Which team was the greatest

[bagapath]

one strength of the windies teams of the 80s, which aussies under waugh and ponting also possessed, was that their lower order batsmen would hang around with the last remaining star batsman in case the team was in trouble and they would make sure the team reached a safe position. i remember marshall partnering gomes once and holding partnering richards on several occasions. also, lloyd and dujon would always keep the fight going when west indies were five or six wickets down for a low score. if the top order had clicked, though, they would just throw their bats around and have a bit of fun.

the australian teams in discussion were equally dangerous to the opposition when the top order failed on rare occasions because one mr. steve waugh or gilly would bat out of their skin and inspire warne, lee, gillespie and mcgrath to stay with them until the team gathered enough runs to bowl with.

this is probably the mark of a great team - the lower order coming out to support the top order batsmen when the team really needed it. even the pakistani team under imran had the ability to rally around miandad to perform some miraculous escapes making it one of the stronger teams of the west indies era.

between the lloyd/richards and waugh/ponting teams, they match pretty evenly from nos 8 to 11 with marshall and warne being good bowling all-rounders and the rest of the tail possessing the will to battle it out. the key player happens to be gilly who is far superior to dujon (who himself was a pretty handy bat) in taking the game away with the bat in a single session. australia certainly have the edge in having him at no.7

surprisingly neither team needed a world class all-rounder (batting-bowling all rounder) to dominate world cricket. maybe, the role of the all-rounder is blown out of proportion and 4 great/good bowlers is all you need to take 20 wickets and win matches.

 

[aussie]

surprisingly neither team needed a world class all-rounder (batting-bowling all rounder) to dominate world cricket. maybe, the role of the all-rounder is blown out of proportion and 4 great/good bowlers is all you need to take 20 wickets and win matches.

Definately, especially in All-time series discussions. But if you have great all-rounder you might as well pick him. If Miller was playing under Waugh & Sobers in the 80, they definately would have made those sides more lethal.

 

[steve132]

I don't think Marshall was as quick as the others, no.

Marshall was MUCH faster than Garner, at least. At his peak he was the world's fastest bowler.

 

[subshakerz]

Yes, I am suggesting that, and if put in a similar situation as what Australia were in India 2001, the West Indies wouldn't of done any better.

Speculation. You are assuming that since Australia lost in the subcontinent, West Indies would have probably lost. How does that point exactly favor Australia? West Indies under Lloyd eased past their subcontinent opponents (who I could argue were more formidable), Australia under Waugh did not. That is a fact and a diffrerence between the two sides.

None of those batsman faced a spin bowler, the quality of Shane Warne.

And Warne never faced a batting lineup as good as theirs. Again its pure speculation that he would have destroyed them based off a couple of tests in the 80s.

What's to say that the West Indies would've done much better against a stronger Australian batting outfit?

Because Australia would be facing four world class fast bowlers of real pace and quality for the first time. The closest it came to this was in Ashes 2005, and we all saw how well Australia's batting lineup did.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

Speculation. You are assuming that since Australia lost in the subcontinent, West Indies would have probably lost. How does that point exactly favor Australia? West Indies under Lloyd eased past their subcontinent opponents (who I could argue were more formidable), Australia under Waugh did not. That is a fact and a diffrerence between the two sides.

That's because the subcontient teams nowadays are a heck of allot more competitive. Did the West Indies have to face guys as Kumble, Muralitharan, Saqlain, etc? No.

And Warne never faced a batting lineup as good as theirs. Again its pure speculation that he would have destroyed them based off a couple of tests in the 80s.

- Warne has faced batting lineups that are much, much better players of spin then the West Indies. The West Indies never faced a bowler like Warne, so they're going to be the ones who are going to have to adapt, not Warne, because he bowled to better players of spin.

Because Australia would be facing four world class fast bowlers of real pace and quality for the first time. The closest it came to this was in Ashes 2005, and we all saw how well Australia's batting lineup did.

It'd be no different to the West Indies, having to encounter a batting lineup containing 4 or 5 batsman averaging over 50 for the first time.

 

[MrIncredible]

One thing that I've noticed from reading through these posts is that many are assuming that the players in question were at their peak at the same time which very rarely happens in test cricket. If i were to pick a top WI from the 70s/80s era it would be one of 2 teams: Wi in Aust79/80 and India in WI '83:

79/80

Greenidge
Haynes
Richards
Kallicharan
L Rowe
C Lloyd
D Murray
A Roberts
J Garner
M Holding
C Croft

'83

Greenidge
Haynes
Richards
L Gomes
A Logie
C Lloyd
Dujon
Marshall
Roberts
Holding'
Garner

In general i would give the WI team from Australia 79/80 the edge. As for a hypothetical matchup with Waugh's teams I would put peak Aussie strength at around 2001/02 home and away vs RSA:

Hayden
Langer
Ponting
M Waugh
S Waugh
D Martyn
A Gilchrist
Warne
Lee
Gillespie
Mcgrath

In general i would say that definitely Australia has the batting edge especially with Gilchrist coming in at 7. WI from 79 seems to have the bowling edge IMO. Shane Warne may yet prove the difference although WI do have capable players of spin in Viv, Kalli (one of the best ever) and Lloyd. Apart from Langer I dont see too many in the Aussie lineup who would be able to handle high quality pace on bouncy surfaces (ala perth). A series between these 2 teams could go either way in Australia but WI have a distinct advantage playing in home matches. IMo 2-1 either way in Australia and 2-1 or 3-1 in favor of the WI in the WI.

 

[MrIncredible]

That's because the subcontient teams nowadays are a heck of allot more competitive. Did the West Indies have to face guys as Kumble, Muralitharan, Saqlain, etc? No.


- Warne has faced batting lineups that are much, much better players of spin then the West Indies. The West Indies never faced a bowler like Warne, so they're going to be the ones who are going to have to adapt, not Warne, because he bowled to better players of spin.


It'd be no different to the West Indies, having to encounter a batting lineup containing 4 or 5 batsman averaging over 50 for the first time.

None of the Subcontinent teams from Waughs era are a match for Pakistan from the 80s tbh. At various points in the 80s Pakistan could call on the likes of : Qasim, Imran, Qadir, Sarfraz, Miandad, Zaeer Abbas. Later on enter Akram. Had a WI of 80s faced the subcontinent teams as they were during Waughs era, i suspect they would probably draw in India and dominate at home, could go either way in Sri Lanka and dominate at home and win in Pakistan and dominate at home. Not much different from the OZ teams of Waugh's era but i do give the WI a better chance of doin well in India. Essentially when Australia toured India they were bowling 2 bowlers short. After Mcgrath and Gillespie the other 2 Oz bowlers were jus sitting ducks (especially Warne). WI team with Garner, Holding and Roberts (later Marshall) have all proven capable of bowling on ne surface so i could see them being more effective in india.

Ur 2nd point, apart from India none of the teams recently are ne better players of spin than the WI of 79/80 and a guy like Kallicharan is in the Lara class when it comes to playing spin bowling. But i can see Warne havin his days, particularly on a Sydney turner.

 

[morgieb]

Speculation. You are assuming that since Australia lost in the subcontinent, West Indies would have probably lost. How does that point exactly favor Australia? West Indies under Lloyd eased past their subcontinent opponents (who I could argue were more formidable), Australia under Waugh did not. That is a fact and a diffrerence between the two sides.

We beat Pakistan in Pakistan (in Waugh's era) quite convincly. And India weren't that great in the 80's.

And Warne never faced a batting lineup as good as theirs. Again its pure speculation that he would have destroyed them based off a couple of tests in the 80s.

West Indies were pretty **** players of spin, FTR. Allan Border even took 12 wickets against them.

Because Australia would be facing four world class fast bowlers of real pace and quality for the first time. The closest it came to this was in Ashes 2005, and we all saw how well Australia's batting lineup did.

Actually sorta agree.with this, but Steve averaged around 60 in the 90's, where there were heaps of quality seamers.

 

[subshakerz]

We beat Pakistan in Pakistan (in Waugh's era) quite convincly. And India weren't that great in the 80's.

Actually, Australia under Taylor beat Pakistan in Pakistan, not Waugh. I assume we are discussing Australia under Waugh's captaincy. Waugh beat Pakistan in Sharjah in 2002 though, but that was very much a second-rate Pakistan team (Abdul Razzaq batting at No.3, for example).

West Indies were pretty **** players of spin, FTR. Allan Border even took 12 wickets against them.

Kalicharran, Richards, Geenidge and Lloyd were all fine players of spin. Warne may cause problems, but its not like they would fall like a pack of cards, unless its an absolute dustbowl.

Actually sorta agree.with this, but Steve averaged around 60 in the 90's, where there were heaps of quality seamers.

Waugh is definitely best qualified to deal with the four-prong attack, but the others, Ponting aside, may not be.

 

[Sanz]

None of the Subcontinent teams from Waughs era are a match for Pakistan from the 80s tbh. At various points in the 80s Pakistan could call on the likes of : Qasim, Imran, Qadir, Sarfraz, Miandad, Zaeer Abbas. Later on enter Akram. .

I was thinking of the same and infact if we ever had a discussion about the 2nd tier of greatest teams , I would pick Imran's 80s Pakistan team at no. 1 ahead of any other team. Which basically means Imran's 80s team would be my 3rd greatest after WI 70s-80s and Aus1995-2005.

 

[subshakerz]

I was thinking of the same and infact if we ever had a discussion about the 2nd tier of greatest teams , I would pick Imran's 80s Pakistan team at no. 1 ahead of any other team. Which basically means Imran's 80s team would be my 3rd greatest after WI 70s-80s and Aus1995-2005.

I suppose the Invincibles and the Aussie team in the mid-70s under Ian Chappell with Lillee and Thomson in full throttle are good candidates too.

 

[MrIncredible]

As are the South African team that swept Australia right b4 they got banned and the WI of the 60s that had : Hunte, Worrell, Butcher, Sobers, Hall, Griffith , Gilchrist, Gibbs, Kanhai, Nurse. Obviously all these players werent playing at the same time but when they did they were near unbeatable.

 

[aussie]

and the England's team of the 50s. Plus AUS dominance would have to end @ 06/07 and not 2005.

 

[morgieb]

2008 imo.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

Dominance ended when India beat Australia in Perth, 2008 to end the 2nd 16 match winning streak.

 

[wpdavid]

Obv impossible to compare, but if we're talking about all time great sides then Warwick Armstrong's 5-0 side in the early 1920's must have been pretty handy. And iirc he reckoned the Aus side from 20 years previously was superior.

 

[MrIncredible]

Dominance ended when India beat Australia in Perth, 2008 to end the 2nd 16 match winning streak.

I actually agree with u on this one.

 

[subshakerz]

Interesting comments. Perhaps we should start a thread of "Battle of the Teams" or rankings the greatest test sides that have played cricket. Assuming, of course, that it already has not been done...

 

[aussie]

2008 imo.

Dominance ended when India beat Australia in Perth, 2008 to end the 2nd 16 match winning streak.

No fellas, why else do you think the McGrath/Warne or world championship era (which ever one you which to use), is said to have commenced in West Indies 95 & not Ashes 1989?.

From WI 95 & 06/07, AUS were hands down the best conquering everything as its well known. Starting from SRI 07/08 to SA 08/09 (at home), that would be the transition period. Australia win in SA, now starts the Ponting era.

 

[mohammad16]

I dont think statistics should even come into the equation here. The Aussies were pretty intimidating during their period of dominace, but I dont think even they could come anywhere close to striking the amount of fear in opponents as Windies did. This was at both ends too, as dominant as Viv was, I still feel his stats do not do him justice even though they are quite remarkable.

Physically they were imposing, always in attack mode and loaded with abundance of natural talent.

The Aussie team might be able to give them a good fight on selected surfaces, but overall I dont think its even close.