West Indies Attacks early 80s vs present English attack

[Swervy]

For players who have not got the opportunity to show their skills at the test level for a long period of time, obviously you have to use their whole careers or atleast a major chunk of it to pass a verdict.
The English bowlers will get credit from me once i see them perform everywhere and do it minus the minnows consistently for 4-5 years.
True, Clarke's average is not great at test level but his stop-start career features massively into this.
How much of Clarke i actually got to see ? a whole lot actually.
I saw 7 of his 11 tests and saw a lotta games he played for Surrey.

My view that he could've been a walk-in to any side stems from his domination of an excellent south africa side in the rebel tours.

well no...your view he could have been a walk in to any side stems from his domination of a South African side which was completely unproven at international level...do we really know how players like Graham Pollock would have played at international level if his test career had have continued...no... (if Pollocks career curve followed that of 99 percent of test batsman, i think we can say he wouldnt have been the batsman he once was)..so again you are just guessing arent you..which if someone else said it, i wouldnt mind, but you accuse us of doing what you are doing right now.

How about this one....Rodney Ontongs bowling average was not that far behind Clarkes in the first class game in the mid 80's in SA..now he was a decidedly average player...in fact, Ontongs batting average wasnt that far behind Pollocks ..what does that say about the strength of SA cricket at that time..does that put Clarkes feats into a bit more percpective (statistically speaking)? What about looking at the strength of the WI rebel team, which wasnt that much better than the World Series era West Indian official side..and yet South Africa actually struggled to beat them, in fact were often destroyed by them.

Isnt it annoying when someone throws random stats out at you to try to prove non-existant points when you actually know you are right by just watching the game????

 

[C_C]

Jimmy Cook, Barry Richards, Peter Kirstien, Graeme Pollock,Clive Rice, Alan Kourie, etc.

Against a batting lineup like that, he took 12 wickets @ 17.50 in 2 tests.
Almost a year later, he bowled to practically the same lineup minus Barry Richards and took 23 wickets in 4 tests @ 16.86.

 

[Swervy]

Who was in this "south africa" side?

actaully it was a pretty classy team Graham Pollock (aged about 40 mind you), McEwan, peter Kirsten, Cook,Le Roux,Clive Rice.

The problem is though they would have been completely undercooked vs players who had played at the very highest level...its why a pretty poor WI team did pretty well against them

 

[Swervy]

Jimmy Cook, Barry Richards, Peter Kirstien, Graeme Pollock,Clive Rice, Alan Kourie, etc.

Against a batting lineup like that, he took 12 wickets @ 17.50 in 2 tests.
Almost a year later, he bowled to practically the same lineup minus Barry Richards and took 23 wickets in 4 tests @ 16.86.

see above post

The team WAS NOT proven at international level (dare to question that, because between them they probably played less test cricket than Flintoff alone!!!!) and so you cannot (according to you) make judgements on those games

 

[greg]

actaully it was a pretty classy team Graham Pollock (aged about 40 mind you), McEwan, peter Kirsten, Cook,Le Roux,Clive Rice.

The problem is though they would have been completely undercooked vs players you had played at the very highest level...its why a pretty poor WI team did pretty well against them

Yeah I thought a few of them must have been getting on a bit.

 

[greg]

see above post

The team WAS NOT proven at international level (dare to question that, because between them they probably played less test cricket than Flintoff alone!!!!) and so you cannot (according to you) make judgements on those games

The County Championship offered a pretty decent standard of 3-day cricket in those days though

 

[Swervy]

The County Championship offered a pretty decent standard of 3-day cricket in those days though

(I think you are kidding..but just in case ...)


actually it didnt...overseas players dominated much much more then than they do now. An overseas bowler who didnt average under 20 with the ball or over 60 with the bat was a failure..thats how bad it was..its also why England were clueless vs everyone apart from an awful Aussie team back then.

I used to go to quite a bit of county cricket back then,and mostly I used to think to myself 'what am I doing here' coz the standard was a joke

 

[greg]

(I think you are kidding..but just in case ...)


actually it didnt...overseas players dominated much much more then than they do now. An overseas bowler who didnt average under 20 with the ball or over 60 with the bat was a failure..thats how bad it was..its also why England were clueless vs everyone apart from an awful Aussie team back then.

I used to go to quite a bit of county cricket back then,and mostly I used to think to myself 'what am I doing here' coz the standard was a joke

(playing devil's advocate) - but couldn't that be explained by the foreign players generally being of a significantly better quality?

 

[greg]

BTW I wonder if C_C's opinion of Flintoff would be significantly improved if he could solve his new ball problem?

 

[superkingdave]

One interesting thing I noticed today...

howstat.com has a player ratings system which is very simple, and if you look at the top 10 test bowlers, it's simply ranked by average over the last 2 years for all players with over 40 wickets. Murali, McGrath and Warne top this list, followed by Nel and Vaas, leaving no English player in 5 lowest bowling averages over the last 2 years, but all four of the English seamers fall inside the top 10, from Flintoff at 6th to Jones at 10th, with only Pollock in the middle. That shows, I think, the consistency of the attack.

Hmm, they have Geriant Jones in their world ODI XI....

 

[social]

For players who have not got the opportunity to show their skills at the test level for a long period of time, obviously you have to use their whole careers or atleast a major chunk of it to pass a verdict.
The English bowlers will get credit from me once i see them perform everywhere and do it minus the minnows consistently for 4-5 years.
True, Clarke's average is not great at test level but his stop-start career features massively into this.
How much of Clarke i actually got to see ? a whole lot actually.
I saw 7 of his 11 tests and saw a lotta games he played for Surrey.

My view that he could've been a walk-in to any side stems from his domination of an excellent south africa side in the rebel tours.

I played with Clarke on a few occasions and practiced against him on many.

He had the ability to be as good as anyone but was lazy and temperamental when it came to fc cricket and did not endear himself to everyone (I liked him by the way - I think as an Aus, he viewed me differently in some respects to the English).

Clarke had the ability to play a lot more test cricket than he did but it was as much his fault as anyone else's that he didnt.

Gillespie has made a lot out of his ability and built a very, very fine career.

Clarke did not make the most out of his ability and will be remembered by me as an under-achiever.

 

[tooextracool]

And that's also getting carried away.

2 great bowlers, 1 who never actually played enough games to prove himself at that level and some pie chuckers.

klusener in his prime was most definetly not a pie thrower.

 

[pup11]

This is one of the best jokes i have heard for a long time the windies attack of 80's is not comparable to any bowling attack they were in a different leauge all together.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

It's a bit unreasonable at first glance, yes - but certainly not a 'joke'. In an era when an over rate of 70 wouldn't see a captain pleading his case, the Windies revolutionised pace bowling. THe difference between them and any other attack is that they had four - count 'em, four - bowlers who were all class acts and close to top form - something they could get away with because of their freakish depth. Even Australia, with McGrath and Warne, have historically had a 'fourth bowler problem' when finding someone to partner Lee or Gillespie. Often, this has cost them (in NZ in 2005, McGrath and Warne averaged sub-20 while Gillespie and Kasprowicz were 40-plus, to say nothing of the 2005 Ashes) but for the penetration of the aforementioned.

The West Indies never had that. They were a formidable outfit from the first ball to second change. Very few teams can claim that.

 

[Salamuddin]

England have a good pace attack at full strength but the West Indies were decidedly better.


England only really have two world class pace bowlers in Simon Jones and Flintoff.
Harmsion wouldn't even have made a West Indies B team in the 1980's and Hoggard is no more than a decent workhorse.
And even Simon Jones is still pretty unproven.

 

[silentstriker]

LOL @ this thread. I am glad that Indians aren't the only ones prone to exaggeration.

 

[PhoenixFire]

LOL @ this thread. I am glad that Indians aren't the only ones prone to exaggeration.

How would you rate the current Indian pace attack to the great WI one?