Australia (1995-2007) Vs. West Indies (1974-1986)?

[BlazeDragon]

I have wanted to do this poll for a while now. Which side would you say was the strongest and the most dominant side in the history of cricket?

 

[grecian]

The thing is it all depends what era they're playing in. The West Indies were allowed to get away with terrible over-rates, that helped there policy immensely. Four fast bowlers worked. If it was played in that era Windies would win, IMHO. Yet if it's being played in the last few decades then Oz wouyld win, Warne bowling quick overs would be their advantage,

 

[Debris]

You really need to start the WI after the 75-76 tour of Australia for them to be considered. Even then, I would probably vote Australia as they were good at winning tests whereas the WI were good at not losing them.

 

[smash84]

You really need to start the WI after the 75-76 tour of Australia for them to be considered. Even then, I would probably vote Australia as they were good at winning tests whereas the WI were good at not losing them.

Faster scoring and SR were also a characteristic of the Aussie era and can't really say that WI were not good at winning

 

[hang on]

i'd back the australians in a series of 5 tests at grounds with different conditions. warne and gilchrist will prove to be the difference. and, of course, the relatively 'weak' west indian opening combination.

 

[ankitj]

i'd back the australians in a series of 5 tests at grounds with different conditions. warne and gilchrist will prove to be the difference. and, of course, the relatively 'weak' west indian opening combination.

Not sure on either count. West Indian quicks have good record everywhere including flat Indian tracks. Hayden has gone on record saying that he had no chance against Ambrose (which could be a case of one cricketer paying tribute to another but the actual record also bears that out).

I expect only Ponting and Waugh to stand up and make solid contributions against West Indian pacers, while all of Haynes, Greenidge, Richards, Lloyd would be capable of handling McGrath who would be operating with little help from other pacers considering the level of cricket we are talking about. Warne could decimate West Indies though that's somewhat of an unknown because WI of 80's did not face a spinner of his class.

Overall, I can't pick a winner.

 

[hang on]

I expect only Ponting and Waugh to stand up and make solid contributions against West Indian pacers, while all of Haynes, Greenidge, Richards, Lloyd would be capable of handling McGrath who would be operating with little help from other pacers considering the level of cricket we are talking about.

really? it's not as if ponting and co. haven't played against excellent pacemen including donald, pollock, akram, waqar, ambrose and walsh. and the west indians did have problems against decent spin. hirwani, holland, qadir spring to mind. the australian batting is definitely stronger than that of the west indians. and mcgrath, perhaps more than any other bowler has done well against the best batsmen of his time - lara and tendulkar - and so really don't see anyone apart from richards 'handling' him.

not saying that the australians will rout them but just that the stronger batting would, most probably, prove to be the difference in a 5 test series.

 

[ankitj]

Australian batsmen are pretty good. But they will be facing vastly superior pace attack than what the West Indian counterparts will. So I expect West Indian batsmen to fair better than Australians against the pace bowlers from opposite teams. Warne could make it more even.

 

[abmk]

i'd back the australians in a series of 5 tests at grounds with different conditions. warne and gilchrist will prove to be the difference. and, of course, the relatively 'weak' west indian opening combination.

not sure about the realtively weak WI opening combination part. Not much of a difference b/w greenidge/haynes and hayden/langer vs a quality bowling attack IMO

 

[Debris]

Faster scoring and SR were also a characteristic of the Aussie era and can't really say that WI were not good at winning

Only in comparison to the other side, I should say. The WI are associated with going 28 tests without a loss and the Australian side is remembered for winning 16 tests in a row (twice?).

Faster scoring and SR were probably due in large part to the better batting pitches. Based on the pitches, it would actually make sense for the records to be the other way round. It only makes the feats of these two sides even more admirable.

 

[subshakerz]

I think it would be more accurate to consider WI from 79 onwards as the 4-man pace attack was formed and Australia under Waugh when they reached they're peak as they had different captains before and after.

WI:

Haynes
Greenidge
Richards
Richardson
Logie
Lloyd
Dujon
Marshall
Garner
Holding
Roberts/Croft

Australia:
Hayden
Langer
Ponting
Waugh S
Waugh M
Martyn
Gilchrist
Warne
Gillespie
Lee
McGrath

Would give the victory to WI. They were simply harder to beat (didnt lose a series in 15 years), conquered all conditions (while Waugh's team lost in Sri Lanka and India) and had the greatest bowling attack in cricket history. Would like to point out that Waugh's team started to dominate as the great pacemen of his time (Akram, Younis, Ambrose, Donald) were retired or well past their best. I dont think thats a coincidence.

 

[Howe_zat]

It's odd that people pick "the" West Indies side and then throw together the various best cricketers from across that era. In reality it's often not the best side that actually played.

Mostly this is based around the romanticised view of the 4-man pace attack, and especially with trying to shoehorn Marshall into it. Yes, it was used, but mostly under Lloyd in the late 1970s. This was almost entirely before Marshall established himself in the team - before then the pace attack was Holding, Garner, Roberts and Croft. Marshall actually played a lot more matches with Walsh than with Holding.

When Marshall did play, the vast majority were under Richards and with a 5-man attack. Baptiste, Harper and others were often included as a fifth bowler, and Marshall himself batted at #7 on more than a dozen occasions to accommodate the fifth bowler.

 

[shivfan]

I wouldn't start the West Indies side until after the disastrous tour of Australia in 1975-6, and even then, you have to take out the time when replacement players were picked for the WSC. I would start the voting after the loss in New Zealand (largely thanks to the Kiwi umpires), and say that the WI side went unbeaten until Richie Richardson eventually lost. The pace bowling from that WI side was fast, brutal and unmatched before or since, and players were more scared of playing against them than against any other side before or since. For those reasons, I have the WI side of that era as the best ever....

 

[gvenkat]

I would pick the Aus side for the simple reason they won in India and SL and Virtually Obliterated any side that toured Aus. Except for the Ind-Aus series 2003 Every Series in Aus was plain one-sided and they dominated to the core.

WI of the earlier era did not Play much cricket in India, Pak and SL during that time and even their home series was much closer, Especially the ones involving Pakistan.

 

[TumTum]

Bowling variety and Gilchrist is what tips this in Australia's favor.

 

[subshakerz]

I would pick the Aus side for the simple reason they won in India and SL and Virtually Obliterated any side that toured Aus. Except for the Ind-Aus series 2003 Every Series in Aus was plain one-sided and they dominated to the core.

WI of the earlier era did not Play much cricket in India, Pak and SL during that time and even their home series was much closer, Especially the ones involving Pakistan.

Australia as no.1 team in the world lost to India in 1997 and 2001, and lost to Sri Lanka in 99. They eventually won in 2004 and 2005. Also, nearly lost at home to New Zealand in 2000. When WI became no.1 in 1979, they beat India, Pakistan pretty easily at first try.

 

[Ikki]

Australian batsmen are pretty good. But they will be facing vastly superior pace attack than what the West Indian counterparts will. So I expect West Indian batsmen to fair better than Australians against the pace bowlers from opposite teams. Warne could make it more even.

WI batsmen really didn't face a whole lot of great attacks though. Most of the best bowlers were in their own team.

I agree with Debris in that WI were great at not losing whereas Australia was fantastic at winning. Their win-loss % reflects this quite clearly. I think WI will have the slightly better attack, but I think the batting in Australia makes it up and then some. I think Warne will be key - the WIndies batsmen will simply have never faced a spinner nearly as good as him.

 

[Himannv]

Will give it to West Indies because of the quality of their pace attack. They had some backup quicks who would probably have been permanent fixtures in many of the other teams.

 

[subshakerz]

WI batsmen really didn't face a whole lot of great attacks though. Most of the best bowlers were in their own team.

I agree with Debris in that WI were great at not losing whereas Australia was fantastic at winning. Their win-loss % reflects this quite clearly. I think WI will have the slightly better attack, but I think the batting in Australia makes it up and then some. I think Warne will be key - the WIndies batsmen will simply have never faced a spinner nearly as good as him.

WI from 79 onwards faced Imran/Akram/Qadir, Lillee/Thomson, Hadlee, and peak Botham/Willis/Hendrick, and never lost a series. Earlier they played the famous India spin quartet in 74 and scored well against them. So they had plenty of experience with worldclass bowling attacks.

Don't think Warne will be the big factor he's made out to be, unless its a spinning wicket. Lloyd, Greenidge and Richards were find players of spin.

Australia on the other hand never played anthing like the WI four-man pacers. They at best played against 2 worldclass pacers at one time. Unless you count Ashes 2005, but we saw how well they fared then.

Overall, WI have the bowling edge while Australia have the batting depth with Gilchrist, but bowling wins matches, so the edge to WI.

 

[Debris]

Say Warne would not be a big factor is a big call. I can count on one hand the number of series where he was not. It is a bit like saying Holding or Marshall would not be a big factor.