Windies pace quartets overrated?

[Ausage]

I think there is a degree of rose tinted nostalgia, but then again I wasn't exactly around to watch these great players. Nostalgia is a natural phenomenon with human memory, and we'd be silly to think that it didn't occur somewhat in sport.

I think an interesting question is whether we'll have the same degree of reverence for the 1990s-2000s Australian attack in 15 or so years time?

 

[stephen]

A larger point is that once this attack was formed, they were able to win everywhere, even in the sub-continent, which is why they are exceptional in cricket history. Except for the freak loss to New Zealand in 79-80, they were near impossible to beat in a series. Compare that to Australia, who even with Warne and McGrath struggled occasionally in the sub-continent, losing to Pakistan in 94/95, Sri Lanka in 99, and India in 2001.

Interesting that of those three losses, two were when Warne was ridiculously out of form and the other one was from a time before McGrath was the superior quick and opening bowler.

What is telling is that of the series in which a) Warne was in form and b) both Warne and McGrath were playing at or near their peaks (95-07, with the exception of 98-01 for Warne) Australia never lost, home and away. Still, they were supported by lesser bowlers than Garner, Croft, Bishop, Walsh and Holding and Australia's depth was never as good as the WIndies depth.

Still, Australia's dominance of world cricket was on the backs of their strength as a team. They were strong in all three aspects of the game (batting, bowling and fielding). The WIndies period of dominance was on the back of their fast men. Their batting was very good, but without their bowlers they would have been like India today.

To have a dominant team you really are reliant on having a bowling lineup that can dismiss any batsman in the world, while having enough batting to set good enough targets for your bowlers.

I have a feeling that if a team such as England (which has probably 4-5 test class batsmen) had a fast bowling attack such as the WIndies did in the 70s and 80s, they would be the dominant team in world cricket. It's just a real shame that Simon Jones has been injured and Flintoff undisciplined (and injured), because in '05 there were glimpses of possible greatness.

 

[stephen]

I think there is a degree of rose tinted nostalgia, but then again I wasn't exactly around to watch these great players. Nostalgia is a natural phenomenon with human memory, and we'd be silly to think that it didn't occur somewhat in sport.

I think an interesting question is whether we'll have the same degree of reverence for the 1990s-2000s Australian attack in 15 or so years time?

I think the reverance will be for the team as a whole.

The attack was not particularly special in and of itself (two all time greats, one all time very good (Gillespie) and a few average seamers for the most part). The thing which brought Australia to the front was their team as a whole. Even the lesser performers like Langer made significant contributions. When batsmen the quality of Lehman get so few tests you know that you're in a special era.

Rest assured though, we will reminisce about the 0-100 before lunch on the first day and think about how special it was to see such things.

 

[Matt79]

Yeah, was thinking today that probably the only real equivalent to the ridiculous depth of the Windies bowling during their peak was Australia's batting during their reign. Having guys like Lehmann, Martyn, Katich, Hussey, Hodge, Law, Elliott, Bevan, and even Langer and Hayden who missed nearly as many or even more tests than they got to play was amazing. Not to mention Gilly having to wait so long, and Haddin in turn having to wait.

 

[Richard]

I am not sure how you came to that conclusion from my post?

The fact that they won Tests in India and Pakistan would suggest they did not rely on seaming decks. What I said on a fast turning wicket the West Indian team struggled, and their bowling attack also did not seem to know how to slow their pace for the surface. I never watched them play in Pakistan or India during their great run, no paid TV. So maybe SJS or someone who watched them can tell us what they did differently

The fact that they struggled on a whole 2 fast turning decks suggests that they couldn't bowl on them?

(And let's remember BTW that a fast turner is much less common than a slow turner so thus it's only going to be a very occasional handicap even if it is one, which I'm really not sure it is)

 

[Richard]

Still, Australia's dominance of world cricket was on the backs of their strength as a team. They were strong in all three aspects of the game (batting, bowling and fielding). The WIndies period of dominance was on the back of their fast men. Their batting was very good, but without their bowlers they would have been like India today.

I can't see the sense in this post. Australia too would have been like India of recent times without their bowlers. West Indies and Australia both dominated World cricket in their times ('76-'86 and '89-'06/07) due to their outstanding teams. If you'd taken away either the bowling or batting quality from either team you'd have taken away the dominance. Simple as.

 

[Richard]

Yes very similar style of player both Laird and Boon. Tough as nails, built like a beer kegs.

I know many who played with Laird rated some of his innings during WSC as some of the finest displays of opening batting against true world class bowling attacks. Taking on bowlers such as Roberts, Garner, Holding, Khan and Proctor and belting centuries. Fair achievement.

Just never converted across to the test arena. Deserved so much more than a mid 30's average.

Well he was 30 by the time he made his Test debut. Must've been a late developer to have never played Test cricket pre-Packer but still be invited to join Packer's circus.

 

[social]

Peak Warne, McGrath and Gillespie supported by another top bowler (e.g. people forget that early Lee was frighteningly quick and devastating in his first short spell in tests) was a better rounded attack than the anything the Windies put on the paddock

However, all pace or longevity and you cant go past them

 

[Richard]

Lee and Warne were never on peak\plateau (that is, Warne on plateau and Lee on peak) at the same time.

Lee was only ever good in 1999/2000-2000/01 and 2007/08. Warne had retired by the latter, and the former was smack in the middle of his down-phase where he was a very average Test bowler.

The best attack Australia put on the park between 1989 and 2006/07 was McGrath-Gillespie-Kasprowicz-Warne in 2004. All were performing well at the time.

 

[archie mac]

The fact that they struggled on a whole 2 fast turning decks suggests that they couldn't bowl on them?

(And let's remember BTW that a fast turner is much less common than a slow turner so thus it's only going to be a very occasional handicap even if it is one, which I'm really not sure it is)

I only saw them play on two such pitches and they struggled on both, compared to their other efforts in those summers

If you have evidence that they could bowl well on those sort of wickets I would be happy for you to correct me

 

[Richard]

I don't. Nor does anyone else have any evidence that they couldn't. 2 Tests proves nothing - same way 3 Tests doesn't prove Dennis Lillee couldn't bowl in the subcontinent.

 

[archie mac]

I don't. Nor does anyone else have any evidence that they couldn't. 2 Tests proves nothing - same way 3 Tests doesn't prove Dennis Lillee couldn't bowl in the subcontinent.

The difference is that the Windies were at the peak of their powers during both Tests and did not perform on either occasion.

Lillee was just like the rest of the fast bowlers in that series in Pakistan

It should be said that I don't think Lillee was great on fast turners either, but he would slow his pace and bowl cutters. I am sure the Windies could have done that, but they did not. Whether this was arrogance I don't know, but they did not bowl or bat well in those two Tests, nor did they seem to learn anything from the first to the second match

Unless you can make some new points i am finished with this debate

 

[Redbacks]

Jones-Flintoff-Hoggard-Harmison it goes down as a tragedy that this quartet fell apart like a Bangladeshi top order. Had great balance but not the mental toughness/luck.

 

[Noble One]

Jones-Flintoff-Hoggard-Harmison it goes down as a tragedy that this quartet fell apart like a Bangladeshi top order. Had great balance but not the mental toughness/luck.

During the 16 games played together by this combination.

Flintoff - 66 wickets at 23.90
Hoggard - 58 wickets at 27.62
Jones - 54 wickets at 27.87
Harmison - 68 wickets at 28.33

Decent combination that indeed had good balance. Four very contrasting bowlers who added a different style to the attack. Be interested to see how close it matches some of the other great combinations throughout history.

 

[Slifer]

I can't see the sense in this post. Australia too would have been like India of recent times without their bowlers. West Indies and Australia both dominated World cricket in their times ('76-'86 and '89-'06/07) due to their outstanding teams. If you'd taken away either the bowling or batting quality from either team you'd have taken away the dominance. Simple as.

Richard Australia didnot start to "dominate" from 1989 y do u keep posting as much??

 

[Slifer]

Peak Warne, McGrath and Gillespie supported by another top bowler (e.g. people forget that early Lee was frighteningly quick and devastating in his first short spell in tests) was a better rounded attack than the anything the Windies put on the paddock

However, all pace or longevity and you cant go past them

Vs peak Holding, Marshall, Roberts and Garner/Croft/Walsh/Daniel/Clarke

Australia might be better rounded but i seriously doubt they were more effective and intimidating.

 

[Slifer]

The difference is that the Windies were at the peak of their powers during both Tests and did not perform on either occasion.

Lillee was just like the rest of the fast bowlers in that series in Pakistan

It should be said that I don't think Lillee was great on fast turners either, but he would slow his pace and bowl cutters. I am sure the Windies could have done that, but they did not. Whether this was arrogance I don't know, but they did not bowl or bat well in those two Tests, nor did they seem to learn anything from the first to the second match

Unless you can make some new points i am finished with this debate

Exactly what two tests on fast turners are u talking about??

 

[subshakerz]

The difference is that the Windies were at the peak of their powers during both Tests and did not perform on either occasion.

Lillee was just like the rest of the fast bowlers in that series in Pakistan

It should be said that I don't think Lillee was great on fast turners either, but he would slow his pace and bowl cutters. I am sure the Windies could have done that, but they did not. Whether this was arrogance I don't know, but they did not bowl or bat well in those two Tests, nor did they seem to learn anything from the first to the second match

Unless you can make some new points i am finished with this debate

Actually, the second test they lost was in 88-89 in which Border got 11 wickets. It would be incorrect to say the were at their peak, their pace attack consisted of Marshall, a young Ambrose, and Walsh. Ambrose and Walsh did struggle, but Marshall came back with amazing figures of 5 for 29 off 31 overs.

 

[Richard]

Jones-Flintoff-Hoggard-Harmison it goes down as a tragedy that this quartet fell apart like a Bangladeshi top order. Had great balance but not the mental toughness/luck.

Well, one could argue that Jones and Hoggard's no-more-than-relative excellence was unsustainable, and Flintoff's has indeed proven to be.

Harmison, of course, was never very good ITFP.

None of them were ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever going to be as good as Marshall, Holding or Garner.

 

[Richard]

Richard Australia didnot start to "dominate" from 1989 y do u keep posting as much??

They did, though. From 1989 to 2006/07 Australia were virtually never outplayed. Three of the only five times they were came in the subcontinent (India 1997/98 and 2000/01 and Sri Lanka 1999/2000) and the other two in West Indies in 1991 and England in 2005.

Aside from these, they were clearly better than every other team, usually by a large margin, and won almost every series they played in (they were occasionally denied by lost play).