The Great West Indian Team (1976-1995) vs Current Great Australian Side (1995 to Now)

[C_C]

Its funny how the batsmen of today wouldent be as good on the pitches of the 80's which must mean the bowlers of today have got it a lot tougher than the bowlers of the eighties so what you lose in the batting would be made up in the bowling. Imagine how good Bond would be on the pitches in the eighties or even Vass, probably the best there is.

Again you either fail to understand the issue or distort it....
this is not about selective namedropping....leave out OZ players from today and WI from those days for they are irrelevant to the discussion....OZ dont face OZ today and WI didnt face WI back in the day, so inorder to evaluate the strength of the field, you gotto leave out the appropriate players.
And your argument is stupid, since the biggest difference today and from the 70s/80s is LACK of quality bowling around the world....

And no- many of the names you mentioned in that list wouldnt cut it in the 70s/80s team but then again in many cases the vice versa is true....its about relative comparison, not one-sided name-dropping.
Sheesh...

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

And your argument is stupid, since the biggest difference today and from the 70s/80s is LACK of quality bowling around the world....

Doesn't alter the fact that people talk a lot about how flat the pitches are today, particularly in Australia and in the sub-continent for seamers (and I agree), hence the high batting averages and so on, along with a decrease in bowling stocks to some degree. And on top of that, batting lineups today are relatively strong compared to at other times. Given that Australia has one of if not the strongest batting lineup ever seen, and there are the likes of Lara, Tendulkar, Dravid, Sehwag, Kallis, Inzamam etc scattered around the other countries. It should follow then that maintaining a low bowling average in the face of these flat wickets and good batting lineups would be difficult, and averaging under 25 now would be significantly more difficult than in the 70s or 90s when bowlers with good records were common and pitches were less flat, just like averaging 50 today is less of a feat than it was in said periods.

 

[C_C]

Batting lineups are strong...yes.....but on the whole i dont think they are much stronger than the 70s/80s zone...and yes, pitches are flatter as well which automatically jolts the bowlers....but i think the single biggest reason for the proliferation of runs in the 2000s is lack of quality bowling....many of these players were around in the 90s as well but it is uncanny as to how many of them hit their peaks in the 2000s when suddenly the great bowlers from around the world ( except the aussies) retired or were close to retirement...people think that better average is due to better batsmen but they forget one thing.....the skill level is completely independent of your record(s)......as in, you may have a 50 batting average or 20 bowling average but that is totally dependent on the skill level of your era...

In my opinion, i think there are more collossal batsmen today......more batsmen who are in the Richards/Chappell/Miandad/Gavaskar class.....but i think that the 'very good to good' batsmen in the 70s and 80s were better than the 'very good to good' category batsmen today...atleast largely....

And no doubt that it is harder on bowlers today than it probably ever was....but i still think that the proliferation of runs is biggest due to lack of quality bowling attack outside the Aussie shores

 

[Scallywag]

Again you either fail to understand the issue or distort it....

Of course I fail to understand it C_C, unless I agree exactaly with everything you say I have no understanding, whatever you say is fact and unless my humble opinion falls into your fact then I just dont understand. Whatever you say has to be the fact because you know everything and cant be wrong because you're an engineer and have been to the big school. You're an expert on everything.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

In my opinion, i think there are more collossal batsmen today......more batsmen who are in the Richards/Chappell/Miandad/Gavaskar class.....but i think that the 'very good to good' batsmen in the 70s and 80s were better than the 'very good to good' category batsmen today...atleast largely....

And no doubt that it is harder on bowlers today than it probably ever was....but i still think that the proliferation of runs is biggest due to lack of quality bowling attack outside the Aussie shores

I agree, but I think the lack of quality in bowling attacks is somewhat overblown when people compare cricket today to the past. In the 70s and 80s there were only 6 to 7 teams in the world, and usually Australia, Pakistan, England and the West Indies had good bowlers, but they didn't always co-incide exactly the way people usually talk about it. Australia almost always had Lillee, but the backup came and went and was never as good as him, and when Thommo wasn't around to partner Lillee the Australian attack wasn't that great, and declined through the 80s. Pakistan had some quality bowling lineups, but Imran was the only really great bowler they had in that period, until Wasim and Waqar showed up right at the end of the 80s. England had plenty of good bowlers in the likes of Snow, Botham, Willis, Underwood etc, but rarely a universally dominant bowling attack. New Zealand just had Hadlee, and India had some great spinners but really not much in the way of good seam bowling, with just Kapil being really reliable. Sri Lanka was invariably poor. Only the West Indies had a really awesome bowling attack, with practically an army of world class quicks. Furthermore, similarly to the 90s as compared to now, as the West Indies rose through the 80s the other sides dropped away, both in batting and bowling.

So, while the bowling at the time was stronger than now, it wasn't as if every team had an attack of 4 or 5 greats, which is sometimes how it is talked about. There are plenty of good bowlers around now, and for example I'd say the current Sri Lankan bowling lineup, which is not one of the strongest around today, is better than the Indian lineup of the 70s and 80s. And I'd also say that a fair case can be made for the bowling stocks in the 90s being as good or better than in the 70s and 80s, and the pitches not that different.

 

[C_C]

Of course I fail to understand it C_C, unless I agree exactaly with everything you say I have no understanding, whatever you say is fact and unless my humble opinion falls into your fact then I just dont understand. Whatever you say has to be the fact because you know everything and cant be wrong because you're an engineer and have been to the big school. You're an expert on everything.
Today 12:37 AM

Keep your insecurities in check and to yourself...you notice how i dont say that to some posters (even if they disagree with me...like Faaip does) but to do to others(like you) ?
i dont care if you agree or disagree with me really....but some people(like faaip or swervy or slow love) have the penchant of not straying from the issue and arguing it in a manner that addresses the core points and/or brings up stats that validate/invalidate the core points....
you on the other hand mostly bring up issues that are largely irrelevant or erroneous.

 

[C_C]

Faaip...i think the issue with shyte bowling isnt really overblown if you do a man-for man comparison....

Throughout the 70s for eg, IND bowling attack was definately superior to what you have today.... Bedi, Chandra, Prasanna, Venkat/Ghavri/Kapil/Doshi.....definately superior to the one today and only ones better since them are Srinath,Kumble and Harbhajan....
England.....throughout the 70s/80s they were bowlers like Snow,Underwood,Botham,Willis...each of whom are better than anything england has served up since....
Even the aussies when they didnt have Lillee or Thommo had hughes, aldermann,McDermott, ,lawson,reid,hogg etc.... who were better/equal bowlers than any pacer out there today save McGrath,Pollock and Gillespie.....

PAK....i think you are doing a serious disservice to them....they had one great bowler in Imran true but bowlers like Abdul Qadir definately are in the great/superb category and Iqbal Qasim/Tauseef Ahmed etc. were worldclass bowlers.....

NZ had Hadlee chatfield, Collinge etc. who are better than anything NZ have served up since, Cairns and perhaps Vettori exempted....

WI....i neednt say anything..

So that leaves essentially SL....

so for the major part of the 70s/80s most of the field had far competitive bowling attack than they do now...
And i dont think the SL attack today is better than the IND attack of the 70s/early 80s.....true Murali would walk into any team and Vaas is better than any IND seamer apart from Srinath and Kapil but overall bowling-wise, i think IND were superior to SL till the mid 80s....

So yes....its not like they all had greats oozing out everywhere....but on the whole, bowling attacks back then was much better in the field.....you have more teams now so the # of greats/goods must be treated proportionately to get an idea of how good the field was.

 

[marc71178]

I think the 2001 team has a fair ability to play pace. Langer, Steve Waugh, Ponting and Martyn have shown their ability against quality pace many times

When have they encountered 2 quality real speedsters at the same time?

 

[C_C]

Steve Waugh was dogged....Ponting is good against pace....Martyn is excellent(the best current aussie against pace IMO) and langer is prety decent......but you are talkin about a four prong here where their 4th bowler is of Gillespie or better callibre (mostly better).... they had a penchant of reducing great players of pace to merely good and good to rubble.....
In test cricket, the one with the bigger bowling unit wins...and WI can just bully OZ into the ground with sheer brute pace bowling......wouldnt bet on Gilly being very successful...mark waugh clearly struggled and well haydos....he'd be a sitting duck.....

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

When have they encountered 2 quality real speedsters at the same time?

Langer faced the two Ws and Shoaib at once with great success (although Waqar was past his best), and also had a good time of it against Donald and Pollock. Steve Waugh played the Walsh/Ambrose/Bishop/Benjamin team better than anyone else in the world ever did, and his ability against quality pace is unquestionable, Ponting has never had any problems against pace really, and whenever he has come up against good pace bowlers he's been fine, and the same is true of Martyn. Mark Waugh was never that great, but he did okay against the WI attack and so forth too.

 

[C_C]

Steve Waugh played the Walsh/Ambrose/Bishop/Benjamin team better than anyone else in the world ever did, and his ability against quality pace is unquestionable

disagree with that one...the one time Sachin played Walsh-Ambrose-Bishop trio (he squared off against them in the caribbean in one series i think) he did pretty doggone well..

But the point many are missing is that we are talking about the four-prong here....all bowlers who are in the 'great/worldclass' category and were great at their prime....
It makes a real difference if all four are beating you to a pulp as opposed to two or three...
that one bowler (4 great/good instead of 3 great/good and one decent) is what makes it incredibly harder...for now you get no breather at all.....its sheer pummelling after pumelling.... even if you have one guy who is just decent/okay, you are under a lot less pressure mentally.

its liek trying to face Goran Ivanisevic for a server the whole tournament......

 

[garage flower]

I think the 2001 team has a fair ability to play pace. Langer, Steve Waugh, Ponting and Martyn have shown their ability against quality pace many times, and Mark Waugh had a fairly good time of it against Ambrose, Walsh and company as well. Only Hayden has not really proven himself against world class pace bowling, and he hasn't struggled against Shoaib, Waqar, Wasim or Donald when he has faced them either..

Not necessarily disagreeing (and can't be bothered to do the research myself), but could you give examples of recent Aussie sides performing against teams with 3 world class quicks?

EDIT: sorry mate, posted this before reading Marc's question and your response. Still, the answer seems to be that, by and large, the dominant Aussie sides haven't had the chance to test themselves against attacks featuring 3 quality quick bowlers.

 

[Blaze]

I would be interested to hear from NZ and English fans, Apart from playing Aus both teams have done pretty well lately.

NZ were definetly better in the 80's than they are now IMO.

Someone keeps saying we only had Hadlee.. that is simply not true

 

[Scallywag]

Not necessarily disagreeing (and can't be bothered to do the research myself), but could you give examples of recent Aussie sides performing against teams with 3 world class quicks?

.

Same could be said of West Indian bowlers, When did they bowl to a batting attack as good as current Indian or Australian side (3-4 batsmen averaging in the 50's).

 

[garage flower]

Same could be said of West Indian bowlers, When did they bowl to a batting attack as good as current Indian or Australian side (3-4 batsmen averaging in the 50's).

My argument is that they perhaps wouldn't be averaging 50+ if there were more world class bowlers around.

 

[Top_Cat]

wouldnt bet on Gilly being very successful...mark waugh clearly struggled and well haydos....he'd be a sitting duck.....

Come on, man. If there's one thing Gilli has shown time and again it's that he's able to pummel the very best pace bowlers to all parts. He's scored runs in just about every country against just about every type of attack in both favourable (in terms of conditions and team score) and non-favourable conditions. Mark Waugh may have been a bit suspect and I suspect you're partially right about Haydos but I would still think he'd have a degree of success.

One of the biggest assumptions people tend to make about current players re: their success in bygone eras is that they'd be exactly the same players in a different era. Hayden, for example, might struggle against quality pace bowling but if he was actually in the era we're speaking of, who could say whether he'd improve his game to counter the WI attack? Bruce Laird for Australia, a far more limited player against pace bowling than the free-swinging current Aussies, had a degree of success against the WI when they were at their peak. Now who's to say that a player with far more natural ability like Haydos, Langer, etc. wouldn't alter their games to eradicate their deficiencies? Y'know, just like everyone else back then did?? This is why comparison is so difficult. I think, personally, the assumption cannot be made with any credibility that great players from one era would be successful/unsuccessful in another era due to the myriad of pitch conditions, etc. AND this little factor.

 

[social]

When did the Wi face a spinner of Warne's class.

Alan Border got 12 wickets in a test against them and he was no better than Lehmann.

 

[C_C]

Come on, man. If there's one thing Gilli has shown time and again it's that he's able to pummel the very best pace bowlers to all parts. He's scored runs in just about every country against just about every type of attack in both favourable (in terms of conditions and team score) and non-favourable conditions. Mark Waugh may have been a bit suspect and I suspect you're partially right about Haydos but I would still think he'd have a degree of success.

Gilly did allright really.... i wouldnt expect him to average anywhere close to 50 against the four-prong....but then agian, i wouldnt bet on it for almost any batsman-Sir Don included.
Haydos- a 30 ave. would be more than what i expect...Gilly...35-40 range....Punter...40-45 range...Tugga...45+ range...Border...40ish....

One of the biggest assumptions people tend to make about current players re: their success in bygone eras is that they'd be exactly the same players in a different era.

ofcourse...thats the only way to compare...take Player A as he played in HIS career and put him in a different era to see how well he would do.....
whether they would've been any different in the other era etc if they were born in it etc. would be too arbitary and almost meaningless,since it is not just a question of cricketing ability but cricketing philosophy as well.... for eg, if Gilly was born in the 30s, i certainly dont see him batting as fast as he does....vice versa.......
when i compare, i compare as they are......
As per hayden's ajustment..i doubt it.... he tried to but failed in the early/mid 90s.....
others..i dunno.

When did the Wi face a spinner of Warne's class.

Alan Border got 12 wickets in a test against them and he was no better than Lehmann.

hey-weird stuff are known to happen....Clarke took the cheapest 6-fer in history of test cricket...or does it now mean that IND arnt the best (or atleast one of the best) players of spin on this planet ?
WI faced Bedi and Chandra.......Chandra IMO was maybe an inch or so behind Warne in legspin bowling.... Qadir was an excellent spinner too though a bit off Warne's class...
WI didnt do exceedingly well against spin but mostly dogged it out and did pretty well.

 

[Scallywag]

The WI wold not be able to bowl 90 overs a day. Gilly, Ponting, Martyn, Langer would murder them. The WI bats would be bunnys in the headlights when Warne bowled. The WI would go to water once their fast bowlers tired as they had nothing else to offer.

 

[Top_Cat]

Gilly did allright really.... i wouldnt expect him to average anywhere close to 50 against the four-prong....but then agian, i wouldnt bet on it for almost any batsman-Sir Don included.

Oh I agree he may not average 50 (how many players did back then? Not as many as now) but I reckon he'd still be rated amongst the premier players of any era he played in. For mine, he's succeeded in so many conditions against so many great bowlers or different types that it seems inconceiveable that he would fail in almost any era. As much success? I'd say not but as you said, Bradman wouldn't have been as successful either. He even admitted it himself but then, as speaks so much about the man, the conversation he said that went something like this:

"Don; would you have been as successful in the modern era as in yours?"

"Well, when taking into account that pitches in my day were far better for batting and that game tactics have evolved, players are targeted more often, weaknesses are analysed, etc. I would say that no, I would not have averaged what I did had I been playing in the modern era.

HOWEVER, I still would have averaged much more than the guy who came second."

Now THAT'S confidence!

ofcourse...thats the only way to compare...take Player A as he played in HIS career and put him in a different era to see how well he would do.....
whether they would've been any different in the other era etc if they were born in it etc. would be too arbitary and almost meaningless,since it is not just a question of cricketing ability but cricketing philosophy as well.... for eg, if Gilly was born in the 30s, i certainly dont see him batting as fast as he does....vice versa.......
when i compare, i compare as they are......

Well yes that's the only way TO compare for sure but to do so, a couple of big assumptions are made and one of them is that player A as currently represented would be similar to their 80's or 70's version. For mine, that's an assumption that might be reaching a bit far. But yes I take your point that for any meaningful comparison to occur, that assumption has to be made.

As per hayden's ajustment..i doubt it.... he tried to but failed in the early/mid 90s.....
others..i dunno.

And believe me, I was one of the guys who was telling everyone that Hayden sucked, QLD'ers who wanted him in the side wouldn't know what they were talking about, etc. I never EVER believed he had what it took to succeed at the highest level. But then I saw his improvement; suddenly he wasn't just driving all the time, his square of the wicket play was FAR better and his play against the spinners improved 1000%. When I noticed that, I thought he was going to be successful but certainly not to the extent he has. Just getting back into the side was shock enough for me but what he's done, I just was forced to admit that maybe he had a bit about him after all and maybe those annoying QLD'ers were right (for once...........).

WI faced Bedi and Chandra.......Chandra IMO was maybe an inch or so behind Warne in legspin bowling.... Qadir was an excellent spinner too though a bit off Warne's class...
WI didnt do exceedingly well against spin but mostly dogged it out and did pretty well.

Here are two examples where they fell to bits (albeit, on turning decks);

http://aus.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/1980S/1984-85/WI_IN_AUS/WI_AUS_T5_30DEC1984-02JAN1985.html

Holland (a 38-year-old mediocre FC leggie) 10-fer.

http://www.cricinfo.com/link_to_database/ARCHIVE/1980S/1987-88/WI_IN_IND/WI_IND_T4_11-15JAN1988.html

Hirwani (another mediocre leggie) 16-fer.

They're the only two I can think of off the top of my head. Generally, the WI played off-spin relatively well regardless of conditions but those angled bats of theirs were fodder for even a base-standard Test leggie.