WI of the 80's or Australia Current?

[Jono]

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

[marc71178]

Originally Posted by C_C

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]

Originally Posted by C_C

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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.

[FaaipDeOiad]

Originally Posted by C_C

epsecially Kaspa...as comparing kaspa to Roberts/Garner is like comparing Zaheer Khan to McGrath.

So, if the gap in class is similar, are you claiming that Kasper is worse than Zaheer Khan since McGrath is better than Roberts/Garner, or that McGrath is worse than Roberts/Garner because Kasper is better than Zaheer Khan? They both seem rather ludicrous claims.

I am not denying that Roberts/Garner were better bowlers than Kasper, but the gap is nothing like what you are claiming here by comparing it to the gap between a poor bowler like Zaheer Khan and a master like McGrath.

[C_C]

McGrath is better slightly than Roberts/Garner and Kaspa is better slightly than Zaheer. Therefore, gap is about the same.
And Kaspa is an ordinary bowler...infact forget kaspa, even Damien Fleming wouldnt hold a candle to Roberts or Garner.
The difference between Roberts/Garner and Kaspa is that of a great bowler and an ordinary one.
While any of the four WI bowlers could walk into this current OZ bowling lineup, only McGrath and Warne could walk into theirs.

[FaaipDeOiad]

I disagree that Kasper's recent form indicates that he is an ordinary bowler. 40+ wickets in a dozen tests this season at an average of 24, and more than half of them played on pitches with absolutely nothing in them for quick bowlers against fair opposition.

Ordinary bowlers do not perform that well in test cricket. He is a step below McGrath and Gillespie, but he is by international standards certainly a good bowler, and would comfortably make a list of the top 10 test bowlers in the world today, while Zaheer Khan would not come close.

edit: apologies, should have said the top 10 test PACE bowlers in the world today, as I think the presence of Warne, Murali, Kumble and Harbhajan might push him to the bottom of the top 10 or out of it entirely.

[SJS]

Without resort to stats, since I have seen enough of both sides, I would say, its a great match up. Lets see. Starting with the easier ones

Bowling : The Windies of 80's had a decidedly better pace attack but their bowling was unidimentional (not that it seemed to cause them any problems). The presence of Warne in this Aussie attack provides great balance. EVENS

Keeping : Griffith's all round abilities makes him a better bet. In any event the Windies all-pace attack would not have tested any good keeper.ADVANTAGE AUSTRALIA

Fielding : With the advantage of freshness of memory, one is tempted to say this Aussie side scores but if one thinks back carefully, Lloyd, Richards, Greenidge, Haynes, Logie would have been outstanding in any age. I think here too the sides are well matched. EVENS

Captaincy : I think Lloyd was a better captain than Ponting but I am not sure Ponting is not an equal of Richards. The Windies captains had better oppositions to deal with and also, I dare say, the managers contribution was lesser in those days and inputs from the laptops were limited. Having said that, we could throw in Steve Waugh and match up ! EVENS

Batting : This is the difficult one. Hayden, Langer, Ponting, Martyn, Lehmann, Clarke, versus Greenige, Haynes, Richards, Gomes, Lloyd, Logie. Since I have taken the keepers and their batting abilities into account (and scored a point for Gilchrist/Australia) I am not including them in the batting line ups. Although Logie was a more than useful batsman. I think considering them one on one, I think The Windies side is a better batting line up. ADVANTAGE WINDIES

Take your pick for over all strength !!

My personal favourites would be Windies by a whiff. If they had a spinner, they would challenge most sides over the history of the game. The Australians suffer from not being adequately tested and thus their performances stand diluted due to the overall mediocrity all around them. No fault of theirs, however.

[FaaipDeOiad]

SJS, good analysis, but one thing I would say is that if the WI best lineup is to be picked so should Australia's.

If I had to select the best Australian lineup I have seen I would pick the one that trounced South Africa 5-1 in the home and away series in 2001/02. Many people might be tempted to go for the side that broke the record for consecutive wins, but I prefer Langer/Hayden as an opening pair to Slater/Hayden, and having Ponting at 3 and Martyn in the side at 6.

So, that lineup is Langer, Hayden, Ponting, M. Waugh, S. Waugh, Martyn, Gilchrist, Warne, Lee, Gillespie, McGrath.