Revisiting 80s WI vs 2000s Aus

[Sliferxxxx]

WI 84:
Haynes
Greenidge
Viv
Richardson
Lloyd
Golmes
Dujon
Marshall
Holding
Garner
Walsh

Aus 2001:
Hayden
Langer
Ponting
Mark Waugh
Steve Waugh
Martyn
Gilly
Warne
Lee
Gillespie
McGrath

I prefer the WI team that won in Australia in 1979:

Haynes
Greenidge
Viv
Lloyd*
Kallicharan
Rowe
Murray+
Roberts
Holding
Garner
Croft

 

[Sliferxxxx]

70s WI teams had a significantly weaker fast bowling lineup than Aus 0f 2000s. It was very late 70s and early to mid 80s they had Marshall, Garner and Holding in peak. Then Marshall waned, Ambrose and Walsh took on. So it is a very limited time where three pacemen of great quality played for them. During that time most of their batting greats other than Viv was on wane. Australia where McGrath and Warne had a single decade long plateau of excellence and a batting lineup at their peak. If you pick WI team from mid 70s to 90 and Aussie team mid 90s to 2005, Australian team had way more peak performers than WI, if you examine the team at random time stamps. But then if you want to compare peak teams, that is a different kettle of fish.

I would not count on that. Murali absolutely destroyed WI in the 1997 tour and spun it square on the so called "graveyard of spinners". IIRC he took 5/34 in no time.

Obviously I rate later WI teams better in playing spin. Especially the trio of any three of Lara, Sarwan, Chanders and Hooper. Even then, the rest were utterly horrible against spin.

Murali took a 5 for vs Sherwin Campbell, Stuart Williams, Floyd Reifer, Roland Holder, Lara and Hooper. Hooper who at the time averaged in the low 30s. Lol lol

 

[capt_Luffy]

I prefer the WI team that won in Australia in 1979:

Haynes
Greenidge
Victoria
Lloyd*
Kallicharan
Rowe
Murray+
Roberts
Holding
Garner
Croft

She played cricket!???

 

[Sliferxxxx]

She played cricket!???

Stupid auto correct...lol

 

[Migara]

Late 70s WI had: Roberts, Holding, Garner and any of Croft/Clarke/Daniels. And several played played enough tests together all in relatively good form.

Hooper , Chanderpaul, and Sarwan better players of spin than Kallicharan or Lloyd? No. And you have yet to address Warne's middling record vs contemporary WI teams he faced. You go on and on about how WI struggled vs Qadir (huge exaggeration) but won't address how Warne was far from great vs his WI teams.

You are evading the fact. When WI had good bowling, their batting was not the best. When their batting was at peak, bowling was not. Roberts, Holding and Garner are great, but none of them are close to McGrath. Only Marshall is comparable to him. And when Marshall peaks, the batting has waned. Australia has no such problem. For decade their batsmen and bowlers equally kept their form going.

Hooper, Sarwan or Chanders may be inferior to Lloyd and Kallicharran, but Lara is clearly better. So the argument of late 90s WI was not good against spin is moot.

 

[Sliferxxxx]

You are evading the fact. When WI had good bowling, their batting was not the best. When their batting was at peak, bowling was not. Roberts, Holding and Garner are great, but none of them are close to McGrath. Only Marshall is comparable to him. And when Marshall peaks, the batting has waned. Australia has no such problem. For decade their batsmen and bowlers equally kept their form going.

Hooper, Sarwan or Chanders may be inferior to Lloyd and Kallicharran, but Lara is clearly better. So the argument of late 90s WI was not good against spin is moot.

What? The argument,if you were paying attention, is that you say WI of the 80s struggled with Qadir (not true but whatever). I said fine, but also consider that Warne himself was less than stellar vs the WI of his time. Matter of fact, Warne only had ONE what I would call great series vs WI.

Dont even know why I'm arguing with the person who said Dev was a better playing of spin than any West Indian from the late 70s/80s.

 

[subshakerz]

When WI had good bowling, their batting was not the best.

When Viv was at his peak and with Lloyd, Haynes and Greenidge and Kalicharran in good form, you had a pace quartet of Croft, Garner and Holding in top form.

 

[Coronis]

She played cricket!???

Vivianne*

 

[Migara]

When Viv was at his peak and with Lloyd, Haynes and Greenidge and Kalicharran in good form, you had a pace quartet of Croft, Garner and Holding in top form.

Put that against McGrath, Gillespie, Lee and Warne. I would say pretty equal in quality.

Greenidge did pretty horribly against Pakistan, especially in Pakistani soil. He was frequently done by Imran, Wasim, Waqar and Qadir. All of them pitch the ball up, swing it, or spin it. cf, refer to Australian attack. Lloyd was quality and was as good as Viv. Kallicharran had issues with moving ball. And once again refer to the Aussie bowling attack, what they are doing. It's one thing racking it against weaker attacks where you have a very good lone pacer or a spinner, where people good against one or other can make runs. But when ATG pacer and a ATG spinner combines, only best batsmen will be able to score. Other than for Viv, Lloyd and Richardson, I don't see others racking up daddy centuries one after another against that Australian bowling lineup. It would be a cruel exposure of their techniques against one or other type of bowling.

 

[subshakerz]

Put that against McGrath, Gillespie, Lee and Warne. I would say pretty equal in quality.

No bro. The WI attack is far better. Brett Lee is a total weak link and Gillespie isn't the same level as any WI pacer. And Warne is not the same force at home in the 2000s.

 

[govinda indian fan]

I prefer the WI team that won in Australia in 1979:

Haynes
Greenidge
Viv
Lloyd*
Kallicharan
Rowe
Murray+
Roberts
Holding
Garner
Croft

If am not wrong haynes debuted in 1980 na

 

[subshakerz]

If am not wrong haynes debuted in 1980 na

78

 

[subshakerz]

Folks here are deluding themselves if they think Aus have a big advantage if they play at home in the 2000s.

Australias entire game plan was based on batting the opposition out of the game. That won't work against a strong WI lineup that will consistently put up 350/400 totals. Please keep in mind every other side were somewhat competitive with the bat in Aus that decade, it's their bowlers who failed.

The only bowler who was consistently worldclass in that time was McGrath. Lee sprayed it, Gillespie was okay and Warne only averaged sub 25 in two series in that decade against mediocre NZ and WI.

Whereas WI have exactly the find of attack with Holding and Garner and perhaps Marshall that can succeed on Aussie flat tracks.

WI will win two games based on their pace attack blasting out the Aussies in decisive spells and sustained pressures. Two games, likely in Adelaide and Brisbane, will be high scoring draws and one game will be won by the Aussies with McWarne clicking together.

If the series is in the WIs in the 80s it's even worse since Australia won't be able to score enough for scoreboard pressure and WIs win that 3-1 or 3-2.

 

[The Sean]

I reckon it would surprise some people to find out that that West Indies win rate in Test cricket in the 1980s was 52%. Now, to pre-empt the obvious response they of course lost very, very few matches in that time - with a lot of draws in their results.

I just think it's a bit of a stretch casually claiming how they'd blow the 2000s Australia team away when they only did that to their own contemporary opposition half the time.

 

[subshakerz]

I reckon it would surprise some people to find out that that West Indies win rate in Test cricket in the 1980s was 52%. Now, to pre-empt the obvious response they of course lost very, very few matches in that time - with a lot of draws in their results.

I just think it's a bit of a stretch casually claiming how they'd blow the 2000s Australia team away when they only did that to their own contemporary opposition half the time.

I suggest WI beat Australia 2-1 in Aus in a 5 test series. I don't think that is blowing them away.

 

[Coronis]

I reckon it would surprise some people to find out that that West Indies win rate in Test cricket in the 1980s was 52%. Now, to pre-empt the obvious response they of course lost very, very few matches in that time - with a lot of draws in their results.

I just think it's a bit of a stretch casually claiming how they'd blow the 2000s Australia team away when they only did that to their own contemporary opposition half the time.

iirc the loss rates of the two teams were quite similar but Australia won a lot more matches.

 

[subshakerz]

iirc the loss rates of the two teams were quite similar but Australia won a lot more matches.

Which periods are you looking?

I think from 79 to 85 under Lloyd captaincy they lost only three games.

Whereas under Waugh 99 to 2003/4 they lost at least more than double that.

WI lost the NZ 79/80 series and drew the 81/82 Aus series. Australia drew in WI 99, lost in SL 99, lost in India 2001 and drew against NZ in 2000 and India 2003.

 

[Coronis]

Which periods are you looking?

I think from 79 to 85 under Lloyd captaincy they lost only three games.

Whereas under Waugh they lost at least more than double that.

WI lost the NZ 79/80.series and drew the 82 Aus series. Australia drew in WI 99, lost in SL 99, lost in India 2001 and drew against NZ in 2000 and India 2003.

I’m just vaguely recalling. Obviously the specifics will change with various time periods

 

[subshakerz]

I’m just vaguely recalling. Obviously the specifics will change with various time periods

Yeah you can argue the flip side of Aus winning more was being more vulnerable to losses.

Waugh strangely enough was supposed to end dead rubber tests losses but suffered his own.

 

[Coronis]

Well since its 80’s Windies and 00’s Aus I’ll check them. tbf and to keep it a similar time period I’ll go with when Garner/Holding retired and when Warne/McGrath retired.

Windies

31-5-25

Percentage wise
50.82-8.20-40.98

6.2 w/l rate

Australia

64-10-11

Percentage wise
75.29-11.76-12.94

6.4 w/l rate

(if you include the rest of the 80’s their win % goes up a couple points and so does their loss %)