Richards and Marshall or Ponting and McGrath?

[Cartman]

Hey, this is my first post, can i take the opportunity to comment on how friendly and professional the site is, my compliments to what seems to be a knowlegable and engaging forum.

Now im getting on in years and have followed cricket closely for the last 25 years, i often wonder as we all do how the top batsman of the day would have faired against the top bowlers of yester year, and vice versa.

My question is this, if the Windies team from the 80's came up against S Waugh's Aussies in the West Indies, who do you think would come out on top?

Im going to back Greenidge and Haynes over Langer and Hayden, what do you think?

[silentstriker]

Which team from the 80s exactly?

[Richard]

I'm guessing the team that was briefly together in either 1979 or 1983 - that was probably the strongest combo.

If you were to pick an eclectic XI from 76 to 86 I'd go for...
Fredericks
Greenidge
Kalli
IVAR
Richardson
Lloyd (c)
Dujon (w)
Marshall
Holding
Garner
Roberts
The best attack was when, very briefly (2 Tests IIRR) those 4 bowlers on my list played together but only very rarely was there no weak-link in the batting - best it got was when it went Greenidge-Haynes-Richardson-Richards-Gomes-Lloyd-Dujon, but even that only lasted 1 year or so and by then Courtney Walsh was in the bowling-attack, and while hardly a novice was certainly nowhere near, at that time, the level of Croft, Daniel, Gray, etc.

In summation, I'd go for the WI team of 1983 or 1985 sort of time, but you need to remember that they hardly played together for long.

Likewise, there's never been any time when this Australian team was completely sans-weaklinks... the best batting-line-up came way back in 1993...
Taylor
Slater
Boon
Mark Waugh
Border
Stephen Waugh
Healy

Thereafter there was always a weak-link - even if there was a time when 7 top batsmen played together, one was always no longer the force he once was, or not yet the force he'd be. EG, Hayden in calender-year 2000 and most of 2001; the Waughs in 2001\02; Slater in 2001; or just Blewett\Bevan\Elliott or someone else who never made it.

The bowling-attack was obviously strongest in 2003\04 when it was McGrath, Gillespie, Kasprowicz, Warne but even that lasted less than 12 months, and at any other time there's always been a weak-link.

[Goughy]

Agree with you Richard.

The WI team always had 1 noticably weaker batsman. Also, as good as Dujon was he has been eclipsed probably by Healy and definately by Gilchrist (even as a keeper as I believe Dujon had a bad habit of taking things one handed).

The WI quicks are obviously better through sheer weight of numbers of talented nasty fasties but the inclusion of Warne could be the difference.

From my POV, the Aus team (take your pick) of the recent generation is by far the best I have ever seen. The world has never seen depth of batting talent like it before. Basically the few guys that failed were cast aside rather than brought along as there was always someone of considerable talent to bring in.

They have had few weak links (IMO), set all sorts of records and beat everyone. Its not their fault, but the great WI team never played the 2nd best nation (arguably the best) in the fantastic SA side of the 70s.

Also throughout the late 70s and 80's other teams were hit far harder than WI in terms of player suspensions due to Packer and Rebel tours.

[Swervy]

Originally Posted by Goughy

Agree with you Richard.

The WI team always had 1 noticably weaker batsman. Also, as good as Dujon was he has been eclipsed probably by Healy and definately by Gilchrist (even as a keeper as I believe Dujon had a bad habit of taking things one handed).

The WI quicks are obviously better through sheer weight of numbers of talented nasty fasties but the inclusion of Warne could be the difference.

From my POV, the Aus team (take your pick) of the recent generation is by far the best I have ever seen.

They have had few weak links (IMO), set all sorts of records and beat everyone. Its not their fault, but the great WI team never played the 2nd best nation (arguably the best) in the fantastic SA side of the 70s.

as a batsman I would be taking Dujon over Healy quite easily!!!

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Goughy

Also throughout the late 70s and 80's other teams were hit far harder than WI in terms of player suspensions due to Packer and Rebel tours.

Haha, feel guilty contradicting you when you've just backed me up but... nah!

WI had 1-and-a-half full series where they were without their entire first team. Fortunately, that half was against an Australian team who were in exactly the same situation, but the other one was in India and West Indies A (as it was in all but name) lost 1-0.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Swervy

as a batsman I would be taking Dujon over Healy quite easily!!!

Not too sure about that, TBH.

Both in their highlight times were magnificent lower-order batsmen - both averaged 37-38 in their prime-times (Healy for 80-odd Tests, Dujon for 70 or so). And they both played some superb attacks, though Healy probably more of them.

Unfortunate thing for Healy is that he had an utterly awful start to his career with the bat (averaged 18 in his first 48 Tests or something) and Dujon was crap later on so everyone already knew how fantastic he was - Healy was always running uphill.

But both of them you'd be mad to judge them by their overall career-averages.

[Goughy]

Originally Posted by Richard

Haha, feel guilty contradicting you when you've just backed me up but... nah!

Not many of the top WI players went on Rebel tours, either - was mostly frustrated reserves. Most of those out of the top drawer that did go had already had their international careers finish eg Clarke and Kalli.

Thats what I said. They didnt lose players like other teams did in terms of impacting their 1st team.

[Richard]

Ignore the 2nd part of my post... don't know what on Earth I was thinking.

[silentstriker]

Originally Posted by Goughy

Agree with you Richard.

The WI team always had 1 noticably weaker batsman. Also, as good as Dujon was he has been eclipsed probably by Healy and definately by Gilchrist (even as a keeper as I believe Dujon had a bad habit of taking things one handed).

The WI quicks are obviously better through sheer weight of numbers of talented nasty fasties but the inclusion of Warne could be the difference.

From my POV, the Aus team (take your pick) of the recent generation is by far the best I have ever seen. The world has never seen depth of batting talent like it before. Basically the few guys that failed were cast aside rather than brought along as there was always someone of considerable talent to bring in.

They have had few weak links (IMO), set all sorts of records and beat everyone. Its not their fault, but the great WI team never played the 2nd best nation (arguably the best) in the fantastic SA side of the 70s.

Also throughout the late 70s and 80's other teams were hit far harder than WI in terms of player suspensions due to Packer and Rebel tours.

Australia of the current era have dominated like no other, but part of that surely has to be the lack of all time great quicks outside of Australia (since 2001, maybe Pollock, but thats it). The one thing that kind of stops me from endorsing the current Aussie side fully is their defeat in 2005 against a strong pace attack (which was not at the level of the WI attack at its best).

Now, if you take the 'allstars' from both eras...say the best players from 1975-1990 for WI and best players from 1996-2006 from Australia, I'd have to give the nod to the West Indies. Even though everyone knows how highly I rate McGrath, an attack of something like Marshall, Holding, Garner, Ambrose, Walsh, all pretty much at their best (Ambrose/Walsh's prime would be slightly later than 1990 though), would kick the stuffing out of most sides IMO.


Gillespie was a great bowler and an awesome support for McGrath, but you can't really touch the depth of WI. Obviously, they lacked a Shane Warne but I think the difference would be more than compensated by a far superior #2, #3 and #4 quick. Plus, there is some real quality in that line up too regardless of a single link (Viv in his pomp is as good as it gets).

[Richard]

Roberts > Walsh IMO. Quite a bit, in fact.

[Goughy]

Originally Posted by silentstriker

Australia of the current era have dominated like no other, but part of that surely has to be the lack of all time great quicks outside of Australia (since 2001, maybe Pollock, but thats it). The one thing that kind of stops me from endorsing the current Aussie side fully is their defeat in 2005 against a strong pace attack (which was not at the level of the WI attack at its best).

Well that defeat was against a far better attack than what WI faced in their series loss in NZ in 1980 and Australia behaved better as well.

[Goughy]

Originally Posted by silentstriker

Now, if you take the 'allstars' from both eras...say the best players from 1975-1990 for WI and best players from 1996-2006 from Australia, I'd have to give the nod to the West Indies. Even though everyone knows how highly I rate McGrath, an attack of something like Marshall, Holding, Garner, Ambrose, Walsh, all pretty much at their best (Ambrose/Walsh's prime would be slightly later than 1990 though), would kick the stuffing out of most sides IMO.

The careers of the West Indian players you mention span 25 years. Not really one team at all. Not even the same generation.

[Richard]

Agree, Ambrose and Bishop hadn't even started by the time Roberts, Holding and Garner had finished. Too many people try to add them together, TBH. Brilliant as Ambrose, Bishop and, later, Walsh, were, their team wasn't anywhere near as good as Australia have been since about 1999.

[Swervy]

Originally Posted by Richard

Not too sure about that, TBH.

Both in their highlight times were magnificent lower-order batsmen - both averaged 37-38 in their prime-times (Healy for 80-odd Tests, Dujon for 70 or so). And they both played some superb attacks, though Healy probably more of them.

Unfortunate thing for Healy is that he had an utterly awful start to his career with the bat (averaged 18 in his first 48 Tests or something) and Dujon was crap later on so everyone already knew how fantastic he was - Healy was always running uphill.

But both of them you'd be mad to judge them by their overall career-averages.

I'm not judging them by the averages , overall or otherwise, I am judging them by watching both of them play. Dujon was the better bat