C_C said:
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.