WI of the 80's or Australia Current?

[C_C]

is there a private message option on this board ? i am not entirely comfortable giving out my msn contact on a public messageboard...

Ponting would do well i think..that guy can handle express quality pace. Hayden i seriously doubt. He's come up short more often than not when faced with quality express pace and bear in mind that WI boasted the highest quality of express pacers to take the field as a bowling unit.

 

[a massive zebra]

Warne would be the leading wicket taker no doubt because there were no spinners arywhere near his class around, and still arn't.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[GotSpin]

No theres no Private messages on this board

 

[C_C]

Excellently put, Zebra.
Warne's gatting ball is easily comparable to Chandra's stunner to Viv, Qadir's delivery to the english and Murali's delivery to Vaughan in the last ENG tour of SL.

 

[C_C]

No theres no Private messages on this bored,

in that case,do you mind giving your msn contact ?

 

[GotSpin]

in that case,do you mind giving your msn contact ?

add me xiw4life@hotmail.com

 

[Slats4ever]

Ponting and Martyn would score 100's, Gillespie would take 10 wickets in the match

 

[Neil Pickup]

No Murali, please, no...

 

[Mister Wright]

Australia would have easily have been bowled out for less than 200 or 150 if they were facing the West Indies pace attack. Akhtar and Sami alone cannot restrict Australia they need adequate support, the West Indies paceman would have given that continued and sustained support. I don't know if it would be the same if the current Aussie were consistenly facing paceman of that quality, I'm pretty sure they would rise to the challeng, perhaps with the exception of Ponting and Clarke.

I think with the attacking abilities and the 'win at all costs mentality' of the West Indies 80s side that would negate Warne's ability a little, as McGrath, they have rarely been challenged in the last 8-10 years. It would be great to see these two sides face off, unfortunately it won't happen.

 

[benchmark00]

C_C is there any chance of you acknowledging anyone elses opinion other than yours????...

 

[Jono]

It would be one hell of a game. Who would win? Too tough to call IMO.

 

[marc71178]

Excellently put, Zebra.

Except that he's tried all these before in more relevant threads, and almost all can be shown to be debateable "facts"

 

[marc71178]

Since WI of the 70s and 80s dominated world cricket for nearly 20 years (mid 70s to mid 90s), they've had several players come and go. So it would do well to define a particular WI team lineup and compare.

Yes, they were the dominant side, but there was a lot less Cricket played back then with no ICC 10-year plan meaning that they didn't have to tour everywhere (hence in this 20 year period they played just 3 series in India and 3 in Pakistan - of those 6 series they won 2, drew 3 and lost 1 (they actually lost 2 series out of 3 at one point - so didn't only lose 1 in the entire period)

Also, if they were that dominant, how come they drew so many games?

 

[C_C]

(hence in this 20 year period they played just 3 series in India and 3 in Pakistan - of those 6 series they won 2, drew 3 and lost 1 (they actually lost 2 series out of 3 at one point - so didn't only lose 1 in the entire period)

MOST WI draws were weather affected draws.
WI has poor scheduling and a lot of the WI games held in guyana were during the rainy season.
and i said ALMOST 20 year period stretching from 1976 to 1994<ending with loss to OZ>.
In that span, they lost only ONE series - 1981 NZ.

C_C is there any chance of you acknowledging anyone elses opinion other than yours????...

only if its backed up soundly. Which in this case isnt
OZ batting MAY be comparable to WI's overall...but bowling isnt.
Like i said, Gillespie would struggle to get into even the barbados XI,let alone WI first XI and kaspa would have to hope for about 4-5 bowlers to get injured for him to have a chance to represent WI.
Put simply, bowling is what wins matches and no one in the history of cricket had a stronger bowling attack than the WI of the late 70s/early 80s.
I am not sure, but i dont think they lost a single match where Holding-Marshall-Garner and Roberts played.
and i am not 100% sure<can someone check please?> but i dont think anyone scored 400+ when those four took the field together either.

Yes, they were the dominant side, but there was a lot less Cricket played back then with no ICC 10-year plan meaning that they didn't have to tour everywhere (

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

 

[Swervy]

first off..the current Aussie team isnt quite up there with the one say 2 or 3 years back IMO....but having seen both teams in their pomp, I would say (and this is in my opinion) the Aussies 2 years ago would shade the early 80's WI team...and that comes down to the balance of the team. The Aussie batting was deeper than the WI's thanks to Gilchirst...and the Aussies had a game winning spinner in Warne. The WI's actually went a fairly long spell where they didnt win that many games in the early 80's...and although the Australians have a rep for being vunerable vs good spin bowling..the WI's were even more vunerable..even Border took 11 aginst them in the mid 80's.

Of course those WI's were incredibly good

 

[Anil]

i used to believe that the windies of the 80s and early 90s are better than these aussies.....not so sure anymore....flatter pitches not withstanding, i would say the aussies are as good if not better than the windies....i mean, these guys are awesome...attitude, variety, depth....they've got it all....they define the term "winner"...

 

[Mr. P]

Just as easy as you could say that pitches are better for batsman nowadays and thats why Hayden, Ponting etc have such high averages, you could say Pitches were worse back then and thats why the Aussie seamers like Gillespie and Kasper have higher averages.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Too close to call. Both great sides, and on one day the relentless aggression of the West Indian quicks might rip through the Australian batting, while on another the superior variation and depth in the Australian side might carry them home.

 

[age_master]

the other distinct advantage the Aussies of today have is the proffessionalism of the training, they are a hell of alot fitter, faster and stronger than anyone else goinga round, let alot the sides of the 80's.

the fielding is also alot better these days, catching, run saving and run outs would give the ausssies a huge advantage

 

[C_C]

the other distinct advantage the Aussies of today have is the proffessionalism of the training, they are a hell of alot fitter, faster and stronger than anyone else goinga round, let alot the sides of the 80's.

the fielding is also alot better these days, catching, run saving and run outs would give the ausssies a huge advantage

the WI of the yesteryears were as professional as they come.....they were adept at mental games and were totally dedicated......dont think professionalism is an issue with THAT WI team.
And fitter ? dude- most of those WI players played till their late 30s or 40s.....they were as fit as you get......Holding was brittle...but so is Gillespie and Holding was far less brittle than Gillespie.
Fielding ? That WI team was a SUPERIOR fielding unit......Dujon was a better catcher than Gillchrist....Viv, Haynes and Lloyd had iron-hands.....akin to Mark Taylor category to catching.....and their outfielding was superior.....
Viv and Lloyd were easily two of the best outfielders there.....especially Lloyd in the covers.

I would say (and this is in my opinion) the Aussies 2 years ago would shade the early 80's WI team...and that comes down to the balance of the team.

its the balance of the team and deeper batting that would ensure they dont get thwacked 5-0.
Warne would do very well but your claims that WI team was dodgy against spin is unfounded- if they could post 400+ against spin maestros like Chandra and bedi, they wont fold like ENG or RSA against Warne.... Border taking 11-fer against them was a one-off and one performance doesnt outweigh the numerous others.....if we are talking about part time bowlers dominating, you forget that in an ODI tendy took 5-30 or so against AUS....but based on that, i cannot claim that AUS are hopeless against spin in ODIs..because they clearly are not.
and balance is nice and is the edge when you are on par with quality.
IND had better bowling balance in the 90s compared to RSA ( 2 pacers 2 spinners or 3 pacers 1 spinner compared to 4-5 pacers from RSA most fo the time) but RSA was a superior bowling outfit.
Same case here...while McGrath and Warne might be able to maintain parity with Marshall and Holding, Gillespie and Kasprowicz gets comprehensively outclassed by Roberts and Garner.......epsecially Kaspa...as comparing kaspa to Roberts/Garner is like comparing Zaheer Khan to McGrath.

in most cases, whatever the WI scores, AUS would be scoring lesser....
you are talking about a bowling lineup against whom NOONE has EVER scored 400.