The Great West Indian Team (1976-1995) vs Current Great Australian Side (1995 to Now)

[C_C]

Well the point is, until late 90s ( 99 or so) OZ wernt exactly a dominant team results-wise: they won most but lost some....WI on the other hand were results-wise dominant immediately after the 75 series vs OZ...they didnt lose another till 79/80 and the next one came in 94....

Yes, more series are played today but i dont see how this has an impact in terms of winning/losing a series.....
in terms of unbeaten record, WI went 15 years without a series defeat...OZ have gone just over 4 years so far...

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Well the point is, until late 90s ( 99 or so) OZ wernt exactly a dominant team results-wise: they won most but lost some....WI on the other hand were results-wise dominant immediately after the 75 series vs OZ...they didnt lose another till 79/80 and the next one came in 94....

Yes, more series are played today but i dont see how this has an impact in terms of winning/losing a series.....
in terms of unbeaten record, WI went 15 years without a series defeat...OZ have gone just over 4 years so far...

You keep saying this "one loss" thing in every WI thread even though people constantly point out that it's not true... they also lost to India in the late 70s, 1-0.

Anyway, West Indies were only beaten twice after 75 and Australia have been beaten five times, but as I said more series are played, which is relevant in terms of how likely it is that a team would lose, and all the series lost were in the same conditions. And when I say the West Indies were not immediately dominant, I'm not talking about in terms of results, but in terms of exactly how completely and consistently they dominated the opposition, and the West Indies were not the unchallenged world beating team until the 80s, just like Australia weren't until the 99/00 period, even though neither lost much before that.

For what it's worth, the West Indian record from the 75 series to the 95 series was 36 series played, 25 won, 9 drawn and 2 lost. Australia's since the 92/93 series loss is 42 series played, 31 won, 6 drawn and 5 lost. In the West Indies most dominant period from the 1980 New Zealand loss through to the 95 series their record was 29 series, 20 won, 9 drawn and 0 lost. Australia's in their most dominant period since the 99 Sri Lankan loss is 21 series, 18 won, 2 drawn, 1 lost. Fairly comparable in my view, Australia has a series loss, but the West Indies have 7 more draws.

 

[C_C]

You keep saying this "one loss" thing in every WI thread even though people constantly point out that it's not true... they also lost to India in the late 70s, 1-0.

Okay...fair enough....but i tend to look at that as an 'exceptional case' scenario....because of Packer cricket, it was practically a WI-A team taking up the full strength IND team..

Anyway, West Indies were only beaten twice after 75 and Australia have been beaten five times, but as I said more series are played, which is relevant in terms of how likely it is that a team would lose, and all the series lost were in the same conditions.

I disagree with the idea that if you play more series, you have a higher chance of losing to a certain extent...now that may've been valid if they played significantly less.....something like 40-50% of what they play currently....but the fact is, they played on average 1 3-test sries less per year in the late 70s/80s than today....
So i dont think the # of series would've mattered..if anything, given their dominance later on, its more plausable that they would've had a much bigger dominance period...
The converse is also true....since we play more cricket today, looking victories in terms of matches played can be a bit misleading...since if you achieve a 15 continous test victory in a period of 12 months as opposed to over 2 years, you are going a lot on form than previously.....

Fairly comparable in my view, Australia has a series loss, but the West Indies have 7 more draws.

not really... Draw is better than a loss... besides, WI maintained that statistic over a much larger time frame- over twice the timeframe the OZ have...which in my opinion is significantly harder than just cramming in matches during your team's peak period.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

not really... Draw is better than a loss... besides, WI maintained that statistic over a much larger time frame- over twice the timeframe the OZ have...which in my opinion is significantly harder than just cramming in matches during your team's peak period.

Still, the West Indies clearly drew a lot of series at the time... 9 of 29 is nearly a third. Another interesting stat is that during the 99-2005 period Australia has whitewashed their opponant an astonishing 12 times in 21 series, more than HALF of the time they play, they win every test. This could legitimately go down to 11 out of 20 if you remove the win in the one-off test against Zimbabwe. In the West Indies 29 series in their peak they scored just 3 whitewashes, or 2 if you remove the one off test.

 

[C_C]

True...but i remember a lot more games in the 80s were weather affected draws....perhaps they have better scheduling now ?
either way.... i am talking consistency here.... series win > series drawn> series lost....
so no loss transcript reads a lot better than transcript with a loss on it.
No doubt that it is a great accomplishment...but in my opinion, the Aussies still have ways to go before they match the WI's accomplishments.....
Another thing not to forget was that the level of competition back then was a lot more intense...teams were much closer bunched together and not lacking quality bowlers as they do today...

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

True...but i remember a lot more games in the 80s were weather affected draws....perhaps they have better scheduling now ?

Perhaps, but I think part of it is Australia's fast scoring. There have been many games where Australia have won despite losing a day or even two to rain.

 

[chris.hinton]

west Indies would win this match, i would like it to happen

 

[garage flower]

Yet two of those players showed they were able to and the rest, well, I don't know what else they could do to prove themselves. It's redundant anyway because we'll never know.

Of those listed, I think only Boon would have faced Garner or Roberts and then not with much success.

They probably did ok against late-era Marshall, but might have struggled against Amby and Bish up at the other end.

Either way, I think the current Aussie crop's ability to handle an attack with 3 world class quicks is the real crux of this hypothetical debate.

 

[marc71178]

You keep saying this "one loss" thing in every WI thread even though people constantly point out that it's not true... they also lost to India in the late 70s, 1-0.

And NZ in the same time period

 

[aussie]

aussie

This topic has been done, but my view is that the teams are, in most respects, about equal. It is far too difficult to seperate two great sides who so completely dominated their own eras. It seems to me that the current Australian side have the edge in batting and the West Indian team had the edge in bowling, but it's not much of a gap in either case. And also, the Australian team has yet to finish their period of dominance obviously, so there's still some room to move for them. It will be easier to look back when somebody else has knocked Australia off.

I'll have a go at the best XIs though, from the period of dominance.

West Indies (1976-1995)
Desmond Haynes
Gordon Greenidge
Viv Richards
Brian Lara
Alvin Kallicharan
Clive Lloyd (c)
Jeff Dujon (k)
Malcolm Marshall
Michael Holding
Curtley Ambrose
Joel Garner
12th Man: Richie Richardson


Australia (1995-2005)
Justin Langer
Matthew Hayden
Ricky Ponting
Mark Waugh
Steve Waugh (c)
Damien Martyn
Adam Gilchrist (k)
Shane Warne
Jason Gillespie
Michael Kasprowicz
Glenn McGrath
12th Man: Mark Taylor


Notable that this exact Australian team has actually played together all at once, but it's still really the best team of the dominant period on a player by player basis.

well thats ur view on what the teams would look like, but i still think Lawrence Rowe even though he didn't play has much test has kallicharan would be in my windies XI while that aussie XI never actually played together mate, i think u mixed up kasper with lee anyway i fell David Bonn and Craig McDermott should be their because they played and important part for a while during australia's early years of dominace

 

[age_master]

From an Article in SMH this morning

For the most part, Shepherd believes cricket has improved significantly in his time. He says Viv Richards was the best batsman he saw, Brett Lee the fastest bowler, Shane Warne the best spinner and the current Australian squad superior to the West Indies teams of the 1980s.

 

[aussie]

aussie

From an Article in SMH this morning

For the most part, Shepherd believes cricket has improved significantly in his time. He says Viv Richards was the best batsman he saw, Brett Lee the fastest bowler, Shane Warne the best spinner and the current Australian squad superior to the West Indies teams of the 1980s.

well thats shep's view

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

that aussie XI never actually played together mate

Actually, you're right. I assumed that because McGrath, Gillespie, Kasprowicz and Warne has been used on and off as australia's bowling lineup for several years they all would have played with that top 6, but they didn't. In India in 2001 the exact same team played with Slater in for Martyn though.

And I don't think either Craig McDermott or David Boon are of the standard of the current Australian team. Who would you bring Boon in for? Mark Waugh is the only possible candidate. McDermott is not as good as Kasprowicz.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Either way, I think the current Aussie crop's ability to handle an attack with 3 world class quicks is the real crux of this hypothetical debate.

I think the 2001 team has a fair ability to play pace. Langer, Steve Waugh, Ponting and Martyn have shown their ability against quality pace many times, and Mark Waugh had a fairly good time of it against Ambrose, Walsh and company as well. Only Hayden has not really proven himself against world class pace bowling, and he hasn't struggled against Shoaib, Waqar, Wasim or Donald when he has faced them either..

 

[Scallywag]

Interesting point from Shep, if you compare teams from the seventies/eighties to now which are better.

India- now or then (I would lean towards now)

Australia- I would say now

West Indies- I would say then

Pak- Dont know

England- Dont know

NZ- Dont know

SA- Dont know

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Interesting point from Shep, if you compare teams from the seventies/eighties to now which are better.

India- now or then (I would lean towards now)

Australia- I would say now

West Indies- I would say then

Pak- Dont know

England- Dont know

NZ- Dont know

SA- Dont know

It depends a bit which part of the 70s and 80s you are choosing, but I think England and Pakistan definately had much better sides in that period. South Africa weren't playing then, so obviously they are much better now, and New Zealand weren't a particularly great side then either, but at least they had Hadlee. Sri Lanka are MUCH better now.

So I'd say from that list, four of the teams are better and four aren't.

 

[Scallywag]

It depends a bit which part of the 70s and 80s you are choosing, but I think England and Pakistan definately had much better sides in that period. South Africa weren't playing then, so obviously they are much better now, and New Zealand weren't a particularly great side then either, but at least they had Hadlee. Sri Lanka are MUCH better now.

So I'd say from that list, four of the teams are better and four aren't.

I would be interested to hear from NZ and English fans, Apart from playing Aus both teams have done pretty well lately.

 

[aussie]

aussie

And I don't think either Craig McDermott or David Boon are of the standard of the current Australian team. Who would you bring Boon in for? Mark Waugh is the only possible candidate. McDermott is not as good as Kasprowicz.

well i do have mark their in my best australian XI sice 1995, I do think McDermott and Boon were the standard of some of the current australian team, Boon was as good as any of the batsmen australia have now in the middle order while McDermott while i dont htink looking at his overall career was better than McGrath he is a good a Dizzy, i dont Kasper has been better than him though, but thats ur view mate.

 

[C_C]

actually RSA was excellent during 70s and 80s and if they played i could see them as clearcut #2, like they were to the OZ in early 2000s.....

And depending on which part of the 70s/80s you are talking....for eg,in the 70s , IND had a team comparable to today's ( inferior batting, better bowling)....NZ were most definately superior and so were Pakistan, who were the #2 team back then.
SL was as poor as rebel-inclusive Zimbabwe, OZ were excellent till early 80s and even in their darkest hour they were better than the WI team currently......ENG apart from late 80s when most of their players were 'past it' were definately better.....

Overall, the 80s teams were better than today and provided more of a challenge.... take a look around the players who played....apart from patches, they all had good bowling.....much better than today or for the past 3-4 years.....and had decent batsmen too.....i believe that for most of the 70s and 80s, man for man, most teams were superior than what they are today.

 

[Scallywag]

actually RSA was excellent during 70s and 80s and if they played i could see them as clearcut #2, like they were to the OZ in early 2000s.....

And depending on which part of the 70s/80s you are talking....for eg,in the 70s , IND had a team comparable to today's ( inferior batting, better bowling)....NZ were most definately superior and so were Pakistan, who were the #2 team back then.
SL was as poor as rebel-inclusive Zimbabwe, OZ were excellent till early 80s and even in their darkest hour they were better than the WI team currently......ENG apart from late 80s when most of their players were 'past it' were definately better.....

Overall, the 80s teams were better than today and provided more of a challenge.... take a look around the players who played....apart from patches, they all had good bowling.....much better than today or for the past 3-4 years.....and had decent batsmen too.....i believe that for most of the 70s and 80s, man for man, most teams were superior than what they are today.

I would have thought Gilly, Ponting, Langer Hayden, Warne, McGrath, Gilespie, McGill, Martyn, Waughs, Flintoff, Giles, Vaughan, Strauss, Thorpe, Harmison, Inzi, Akhtar, Afridi, Khan,Yohanna, Razzaq, Murali, Vass, Sangakkara, Atapattu, Jayasuriya, Bond, Oram, Styris, Vettori, Cairns, Mcmillian, Sehwag, Dravid, Tendulkar, Laxman, Kumble, Harby, Lara, Gayle, Sarwan, and the list goes on, would have held their own in the eighties.

Its funny how the batsmen of today wouldent be as good on the pitches of the 80's which must mean the bowlers of today have got it a lot tougher than the bowlers of the eighties so what you lose in the batting would be made up in the bowling. Imagine how good Bond would be on the pitches in the eighties or even Vass, probably the best there is.