WI all time XI vs Aus all time XI

[JBH001]

Thanks.

Miller was certainly a great fast bowler, although at times his back injury limited him - and he did not seem to enjoy bowling anyway. He never carried Australia's bowling attack in the way that Imran (the most similar recent player) did for Pakistan for many years.

I've heard conflicting reports on his batting. On his day he could be as brilliant as any of the bowling all rounders - possibly only Botham could match him. On the other hand, some players from the era felt that he benefited greatly from the fact that for most of the first decade after the war Australia did not face many strong bowling attacks. Certainly he was not especially successful against either the pace of Frank Tyson in 1954-55 or Laker's spin in 1956.

Yeah, my concern is that I dont think Miller good enough with the bat to slot in anywhere above 7, especially against a stellar all-time WI bowling line-up. I think he would be find out and found wanting. Hence, if he were in my side, I would slot him in at 7 as part of a five man bowling attack. But for me, this also means that I think Gregory arguably can contest this spot in the team line-up being also very good with bat and ball. (Although I have not looked into this comparison - it just occurred to me.)

On Miller, to counter the factual statistical argument that JBHOO1 made. One could say that Miller best days as an "all-rounder" where lost to the war. Especially come that great 1953 series onwards, he was 34 then already.

Thats a fair point. It could be the whole chicken and egg thing. Did Miller benefit from the generally poor state of world cricket in the immediate post war years? Or was it simply that his peak co-incided with some poor teams and poor bowlers? Or both? Difficult to say either way, although it should be clear where I stand, but I do think that some of the lustre around Miller is due to his personal impact against the backdrop of a post war Britain marked by privation and austerity.

Edit/ Fair point about Hunte, Richard. Totally forgot about him when I was typing up my XI. He now comes into my XI partnering Greenidge.

 

[stephen]

The whole point of Warne was that he could bowl well on anything. The likes of Brian Lara were of times just so good they could often counter whatever he threw at them. Warne played against West Indies at the height of his powers in 1995, 1996/97 and 2005/06 (the series' in 1992/93 and 1999 are indeed irrelevant as he failed against everyone he faced in that time) and still could not perform with any particular outstandingness. And he was countered easily not just by Lara, but also the likes of Carl Hooper, Jimmy Adams, Keith Arthurton, Junior Murray, Stuart Williams, a way-past-his-best Richie Richardson, Sherwin Campbell, Shivnarine Chanderpaul, Robert Samuels and Courtney Browne. The notion that he'd cause havoc amongst batsmen many light-years superior to that lot (Hunte, Fredericks, Greenidge, Headley, Sobers, Richards, Dujon, Weekes, Walcott, whoever you want to pick) is nothing short of ridiculous.

It's beyond ridiculous, meanwhile, that this myth of every single West Indian batsman in history having a weakness against spin is perpetuated amongst Australians based, pretty much exclusively, on two meaningless dead Tests at The SCG in the 1980s.

Well averaging 27 in two series and under 23 in another is hardly setting the world alight I must admit. However, given the nature of the games, with O'Reilly and Warne to call upon I simply cannot imagine that the Aussie groundsmen would prepare any wickets other than raging turners. I imagine that Australia would try and avoid playing at the WACA at all costs. The Gabba, Sydney and Adelaide oval would be Australia's best grounds, followed by the MCG and then Bellrieve. The WACA game would be a lay down missere for the WIndies.

The Caribbean pitches would be much more of a struggle for the Aussie side (not that the Australian pitches wouldn't be a huge struggle against such a quality team).

 

[stephen]

Incredible that 76 years on from bodyline, it is still the most legendary and discussed tactic.

Keith Miller and Ray Lindwall where blasted in 1951 for a barrage of short deliveries at the West Indians, accused of bodyline tactics. Despite only having two short leg fieldsmen and a long leg for the hook.

Impossible to re-create. Public sentiment is too strong against the tactic.

Not just public sentiment, but the rules of the game are as well.

No more than two fielders behind square on the leg side and no more than two bouncers per over both mean you simply can't bodyline successfully any more.

 

[Richard]

Well averaging 27 in two series and under 23 in another is hardly setting the world alight I must admit. However, given the nature of the games, with O'Reilly and Warne to call upon I simply cannot imagine that the Aussie groundsmen would prepare any wickets other than raging turners. I imagine that Australia would try and avoid playing at the WACA at all costs. The Gabba, Sydney and Adelaide oval would be Australia's best grounds, followed by the MCG and then Bellrieve. The WACA game would be a lay down missere for the WIndies.

The Caribbean pitches would be much more of a struggle for the Aussie side (not that the Australian pitches wouldn't be a huge struggle against such a quality team).

The only ground in Australia that has, historically, been given to raging turners is indeed The SCG. Queen's Park Oval in Trinidad has generally turned more than most others in Australia. The soil type - and the fact that in Australia it's apparently generally seen as bad form to try to deliberately prepare a certain sort of pitch, and is seen as only right to let each ground be as the soil dictates - means it'd be a difficult advantage to manufacture.

All in all, I'd say that if conditions were as history generally produced (in recent times all surfaces around The World have become far more uniform with far less variety), I'd reckon...
West Indies would almost certainly have a big edge at:
The WACA; The 'Gabba; Sabina Park; Kensington Oval (seaming, bouncy, quick decks)
Australia might (and only might) have an edge at:
The SCG; Queen's Park Oval (turners)
West Indies would probably have the edge at:
Bourda; Bellerive Oval; The MCG (the sort of decks which several have probably most aptly described as "slow ****heaps" - ie, slow, low, no real seam, no real turn and where the ability to swing the ball or rip it big, as well as bowl fast and full, comes to the fore)
A foregone draw is almost always overwhelmingly likely at:
Adelaide Oval and The ARG (simply far too flat for such quality batting to ever be remotely likely to be bowled-out once never mind twice)

Warne could possibly cause problems if he bowled at an all-time West Indies XI on a deck akin to The SCG in 1984/85 or 1988/89. But the popular notion amongst Australians - that he would cause havoc to any West Indian batsman, anywhere - is simply utter nonsense.

 

[Migara]

3-2 WI in a five match series IMO.

What do you all think?

I would put it in to a one simple factor. Shane Warne. He'll run circles round the WIndies batsmen who are historically dire against quality spin. And when I see that batting line up, except Lara (who is a brilliant player of spin) and Sobers (fairly good player of spin), others were found wanting when faced with quality spin. If the All time Aussie XI is going to have Warne in it, I would bring in a good spin player like Clive Lloyd or Rohan Kanhai in the middle order. Who ever fast bowler bowls at that line up, is going to find it mighty difficult as a;; these players are superb against pace.

 

[vic_orthdox]

WRT the WI players of spin. Generally, they only have two modes: block or smash, they don't have much respect for it. That means that you do see collapses, and in favourable conditions moreso.

But at times they can look awesome, and demoralise a spinner.

 

[Richard]

Do you really believe that every single West Indian batsman in history has conformed to this type? Because, well... they just haven't.

 

[stephen]

The only ground in Australia that has, historically, been given to raging turners is indeed The SCG. Queen's Park Oval in Trinidad has generally turned more than most others in Australia. The soil type - and the fact that in Australia it's apparently generally seen as bad form to try to deliberately prepare a certain sort of pitch, and is seen as only right to let each ground be as the soil dictates - means it'd be a difficult advantage to manufacture.

All in all, I'd say that if conditions were as history generally produced (in recent times all surfaces around The World have become far more uniform with far less variety), I'd reckon...
West Indies would almost certainly have a big edge at:
The WACA; The 'Gabba; Sabina Park; Kensington Oval (seaming, bouncy, quick decks)
Australia might (and only might) have an edge at:
The SCG; Queen's Park Oval (turners)
West Indies would probably have the edge at:
Bourda; Bellerive Oval; The MCG (the sort of decks which several have probably most aptly described as "slow ****heaps" - ie, slow, low, no real seam, no real turn and where the ability to swing the ball or rip it big, as well as bowl fast and full, comes to the fore)
A foregone draw is almost always overwhelmingly likely at:
Adelaide Oval and The ARG (simply far too flat for such quality batting to ever be remotely likely to be bowled-out once never mind twice)

Warne could possibly cause problems if he bowled at an all-time West Indies XI on a deck akin to The SCG in 1984/85 or 1988/89. But the popular notion amongst Australians - that he would cause havoc to any West Indian batsman, anywhere - is simply utter nonsense.

I am not sure that the WIndies would have an advantage at the Gabba. It is Warne's favourite ground to bowl on. The Adelaide Oval would almost certainly result in a draw, barring some last day Warne heroics. The WACA is really the only ground where the WIndies would have a clear, huge advantage. I can imagine the scorelines... WI 210 Aus 170 WI 156 Aus 33...

 

[Richard]

Warne may have prevailed plenty at The 'Gabba, but I don't see him outbowling West Indies' seam attack on it if type is conformed to - ie, bouncy, green seamer.

In recent times of course the place has not always produced such a deck.

 

[stephen]

Warne may have prevailed plenty at The 'Gabba, but I don't see him outbowling West Indies' seam attack on it if type is conformed to - ie, bouncy, green seamer.

In recent times of course the place has not always produced such a deck.

Well it's been a good pitch recently rather than a juicy pitch. Still, Warne liked it because he valued the bounce he could extract.

You cannot forget that Australia would be playing (at the very minimum) McGrath and Lillee on the same deck (and Miller and Davidson too probably) who would enjoy the wonderful conditions.

The WACA is a different matter alltogether. This deck favours the taller, bouncier bowlers and Warne never did very well on it. It would suit your Ambrose, Garner and McGrath types, giving slightly less assistance to Marshall and Lillee type bowlers (shorter).

The lack of a Great spinner is the weakness of the WIndies team, and that would possibly show in the forth innings. Still, against this Australian team I imagine that nearly all of the battles would be close fought and awesome to watch.

 

[ret]

I have gone for an alternative approach to selecting the sides. I have selected a statistics based team based on Australia v West Indies contests.

Player must have played in more than 10 test matches. Sorted by average, the two best openers, four best middle order bats, best wicketkeeper, and four best bowlers. Very crude selection method, but has resulted in two undisputably worthy teams.

you have to realize though that all time 11 were not because of performances against each other but for performances against all teams, world over and against the best sides of their times .... If you are selecting your teams based on WI vs OZ contests then chances are that some of the players would have performed against relatively weak sides!

 

[Matt79]

Actually, anyone is free to use whatever criteria they want, so long as they explain what they are. Doesn't mean that their team will be "better" or "worse" than teams chosen with different criteria, but given they're all hypothetical, such concepts are pretty rhetorical.

 

[Matt79]

Well it's been a good pitch recently rather than a juicy pitch. Still, Warne liked it because he valued the bounce he could extract.

You cannot forget that Australia would be playing (at the very minimum) McGrath and Lillee on the same deck (and Miller and Davidson too probably) who would enjoy the wonderful conditions.

The WACA is a different matter alltogether. This deck favours the taller, bouncier bowlers and Warne never did very well on it. It would suit your Ambrose, Garner and McGrath types, giving slightly less assistance to Marshall and Lillee type bowlers (shorter).

The lack of a Great spinner is the weakness of the WIndies team, and that would possibly show in the forth innings. Still, against this Australian team I imagine that nearly all of the battles would be close fought and awesome to watch.

Think Lillee did pretty well at the WACA actually...

 

[sammy2]

Only a world all time 11 Vs WI all time elevent could give WI strong fight. Aussies alone cannot do it.

 

[Matt79]

ROW XI vs WI XI would smash them to tiny pieces. WI would be lucky to win a match in five.

Seriously a team of:
Hobbs
Hutton/Gavaskar
Bradman
Tendulkar
Hammond
Gilchrist
Imran
Hadlee
Wasim
Murali/Warne
Lillee/McGrath

WIs would be weaker in every aspect of the team.

 

[Noble One]

you have to realize though that all time 11 were not because of performances against each other but for performances against all teams, world over and against the best sides of their times .... If you are selecting your teams based on WI vs OZ contests then chances are that some of the players would have performed against relatively weak sides!

I thought I explained myself quite well. Never suggested these two where the strongest sides available. Just statistically a solid two XI's if this hypothetical series was to ever take place.

I found it very interesting that the ending statistical XI's ended up relatively similar to the All Time Greatest XI.

Only a world all time 11 Vs WI all time elevent could give WI strong fight. Aussies alone cannot do it.

Despite this entire thread suggesting that both teams all time XI's are relatively even? Dependent on pitch conditions, could be the clinching factor on which team would win.

 

[jondavluc]

only a world all time 11 vs wi all time elevent could give wi strong fight. Aussies alone cannot do it.

 

[Burgey]

Only a world all time 11 Vs WI all time elevent could give WI strong fight. Aussies alone cannot do it.

Anyone got a needle and thread? I've gotta sew my sides back together.

 

[sammy2]

ROW XI vs WI XI would smash them to tiny pieces. WI would be lucky to win a match in five.

Seriously a team of:
Hobbs
Hutton/Gavaskar
Bradman
Tendulkar
Hammond
Gilchrist
Imran
Hadlee
Wasim
Murali/Warne
Lillee/McGrath

WIs would be weaker in every aspect of the team.

I love it, no player (batsman) again during the period inwhich windies ruled.
Wasim, hadlee, lillee, mcgrath aren't greater than the WI bowling line up you fool, and that line up could not dominate the windies batting line up.

I knew it. You clearly have no damn clue how magnificent the great windies team was - putting lara, sobers and ambrose in the mix only make it stronger.

 

[Richard]

ROW XI vs WI XI would smash them to tiny pieces. WI would be lucky to win a match in five.

Seriously a team of:
Hobbs
Hutton/Gavaskar
Bradman
Tendulkar
Hammond
Gilchrist
Imran
Hadlee
Wasim
Murali/Warne
Lillee/McGrath

WIs would be weaker in every aspect of the team.

Why, oh why, does anyone bother...