Revisiting 80s WI vs 2000s Aus

[Migara]

Imran had a better ER than Hadlee and Marshall. He was very accurate, I don't know where there is an impression he was loose somehow.

He used to bowl some wild deliveries. Some of them batsmen were not interested. I have seen him bowl. He is is somewhere between Ambrose and Colin Croft. He was no way a metronome as McGrath, Hadlee or Asif.

 

[subshakerz]

He used to bowl some wild deliveries. Some of them batsmen were not interested. I have seen him bowl. He is is somewhere between Ambrose and Colin Croft. He was no way a metronome as McGrath, Hadlee or Asif.

Yeah he wasn't a metronome but didn't spray it like Waqar.

 

[Migara]

that's fine, 86 was played on such landmines, they'd have beaten Australia too

It didn't take an elite side to match WI, as long as they had the necessary attack. Australia has that attack, plus batting.

 

[Migara]

Yeah he wasn't a metronome but didn't spray it like Waqar.

Waqar was the cricketing version of Peter North

 

[subshakerz]

It didn't take an elite side to match WI, as long as they had the necessary attack. Australia has that attack, plus batting.

Yet WI didn't lose for 15 years. Aus lost to SL, India and Eng in their peak.

 

[Johan]

It didn't take an elite side to match WI, as long as they had the necessary attack. Australia has that attack, plus batting.

it took literal landmine wickets, Australia doesn't have those.

 

[Sliferxxxx]

It didn't take an elite side to match WI, as long as they had the necessary attack. Australia has that attack, plus batting.

And an average wi, nz, and Indian side drew with Australia. An average SL, Indian, and English sides beat Australia. The Eng loss is most telling because that attack almost completely nullified Australia's vaunted batting including Ponting and Adam Gilchrist. Now imagine what a much better wi batting and bowling would do, plus players who could actually play spin.

 

[subshakerz]

it took literal landmine wickets, Australia doesn't have those.

Worth mentioning that during Australias reign from 99 to 2007, Warne averaged over 30 at home. Folks always forget that.

 

[Coronis]

Worth mentioning that during Australias reign from 99 to 2007, Warne averaged over 30 at home. Folks always forget that.

Worth mentioning other spinners averaged 40.

 

[subshakerz]

Worth mentioning other spinners averaged 40.

Those poor WI spinners.

 

[subshakerz]

Worth mentioning other spinners averaged 40.

Why do you think Warne averaged over 30 yet McGrath in the early 20s?

 

[Migara]

Yet WI didn't lose for 15 years. Aus lost to SL, India and Eng in their peak.

May be, they were better than Pakistan of 80s

 

[subshakerz]

May be, they were better than Pakistan of 80s

Ok but WI were better than any team Aus faced.

 

[Migara]

And an average wi, nz, and Indian side drew with Australia. An average SL, Indian, and English sides beat Australia. The Eng loss is most telling because that attack almost completely nullified Australia's vaunted batting including Ponting and Adam Gilchrist. Now imagine what a much better wi batting and bowling would do, plus players who could actually play spin.

Australia played Wasim and Waqar very well. Shoaib was taken to task. Now are you saying Wasim, Waqar and Shoaib are no way comparable to Marshall, Patterson and Walsh or Marshall, Holding and Garner?

 

[Migara]

Ok but WI were better than any team Aus faced.

Sure, I am not saying Aus will win every time. Just that they had the type of bowlers that WI hated most. They would enjoy Lillee and Thompson more than McGrath and Warne.

 

[Migara]

And an average wi, nz, and Indian side drew with Australia. An average SL, Indian, and English sides beat Australia. The Eng loss is most telling because that attack almost completely nullified Australia's vaunted batting including Ponting and Adam Gilchrist. Now imagine what a much better wi batting and bowling would do, plus players who could actually play spin.

Confirms my argument. As long as there is bowling that suits the opposition the sides are competitive.

 

[Sliferxxxx]

Australia played Wasim and Waqar very well. Shoaib was taken to task. Now are you saying Wasim, Waqar and Shoaib are no way comparable to Marshall, Patterson and Walsh or Marshall, Holding and Garner?

Shoaib, Waqar and Wasim in Australia do not compare to Garner, Marshall and especially Holding. And I'm pretty sure the WI trio played more games together with each in reasonable form together.

Plus WI batting was better than all teams Australia faced with the exception of India, and we saw how India gave Australia just as many headaches as Pakistan did to WI. Key difference being, WI never actually lost to Pakistan where as Australia lost to India in 98, '01 and drew at home in 2003/4.

 

[Sliferxxxx]

Confirms my argument. As long as there is bowling that suits the opposition the sides are competitive.

I already stated each team would win by a single test at home vs the other. In Australia I'd expect Australia to win 2-1 and I'd expect the WI to do the same in the WI. So overall 3-3. Neither team is dominating or white washing the other. That's utter bs if anyone thinks that. No team came remotely close to white washing either team.

 

[Johan]

Waqar by 1999 was pathetic, Wasim's diabetes had crippled him, who the **** called Shoaib to a discussion among the great Windies pacers lmao

 

[BazBall21]

I think WI's attack is too good for Australia to capitalise on any batting advantage they might have.