Evening - and a fantastic Christmas to all of you.
I was watching highlights of the 'Gooch 154' test the other day and this question occurred to me as one worth exploring.
The fact is that the West Indies went unbeaten in overall Test series between 1980 (I should look it up but was that the infamous New Zealand series?) and 1995 when Australia decisively toppled them as the number one side in the world. Even as a teenager there was a mixed feeling of shock that it had actually happened and that it had been coming for at least a good couple of years. Australia had been one scoring shot from taking an unassailable 2-0 lead in the 1992-93 series and there was a sense that the West Indies weren't quite the 'almost unbeatable' force that they were - simultaneously there was a sense that the hard work of the Border years had laid a platform for Australia to take over as 'the team' at the top of international cricket.
In the broad sense there are two teams which make up the West Indies era of dominance, with players like Viv Richards and Gordon Greenidge transcending the two. The 1980s saw the likes of Andy Roberts, Michael Holding and Joel Garner retire but Ambrose, Walsh, Patterson etc emerge neatly to replace them. Viv Richards replaces Clive Lloyd as captain and the likes of Richie Richardson come into the void to continue the seamless transition. An often unsung hero of that era was Jeff Dujon, a great keeper to all that FAST bowling while also averaging more than 30 with the bat and concealing this team's one obvious weakness - a tendency towards bowlers who offered very little with the bat (Marshall excepted) and a long tail.
My recap of the 1991 series, which ended in a 2-2 draw against an England team in transition, made me realise that this was probably the first time it would have been apparent that this West Indies dominance was just starting to wobble slightly. They'd had a scare when England had toured in 1990, but from what I can remember and have seen there seems to have been an 'out of sorts' narrative attached to that lucky escape rather than a 'declining team' narrative - and they had ultimately pulled matches four and five out of the bag to sneak it 2-1. My reason for focusing on 1991 is probably part personal bias (the first series I can remember following really closely) and also the sense that West Indies weren't quite producing the players to field a frightening XI anymore (Phil Simmons and Gus Logie, while decent, weren't up to the level of those they replaced - and I remember the selection of Ian Allen for one of the test matches, who was clearly inferior to the great fast bowlers who'd preceded him, although Ian Bishop was probably a 'trick answer' to this question - arguably the great 'lost' West Indies fast bowler who could have made all the difference.
The years between 1991 and 1995 saw the emergence of Brian Lara (who'd been on that 1991 tour as a teenager) and the unbeaten record just about stayed intact despite a couple of serious wobbles (the 1992-93 series in Australia being the obvious one). The likes of Jimmy Adams, Keith Arthurton and the Benjamins came through, all good international players but carrying neither the elite levels of performance nor the fear factor that both the parts and sum of the parts had across the two great West Indian eras (starting in the second half of the 1970s and continuing until around 1991). They also developed a serious 'opening bat' problem once Gordon Greenidge retired and there was a sense that they could be got at. There was a similar problem in the department of wicketkeeper as Dujon proved to be an exceptional talent who was almost impossible to replace. Nothing 'wrong' with Junior Murray or David Williams but they just weren't on the same level.
Apologies to anyone who didn't find that interesting but I'd appreciate the thoughts of anyone who did. Many Thanks.
I was watching highlights of the 'Gooch 154' test the other day and this question occurred to me as one worth exploring.
The fact is that the West Indies went unbeaten in overall Test series between 1980 (I should look it up but was that the infamous New Zealand series?) and 1995 when Australia decisively toppled them as the number one side in the world. Even as a teenager there was a mixed feeling of shock that it had actually happened and that it had been coming for at least a good couple of years. Australia had been one scoring shot from taking an unassailable 2-0 lead in the 1992-93 series and there was a sense that the West Indies weren't quite the 'almost unbeatable' force that they were - simultaneously there was a sense that the hard work of the Border years had laid a platform for Australia to take over as 'the team' at the top of international cricket.
In the broad sense there are two teams which make up the West Indies era of dominance, with players like Viv Richards and Gordon Greenidge transcending the two. The 1980s saw the likes of Andy Roberts, Michael Holding and Joel Garner retire but Ambrose, Walsh, Patterson etc emerge neatly to replace them. Viv Richards replaces Clive Lloyd as captain and the likes of Richie Richardson come into the void to continue the seamless transition. An often unsung hero of that era was Jeff Dujon, a great keeper to all that FAST bowling while also averaging more than 30 with the bat and concealing this team's one obvious weakness - a tendency towards bowlers who offered very little with the bat (Marshall excepted) and a long tail.
My recap of the 1991 series, which ended in a 2-2 draw against an England team in transition, made me realise that this was probably the first time it would have been apparent that this West Indies dominance was just starting to wobble slightly. They'd had a scare when England had toured in 1990, but from what I can remember and have seen there seems to have been an 'out of sorts' narrative attached to that lucky escape rather than a 'declining team' narrative - and they had ultimately pulled matches four and five out of the bag to sneak it 2-1. My reason for focusing on 1991 is probably part personal bias (the first series I can remember following really closely) and also the sense that West Indies weren't quite producing the players to field a frightening XI anymore (Phil Simmons and Gus Logie, while decent, weren't up to the level of those they replaced - and I remember the selection of Ian Allen for one of the test matches, who was clearly inferior to the great fast bowlers who'd preceded him, although Ian Bishop was probably a 'trick answer' to this question - arguably the great 'lost' West Indies fast bowler who could have made all the difference.
The years between 1991 and 1995 saw the emergence of Brian Lara (who'd been on that 1991 tour as a teenager) and the unbeaten record just about stayed intact despite a couple of serious wobbles (the 1992-93 series in Australia being the obvious one). The likes of Jimmy Adams, Keith Arthurton and the Benjamins came through, all good international players but carrying neither the elite levels of performance nor the fear factor that both the parts and sum of the parts had across the two great West Indian eras (starting in the second half of the 1970s and continuing until around 1991). They also developed a serious 'opening bat' problem once Gordon Greenidge retired and there was a sense that they could be got at. There was a similar problem in the department of wicketkeeper as Dujon proved to be an exceptional talent who was almost impossible to replace. Nothing 'wrong' with Junior Murray or David Williams but they just weren't on the same level.
Apologies to anyone who didn't find that interesting but I'd appreciate the thoughts of anyone who did. Many Thanks.
