Which team was better? Windies of Early 80s or the current Aussie Team?

[Bapu Rao Swami]

Warne beats Holding hands down any day.....eh? anyone who has seen Holding bowl won't be able to decide that confidently... it can be close and the comparison is a little difficult given that one is a leggie and the other one is a fast bowler, and in my opinion it tilts towards Holding. Warne is great but he has mostly feasted on opposition who are not very adept at playing leg spin.

And I don't think I am in a minority.... it may seem so in a forum full of Aus supporters, though

See all the facts say Australia is better, even stats, even games played against England. Hell even PWC. What you're saying is so hypothetical.

Then why South Africa of 1970's...after Viv in his biography rated that team to be stronger than his.

 

[Bapu Rao Swami]

First of all ODIs have changed a lot in last 15 years and all of you are talking about how Good Australia has become WI of that Era would be no match now, while doing that you are assuming that If that WI team had played today they would still be playing theri 80's brand of ODI. NO, in that case take this Aussie team back in time to 80s and then compare. Waugh of late 90s may better than Lloyd, but Waugh of 80s and early 90s is clearly not better than Lloyd. Ponting may be a force in Tests, but he is no where near Richards when it comes to ODIs. Just look at their scores. Hayden is at his peak and you are saying he is better than Greenidge, Well Not really. I have seen Greenidge bat and he was definately better than Hayden.

As far as being unbeateable is concerned - WI were unbeatable in first 2 world Cups and in 1983 they lost only to India the champs.

Yes but seriously Windies hardly faced any opposition back then.

There was no Waseem, Waqar, Shoaib Akhtar like Pace attack, there was no Warne, no muralitharan, no South Africa . Also the Windies lost 2 times to India in World Cup 83 and not once.

 

[a massive zebra]

See all the facts say Australia is better, even stats, .

Not all the facts. West Indies went 10 years without losing a test series. Australia have never come close to that. And I believe Australia also lose a higher percentage of their Tests than the West Indies did.

even games played against England.

That is quite simply wrong. The West Indies whitewashed England 5-0 twice. Australia have been restricted to winning the ashes 3-2, 3-1 and 4-1 in their years of dominance.

 

[Bapu Rao Swami]

and just because pwc says so hayden isnt better than greenidge.

then what makes you think Greendige was better. just because you say so.

don't you realise your post is so hypothetical.

Well PWC also tells you Dravid was better than Ian Chappell (both were men of crisis)

how would it sound if i said I don't care what pwc says the oppoisiton back then was way better which is why I think Ian was better.

 

[PY]

Comeon man at least lets agree on soething, you don't think Warne is better than Holding, I certainly do. After all that Warne has done like in WC 99...the way I see it Warne is amongst the bets in crunch games and the majority of his wkts are top quality wickets.

I think you'll find that I say in that post that Warne ('edges') is the better player but I don't think it is as clearcut as you make out.

 

[Bapu Rao Swami]

Not all the facts. West Indies went 10 years without losing a test series. Australia have never come close to that. And I believe Australia also lose a higher percentage of their Tests than the West Indies did.



That is quite simply wrong. The West Indies whitewashed England 5-0 twice. Australia have been restricted to winning the ashes 3-2, 3-1 and 4-1 in their years of dominance.

1. Yes but the Windies didn't face so much, didn't face any South Africa at all, no Sri Lanka, no Muralitharan.. do you really expect me to believe they would whitewash SA and SL like Australia did. Moreover they played very few games in that era compared to this day...and teh difference is quite big.

2. West Indies might have whitewashed England 5-0, but then Australia has bin kicking England for the past 8-9 in a row... And I think its clear they have a habit of losing dead rubbers.

 

[tooextracool]

1. Yes but the Windies didn't face so much, didn't face any South Africa at all, no Sri Lanka, no Muralitharan.. do you really expect me to believe they would whitewash SA and SL like Australia did. Moreover they played very few games in that era compared to this day...and teh difference is quite big.

what is so good about this SA team?i dont think they have much of a bowling attack bar pollock and maybe ntini the rest were very ordinary in 2002. the batting too had just kirsten,gibbs and kallis. i dont see anything special in this side that they would have even come close to challenging the WI side of the 80s.
SL is just a one man team really. only sangakkara(and maybe vaas) might stand out as beyond ordinary and even his performances havent been that great.

2. West Indies might have whitewashed England 5-0, but then Australia has bin kicking England for the past 8-9 in a row... And I think its clear they have a habit of losing dead rubbers.

the last one though would have been a lot closer if it werent for the number of injuries.albeit australia would have won but i dont think they would have "kicked" england.

 

[luckyeddie]

1. Yes but the Windies didn't face so much, didn't face any South Africa at all, no Sri Lanka, no Muralitharan.. do you really expect me to believe they would whitewash SA and SL like Australia did. Moreover they played very few games in that era compared to this day...and teh difference is quite big.

2. West Indies might have whitewashed England 5-0, but then Australia has bin kicking England for the past 8-9 in a row... And I think its clear they have a habit of losing dead rubbers.

At the time when the West Indies were panning England, the honme country were giving the Aussies a serious kicking. Now are you suggesting that the Australian side during the 1980's was (perish the thought) rubbish?

 

[a massive zebra]

what is so good about this SA team?i dont think they have much of a bowling attack bar pollock and maybe ntini the rest were very ordinary in 2002. the batting too had just kirsten,gibbs and kallis. i dont see anything special in this side that they would have even come close to challenging the WI side of the 80s..

For once I actually agree with you.

SL is just a one man team really. only sangakkara(and maybe vaas) might stand out as beyond ordinary and even his performances havent been that great.

A bit harsh. They would hardly win a match without Murali but Jayawardene, Jayasuriya, Sangakarra and Vaas are well above ordinary.

 

[Bapu Rao Swami]

what is so good about this SA team?i dont think they have much of a bowling attack bar pollock and maybe ntini the rest were very ordinary in 2002. the batting too had just kirsten,gibbs and kallis. i dont see anything special in this side that they would have even come close to challenging the WI side of the 80s.
SL is just a one man team really. only sangakkara(and maybe vaas) might stand out as beyond ordinary and even his performances havent been that great.



the last one though would have been a lot closer if it werent for the number of injuries.albeit australia would have won but i dont think they would have "kicked" england.

Hello man we're not talking of today, we're talking of Australia in the year 2000.

In the yr 2000, SA was one hell of an outfit, they already have a very high winning percetage at home, teams such SL, Eng, Pak, India, Zim, NZ, WI have not beaten them at home.

In 20002 SA had Donald, FAnie, Pollock, Zulu, Rhodes, Gibbs, Cullinan, Kirsten, Smith etc!!
Same goes for SL, in 2000 they scored 965 runs against India. They DEsilva, Ranatunga, Murali, Jaisurya at his peak etc!!


think about it with a cool mind, South Africa last played in India in 2000 and beat India 2-0 in tests with a one dimensiaonal pace attack, before that when they played in 96, at that time also they whitewashed India.

West Indies did not face any reverse swing, the rules for bowlers were different. I can bet you in todays world Holding wouldn't be that succussful.

Even Nitni finsihed the English last yr. England has long been a spent force.


Take Shaun Pollock, I believe infact his stats and even wpc rates him higher than Holding. I believe Glenn MCgrath was better than that Robertson.

Hwoever I agree that Marshall could have been better but Its to convince someone that MArshall would have finsished 2000's Australia. After all you'll be surprised to hear that Ambrose and Mcgrath are rated higher than him and we've all seen what Steve Waugh did to Ambrose.

+++ take the schedules of today, Australia's playes the game way faster. Hayden has scored handosmely against the likes of Waqar, WAseem, Shoaib and Saqlain in Sharjah 2002 beating Pak 3-0. Even TAylors squad beat Pak 3-0 when he scored 334 not out against the likes of Waqar, Waseem, Saqqy and Aqib Javed in their prime in their home ground.


AND MIND YOU I AM NOT AN AUSTRALIAN FAN.

 

[Sanz]

Yes but seriously Windies hardly faced any opposition back then.

There was no Waseem, Waqar, Shoaib Akhtar like Pace attack, there was no Warne, no muralitharan, no South Africa . Also the Windies lost 2 times to India in World Cup 83 and not once.

I said WI lost only to India (didn't mention no. of times) in 3 World Cups.
Anyways, I guess Lilleees, Thommo, Hadlees, Chappels, Imrans, Kapils, Bothams, Gavaskars, Simposons Borders played in the same era. But my guess could be wrong.

 

[tooextracool]

Hello man we're not talking of today, we're talking of Australia in the year 2000.

no we're talking about 2001-02,australia whitewashed SA in 01-02

In 20002 SA had Donald, FAnie, Pollock, Zulu, Rhodes, Gibbs, Cullinan, Kirsten, Smith etc!!

donald was finished by then,fanie retired in 98,rhodes retired in 2000,cullinan was out of the side,smith wasnt part of that team against aus(or was just making his debut.the rest have been mentioned and dont make a good opposition.

Same goes for SL, in 2000 they scored 965 runs against India. They DEsilva, Ranatunga, Murali, Jaisurya at his peak etc!!.

did australia whitewash SL in 00?in fact if i remember correctly they lost in SL in 99. so there is no point brining up ranatunga,desilvs etc.and IMO jayasuriya never has and never will be anything more than ordinary at the test match level.

West Indies did not face any reverse swing, the rules for bowlers were different. I can bet you in todays world Holding wouldn't be that succussful.

why because he could reverse swing the ball?dont be ridiculous.

i dont know which era you are talking about because you keep bringing up players from every era that played against australia!
[/QUOTE]

 

[Anil]

The West Indies of the 80s were the stronger team in my opinion.

Look at the team as a whole in all three areas:

Batting:

Greenidge, Haynes as openers, Gomes, Richards, Lloyd, Logie, Richardson, Bacchus, Dujohn in the middle and lower middle order at various times

Compare this to Australia: Hayden and Langer as openers, Ponting, Martyn, the Waughs, Gilchrist in the middle order

Hayden probably edges out Greenidge(while Greenidge was a superb batsman, he was ineffective in certain conditions and Hayden has been amazingly consistent over the last 3 years…), only just…while Haynes is a much better player than Langer, when you look at the effectiveness of both combos, I would rate both at about the same level.

Comparing the middle orders of both sides, Richards is the greatest batsman on either side, the combined strength of the Aussie middle order and its slight superiority to the rest of the West Indian middle order will again make it more-or-less even.

Bowling:

Any of the four of Marshall, Roberts, Holding, Garner, Croft, Davis, Bishop…..is a fantastic foursome. While some people have pointed to Warne as proving that there is greater variety for the Aussies, I feel that more than variety, effectiveness is what counts and these West Indian quicks were as effective on the flattest sleepers of India and Pakistan as in swinging, seaming conditions in England and the bouncy pitches of Australia and the West Indies and the dustbowls in the subcontinent. While the Aussie bowlers have been very effective in most conditions, they just haven’t shown that they have the same firepower to blast through the opposition on unhelpful tracks. Moreover, this Aussie attack has two great bowlers(McGrath and Warne), one very good bowler(Gillespie) and one very inconsistent one(Lee), who might be replaced by some average bowlers like Bichel or Bracken which gives some respite to opposition batsmen and allows them to regroup. The West Indian attack on the other hand, was relentless in applying pressure, they never even gave the opposition batsmen time to breathe in their years of dominance and just scythed through lineups innumerable times.

Fielding:

Again, nothing much to separate the two sides, both have been magnificient in ground fielding, catching and throwing.

Overall, the bowling superiority of the West Indians IMO would make them the favourites in any clash of these super teams.

I have heard that the SA team just before it was banned was a fantastic team as well and could give these two teams a run for their money, but the fact that they were not able to demonstrate that over a sufficiently long period of time counts against them.

 

[aussie_beater]

See all the facts say Australia is better, even stats, even games played against England. Hell even PWC. What you're saying is so hypothetical.

Then why South Africa of 1970's...after Viv in his biography rated that team to be stronger than his.

Since when are we comparing the teams based on games played against England. And what stats ? Are you looking at one particular year or the whole decade 80s for the Windies and 90s for Aus or something else ?

If you compare the whole of the 90s results for Aus versus the results of WI in 80s, the winning percentage is higher for the Windies(52 % versus 50 %). Also Aus lost more too. Yes if you add the matches played by Aus in this century to that stats then their winning percentage improves to 57 % overall but then that can be hardly called a slam dunk, like you are making it out to be, and if things like quality of opposition etc. are taken into account things don't seem to be so certain unless you are an Aussie fan

 

[aussie_beater]

Hayden has scored handosmely against the likes of Waqar, WAseem, Shoaib and Saqlain in Sharjah 2002 beating Pak 3-0. Even TAylors squad beat Pak 3-0 when he scored 334 not out against the likes of Waqar, Waseem, Saqqy and Aqib Javed in their prime in their home ground.


AND MIND YOU I AM NOT AN AUSTRALIAN FAN.

Well... you are mixing up too many things together to make your point.

Hayden has never played Wasim in a test match.Wasim did not play in that Colombo/Sharjah series against Aus in 2002.Waqar and Shoaib played but everybody knows what Waqar was like in 2002. Even Inzamman did not play that series.

And Mark Taylor did not score 334 when Pak got beaten 3-0 by Aus. This was in Pakistan in 1998 and Pak lost the series 1-0. In that match where Taylor scored 334, the Pak attack did not have Wasim, Waqar or Saqlain. And Aqib Javed wasn't that great anyway and he didn't play either.

 

[Swervy]

Since when are we comparing the teams based on games played against England. And what stats ? Are you looking at one particular year or the whole decade 80s for the Windies and 90s for Aus or something else ?

If you compare the whole of the 90s results for Aus versus the results of WI in 80s, the winning percentage is higher for the Windies(52 % versus 50 %). Also Aus lost more too. Yes if you add the matches played by Aus in this century to that stats then their winning percentage improves to 57 % overall but then that can be hardly called a slam dunk, like you are making it out to be, and if things like quality of opposition etc. are taken into account things don't seem to be so certain unless you are an Aussie fan

yeah but Australia werent brilliant for the first 3 or 4 years of the 90's.

In the last 10 years Australia have won 63%

 

[Ford_GTHO351]

Test Stats

Hayden - 53 matches, 4771 runs@ 57.48, SR: 63.43
Greenidge - 108 Matches, 7558 runs@ 44.72

Langer - 74 Matches, 5278 runs@ 44.72, SR: 52.68
Haynes - 116 Matches, 7487 runs@ 42.29

Ponting - 78 Matches, 6019 runs@ 54.71, SR: 57.94
Richards - 121 Matches, 8540 runs@ 50.23

M Waugh - 128 Matches, 8029 runs@ 41.81, SR: 52.27
Gomes - 60 Matches, 3171 runs@ 39.63

S Waugh - 168 Matches, 10927 runs@ 51.06, SR: 48.64
Lloyd - 110 Matches, 7515 runs@ 46.67

Martyn - 42 Matches, 2672 runs@ 46.87, SR: 50.55
Logie - 52 Matches, 2470 runs@ 35.79

Gilchrist - 54 Matches, 3370 runs@ 54.35, SR: 82.35, Ct: 206, St: 22
Dujon - 81 matches, 3322 runs@ 31.94, Ct: 267, St: 5

Warne - 110 Matches, 517 wickets@ 25.42, SR: 59.7, Econ: 2.55
Holding - 60 matches, 249 wickets@ 23.68, SR: 50.9, Econ: 2.79

Lee - 37 Matches, 139 Wickets@ 31.66, SR: 53.0, Econ: 3.57
Marshall - 81 matches, 376 wickets@ 20.94, SR: 46.7, Econ: 2.68

Gillespie - 52 Matches, 199 wickets@ 25.56, SR: 53.5, Econ: 2.86
Roberts - 47 Matches, 202 wickets@ 25.61, SR: 55.1, Econ: 2.78

McGrath - 95 Matches, 430 wickets@ 21.71, SR: 52.0, Econ: 2.50
Garner - 58 Matches, 259 wickets@ 20.97, SR: 50.8, Econ: 2.47

Just some stats to ponder over.

 

[luckyeddie]

Very interesting stats - seems to indicate that the Australians could have the edge with the bat whereas the Windies would shade it with the ball.

In short, a good contest (winners to be pasted by the 1970 South Africans)

 

[Neil Pickup]

http://www.cricketworld.com.au/r0024901.htm

Is a 'statistical' comparison of the best sides ever... it's very close.

 

[Ford_GTHO351]

First of all ODIs have changed a lot in last 15 years and all of you are talking about how Good Australia has become WI of that Era would be no match now, while doing that you are assuming that If that WI team had played today they would still be playing theri 80's brand of ODI. NO, in that case take this Aussie team back in time to 80s and then compare. Waugh of late 90s may better than Lloyd, but Waugh of 80s and early 90s is clearly not better than Lloyd. Ponting may be a force in Tests, but he is no where near Richards when it comes to ODIs. Just look at their scores. Hayden is at his peak and you are saying he is better than Greenidge, Well Not really. I have seen Greenidge bat and he was definately better than Hayden.

As far as being unbeateable is concerned - WI were unbeatable in first 2 world Cups and in 1983 they lost only to India the champs.

This Australian ODI side can play a very attacking brand of ODI cricket because they have the allround talent to do so. Richards is the only West Indian who can match this Australian side for Strike Rate, the other West Indies ODI players never scored as quick as this Australian side.

You say Waugh of the 80's and early 90's wasn't as good as Lloyd. You do have to remember that period for Waugh was only the start/middle of his career.

So far Richards is a better ODI batsman than Ponting, I'll agree on that one.