Their bowling is notably poorer.
Lol I might be the few ones who thinks his batting advantage can be offset with better bowlers.
Use Johnston not Johnson, and it is no longer much poorer than others.
Then it's an easier choice.
Yeah, and Johnston was in the core not Johnson, who was more easily replaceable with McCool (better player, made 5 teams ahead in Aus XIs) and for a few games Iverson (better bowler on quality, 2 teams).
I think the Invincibles in particular were better though. They in general are rated lower for longevity
The Invincibles had three sub 23 bowlers, world class spin options and clearly superior batting, they'd win.
I think WI bowling is notably superior
the actual output difference of the notably superior bowling would be peanuts in comparison to the different in batting output. Plus Invincibles have more variety, West Indies often struggled as for slow dead wickets their spin options were Clyde Butts and Viv Richards, Australia can have Johnston and Johnson bowl top level spin.
Not sure about that the quartet were proven on a variety of surfaces.
Lindwall, Miller and Johnston emulate three pacers of sub 23 average, which is what Walsh, Holding and Marshall are. The latter's advantage is there and clear but it's marginal, and then Invincibles have a huge advantage in spin variety and batting.
Ok.
