WI of the 80's or Australia Current?

[Swervy]

That you are right here.

 

[marc71178]

Their dominance is FAR behind the WI's..... WI dominated BETTER teams far better.

By drawing games?

And one series loss in 19 years.

2 series losses.

 

[marc71178]

Like i said, MOST matches in guyana were draws due to weather.

Which counts for a whole 5 games out of the 60 they drew.

They won about 85 - that is hardly as dominant as you're making out, and is definitely not as dominant as a side that wins something like 85-90% of their games.

 

[marc71178]

its not like they played 2 matches per year, they played on average 8-10 tests per year...thats not far off from 11-12 tests played by OZ currently.

In the 20 years they played 154 games - about 7.5 per year.

Australia have played 160 games in the last 13 years alone and a further 61 in the 7 prior to that, so only 50% more cricket...

 

[Scallywag]

Greg Chapple would have to be the best batsman in modern cricket, not only did he maintain an average above 50 it was during the era of the great West Indies fast bowlers. Going by what C_C has said about comparing the bowlers of today with the WI bowlers of the 70's and 80's the high averages enjoyed by Gilly, Dravid and Tendulkar do not compare to the amazing class that Chapple would have required to keep his ave above 50 during the greatest ever bowling era.

 

[Scallywag]

Greg Chapple 1972-1982

Here are his figures against the West Indies during the time when their bowlers were dominating the world.
M runs H/S ave 100s 50s
17 1400 182* 56.00 5 7

Amazingly he averaged 56 with 5 100s against the best bowling ever.

This would have to make Greg Chapple the best ever batsman apart from the Don.

 

[Scallywag]

Viv Richards 1975-1991

Richards on the other hand did not have to face the mighty WI bowlers and could not manage the same quality batting of Chapple

Richards stats against Australia.

M runs H/S ave 100s 50s
34 2266 208 44.43 5 14

So there you have it Viv played over double the amount of matches against Australia and only managed to score the same amount of 100s as Chapple and his average is some 12 runs less than Chapple.

I dont think anyone can claim that Richards is a better batsman than Chapple but it is quite clear that Chapple was a far greater batsman than Richards.

 

[Dasa]

No bias, of course.
By the way, it's Chappell.

 

[Mister Wright]

Did anyone see where Bob Simpson put himself in his greatest Australian team of all time. What a goose! I mean, you can think that you deserve to be in the team, but to actually admit it publicly is a joke. What a loser.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Did anyone see where Bob Simpson put himself in his greatest Australian team of all time. What a goose! I mean, you can think that you deserve to be in the team, but to actually admit it publicly is a joke. What a loser.

yes in essence it made him look rather foolish. he did try to explain a reason for it, but i still don't think that it came up trumps. been an interesting series that one, (different aussie ex-players naming hteir best team of all time)

 

[Mister Wright]

yes in essence it made him look rather foolish. he did try to explain a reason for it, but i still don't think that it came up trumps. been an interesting series that one, (different aussie ex-players naming hteir best team of all time)

Who do you think has selected the best team, so far?

I really liked Waugh's team today, but Chappel's is also very good.

 

[vic_orthdox]

waugh might have let his idols (e.g. trumper and miller) get in the way of his selectiong a bit. im not saying that they didn't deserve a place in the side, but his reasons for picking these players were because they were idolised, and had the ability to play attractive cricket to pull crowds, not necessarily because of their ability. i think that chappell's cricket mind is excellent, and his was the best of them so far

 

[vic_orthdox]

also interesting to note that waugh picked langer in his 2nd XI. and bruce reid

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

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

I disagree that any of Hughes, McDermott, Lawson, Walker, or Hogg are better than Kasper. He is a superior bowler to all of them, and on par or slightly better than some of the others you have mentioned.

McGrath, Lillee, Thommo, Miller, Lindwall, Spofforth, Davidson and Turner are certainly superior bowlers who had a much bigger impact in the time that they played. You are severely underrating Kasprowicz if you don't put him in the top 20 Australian pacers, however.

 

[Mister Wright]

waugh might have let his idols (e.g. trumper and miller) get in the way of his selectiong a bit. im not saying that they didn't deserve a place in the side, but his reasons for picking these players were because they were idolised, and had the ability to play attractive cricket to pull crowds, not necessarily because of their ability. i think that chappell's cricket mind is excellent, and his was the best of them so far

I think the reason Waugh selected the side he did is because he still has scars about Kalkuta (sp) and wants as many bowling options as possible.

But yeah, you're right Chappell's team is probably the better one.

 

[Mister Wright]

also interesting to note that waugh picked langer in his 2nd XI. and bruce reid

Langer deserves a spot in the 2nd XI, he is surprisingly under-rated as a player, and deserves to be remembered as a great.

 

[vic_orthdox]

hmmmm, quite possibly. i was more referring to tugga and alf being very close mates. and imagine what bob simpson must be thinking, his own protege not picking him in his side. lawry must have been stiff though. tubby? and was ponsford an opening bat???

i hope that tooextracool doesn't see you calling langer a "great" though. this thread will gain a second wind.

 

[vic_orthdox]

but as always, it is an opionated thing, and steve waugh has seen much more of justin langer than any of the others.

 

[Mister Wright]

hmmmm, quite possibly. i was more referring to tugga and alf being very close mates. and imagine what bob simpson must be thinking, his own protege not picking him in his side. lawry must have been stiff though. tubby? and was ponsford an opening bat???

i hope that tooextracool doesn't see you calling langer a "great" though. this thread will gain a second wind.

To be remembered as a great, you don't have to fit into the first XI in your country's history, Langer has dug Australia out of some diabolical situations and is a proven match winner. His only previous flaw was a lack of consistency which he has now well and truely bucked.

Anyway, I couldn't give a toss what TEC thinks.

 

[vic_orthdox]

all depends on your definition and how many people you include as a great i guess. it'll be interesting to see how he's looked upon at the end of his career. i don't really know what i think of langer. i respect him for what he has done, but..i duno really.