West Indies and Australia - Comparing The Dynasties

[Matt79]

After '89, the only time Australia were beaten convincingly was by West Indies in '91, and even that was closer than the scoreline suggested. They were certainly dominant of all other teams, and the only place they ever struggled until the 2007/08 season was India.

Outside India, they lost one series in Sri Lanka under similar circumstances in '99/00, and the defeat in West Indies in '91 was the only other time apart from the '05 Ashes where they were genuinely outplayed. They lost another series or two, Pakistan in '94/95 and West Indies at home in '92/93, but neither of these losses accurately reflected the cricket played.

So still being convincingly beaten by the then incumbant champs would equal not being the "dominant number 1 team" would it not?

 

[zaremba]

West Indies weren't beaten between '86/87 and '91, no, but a) they could've been very easily and b) they were only good at thrashing the rubbish teams (like England, who were in '88 at their lowest ebb ever, and Australia, who in '88/89 were still exceptionally weak and not yet on the road up in Test matches, which would begin in the '89 Ashes). Against the stronger teams (Pakistan; New Zealand; and India in India) they were no longer capable of winning. Holding and Garner were basically gone after the 1986 Blackwash, and said series marked the high-tide of Caribbean dominance. After that, it was a gradual retreat

Well I'm not going to get sucked into arguing about whether a team who were never beaten in that period were in fact "invincible" - that seems a pretty sterile debate to me.

However since you mention the passing of Holding and Garner, it's worth mentioning that the late 80s West Indian side could choose from Marshall, Ambrose, Walsh and Bishop at or near their awesome peaks. Which is as good a set of fast bowlers as has ever existed. (And there were some handy reserves including Patterson, Gray (for a short time) and a whole heap of others).

And Richards, Richardson, Greenidge, Haynes, Dujon.

 

[zaremba]

I don't think even at the time in 87 anyone thought that winning the WC meant that we were the best team in the world, although it would have been considered that we were the most professional, and hence one of the best ODI teams. It was however taken as a great sign of encouragement that the dark days of 84-86 were ending and that we would be a good cricket team again - that didn't really happen until the 89 Ashes...

I accept all this. I just don't, as a general rule, rate either ODI cricket or cup competitions as measures of who's the best cricket team.

 

[Richard]

So still being convincingly beaten by the then incumbant champs would equal not being the "dominant number 1 team" would it not?

West Indies weren't dominant of other teams around that time though. Between '86/87 and '97/98, West Indies produced only two victories of real note, over Australia in said '91 series and Pakistan in '93, even though they continued (with gradually less assurance) to win the series' you'd expect them to win, against the weaker opposition in World cricket.

Between '86/87 and '96/97, there was no convincing number-one team, never mind a dominant number-one one. Pakistan were as worthy as West Indies for the first, maybe, 3 years of that period and all three series' between them ended tied. And Australia were second-best to West Indies in '91 but they actually did better against other opposition than West Indies did around that time. Australia, for instance, beat Pakistan at home in '89/90, something West Indies couldn't manage in '88.

Starting from 1989, West Indies, Australia and Pakistan were neck-and-neck at the top of the pile, and this lasted maybe 3 years, until 1992/93. I'd say in 1992/93 Australia proved themselves at worst West Indies' equals and probably their superiors. But the first time they showed themselves patently, clearly better than West Indies was in 1996/97, when they frankly thrashed them.

 

[Richard]

Well I'm not going to get sucked into arguing about whether a team who were never beaten in that period were in fact "invincible" - that seems a pretty sterile debate to me.

However since you mention the passing of Holding and Garner, it's worth mentioning that the late 80s West Indian side could choose from Marshall, Ambrose, Walsh and Bishop at or near their awesome peaks. Which is as good a set of fast bowlers as has ever existed. (And there were some handy reserves including Patterson, Gray (for a short time) and a whole heap of others).

And Richards, Richardson, Greenidge, Haynes, Dujon.

I'm not saying for a second that West Indies weren't still a fabulous team in the second half of the 1980s. Just that they were clearly not as good as they had been, as demonstrated by the fact they couldn't beat their nearest challengers any more, and that Pakistan too had a quite fabulous team. So, starting in 1989, did Australia.

Look at the 1989 Australian team. It's not enormously weaker than anything they ever had during their 17-year period of dominance: Marsh, Taylor, Boon, Border, Jones, Stephen Waugh, Healy, Hughes, Lawson, Alderman, Hohns. Only Hohns was really a weak-link there and he was soon replaced by Rackemann anyway.

(Oh, and in case you're wondering about Dean Jones, as I've previously labelled him a dead-Test bully - not in '89 or '89/90 he wasn't)

As for being invincibles - the invincibles title suggests to me that no-one could touch them nor realistically hope to beat them. That was true between '76 and '86, but not between '86/87 and '91.

 

[Matt79]

West Indies weren't dominant of other teams around that time though. Between '86/87 and '97/98, West Indies produced only two victories of real note, over Australia in said '91 series and Pakistan in '93.

Between '86/87 and '96/97, there was no convincing number-one team, never mind a dominant number-one one. Pakistan were as worthy as West Indies for the first, maybe, 3 years of that period and all three series' between them ended tied. And Australia were second-best to West Indies in '91 but they actually did better against other opposition than West Indies did around that time. Australia, for instance, beat Pakistan at home in '89/90, something West Indies couldn't manage in '88.

Starting from 1989, West Indies, Australia and Pakistan were neck-and-neck at the top of the pile, and this lasted maybe 3 years, until 1992/93. I'd say in 1992/93 Australia proved themselves at worst West Indies' equals and probably their superiors. But the first time they showed themselves patently, clearly better than West Indies was in 1996/97, when they frankly thrashed them.

Thank you for agreeing, albeit in unnecessarily convoluted manner, with my contention that Australia was not a dominant number 1 team from 1989... Not sure why the extra half a dozen posts were necessary.

 

[Richard]

Thank you for agreeing, albeit in unnecessarily convoluted manner, with my contention that Australia was not a dominant number 1 team from 1989... Not sure why the extra half a dozen posts were necessary.

The funny thing is, Australia were a dominant team. They just weren't able to beat West Indies, on one occasion. They actually, as I say, dominated all other teams, which the team who beat them in '91 were no longer capable of doing.

It's a far-from-straightforward case, the World Crown in the early-1990s. You can't, in my view, just say West Indies were the best because they beat Australia in '91. Maybe they were, but outside that series, Australia were dominant, and West Indies weren't.

 

[Slifer]

Yeah, nor would Ambrose TBH. Ambrose debuted after and Lara long after West Indies' invincibility was finished.

West Indies' was between '76 and '86; Australia's was between '89 and '06/07. West Indies were more invincible - far more - than Australia were, but Australia kept-up their near-invincibility for quite a bit longer.

(I won't mention the fact that I'd absolutely love to see what West Indies' bowlers and batsmen would do to Hayden, Martyn and Lee, obviously...)

Australia were certainly not invincible between 89 to 06 nor were they the best test team. Circumstances be d***ed, between 1980 til 1995 Wi were the official/unofficial best test team. Australia took up that mantle in 1995 and only just recently lost it. For me the title of Worlds best is not just based on wins and losses. its based on the opinion. Whether the world thinks u are the best and these opinions need to backed up by results. Whether ne one thought it or not, until Wi lost on a consistent basis as they did to Aus in 95 and 96/97 they were still the best. and although Aust had lost b4 only until they were beaten consistently and esp at home did they lose their title as world's best.

 

[Richard]

The idea that West Indies were the best until 1995, or even until '96/97, isn't outrageous. However, nor is that that Australia became the best in about '91 after both Pakistan and West Indies weakened notably. As I say, in my book there was no clear #1 team between 1986/87 and 1996/97.

West Indies, even if they didn't beat Australia (when it was full sides rather than A sides, as in 1978) until 1979/80, were clearly a better team than them from 1976 onwards. An England side which didn't change collossally saw-off Australia (admittedly without Lillee) easily in '77 having been hammered by West Indies in '76. And after their own hammering in Australia in '75/76, West Indies' only series' which they failed to dominate were the ridiculously contentuous one in New Zealand in '79/80 and the 1-1 draw in Australia in '81/82. However, this dominance ceased after the '86 Blackwash and starting in '86/87 they could not win the tougher series even though they continued to beat the weaker sides without difficulty.

In my book, the best team is that which has the best players, pure and simple. There was precious little difference between West Indies and Pakistan for 3-4 years at the end of the 1980s, and there wasn't much if anything in it between West Indies and Australia until '96/97. And this was reflected in results. West Indies beat these sides by genuinely outplaying them once each in the 10 years in question, both at home, Australia in '91 and Pakistan in '93. Otherwise, it was a level playing-field. And both teams went perilously close to beating West Indies, too. Then, in 1995, Australia did. That wasn't convincing either, though, and it was only in '96/97 that they finally showed they were the top side by all available yardsticks.

 

[aussie]

^^
Richard, yo you see that post. Thats what brilliant, 100% perfect summary. You know your cricket maynn, just need to burn your stupid theories on FCA etc etc and you've got it locked down, ya digg