time great players for their country, your list include lots of average journeymen (Gough, Srinath FFS?).

While people can talk about the Windies greats being unplayable, it should be remembered that some players had 'managed to crack the code'. Alan Lamb managed 6 test centuries against them. And he was certainly no all-time great.

McGrath was successful due to his brilliantly consistent line and length, and then slight variations on line/swing/pace that the batsmen failed to pick up. All done at 78-83 mph. Joel Garner did all that, but at 83-90mph. So why couldnt people like IVA Richards have conquered McGrath when they faced people like Garner in the nets?

[Boundary View]

My Ratings :

Greenidge 9.5 Hayden 8
Haynes 9 Langer 7
Richards 10 Ponting 9
Llloyd 9 S.Waugh 9
Kallicharran 8 M.Waugh 9
Gomes 7 Martyn 7
Dujon 9 Gilchrist 9.5
Marshall 10 Warne 10
Holding 10 Lee 8
Garner 9.5 Kasprowich 6
Roberts 9.5 McGrath 9

Windies = 100.5 Aussies 91.5

Windies were a far superior outfit :

- Greatest opening batsmen pairing in history.
- One of the all time greats at 3
- Magnificent middle order
- A truly great keeper/batsman in Dujon
- And the main thing - 4 truly great fast bowlers. Please understand that a team with 4 truly great bowlers against a team with 2 truly great bowlers can result in only one winner.

West Indies would win a 5 test series 4-1 minimum.

[drkilljoy]

While I agree with some of your points at the bottom of your post, your list of players is a joke.


While the players quoted in the list by subshakerz are all all-time great players for their country, your list include lots of average journeymen (Gough, Srinath FFS?).

While people can talk about the Windies greats being unplayable, it should be remembered that some players had 'managed to crack the code'. Alan Lamb managed 6 test centuries against them. And he was certainly no all-time great.

McGrath was successful due to his brilliantly consistent line and length, and then slight variations on line/swing/pace that the batsmen failed to pick up. All done at 78-83 mph. Joel Garner did all that, but at 83-90mph. So why couldnt people like IVA Richards have conquered McGrath when they faced people like Garner in the nets?

Guys like Atherton, Srinath and Gough are definitely better than Mike Gatting who had an average of 35 in test cricket.

Dude, pace isn't everything. McGrath had the same average as Garner and he played in the era of heavy bats, flat wickets, and short boundaries. Back in the day, the wickets barring the ones in subcontinent were seamer friendly. These days West Indian wickets are low and slow. Last season South African pitches resembled a fifth day wankhede stadium pitch. Perth and Leeds which used to be heaven for fast bowlers have also turned into "patra" thanks to the administrators.

[jaspa888]

Guys like Atherton, Srinath and Gough are definitely better than Mike Gatting who had an average of 35 in test cricket.

Dude, pace isn't everything. McGrath had the same average as Garner and he played in the era of heavy bats, flat wickets, and short boundaries. Back in the day, the wickets barring the ones in subcontinent were seamer friendly. These days West Indian wickets are low and slow. Last season South African pitches resembled a fifth day wankhede stadium pitch. Perth and Leeds which used to be heaven for fast bowlers have also turned into "patra" thanks to the administrators.

He didnt mention Gatting though, did he?

As for your point about pace, you are missing the point. Pace is not everything but it helps. When Garner bowls the same delivery as McGrath but 5mph faster, it should be more dangerous.

The reason he is under-rated is two-fold:

- He was one of 4 fast bowlers, and the lowest profile from Marshall, Holding and Roberts. Th eteam was built around McGrath, on the other hand, and he always got favouritism (new ball, best end, etc.)

- Batsmen were often out-thought by McGrath and gave their wickets away. I am not downplaying his impact as a bowler, bu the mental toughness of his opponents. Of course, this happened with the Windies too.

[drkilljoy]

He didnt mention Gatting though, did he?

As for your point about pace, you are missing the point. Pace is not everything but it helps. When Garner bowls the same delivery as McGrath but 5mph faster, it should be more dangerous.

The reason he is under-rated is two-fold:

- He was one of 4 fast bowlers, and the lowest profile from Marshall, Holding and Roberts. Th eteam was built around McGrath, on the other hand, and he always got favouritism (new ball, best end, etc.)

- Batsmen were often out-thought by McGrath and gave their wickets away. I am not downplaying his impact as a bowler, bu the mental toughness of his opponents. Of course, this happened with the Windies too.

Either the list got edited or I was hallucinating.

McGrath consistently bowled in the mid 80s till 2005. It's only after that that his pace dropped. If McGrath had bowled 5 MPH quicker maybe his line and length would have gone down. There are plenty of 90 MPH+ bowlers today (Edwards, Best, Harmison, Flintoff, Tait, Lee, Johnson, Steyn, Morkel, Hayward, Sami, Akhtar, Bond, Mark Gillespie etc) not one has the record of Glenn McGrath. Guess who has the average closest to McGrath .................................................. . Shaun Pollock.

So you are saying that every batsman who got out to McGrath and that includes Tendulkar, Lara, Ponting, Hayden, Kallis, Dravid and Pieterson, was mentally weak

[OZGOD]

This argument will never be settled. It's like:

Who was better, Brazil 1958 or Brazil 1970?
Who was better, Brazil 1970 or France 1998?
Who was better, the 49ers 1990 or the Patriots 2003?
Who was better, Juan Manuel Fangio or Michael Schumacher?
etc.

[jaspa888]

Either the list got edited or I was hallucinating.

McGrath consistently bowled in the mid 80s till 2005. It's only after that that his pace dropped. If McGrath had bowled 5 MPH quicker maybe his line and length would have gone down. There are plenty of 90 MPH+ bowlers today (Edwards, Best, Harmison, Flintoff, Tait, Lee, Johnson, Steyn, Morkel, Hayward, Sami, Akhtar, Bond, Mark Gillespie etc) not one has the record of Glenn McGrath. Guess who has the average closest to McGrath .................................................. . Shaun Pollock.

So you are saying that every batsman who got out to McGrath and that includes Tendulkar, Lara, Ponting, Hayden, Kallis, Dravid and Pieterson, was mentally weak

Not mentally weak per se, but certainly the myth of McGrath and Warne seemed to cause many batsmen (including some you have mnetioned) to get out.

Lara was an exception, as mentioned by McGrath, who took the Aussies on consistently (and won). I would class Kallis in the same league too.

As for McGrath's speed, it dropped to consistently below 85mph after his shoulder injury post 99 WC.

[Gonzo]

As for McGrath's speed, it dropped to consistently below 85mph after his shoulder injury post 99 WC.

Why does that matter? After 99 World Cup he took 315 wickets at an average of 20.5

McGrath's asset wasn't his pace but his incredible accuracy.

[jackal786]

I would still say even stevens. Windies never had good record against on turning tracks. They would have struggled against the likes of Muralitharan, Warne. They were once bundled out for 53 in Pakistan. Show me an instance where Australia was bundled out for such low runs. Remember how Hadlee routed Windies once in a test match. They were handed out an innings defeat at sydney thanks to an obscure bowler Holland who Srikkanth put him in place in the following series.

[jaspa888]

Why does that matter? After 99 World Cup he took 315 wickets at an average of 20.5

McGrath's asset wasn't his pace but his incredible accuracy.

That is my point though. Garner was at least as accurate, but faster.

So by my rudimentary analysis, had Garner had the same favouritism enjoyed by McGrath, he would have been at least as successful as McGrath.

[subshakerz]

As you can see there were tons of quality players in 2001 and all were beaten by the Aussies. And I find the claim that Windians would spank Mcgrath around hilarious considering nobody has ever been able to crack the code.


I call it the "ten year effect" where everyone no matter how cr@p they were when they played, looks way better on retrospect. An example would be Amir Sohail. When he played he was an average fringe player who would come in the team, perform badly and then would get booted out again. And in the broadcast during the SA-Pak series, they were showing him and talking about how good he was and how much the current Pak team would love to have him.

Given the current state of the Pakistani opening pair, Pakistan would love to have Sohail back, who had a good record against the Aussies by the way.

You fail to mention that in 2001, most of the world class players mentioned were at the fag end of their careers, near retirement, and far from their best. Wasim, Walsh, Waqar, Donald, Ambrose, De Silva, and Anwar all retired by 2003. The rest, aside from Tendulkar, Lara, Murali and possibly Dravid, are not all-time greats comparable to the 80s. The standard is not the same compared to the players who I mentioned who were at their peaks when the West Indies dominated.

[subshakerz]

I would still say even stevens. Windies never had good record against on turning tracks. They would have struggled against the likes of Muralitharan, Warne. They were once bundled out for 53 in Pakistan. Show me an instance where Australia was bundled out for such low runs. Remember how Hadlee routed Windies once in a test match. They were handed out an innings defeat at sydney thanks to an obscure bowler Holland who Srikkanth put him in place in the following series.

Actually, the West Indies beat Pakistan in 80/81 and India in 83 on turning tracks. They may have lost the ocassional test match, but never lost a series (except New Zealand in 79), while Australia were spinned out against both India and Sri Lanka. If they had a weakness to spin, so does Australia.

Australia were bundled out for 93 a few years ago against India, check it out...
http://usa.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2004-05/AUS_IN_IND/SCORECARDS/AUS_IND_T4_03-07NOV2004.html

[drkilljoy]

Not mentally weak per se, but certainly the myth of McGrath and Warne seemed to cause many batsmen (including some you have mnetioned) to get out.

Lara was an exception, as mentioned by McGrath, who took the Aussies on consistently (and won). I would class Kallis in the same league too.

As for McGrath's speed, it dropped to consistently below 85mph after his shoulder injury post 99 WC.
How can you say that? Have you played McGrath? Did you entered the minds of the batsmen who have played him? Or are you creating your theory because you can't fathom a bowler who doesn't bowl at a million miles per hour getting so many wickets? Maybe, just maybe he gets those wickets because he bowls in the COU, gets good bounce, seams the ball both way and has terrific accuracy. Have you even seen Garner bowl an extended spell or are you just basing that on a few youtube highlight clips you have seen of him? Anybody looks great on a highlight package.

BTW, Lara was dismissed by McGrath 13 times, most by any bowler.

[Wazeeri]

No, they achieved the same sort of success, but against better quality bowling.

Old is gold I guess. Waqar, Wasim, Shoaib, Courtney Walsh, Curtley Ambrose, Pollock, Donald, Muralitharan...etc are rubbish I take it?

[drkilljoy]

Given the current state of the Pakistani opening pair, Pakistan would love to have Sohail back, who had a good record against the Aussies by the way.

You fail to mention that in 2001, most of the world class players mentioned were at the fag end of their careers, near retirement, and far from their best. Wasim, Walsh, Waqar, Donald, Ambrose, De Silva, and Anwar all retired by 2003. The rest, aside from Tendulkar, Lara, Murali and possibly Dravid, are not all-time greats comparable to the 80s. The standard is not the same compared to the players who I mentioned who were at their peaks when the West Indies dominated.

They may have been on the fag end of their career but they still were delivering as well as they ever did.

I believe the year we are taking is 1980 so Wasim didn't even debuted by then, and Border, Gooch, and Crowe were far from great by that time.

And you're saying that Kumble, Pollock, Kallis, Rhodes and Jayasuriya are not legends? Are you kidding me? A man who has taken 550+ wickets, a man who has taken 400+ wickets and 3500+ runs, a man who has as good a record as Gary Sobers, a man whose name is synonymous with fielding and a man who has made 12,000+ runs in ODI are not legends. And if you're considering Gooch as great than the rest of the players I listed can easily qualfy as well.

[Fish]

This is too easy, the winner would be who ever you wanted it to be. Some will pick the WI and others will pick the Aussies but nobody knows.

[daddy]

i dont even understand why the windies are rated so highly. there were not AS MANY top notch teams back then as now. batting today is much easier thx to smaller grounds, flatter pitches, and remember if you're talking about speed the fastest recorded bowler EVER bowls in this era not in windies era.

[OZGOD]

i dont even understand why the windies are rated so highly. there were not AS MANY top notch teams back then as now. batting today is much easier thx to smaller grounds, flatter pitches, and remember if you're talking about speed the fastest recorded bowler EVER bowls in this era not in windies era.

I was too young to watch the first great WI side live (e.g. the one from the 70s) but I did watch video of them, and I was in Australia to watch them play against the OZ in the 80s. There's no doubt they were a great side, one of the greatest to play the game. But their approach was also assisted by the prevailing conditions of the time - no restrictions on bouncers, helmets being optional, and no restrictions on over rates, which allowed them to rotate their four-prong all day and only bowl 65-70 overs a day. Does this diminish their greatness? No. But would they have been as successful in today's age, where batsmen wear helmets and bowlers are effectively emasculated by various rule changes? Probably not.

Would their batting have been as effective? Maybe more so. Would they have handled Warne's spin well? Depends on the pitch. Would the WI, back in the age when teams were not as professional, didn't have fitness and fielding coaches, been as good at fielding as some of the teams today, like OZ, SA, NZ etc?

How big a role does fitness play in cricket? Remember how for so long nobody could break the four-minute mile until Roger Bannister did it in 1954. Six weeks after he did it someone else did it. Now many athletes have done it. Fitness does play a role. Would the WI talent been enough to give them an edge over a professionally-conditioned cricket team today? Probably.

There are far too many imponderables for there to ever be a conclusive winner, which is why this is a great chestnut - both sides can put forward compelling arguments. Comes down to 2 things: 1) do you think the standard of cricket has increased or decreased over time; and 2) whether you are an OZ or WI fan.

[daddy]

quite nicely put mr ozgod

[daddy]

i still give the edge to aussies, simply because they've been far more clinical in their demolition of teams, windies weren't quite as clinical

[jaspa888]

How can you say that?
My opinion, perhaps.

Have you played McGrath? Did you entered the minds of the batsmen who have played him?
No, but you have obviously bowled to Mike Gatting. What a pretentious tw@t you are.

Or are you creating your theory because you can't fathom a bowler who doesn't bowl at a million miles per hour getting so many wickets? Maybe, just maybe he gets those wickets because he bowls in the COU, gets good bounce, seams the ball both way and has terrific accuracy.
Where did I say McGrath was not a great bowler? Read my posts fully before making yourself look ignorant. I just said that many batsmen seemed to have a mental block against the best bowlers (including McGrath and Garner), and Joel was at least as good as McGrath IMHO.

Have you even seen Garner bowl an extended spell or are you just basing that on a few youtube highlight clips you have seen of him? Anybody looks great on a highlight package.
I have seen Garner in the flesh many times, for Windies and Somerset. I am assuming that you have not.

BTW, Lara was dismissed by McGrath 13 times, most by any bowler.
Yeah, but for what scores? McGrath rates Lara as the best batter he has ever faced in ESPN Legends series.


The more I read people's posts, the more I am inclined to lean towards the Windies.

[Fish]

McGrath is a legend and probably one of the greatest bowlers ever, when he came onto the scene bowlers were limited in how many bouncers bowlers could bowl and how many overs they had to bowl in a day. Not only did he adapt to the conditons he faced he did it extremely well, had he been allowed to bowl 4 bouncers an over I have no doubt he would have perfected that aswell. If he didnt have to make sure the team bowled 90 overs a day I sure he would have been able to bowl a lot faster. He fined tuned his game to suit the conditions he had to play under and if they were different then he would have adapted to the conditions just aswell.

[jaspa888]

McGrath is a legend and probably one of the greatest bowlers ever, when he came onto the scene bowlers were limited in how many bouncers bowlers could bowl and how many overs they had to bowl in a day. Not only did he adapt to the conditons he faced he did it extremely well, had he been allowed to bowl 4 bouncers an over I have no doubt he would have perfected that aswell. If he didnt have to make sure the team bowled 90 overs a day I sure he would have been able to bowl a lot faster. He fined tuned his game to suit the conditions he had to play under and if they were different then he would have adapted to the conditions just aswell.

Not having a go at McGrath though. My point was that a lot of his (and other top bowlers) success came from mental deficiencies from the batsmen. A bit like Mike Tyson's opponents in the ring - beaten before the bell had rung. That only enhances his reputation as a bowler.

Garner was as accurate IMHO, and faster. A better bowler IMHO.

No shame in slowing down your action. In fact, it prolonged Wasim, Imran and Pollock's careers significantly, without affecting performance levels too much.

[Fish]

Its interesting that Garner never played in India , South Africa or Sri Lanka and played 80% of his games against Australia and Englands worst teams for decades.

[Fish]

IT Botham (RHB)
KJ Hughes (RHB)
WB Phillips (LHB)
KC Wessels (LHB)
PR Downton (RHB)
DI Gower (LHB)
GA Gooch (RHB)
P Willey (RHB)
GM Wood (LHB)
B Yardley


They are the batsmen Garner dismissed the most and as you can see there are not to many great batsmen there.

[Imy]

Garner was 6-8 or 6-9 he got bounce that Mcgrath could never dream of getting, no comparison

[aussie-pak]

Garner was 6-8 or 6-9 he got bounce that Mcgrath could never dream of getting, no comparison

:))) garner is 6 gt 7 in = 2m
mcgrath is 6 ft 5 in = 1.95m

i dont think 5 cm would such a difference.

[Oxy]

:))) garner is 6 gt 7 in = 2m
mcgrath is 6 ft 5 in = 1.95m

i dont think 5 cm would such a difference. :))) you said gt instead of ft :))) Hilarious...

[subshakerz]

Its interesting that Garner never played in India , South Africa or Sri Lanka and played 80% of his games against Australia and Englands worst teams for decades.

South Africa weren't even playing cricket when Garner was playing due to apartheid. Sri Lanka were pretty mediocre at the time. He never played in India, but he never toured there, not his fault. He did tour Pakistan, and did pretty decent in the three tests he played.

Australia weren't crap at all, they still had Lillee, Thomson, Border, and Greg Chapell.

England you say were bad, but the reality is their side at that time would have given a good test to any team nowadays, but the quality was so good in world cricket then that England were never close to the top. The had fine players, Botham, Willis, Hendrick, John Snow, Gower, Gatting...but even then were squashed by the Windies and made to look second-rate. That's how good the Windies were.

[subshakerz]

I was too young to watch the first great WI side live (e.g. the one from the 70s) but I did watch video of them, and I was in Australia to watch them play against the OZ in the 80s. There's no doubt they were a great side, one of the greatest to play the game. But their approach was also assisted by the prevailing conditions of the time - no restrictions on bouncers, helmets being optional, and no restrictions on over rates, which allowed them to rotate their four-prong all day and only bowl 65-70 overs a day. Does this diminish their greatness? No. But would they have been as successful in today's age, where batsmen wear helmets and bowlers are effectively emasculated by various rule changes? Probably not.

Would their batting have been as effective? Maybe more so. Would they have handled Warne's spin well? Depends on the pitch. Would the WI, back in the age when teams were not as professional, didn't have fitness and fielding coaches, been as good at fielding as some of the teams today, like OZ, SA, NZ etc?
.

There's a flipside to this argument. Would Aussie batsmen have been as effective without the bouncer rule, or helmets for that matter? And on more sporting wickets? Can you imagine Hayden charging down the track to Holding or Marshall and not getting his top blown off? Heck, we saw that happen with Langer when he was wearing a helmet against Ntini!

But the strange thing is, helmets were introduced in the late 70s, and yet West Indies still managed to dominate!

I think this line of argument is not very effective. The reason is, it suggests that Australian players have benefited due to the shackling of bowlers around the world due to rule changes.

[OZGOD]

There's a flipside to this argument. Would Aussie batsmen have been as effective without the bouncer rule, or helmets for that matter? And on more sporting wickets? Can you imagine Hayden charging down the track to Holding or Marshall and not getting his top blown off? Heck, we saw that happen with Langer when he was wearing a helmet against Ntini!

But the strange thing is, helmets were introduced in the late 70s, and yet West Indies still managed to dominate!

I think this line of argument is not very effective. The reason is, it suggests that Australian players have benefited due to the shackling of bowlers around the world due to rule changes.

That was my point - there's a flipside to every argument of this nature. People always do it because it's fun and generates discussion, but I don't think you can compare eras. Too many what-ifs. It's easy to pull out single events out of context (.e.g. Langer getting hit on the head by Ntini). I could do the same and extrapolate that since the WI lost the 1985 WC to India whose attack was composed of Shastri and Shiva, that they would also do poorly against Warne. Doesn't always work that way.

It's nice to discuss hypotheticals though.