Revisiting 80s WI vs 2000s Aus

[subshakerz]

Came across this video as the classic debate is discussed by Bumble and Kimber.

I thought it summarized the key points, WIs pace advantage, Aus batting advantage, WI harder to defeat in a series, Aus have a better winning rate.

The point I want to ask though is which advantage will lead to a series victory, the bowling or batting? Kimber seems to think Aus having more lower order strength is the clincher.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Kimber seems to think Aus having more lower order strength is the clincher.

Is he referring to Gilchrist > Dujon?

Marshall was better than Warne at 8 and is 9-11 important? Aus didn't pick McGrath for his batting

 

[Coronis]

Australia. I think a key part you mentioned there was about WI being “harder to defeat” in a series because they often drew games. I think that speaks volumes tbh, and it could end up something like a 1-0 with 4 drawn games with two well matched teams. Australia have the batting advantage through the top 6, and then you add Gilly. Warne is a huge difference maker here. The Windies obviously have a pace bowling advantage but everything else is in the Aussie’s favour. Australia would be more likely to win imo. Close series though.

 

[subshakerz]

Is he referring to Gilchrist > Dujon?

Marshall was better than Warne at 8 and is 9-11 important? Aus didn't pick McGrath for his batting

Obviously not the tail. Moreso no. 6 and 7 in the WI lineup

 

[subshakerz]

Australia. I think a key part you mentioned there was about WI being “harder to defeat” in a series because they often drew games. I think that speaks volumes tbh, and it could end up something like a 1-0 with 4 drawn games with two well matched teams. Australia have the batting advantage through the top 6, and then you add Gilly. Warne is a huge difference maker here. The Windies obviously have a pace bowling advantage but everything else is in the Aussie’s favour. Australia would be more likely to win imo. Close series though.

Dont think Warne is a difference maker if Aus have Gillespie and Lee and WI have Garner and Walsh as their pace backup. I reckon WI will run roughshod over Aus more often than McWarne do to them. Especially if the venue is 80s WI. It's a tighter contest in 2000s Aus but WI still win 2-1 IMO.

 

[The Sean]

I reckon people have long since decided who would win this contest, based in large part on who they would prefer to win it, and no one is going to change their minds as a result of further discussion.

 

[subshakerz]

I reckon people have long since decided who would win this contest, based in large part on who they would prefer to win it, and no one is going to change their minds as a result of further discussion.

Perhaps. Whom do you favor?

 

[Coronis]

Dont think Warne is a difference maker if Aus have Gillespie and Lee and WI have Garner and Walsh as their pace backup. I reckon WI will run roughshod over Aus more often than McWarne do to them. Especially if the venue is 80s WI. It's a tighter contest in 2000s Aus but WI still win 2-1 IMO.

This kind of tripe is just ignorance I’m no longer going to engage with.

 

[subshakerz]

This kind of tripe is just ignorance I’m no longer going to engage with.

Dude I am not saying Warne is not going to make an impact. He obviously is. I don't see Aus winning a game without him have a key spell in 3rd or 4th innings.

I am saying he alone is not going to be the sole game changing element. That is a reasonable take you can disagree with.

 

[The Sean]

Perhaps. Whom do you favor?

Across two 5-Test series, home and away, I'm predicting it finishes 4-4, with one thrilling down-to-the-last-ball-with-all-results-possible draw, and one tie.

Now if you'll forgive me, this fence I'm sitting on is giving me splinters.

 

[BazBall21]

On dry or dusty wickets it's advantage Australia, but in seam-oriented conditions I would back WI just.

 

[Sliferxxxx]

Great question. I go back and forth. No team is dominating the other. The point about the bowling is wild because the WI started off with the core of Roberts, Holding and Garner. The Malcolm came aboard and later it was Ambrose, Bishop Walsh.

I always like going with two extremes: Australia at home under '00 conditions 5 tests with Brisbane and Perth being bouncy, Sydney spinning and Adelaide and Melbourne more balanced. WI under 80s conditions with Sabina and Kensington taking pace, QPO spin and Bourda and ARG flat. Reckon both team would win at home 2-1.

 

[DrWolverine]

How effective would the four pronged pace attack be with protective equipment and no bouncer rule?

 

[subshakerz]

How effective would the four pronged pace attack be with protective equipment and no bouncer rule?

Kimber points out that if you rewatch the footage, the WI pacers aren't doing bouncer barrages as often as people think, they were just wickettaking effective. They would be the same even with restrictions.

 

[Sliferxxxx]

How effective would the four pronged pace attack be with protective equipment and no bouncer rule?

Love him or hate him but as long as WI had one Curtly Ambrose, even with protective gear, he kept Australia in check. Also, consider the 2005 series in England where Australia's much vaunted batting lineup was more or less nullified by pace.

 

[subshakerz]

Love him or hate him but as long as WI had one Curtly Ambrose, even with protective gear, he kept Australia in check. Also, consider the 2005 series in England where Australia's much vaunted batting lineup was more or less nullified by pace.

Good points. Not all Aussies were settled against pace.

 

[Johan]

How effective would the four pronged pace attack be with protective equipment and no bouncer rule?

not that much, at one point the opposition would just read your movements when you're about to drop a bouncer and start ducking and you'd never gonna get a wicket, as you tire the speed would go down and you'd just give free runs, that was Trueman's reasoning for why short pitched bowling is inferior to full length outswingers and (in his larer years) leg-cutters, and why even though he was express he only bowled short sometimes to catch the Batsman offguard. Lillee mostly agreed.

 

[subshakerz]

not that much, at one point the opposition would just read your movements when you're about to drop a bouncer and start ducking and you'd never gonna get a wicket, as you tire the speed would go down and you'd just give free runs, that was Trueman's reasoning for why short pitched bowling is inferior to full length outswingers and (in his larer years) leg-cutters, and why even though he was express he only bowled short sometimes to catch the Batsman offguard.

Then I guess Marshall isn't really no.1 bowler then.

 

[Johan]

Then I guess Marshall isn't really no.1 bowler then.

Marshall wasn't a shortpitched spammer either, the most successful guy who almost always bowled short would probably be Roberts.

 

[subshakerz]

Marshall wasn't a shortpitched spammer either, the most successful guy who almost always bowled short would probably be Roberts.

You don't need to play Roberts. Neither was Garner or Walsh spammers.

Holding maybe, but you consider him up there as a bowler.