In the late '90s/early 00s could Australia put out the best 2 XI's in world cricket?

[TheJediBrah]

He is saying the WI A with that attack, will be as good as the real Windies attack of the 90s

sorry I meant 80s, don't know why I said 90s

 

[morgieb]

WI A of the 80s would have had a pretty poor batting line up I would have thought. The bowlers would need to be incredibly special to make up for that.

Batting would probably have Rowe, Kallicharan, Logie, Collis King and I guess Bacchus and Best for the other two spots? Yeah not great, but I think it would've been serviceable.

 

[morgieb]

Would splitting the 80's WIndies in 2 have then as the #1 and #2 slots? Probably only around 84/85 IMO - reckon Australia would've matched them if split (they were clearly the second best team but were very choky) before the Chappell/Marsh/Lillee retirements, and from about 86 onwards the WIndies were nowhere near as good.

 

[honestbharani]

Wait, I thought it was widely accepted that Pak were basically the #2 in the 80s when the Windies reigned supreme?

 

[Bolo.]

Wait, I thought it was widely accepted that Pak were basically the #2 in the 80s when the Windies reigned supreme?

Late 80s. Early 80s about 4 teams were competing for number 2

 

[a massive zebra]

Would splitting the 80's WIndies in 2 have then as the #1 and #2 slots? Probably only around 84/85 IMO - reckon Australia would've matched them if split (they were clearly the second best team but were very choky) before the Chappell/Marsh/Lillee retirements, and from about 86 onwards the WIndies were nowhere near as good.

Lol @ Australia being "clearly the second best team" in the mid 80s.

They lost to New Zealand both home and away in 85/86, lost the Ashes both in England in 85 and at home in 86/87, and failed to beat India at home around the same time. They were whitewashed in Pakistan a couple of years previously and regularly got smashed by the Windies.

One of the weakest Australian sides on record and nowhere near the second best team at the time.

 

[Daemon]

nope. In 96 - 98 period they could not even put out the best xi even. It was either sl xi or saf xi. A combined saf + sl xi of late 90s would be better than any side that australia managed to field.

Openers:
Jayasuriya clearly better than all four aussie openers.

Middle order:
De silva and ranatunga were hot in middle order

spinners:
No contest. Murali way better than warne in odis

fast bowlers:
Only mac grath and lee could boast the quality over vaas in odis.

Keepers:
Healy was a better keeper. Kaluwitharana was a better keeper batsman.


So yes, looking at overall records you may form a best xi, but not two best xis when you have a wc winning side who were beating sides left right and center in late 90s. But if you consider performances of late 90s, sl xi was extremely hot, and it is a joke to suggest aussies had a better 22 players but repeatedly their arses being handed over to them in encounters.

lol

 

[stephen]

Lol @ Australia being "clearly the second best team" in the mid 80s.

They lost to New Zealand both home and away in 85/86, lost the Ashes both in England in 85 and at home in 86/87, and failed to beat India at home around the same time. They were whitewashed in Pakistan a couple of years previously and regularly got smashed by the Windies.

One of the weakest Australian sides on record and nowhere near the second best team at the time.

Though it was poorly worded I think he meant before the retirements of Chappell/Marsh and Lillee.

 

[trundler]

Yeah mid-80s is possibly the weakest era for Australian cricket since the turn of the previous century but in the early 80s they still had a number of decent players. Walters retired in '81, Hughes stepped down in '84, Chappell, Lillee and Marsh all retired in '84.

 

[mr_mister]

Did they ever have a lineup with both Chappells, Hughes, Hookes and Walters? That'd be a decent batting unit

though I guess that equals 5 middle order batsman so likely not. But even 4 of those guys together is super impressive

 

[a massive zebra]

Though it was poorly worded I think he meant before the retirements of Chappell/Marsh and Lillee.

This would indeed make more sense, but it is not really what he said.

 

[trundler]

Did they ever have a lineup with both Chappells, Hughes, Hookes and Walters? That'd be a decent batting unit

though I guess that equals 5 middle order batsman so likely not. But even 4 of those guys together is super impressive

Chappells, Hookes and Walters happened in WSC apparently

 

[morgieb]

Though it was poorly worded I think he meant before the retirements of Chappell/Marsh and Lillee.

Stephen gets it in one. The early 80's Australia (i.e. before the big three retirements) was a genuinely good side if choky. Sorry if it came out the wrong way.

Mid-80's Australia were trash, I certainly wouldn't argue otherwise lol.

 

[quincywagstaff]

Stephen gets it in one. The early 80's Australia (i.e. before the big three retirements) was a genuinely good side if choky. Sorry if it came out the wrong way.

Mid-80's Australia were trash, I certainly wouldn't argue otherwise lol.

I'd classify the early 80s Oz side as generally good side at home and awful away. Two series losses to Pakistan with the 1982 tour especially inept. The 1981 Ashes is an infamous story on its own of throwing away a victory of course. Drawing a series in NZ would be considered an adequate result but nothing more as would be their one-off Test win against a very raw SL lineup.

But the 1980s were largely a wipe out for Australia away from home. Indeed the 1989 Ashes was the first time since 1977 they'd won an away Test series (discounting one-off Tests).

 

[quincywagstaff]

Did they ever have a lineup with both Chappells, Hughes, Hookes and Walters? That'd be a decent batting unit

though I guess that equals 5 middle order batsman so likely not. But even 4 of those guys together is super impressive

I think they would have had 4 of them sans Ian for throne 1977 Ashes and briefly 4 of the 5 sans Walters in 79/80.

In anycase, don't think Hooked really belongs against most of those bats. Largely a disappointment as a Test batsman as his record shows.

 

[ankitj]

I heard the average Sri Lankan club under-13 B-grade player in the 90s was better than Bradman at his best, can confirm?

You are being dismissive here but for 2 years SL was a side possessed in short format. Only SA was a serious contest. Australian test team was much superior to their ODI outfit until their surprise world cup win in 1999. I can tell from memory of the period, Migara is spot on.

 

[mr_mister]

jedi is allowed to be dismissive here. this thread was entirely about tests and Miagra decided to go on a giant rant about SL's ODI strength for seemingly no reason, making himself look like a total fanboy in the process

 

[Bolo.]

I'd classify the early 80s Oz side as generally good side at home and awful away. Two series losses to Pakistan with the 1982 tour especially inept. The 1981 Ashes is an infamous story on its own of throwing away a victory of course. Drawing a series in NZ would be considered an adequate result but nothing more as would be their one-off Test win against a very raw SL lineup.

But the 1980s were largely a wipe out for Australia away from home. Indeed the 1989 Ashes was the first time since 1977 they'd won an away Test series (discounting one-off Tests).

Isnt this a fairly reptitive theme for historical sides who were decent, but not great? Even recent India, who have been great, despite not being peak Aus/WI have followed this pattern.

 

[honestbharani]

You do have to take into account the relative strength of the opposition too, though.

 

[Bolo.]

jedi is allowed to be dismissive here. this thread was entirely about tests and Miagra decided to go on a giant rant about SL's ODI strength for seemingly no reason, making himself look like a total fanboy in the process

I welcome Migaras jingoist opinions. Pretty much everyone on.this forum (myself included) has as massive bias in favour of their home countries, whether though topics of conversation or perpective. IPt is nice to have someone talikng about and sticking up for SL. As great as the Indian fans on CW are (and they really are great, the stars of the site, unlike the rest of the web), I want a different perspective.

Without people like him, this site would basically decend into Aus and India discussion, and it is good to have a different opinion, even if most of us disagree with the nuances