He who dares, wins.

[C_C]

Trouble with you C_C is you overlook things that dont suit your arguement.

If as you say the WI bowlers were so much better than all the other bowlers why dont their figures show it.

Yes, i suppose a bowling average of 20.94, 20.99, 20.97 and 23.68 really doesnt reflect their bowling might, considering that from mid 70s till end of 90s, only Imran Khan, Wasim Akram,Waqar Younis, Alan Donald, Richard Hadlee, Glenn McGrath,Murali, Shaun Pollock and Alan Donald have better averages than the FOURTH BEST average ( Holding).

If as you say the WI batsmen were so good why didnt they have better averages than other batsmen of their era (and I mean huge differences ) because they never had to face the WI quartet like how people say that Pontings average is higher because he doesnt face the Australian bowlers. How come Border can average the same as Richards while as you say facing a much stronger bowling attack which then you say makes Richards the better batsman.

This is because most WI batsmen played on for a few seasons too long.
Inorder to preserve yer average, you have to quit while the going is good....i am sure if Steve Waugh continued to play for another 2-3 years, his average would've nosedived as well.... Viv and Greenidge played on too long......Border for the bulk of his career played a run-down english and indian attack while Viv decimated significantly better attacks....

Kalli averaged 50+ for the first 50 tests of his career before he broke his shoulder and lost the touch....
And you'll find that of their era, only Gavaskar, Boycott and Gooch average equal to or better than Greenidge/Haynes as openers and only Miandad,G. Chappell and Border average better than Lloyd, Kalli pre injury and Viv as middle order bats.


Contrast that to Australia in their era of dominance....
Lara, Tendulkar, Dravid,Graeme Smith,Kallis and Sehwag average more than or around the same ballpark as Ponting,Hayden and Gillchrist.......
And while McGrath-Warne are stellar, Gillespie's record in the same period ( mid 90s to now) is bettered by Akram, Younis, Akhtar, Ambrose, Walsh, Donald, Pollock, deVilliers and Murali........

I agree that OZ have a slight batting advantage over the Windies of the late 70s/80s/early 90s but WI bowling is a class or two above and that is where the biggest advantage lies.

 

[kenny44]

I think every game would be a tie. There is that little between the two teams really. Too close to call.

 

[Richard]

The 1999 side wasn't close to as good. It didn't have the phenomenally successful Langer/Hayden opening pair, Ponting was batting at 6 where he was never as successful as he is now, Slater's form at the time was at least as worrying as Mark Waugh's was in 2001/02, and the addition of a class player like Damien Martyn to the batting lineup only strengthened it further. Not to mention, the McGrath/Gillespie/Lee/Warne attack was significantly superior to one with guys like Bichel and a past-it Fleming.

Anyway, we're speaking entirely hypothetically about the lineups, so I don't think form really comes into it unless you're picking a team from a single series. Whether or not Steve and Mark were scoring runs in any series around that time you choose to pick, they are still part of the best Australian team of the era.

If you're speaking hypothetically why not just forget that certain people never played together and just pick Taylor, Slater, Ponting, Waugh, Waugh, Martyn\Katich, Gilchrist, Warne, Kasprowicz, Fleming, McGrath?
Fact is you can only have a team that actually played together and the potentially strongest combination never did.
As for Slater's poor form in 1999\2000, he might have been hopelessly inconsistent (half his innings ending in single-figures) but he still managed to average 39.31 which isn't a bad achievement with so many poor scores.
The Langer\Hayden opening pair has to be one of the most overrated things in history - yes, it produced countless massive stands on flat pitches, but it didn't make Australia in the slightest a better side - that would have been almost impossible.
As for Ponting was never as effective at six as now, I hardly see that this counts as anything other than sensationally successful - not anywhere near as sustained as this one at three, no, but hugely potent, and contributing to very fine side.