Which team was the greatest

[Goughy]

I think I said on here before that I rank the great Aus team as better that the great WI team.

Obviously both teams were brilliant but it is based on

- I think Australia have fewer holes and more rounded. A more complete and stronger team. Also the WI have great depth in fast bowling but Aus match that in batting.

- Aus have set some amazing records (consecutive wins etc) that are amazing. WI have record too but that Aus team seemed to be breaking a record every week.

- From the early 80s to the end of the decade, the World outside WI and Aus produced only one or two real quicks and there were few quality spinners.

- The other big reason for me is the way the game was played. Australia played aggressive risk taking cricket which led to occassional losses but a winning %age that the world has never seen before. WI played a very negative fashion by controling over rates and keeping scoring opportunities to a minimum by bowling where batsmen couldnt hit the ball. WI won many games and destroyed people but they drew a very high number as well.

- Aus had to play more cricket against more countries, including SA (who WI never played through no fault of their own but it is still an asterisk)

- Also it would have been difficult for WI to have replicated what they did if umpires would have enforced the rules and the spirit of the game. WI (in their golden period) got away with murder. Both individual moments and continuous strategy.

So basically I think the AUs team looks better as a whole and it won more of its games.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

It's a shame that there isn't readily available footage of Richards taking Lillee, Thomson, Holding, Roberts etc to the cleaners during the Packer years. While some people's belittling of Hayden is absurd, it's equally absurd to suggest he's superior to Barry Richards.

Hardly absurd. Shame there isn't footage of Hayden dismantling McGrath & Warne in domestic cricket for years on end or when he decimated Wasim, Waqar & Shoaib in Sharjah.

 

[bagapath]

but ben, have you seen the 1980 footage with batsmen wearing helmets while facing the pace battery? hope that changes your opinion on the "helmet years".

 

[wfdu_ben91]

but ben, have you seen the 1980 footage with batsmen wearing helmets while facing the pace battery? hope that changes your opinion on the "helmet years".

Some players wore helmets but most didn't, it gradually increased over time. Ricky Ponting didn't use a helmet against pace bowlers when he first came onto the International scene and he was facing South Africa. Even so, during the 1980's they were very poor compared to nowadays and batsman weren't used to them.

 

[bagapath]

Some players wore helmets but most didn't, it gradually increased over time. Ricky Ponting didn't use a helmet against pace bowlers when he first came onto the International scene and he was facing South Africa. Even so, during the 1980's they were very poor compared to nowadays and batsman weren't used to them.

not true ben. and definitely no one played the west indies without helmet like you claim. so your idea that current players would play windies pace battery more easily because of helmets it totally, completely wrong. the west indian pace bowlers listed in this thread achieved their greatest successes against batsmen who batted with helmets. it is a fact.

 

[bagapath]

No match for Marshall? It could go either way, but it's definately a close comparison. Mohammad Yousuf has a much better average then Sir Viv Richards, does that make him better?

i love shane warne but he cannot match marshall's consistency around the globe. anywhere anytime marshall is more likely to cause more damage to the opposition than shane warne. we have seen warne being taken to cleaners by the indians in india as well as in australia. it never happened for the barbadian in his long career. marshall's worst record against any team in any country is his record in new zealand. even there, an average of 32 for 9 wickets in one series looks mediocre for his lofty standards but still doesnt look as bad as warne's record in india or in west indies. let us not bring warne down by inviting a comparison with malcolm marshall. both are all-time legends. just that macko is better.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

not true ben. and definitely no one played the west indies without helmet like you claim. so your idea that current players would play windies pace battery more easily because of helmets it totally, completely wrong. the west indian pace bowlers listed in this thread achieved their greatest successes against batsmen who batted with helmets. it is a fact.

The difference is that modern day players grew up with helmets, players in the 1980s didn't, hence why not everyone started using them straight away. Helmets wouldn't of caused certainty in the batsman's mind straight away when they were first brought in and batsman still would've been tentitive when coming onto the front foot, not knowing what could happen. Modern day players rock onto the front foot with ease and confidence and know their capabilities far better then what the 80s batsman did, when wearing helmets. Being the head area and all, helmets would've been a big change, affecting their concentration and taking time to get used to.

 

[Pratters]

No match for Marshall? It could go either way, but it's definately a close comparison. Mohammad Yousuf has a much better average then Sir Viv Richards, does that make him better?

Average taken in context and when it is 2-4 digit points more where average and higher where S/R is concerned, you know Marshall is better. The context has to be taken into account and Marshall performed at top calibre. It doesn't go either way. It is a closed, shut case where I am concerned. You are free to disagree.

 

[Pratters]

I'd rate them equal, although a quality spinner is more valuable then a quality seamer.

You are only saying this because you are Australian. Going by your logic, would you agree that Murali is more valuable than McGrath?

 

[Goughy]

The difference is that modern day players grew up with helmets, players in the 1980s didn't, hence why not everyone started using them straight away. Helmets wouldn't of caused certainty in the batsman's mind straight away when they were first brought in and batsman still would've been tentitive when coming onto the front foot, not knowing what could happen. Modern day players rock onto the front foot with ease and confidence and know their capabilities far better then what the 80s batsman did, when wearing helmets. Being the head area and all, helmets would've been a big change, affecting their concentration and taking time to get used to.

Seperate to his argument about individuals which I dont want to get drawn into , that is a good point on its own.

Players that grow up wearing helmets as a regulation piece of kit bat differently to those that wear a helmet later in life as a piece of protective equipment.

Their developmental years were in different environments and the skill sets evolved differently.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

You are only saying this because you are Australian. Going by your logic, would you agree that Murali is more valuable than McGrath?

Hmmm, that would be a tough one. 50/50, but probably Murali.

 

[bagapath]

The difference is that modern day players grew up with helmets, players in the 1980s didn't, hence why not everyone started using them straight away. Helmets wouldn't of caused certainty in the batsman's mind straight away when they were first brought in and batsman still would've been tentitive when coming onto the front foot, not knowing what could happen.

this is just your assumption, ben. the truth is contrary to your theory. players did not, i repeat, did not, wait until 1987 - as you've claimed - to start using helmets regularly. so instead of trying to explain why people did not use helmets in the 80s (which is not true) try and prove first that helmets were not in regular use till 87 since that is your original point. only if that is true then i would be interested in an explanation as to why they didn't use them. otherwise, this explanation of yours is of no use.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

this is just your assumption, ben. the truth is contrary to your theory. players did not, i repeat, did not, wait until 1987 - as you've claimed - to start using helmets regularly. so instead of trying to explain why people did not use helmets in the 80s (which is not true) try and prove first that helmets were not in regular use till 87 since that is your original point. only if that is true then i would be interested in an explanation as to why they didn't use them. otherwise, this explanation of yours is of no use.

In most insistances, players didn't use helmets though. It's only when they really needed to, that they wore helmets and it was a defensive plot to protect them from getting hit in the head. I've seen enough replay matches of the 1980s to realize this, because I've seen batsman with helmets on look tentitive from those replays. Nowadays, players use helmets regulary but even up until the mid 1990's, some batsman didn't use helmets on a regular basis against pacemen.

In the modern era, because batsman always use helmets, they are more flamboyant in their strokeplay and instead of being on the backfoot, batsman are confident enough to utilize and even walk at bowlers, something that batsman with helmets in the 1980s were too scared to do, because they only used helmets as a defensive option. A no-name like Mal Loye used to get down on one-knee and slog-sweep Brett Lee and Shane Bond for 6, when they were bowling 150kph... how come batsman weren't able to pull of shots like that 30 years ago? I'll tell ya, why... because they never used helmets to enough to be able practice and execute cricketing strokes like that, they were limited to convenational cricket shots.

 

[bagapath]

In most insistances, players didn't use helmets though. It's only when they really needed to, that they wore helmets and it was a defensive plot to protect them from getting hit in the head. I've seen enough replay matches of the 1980s to realize this, because I've seen batsman with helmets on look tentitive from those replays. Nowadays, players use helmets regulary but even up until the mid 1990's, some batsman didn't use helmets on a regular basis against pacemen.

well, i followed cricket regularly in 80s and my knowledge is not based on replays or highlights. i know what happened. no one was tentative with helmets or with footwork. so please kill that notion.

if someone slog sweeps lee or bond doesn't mean players have learnt new aggressive techniques to counter attack pace. have you seen botham swatting lillee in the 81 series? there is nothing's new under the sun.

while a lee or bond or akhthar getting hit is not strange (all of them have an ER of over 3) i dont see it happening to mcgrath or pollock, players of lesser pace and but with better accuracy. the holdings, garners and marshalls were not mindless fast bowlers and you can say they were the mcgraths bowling a good 10km faster on average. helmet or no helmet, a batsman attempting such silly shots against fast, accurate bowlers of that caliber is more likely to result in broken bones and bruised ego than a boundary.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

well, i followed cricket regularly in 80s and my knowledge is not based on replays or highlights. i know what happened. no one was tentative with helmets or with footwork. so please kill that notion.

if someone slog sweeps lee or bond doesn't mean players have learnt new aggressive techniques to counter attack pace. have you seen botham swatting lillee in the 81 series? there is nothing's new under the sun.

while a lee or bond or akhthar getting hit is not strange (all of them have an ER of over 3) i dont see it happening to mcgrath or pollock, players of lesser pace and but with better accuracy. the holdings, garners and marshalls were not mindless fast bowlers and you can say they were the mcgraths bowling a good 10km faster on average. helmet or no helmet, a batsman attempting such silly shots against fast, accurate bowlers of that caliber is more likely to result in broken bones and bruised ego than a boundary.

You followed cricket regulary in the 1980s, but that was almost 30 years ago, surely your memory has got to be jaded, just a little bit. I've seen enough to form an opinion, there were allot of good cricketers surrounded by allot of mediocre players. Footwork wasn't great and batsman weren't anywhere near as technically sound as modern-day batsman. Pitches were actually quite similar and bowlers generally got batsman out, but it was more of a cause of the batsman being tentitive then the bowler then the bowler bowling a great delievery, whereas a more positive batsman would most likely be more successful. You're just to stubborn to admit it, because that's the era you grew up in.

 

[bagapath]

You followed cricket regulary in the 1980s, but that was almost 30 years ago, surely your memory has got to be jaded, just a little bit. I've seen enough to form an opinion, there were allot of good cricketers surrounded by allot of mediocre players. Footwork wasn't great and batsman weren't anywhere near as technically sound as modern-day batsman. Pitches were actually quite similar and bowlers generally got batsman out, but it was more of a cause of the batsman being tentitive then the bowler then the bowler bowling a great delievery, whereas a more positive batsman would most likely be more successful. You're just to stubborn to admit it, because that's the era you grew up in.

no, ben. my memory is as fresh as ever. after all, i am only 34 and that is no ripe old age. the fact is, you are forming your opinion on precious little you have seen and trying to pass it off as fact. i cant allow that because you are building too many cases on faulty assumptions. also, i will not allow you to sidetrack this argument into comparing footwork of batsmen from different eras. now, unless you prove to me that helmets were not used regularly till 1987 like you claimed i reject all your arguments categorically.

 

[Goughy]

You followed cricket regulary in the 1980s, but that was almost 30 years ago, surely your memory has got to be jaded, just a little bit. I've seen enough to form an opinion, there were allot of good cricketers surrounded by allot of mediocre players. Footwork wasn't great and batsman weren't anywhere near as technically sound as modern-day batsman. Pitches were actually quite similar and bowlers generally got batsman out, but it was more of a cause of the batsman being tentitive then the bowler then the bowler bowling a great delievery, whereas a more positive batsman would most likely be more successful. You're just to stubborn to admit it, because that's the era you grew up in.

I go from agreeing with you to completely disagreeing

Techniques have changed a little. Guys that learned their cricket in the 70s and before (including guys that were playing Test cricket in the 80s) had sightly different footwork. Some may say better footwork. They watched the ball and adjusted later. They often played the ball later. That is a result of the swinging ball, learning the game without helmets and no restrictions on bouncers. A case could be made that there was more craft and skill then.

Modern batsmen may look to have better footwork as they move earlier and get into position earlier but that gives little opportunity to adapt. Players today are far more leaden footed as they commit earlier.

I dont think it is better or worse, just different and the emphasis is on a different set of priorities.

It is no coincidence that batsmen get hit now far more frequently than before. Their techniques dont require that they watch the ball or play the ball late.

 

[subshakerz]

None of those bowlers were spinners though, were they?

You are missing the point. You are suggesting that Waugh's Australia faced superior opposition in the subcontinent, yet you neglect to mention that they lost to that opposition as well. Lloyd's team had no such problems, they beat both Pakistan and India handily.

Allan Border ripped through the West Indies batting lineup, just imagine how much Warne would torment them.

Based on his performances against the West Indies in the 90s, even when he was fit, it's hard to see him 'tormenting' the far superior Lloyd's side of the 80s, unless the wicket is turning square like it was in the Border example.

But nevertheless, Bond and Akhtar were as good as any bowler that's ever lived when they were at their best and they probably would've ended up as alltime greats had one been more fortunate with injuries and the other been more motivated and would've been held in higher esteem then any West Indies bowler, barring Ambrose or Marshall, had they lived up to their full potential.

Well, I find it at least debatable to say that Bond/Akthar were better than Roberts, Croft, Holding or Garner at their best. Assuming they were in the same ballpark, can you imagine an Aussie side facing four bowlers of such quality, given that a single Akthar or Bond pose such problems?

 

[subshakerz]

I think I said on here before that I rank the great Aus team as better that the great WI team.

Obviously both teams were brilliant but it is based on

- I think Australia have fewer holes and more rounded. A more complete and stronger team. Also the WI have great depth in fast bowling but Aus match that in batting.

Bowling wins test matches, not batting. The difference between their bowling quality is greater than their batting lineups.

- Aus have set some amazing records (consecutive wins etc) that are amazing. WI have record too but that Aus team seemed to be breaking a record every week.

How about the record of not losing a series for 15 years? Australia can't even come close to that.

- From the early 80s to the end of the decade, the World outside WI and Aus produced only one or two real quicks and there were few quality spinners.

WI faced Aus, didn't they? So WI faced Imran, Hadlee, Willis, Thomson, Lillee, and Kapil in their prime. Wasim/Waqar/Ambrose/Donald/Walsh all were at the fag end of their careers when Waugh led Australia, leaving only the erratic Shoaib and Bond, as well as Pollock.

- The other big reason for me is the way the game was played. Australia played aggressive risk taking cricket which led to occassional losses but a winning %age that the world has never seen before. WI played a very negative fashion by controling over rates and keeping scoring opportunities to a minimum by bowling where batsmen couldnt hit the ball. WI won many games and destroyed people but they drew a very high number as well.

I really don't think Waugh's Aus played in a better spirit of the game than Lloyd's. And it doesn't matter, because in the end it will be Lloyd's team who will take the honors anyways.

 

[Burgey]

I go from agreeing with you to completely disagreeing

Techniques have changed a little. Guys that learned their cricket in the 70s and before (including guys that were playing Test cricket in the 80s) had sightly different footwork. Some may say better footwork. They watched the ball and adjusted later. They often played the ball later. That is a result of the swinging ball, learning the game without helmets and no restrictions on bouncers. A case could be made that there was more craft and skill then.

Modern batsmen may look to have better footwork as they move earlier and get into position earlier but that gives little opportunity to adapt. Players today are far more leaden footed as they commit earlier.

I dont think it is better or worse, just different and the emphasis is on a different set of priorities.

It is no coincidence that batsmen get hit now far more frequently than before. Their techniques dont require that they watch the ball or play the ball late.

Kev nails it imo. Players today, generally having exceptional hand-eye co-ordination just like their predecessors, pick up the line very quickly but with the general paucity of movement, they often are caught playing the first line and commiting too soon when the ball does move about. In this they're a product of their times, just as those of earlier eras may be considered generally more circumspect.