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.