Which team was the greatest

[rivera213]

There's no way to tell for sure until someone invents a time machine which allows these 2 teams to have two 5-test series.

I think that's the strongest argument for a time machine yet, who's with me?! Lol.

I'd plump for these 2 teams in the contest-

Lloyd's WI:
Greenidge
Haynes
Richardson (only 10 tests under Lloyd but who cares)
Kallicharran
Richards
Lloyd (insane he's this low, but what can you do)
Dujon
Marshall
Roberts
Holding
Garner

Waugh's Oz:
Slater
Langer
Ponting
M.Waugh
Martyn
S.Waugh
Gilchrist
Warne
Lee
McGrath
Gillespie

-------------------

I'd say Australia would win their home series 2-1 and West Indies win their home series 3-1, so 4-3 WI total.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

Australian team was better.

Australia had better competition like South Africa, India, etc, and the subcontient teams during the West Indies era were fairly weak compared to nowadays.

They'd probably win if they played in a match aswell, as I don't believe the West Indies attack wouldn't be all that fearsome with the batsman wearing helmets.

 

[Craig]

Australian team was better.

Australia had better competition like South Africa, India, etc, and the subcontient teams during the West Indies era were fairly weak compared to nowadays.

They'd probably win if they played in a match aswell, as I don't believe the West Indies attack wouldn't be all that fearsome with the batsman wearing helmets.

I don't know, wearing helmets and all that, facing bowling around 145-150km/h can't be all that much fun.

 

[bagapath]

guys, you know what i am thinking? in the close to 30 years of cricket watching in my life, i have come across several good teams from india, australia, pakistan, srilanka and england and some excellent ones from pakistan, south africa and australia. only the west indies of the 80s and the aussies of the 00s can truly lay claim to greatness. there is no doubt in my mind that an imaginary series that pits these two champion teams against each other can produce some of the most riveting cricket ever played on this planet. imagine warne vs lloyd and mcgrath vs greenidge or even better, warne and mcgrath vs richards. similar mouth watering contests would be marshall vs gilchrist or holding and garner vs the waugh brothers! we are talking about some of the truly all-time greats here so there is nothing cut and dry as far as i can see. despite my favoring the selection of atleast one spinner in all the imaginary XIs on these forums i have a feeling that marshall-garner-holding + one more great pacer would be as good a bowling unit as any in the history of cricket. that is why i feel WI would be marginally more successful than the aussies. it doesnt mean aussies would be push-overs though.

 

[andyc]

Waugh's Oz:
Slater
Langer
Ponting
M.Waugh
Martyn
S.Waugh
Gilchrist
Warne
Lee
McGrath
Gillespie

Would never, ever have Slater over Hayden. Hayden the infinitely better player for mine. Also, while I don't necessarily expect people to agree with me on this one, I'd prefer Lehmann over Mark Waugh in that line-up. More solid with the bat (IMO), and offers a better bowling option. Lose a bit in the field, but they'll live.

 

[bagapath]

They'd probably win if they played in a match aswell, as I don't believe the West Indies attack wouldn't be all that fearsome with the batsman wearing helmets.

that is not a strong enough argument. everyone in the 80s wore helmets. only viv richards - but he played for west indies - and sunny gavaskar - he is one of the greatest openers ever - didnt need one. all other good, great, mediocre and bad batsmen wore helmets and succumbed to marshall-garner-holding-roberts-patterson-ambrose again and again and again.

 

[jondavluc]

Would never, ever have Slater over Hayden. Hayden the infinitely better player for mine. Also, while I don't necessarily expect people to agree with me on this one, I'd prefer Lehmann over Mark Waugh in that line-up. More solid with the bat (IMO), and offers a better bowling option. Lose a bit in the field, but they'll live.

Another Haydos=Flat track bully Poster Imo.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

that is not a strong enough argument. everyone in the 80s wore helmets. only viv richards - but he played for west indies - and sunny gavaskar - he is one of the greatest openers ever - didnt need one. all other good, great, mediocre and bad batsmen wore helmets and succumbed to marshall-garner-holding-roberts-patterson-ambrose again and again and again.

Yeah, they started wearing helmets after Holding, Garner & Roberts retired in the mid 80s.

 

[rivera213]

Would never, ever have Slater over Hayden. Hayden the infinitely better player for mine. Also, while I don't necessarily expect people to agree with me on this one, I'd prefer Lehmann over Mark Waugh in that line-up. More solid with the bat (IMO), and offers a better bowling option. Lose a bit in the field, but they'll live.

It's no coincedence Hayden's career only took off in the 00's where batting wickets were intentionally prepared across the world. While I don't think he ONLY scored runs on flat tracks, the majority of his runs have come on very batting friendly tracks.

While Slats' averages aren't anywhere near Hayden's, he played in a far tougher era for batsmen, particularly openers and his average doesn't do him justice. He never quite cashed-in on his potential but I still enjoyed watching him bat (well, not in the Ashes! lol).

 

[wfdu_ben91]

It's no coincedence Hayden's career only took off in the 00's where batting wickets were intentionally prepared across the world. While I don't think he ONLY scored runs on flat tracks, the majority of his runs have come on very batting friendly tracks.

While Slats' averages aren't anywhere near Hayden's, he played in a far tougher era for batsmen, particularly openers and his average doesn't do him justice. He never quite cashed-in on his potential but I still enjoyed watching him bat (well, not in the Ashes! lol).

The fact that Hayden's scored the 2nd most runs & centuries in Test Cricket of this decade, completely puts that theory to rest. His arguably the best batsman of this generation after Tendulkar, Lara and Ponting.

Funny, how you said in the other thread that Ponting's success should be discreditted because he had Langer & Hayden as his openers.

 

[bagapath]

Yeah, they started wearing helmets after Holding, Garner & Roberts retired in the mid 80s.

no way, dude. helmets have been regularly in use since '79. everyone, barring the two i mentioned wore helmets almost always in the 80s. i have been watching cricket regularly since '82 and helmets have been a regular feature from my earliest cricket memories. you are welcome to assume anything but if you are trying to present it as a fact then i will have to argue with you. your helmet argument is totally wrong.

 

[andyc]

that is not a strong enough argument. everyone in the 80s wore helmets. only viv richards - but he played for west indies - and sunny gavaskar - he is one of the greatest openers ever - didnt need one. all other good, great, mediocre and bad batsmen wore helmets and succumbed to marshall-garner-holding-roberts-patterson-ambrose again and again and again.

no way, dude. helmets have been regularly in use since '79. everyone, barring the two i mentioned wore helmets almost always in the 80s. i have been watching cricket regularly since '82 and helmets have been a regular feature from my earliest cricket memories. you are welcome to assume anything but if you are trying to present it as a fact then i will have to argue with you. your helmet argument is totally wrong.

Richie Richardson?

 

[morgieb]

Interesting. Pretty much a tie for me.

 

[bagapath]

Richie Richardson?

he started wearing a helmet in the early 90s after playing without one for 6 seasons or so. in fact, steve waugh says it was the first sign of west indies losing its dominance in world cricket.

but only richards and gavaskar (except the ill-advised skull cap for series or two) played throughout their careers without a helmet.

EDIT: since i have written about only the 80s, you are correct. richardson played throughout the decade in his white hat.

 

[silentstriker]

The two final bowlers of the WI are better than Lee and Gillespie. Gilchrist is better than Dujon. I think the batting is a tie.

Bowlers win matches, so I'll give it to WI.

 

[Michaelf7777777]

This might be controversial but here are the head to head comparisions

Hayden vs Greenidge - Hayden
Langer vs Haynes - Even
Ponting vs Richards Richards
M. Waugh vs Richardson Even
S. Waugh vs Lloyd S. Waugh
Hussey vs Gomes Hussey
Gilchrist vs Dujon Gilchrist

Warne vs Roberts Warne
Lee vs Garner Garner
Gillespie vs Holding Holding
McGrath vs Marshall Even

Overall: Aus:5 Win: 3 Even: 3

 

[ret]

This might be controversial but here are the head to head comparisions

Hayden vs Greenidge - Hayden
Langer vs Haynes - Even
Ponting vs Richards Richards
M. Waugh vs Richardson Even
S. Waugh vs Lloyd S. Waugh
Hussey vs Gomes Hussey
Gilchrist vs Dujon Gilchrist

Warne vs Roberts Warne
Lee vs Garner Garner
Gillespie vs Holding Holding
McGrath vs Marshall Even

Overall: Aus:5 Win: 3 Even: 3

that's interesting but what if one made it

Hayden vs Haynes - OZ
Langer vs Greenidige - WI
Ponting vs Richards - WI
M W vs Richardson - E
S W vs Gomes - OZ
Hussey vs Lloyd - WI
Gilly vs Dujon - OZ

Warne vs Marshall - WI
Lee vs Garner - WI
Gillispie vs Holding - WI
McGrath vs Robers - E

now it's 6 WI, 2 E, 3 OZ!!

 

[Pratters]

Windies.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

that's interesting but what if one made it

Hayden vs Haynes - OZ
Langer vs Greenidige - WI
Ponting vs Richards - WI
M W vs Richardson - E
S W vs Gomes - OZ
Hussey vs Lloyd - WI
Gilly vs Dujon - OZ

Warne vs Marshall - WI
Lee vs Garner - WI
Gillispie vs Holding - WI
McGrath vs Robers - E

now it's 6 WI, 2 E, 3 OZ!!

McGrath and Andy Roberts equal? Marshall better then Warne?

 

[Pratters]

Marshall better then Warne?

How is Marshall not better than Warne?