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

[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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[jackal786]

Originally Posted by subshakerz 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 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/e...tch/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]

Originally Posted by jackal786 Actually Windies did struggle in NZ slow pitches 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/e...tch/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]

Originally Posted by Hari Sombar 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.

[subshakerz]

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

[HAL]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by Planet Pakistan 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]

Originally Posted by Wazeeri 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]

Originally Posted by Wazeeri 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]

Originally Posted by HAL 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]

Originally Posted by Wazeeri How exactly? Just because you say so?

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

[Ottayan]

Originally Posted by Robert 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]

Originally Posted by subshakerz 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]

Originally Posted by drkilljoy 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]

Originally Posted by jaspa888 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]

Originally Posted by drkilljoy 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]

Originally Posted by jaspa888 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]

Originally Posted by drkilljoy 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]

Originally Posted by jaspa888 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]

Originally Posted by Gonzo 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]

Originally Posted by drkilljoy 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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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/2...07NOV2004.html

[drkilljoy]

Originally Posted by jaspa888 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]

Originally Posted by subshakerz 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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by drkilljoy 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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Imy 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]

Originally Posted by aussie-pak 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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by OZGOD 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]

Originally Posted by subshakerz 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.