• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

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

aussie

Hall of Fame Member
What can we say about these two sides, they are two of the greatest genearation of cricketers to play the game. Firstly lets look at that superb West Indian side which Clive Llyod and Viv Richards commanded with such pride and with his philosophy of those 4 fast bowlers such a Marshall, Garner, Roberts, Holding with an abundance of powerful backup bowlers such as Croft, Daniel, Clark and Davis and when King Viv aka `` The Master Blaster took over from the llyod era their was the Emergence of Ambrose, Walsh, Patterson and Bishop their wasn't much respite for International Batsmen. While the lads with the bat were just some of the most aggresive batsmen of all time i reckon, with openers Fredricks, Greenidge and Haynes in the middle order the Richardson, Big Viv, Rowe, the dependable Larry gomes follwed by Llyod. Thw indies also had in my view two of the best glovesmen to ever play this sport Derrick Murray and especially Jeff Dujon, some crazy people say that team wasn't complete simply because they didn't have a world class spinner they used Roger Harper sparingly but i would say with that abundance of fast bowlers they dindn't need one.

While this Current australian team is superb in its own way, some excellent players mixed with some lads which could be said to be all time greats who undoubtebly have such superb depth that every team during this period has surely envied. They Have currently two excellent openers in Langer and Hyaden who whenever they break up would surely the most succesful opening partnership in test history. But Before them their was Mark Taylor and Michael Slater, two top players in their own right. In the middle order thier was and currently are the superb Waugh Twins, David Bonn (For a while), Ponting, Martyn, Katich and the young star Micheal Clarke and guys such has Lehmann, Stuart Law, Bevan, Elliot who were very inlucky to not have played more test for australia. That same problem also lurks within the bowling while the greats McDermott, McGrath, Warne, who r well backed up by Lee, Kaprowicz etc players such as MacGill, Miller, Bichel even to an extent blokes like Nicholas, Wright, Dawes r also unlucky aussies. While like that west indian team they had and have two outstanding Keeper Batsmen Healy and Gilchrist both who contributed superbly to the great aussie side well in their own way.

Note: I am not comparing these sides i'm just stating how dominant they have and in australia's case still dominating world cricket, But if i were to compare them i must say the aussies would get a mauling :mellow:

Here are my Best West Indies Line-up over those 19 years

G.Greendige
D.Haynes
R.Richardson
V.Richards
L.Rowe
C.LLyod * - Skipper
J.Dujon + - Keeper
M.Marshall
M.Holding
A.Roberts
J.Garner

Here is my Best Aussie Line-up to date

M.Taylor
M.Hayden
R.Ponting
M.Waugh
D.Boon
S.Waugh * - Skipper
A.Gilchrist + - Keeper
S.Warne
J.Gillespie
C.McDermott
G.McGrath
 

aussie

Hall of Fame Member
aussie

oh well i didn't realise that had posted a similar thread to this mate, but mine is saying who is better its just showing how dominant they were and in australia's case still are in their respective era's.
 

Son Of Coco

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
No Lara? Fair enough, it's your opinion and your team (don't want a Richie's World XI thing on our hands again! haha)

I think the Aussies would beat the Windies because, let's face it, most of the West Indian team are in their 40's/early 50's now. It would be a tough ask just getting them walking. :p
 

username1234

School Boy/Girl Cricketer
i wouldn't really say australia were dominant from 1995-1999 i mean they missed out on a vb series final and lost a world cup, but from 1999- now, yeah. I reckon the west indian team would win if they played simply because they are a much tougher side. I dont really think taylor, waugh, hayden, ponting, boon would handle marshall, roberts, garner very well. you picked pretty crap sides for both team's both country's have better players.
 

aussie

Hall of Fame Member
aussie

username1234 said:
i wouldn't really say australia were dominant from 1995-1999 i mean they missed out on a vb series final and lost a world cup, but from 1999- now, yeah. I reckon the west indian team would win if they played simply because they are a much tougher side. I dont really think taylor, waugh, hayden, ponting, boon would handle marshall, roberts, garner very well. you picked pretty crap sides for both team's both country's have better players.
well mate i'm not comparing the sides i'm just stating how dominant they were and are in their various era's, and if u r sayin that the west indian and australian teams that i have picked are crap i beg to differ, i would like to see ur best XI for both sides
 

Top_Cat

Request Your Custom Title Now!
i wouldn't really say australia were dominant from 1995-1999 i mean they missed out on a vb series final and lost a world cup,
So what? The WI team in the period described ALSO lost a WC final (1983), didn't make the finals of the 1987 or 1992 WC's, drew two Test series (home and away) with Pakistan, drew an away series in India and lost an away Test series in NZ.

I dont really think taylor, waugh, hayden, ponting, boon would handle marshall, roberts, garner very well.
Yet two of those players showed they were able to and the rest, well, I don't know what else they could do to prove themselves. It's redundant anyway because we'll never know.
 

aussie

Hall of Fame Member
aussie

well its fair to wonder what would happen if those two sides were to meet, but thats not my intentions of the post, it is just stating how dominat these two sides have been in their respective era's.
 

Slats4ever

International Vice-Captain
username1234 said:
i wouldn't really say australia were dominant from 1995-1999 i mean they missed out on a vb series final and lost a world cup, but from 1999- now, yeah. I reckon the west indian team would win if they played simply because they are a much tougher side. I dont really think taylor, waugh, hayden, ponting, boon would handle marshall, roberts, garner very well. you picked pretty crap sides for both team's both country's have better players.
hehehe nice one dude!!! not dominant...
 

LongHopCassidy

International Captain
The Post 1970 XIs

Australia

1. Justin Langer
2. Matthew Hayden
3. Ricky Ponting
4. Greg Chappell
5. Steve Waugh (captain)
6. Allan Border
7. Adam Gilchrist (keeper)
8. Shane Warne
9. Dennis Lillee
10. Jeff Thomson
11. Glenn McGrath

West Indies

1. Roy Fredericks
2. Gordon Greenidge
3. Brian Lara
4. Viv Richards
5. Clive Lloyd (captain)
6. Larry Gomes
7. Jeff Dujon (keeper)
8. Malcolm Marshall
9. Michael Holding
10. Curtly Ambrose
11. Joel Garner
 

C_C

International Captain
First off, if you are making a best possible lineup from those 19 years for WI, Ritchie Richardson doesnt get a peep.
One certain chap called Allvin Kallicharan, who averaged 50 after 50 tests ( and in those days, 50 ave. was a big deal) would replace Ritchie in a blink..... Kalli in my opinion was a great player worthy of the highest accolades - his form took a nosedive after his shoulder injury, which he never really recovered from and lost a significant bit of feel...
 

C_C

International Captain
Scallywag said:
Australia, daylight then west Indies.

Anyone who says different knows jack ship about cricket. :D :D :D

8-) 8-)

PS: you forgot the 'aussie aussie aussie. oi oi oi' part.
8-)
 

age_master

Hall of Fame Member
C_C said:
First off, if you are making a best possible lineup from those 19 years for WI, Ritchie Richardson doesnt get a peep.
One certain chap called Allvin Kallicharan, who averaged 50 after 50 tests ( and in those days, 50 ave. was a big deal) would replace Ritchie in a blink..... Kalli in my opinion was a great player worthy of the highest accolades - his form took a nosedive after his shoulder injury, which he never really recovered from and lost a significant bit of feel...

look whos back to his favorite subject :p
 

FaaipDeOiad

Hall of Fame Member
This topic has been done, but my view is that the teams are, in most respects, about equal. It is far too difficult to seperate two great sides who so completely dominated their own eras. It seems to me that the current Australian side have the edge in batting and the West Indian team had the edge in bowling, but it's not much of a gap in either case. And also, the Australian team has yet to finish their period of dominance obviously, so there's still some room to move for them. It will be easier to look back when somebody else has knocked Australia off.

I'll have a go at the best XIs though, from the period of dominance. :D

West Indies (1976-1995)
Desmond Haynes
Gordon Greenidge
Viv Richards
Brian Lara
Alvin Kallicharan
Clive Lloyd (c)
Jeff Dujon (k)
Malcolm Marshall
Michael Holding
Curtley Ambrose
Joel Garner
12th Man: Richie Richardson


Australia (1995-2005)
Justin Langer
Matthew Hayden
Ricky Ponting
Mark Waugh
Steve Waugh (c)
Damien Martyn
Adam Gilchrist (k)
Shane Warne
Jason Gillespie
Michael Kasprowicz
Glenn McGrath
12th Man: Mark Taylor


Notable that this exact Australian team has actually played together all at once, but it's still really the best team of the dominant period on a player by player basis.
 

C_C

International Captain
Aye..this has been debated ad nauseum...i agree that this OZ side has an edge in batting and the WI side has an edge in bowling, though i personally feel that their edge in bowling is bigger than OZ's edge in batting....
But on a side note, the OZ era of dominance didnt really start till 98/99 or so..... 95 they were definately not dominant..... and i remember that the home-n-away series vs RSA in the late 90s/early 2000s (where OZ smashed RSA) was the turning point....before that, may were giving the south africans a fair chance to win in OZ and a very good chance to defend in RSA.....
The WI however, didnt lose a series since the OZ pumelling in 75 for another 4-5 years till the NZ series and they didnt lose another one till OZ series in 94...
 

FaaipDeOiad

Hall of Fame Member
C_C said:
Aye..this has been debated ad nauseum...i agree that this OZ side has an edge in batting and the WI side has an edge in bowling, though i personally feel that their edge in bowling is bigger than OZ's edge in batting....
But on a side note, the OZ era of dominance didnt really start till 98/99 or so..... 95 they were definately not dominant..... and i remember that the home-n-away series vs RSA in the late 90s/early 2000s (where OZ smashed RSA) was the turning point....before that, may were giving the south africans a fair chance to win in OZ and a very good chance to defend in RSA.....
The WI however, didnt lose a series since the OZ pumelling in 75 for another 4-5 years till the NZ series and they didnt lose another one till OZ series in 94...
Australia haven't been beaten anywhere other than the subcontinent since 1992/93 against the West Indies. Since then they've suffered three losses to India and one each to Sri Lanka and Pakistan all away from home, and it's worth remembering that more series are played per year now than in the past.

The West Indies didn't immediately start "dominating" from 1976 either, they simply gradually became the best team in the world and everybody else dropped gradually further and further behind, exactly like Australia since 1993. 95 is just a date people pick because it is when Australia next played the West Indies after he narrow 93 loss and beat them.
 

Top