• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

WI of the 80's or Australia Current?

age_master

Hall of Fame Member
went through the stats quickly, the first thing you notice is the clear difference, WI clearly better with the ball and Australia clearly with the bat. Viv Richards was the only Wi batsman to average over 50 which surprised me. while AUstralia has Hayden, Ponting, S Waugh, Clarke and Gilly - with Martyn also well ahead of the rest of the WI batsman at 48.65.

Bowling wise WI had Marshall, Garner and Ambrose all under 21, with Holding, Walsh and Roberts in the mid 20's. Australia have McGrath at 21.4, Warne and Gillespie in the mid 20's and the rest higher 20's and low 30's.

the main 2 differences for me which give Australia the advantage are Gilchrist and Warne. the windies lack the any real spin options, Hooper nearly averaged 50 with the ball. this is a huge advantage particularly in the 2nd innnigs. Gilchrist is very special, averages extreamley high and the onr of the fastest scorers in test cricket history - can change the game so so quickly.


anyways what do others think.
 

sir middle stump

School Boy/Girl Captain
Not many people averaged above 50 with the bat in the 80s because of some good bowling and better pitches. Pitches nowadays are overwhelmingly in favour of batsmen.


IMO the WI pace battery would have blown away the current Aussie batting line up more often than not.
 

C_C

International Captain
Ambrose ?
that was in a latter stage.
Most WI fans agree that WI zenith was in the early 80s, when their four prong consisted of Roberts-Marshall-Garner and Holding and their lineup was as follows:

Gordon Greenidge
Desmond Haynes
Viv Richards
Allvin Kallicharan
Clive Lloyd
Larry Gomes
Jeff Dujon
Malcolm Marshall
Michael Holding
Joel Garner
Andy Roberts.


Since WI of the 70s and 80s dominated world cricket for nearly 20 years (mid 70s to mid 90s), they've had several players come and go. So it would do well to define a particular WI team lineup and compare.

The straight-averages comparison is irrelevant.
It should be kept in mind that batsmen back then averaged far lower than batsmen today and thats in no small part due to the fact that good bowlers are very rare today.

You cant also discount the intimidation Viv brought to the field and if there's one person who's intimidated the aussies, its Viv.

But for me, one thing stands clear- WI bowling is superior to AUS.
Warne and McGrath apart, no aussie bowler would get a peep in the WI lineup and infact,Gillespie,Kaspa and Lee would struggle to get into the Barbados bowling lineup < lets see- Garner, Marshall,Clarke and Davis>.

And this OZ batting- or no batting for the matter of fact- would stand up to the 'pace like fire' that WI unleashed on the world.
If one shoaib Akhtar can reduce OZ to 80-4, 4 bowlers of comparable speed <holding,roberts in high 90s, marshall and garner a step behind> and far better callibre would much em alive.
Their bowling doesnt give you a reprive.
And its the bowling that wins matches, not batting. And that is where the WI hold a decisive edge, along with fielding < they were one of the best catching unit of alltime but superior outfielders>.
i dont think WI would annihilate OZ...more like a 3-1 or 2-0 victory in a 5 test rubber.
For whatever the WI scores, OZ will score less in most scenarios.

Note: I think the zenith of this OZ reign was in 2000/2001 and i am going by that team.

The likes of Hayden and Lehmann are distinctively shaky against express pace and wont do much against the WI of the 70s/80s.
Thats two down for next-to-nothing.
 

benchmark00

Request Your Custom Title Now!
i reckon the Lavington Panthers cricket team of the early 00's were better than both..... and still are...
 

age_master

Hall of Fame Member
yeah the pitches favoured bowlers like Gillespie and McGrath back than....


Hayden is usually pretty good against the real quicks, you cant take his current lack of form to much, he will be back soon.



as for the sides i used i used for WI from those 4 you had and added in Walsh and ambrose - and hooper and richie richardosn into the batting

for the aussies i used pretty much teh whole side from when Gilly has been playing - current side + Katich and S Waugh and the bowling included fleming and Macgill
 

C_C

International Captain
Hayden is usually pretty good against the real quicks, you cant take his current lack of form to much, he will be back soon.
?!
that is the most glaring chink in Hayden's armour- negotiating real pace.

the context of how good you are against pace is the focal point of this particular debate for the Aussie batsmen...for the WI fielded four speed merchants and no spinners...so its irrelevant if you are a God against spinners if you are going up against WI of the 70s/80s.
Langer is better than Hayden against express pace IMO.

and Lemon would stuggle to trouble the scorers against the likes of Holding,Marshall,Garner and Roberts.

McGrath and Warne would prove themselves marvellously against WI of the past but Gillespie <who bowls like hadlee one day and danny morrison the next> would have far more bad days than good against them...
kaspa...well...lets not even go there...

McGrath and Warne might be able to match up to Marshall and Holding in terms of returns but Gillespie and Kaspa are not in the same ballpark as Garner and Roberts.
And that to me, will be the decisive advantage the WI weilds against OZ in this hypothetical matchup.

PS: i dunno why you would add hooper and richardson into that list...hooper came a lot later after many of the initial ones retired ( gomes,lloyd and kalli) and so did ambrose.
Like i said, you have to identify a particular setup and the logical choice would be to matchup the strongest WI team that took the field vs the strongest AUS team from the current era that took the field.

For otherwise its anyone's ballgame.
OZ wouldnt stand a snowballs' chance in hell if they field the same bowling attack they did vs IND in OZ recently and OZ can probably win 4-0 if you pick the WI attack of Daniel, Nanan, Holding and Clarke.

strongest vs strongest, WI wins IMO.
 
Last edited:

a massive zebra

International Vice-Captain
For a start the Australian XI or 2000/01 was better than the current one.

However....The West Indies bowling (Marshall/Holding/Garner/Roberts/Walsh) was the most destructive bowling force ever in Test cricket, only McGrath or the current Australian bowlers would have a hope of making their side. However, the Australian batting seems much better, with Hayden being the best opener on either side, Ponting matching Richards in terms or run scoring if not reputation, and Gilchrist averaging over 50 at number 7. On their day the West Indies might run through Australia, but with 7 world class players runs invariably come from somewhere. On another day Australia might show their class and expose West Indies weaker lower middle order and tailenders.

So I for one cannot split them.

A combined XI might read

Greenidge
Hayden
Richards
Ponting
S Waugh
Lloyd
Gilchrist
Marshall
Holding
Garner
McGrath
 
Last edited:

benchmark00

Request Your Custom Title Now!
C_C said:
?!
that is the most glaring chink in Hayden's armour- negotiating real pace.

the context of how good you are against pace is the focal point of this particular debate for the Aussie batsmen...for the WI fielded four speed merchants and no spinners...so its irrelevant if you are a God against spinners if you are going up against WI of the 70s/80s.
Langer is better than Hayden against express pace IMO.

and Lemon would stuggle to trouble the scorers against the likes of Holding,Marshall,Garner and Roberts.

McGrath and Warne would prove themselves marvellously against WI of the past but Gillespie <who bowls like hadlee one day and danny morrison the next> would have far more bad days than good against them...
kaspa...well...lets not even go there...

McGrath and Warne might be able to match up to Marshall and Holding in terms of returns but Gillespie and Kaspa are not in the same ballpark as Garner and Roberts.
And that to me, will be the decisive advantage the WI weilds against OZ in this hypothetical matchup.
hayden made a hundred against in a pakistan tour match a few years ago....

and lehman slapped around brett lee for years in first class domestic cricket
 

Scallywag

Banned
sir middle stump said:
Not many people averaged above 50 with the bat in the 80s because of some good bowling and better pitches. Pitches nowadays are overwhelmingly in favour of batsmen.


IMO the WI pace battery would have blown away the current Aussie batting line up more often than not.
Dont forget that the current Australian bowling attack would perform much better on the pitches from the 70's and 80's. What the WI gain in the batting the Australians gain in the bowling.
 

C_C

International Captain
hayden made a hundred against in a pakistan tour match a few years ago....

and lehman slapped around brett lee for years in first class domestic cricket
aye. and a couple of eyars ago, the two Ws were grinding to a halt...no longer as quick as in their mid/late 80s-mid 90s days and Hayden can handle the fast-medium pace as good as anyone ever has.
Brett Lee ?
please....... this is not JUST about pace....this is about QUALITY pace. a 110 mph half volley is crashing to the fence. a 99mph reverse swinging yorker is gonna uproot your offstump more often than not.
The reason Lehmann and Hayden would struggle is because they cannot handle QUALITY pace very well.

Hayden vs Ambrose/Walsh when Amby and Walsh were still bowling fast ?
Hayden bunnified.
Hayden vs Akhtar ? Hayden getting owned more often than not.
 

C_C

International Captain
Dont forget that the current Australian bowling attack would perform much better on the pitches from the 70's and 80's. What the WI gain in the batting the Australians gain in the bowling.
You can only gain so much and ultimately it boils down to how good you are.
Put simply, great bowling pitch or shyte bowling pitch, Kaspa aint gonna do better than Roberts or Garner. Gillespie would match em once in a blue moon.
McGrath and Warne would do very well indeed but so far its two vs four.

And you can play on the current day pitches if ya like. OZ would still get outgunned by the WI firepower. Remember- IND specifically prepared slow pitches for WI in the late 70s/80s and the WI pacers still scorched the scene.
 

Eclipse

International Debutant
Hayden has no more of a weekness to fast bowling as he does not medium pace it's swing and seam movemnt he does not like.
 

age_master

Hall of Fame Member
you greatly underestimate Dizzy.

Warne would be the leading wicket taker no doubt because there were no spinners arywhere near his class around, and still arn't.

and if you reakon they were bowling 110mph :lol:
 

C_C

International Captain
you greatly underestimate Dizzy.

Warne would be the leading wicket taker no doubt because there were no spinners arywhere near his class around, and still arn't.

and if you reakon they were bowling 110mph
Underestimate dizzy ? nah.
I've seen the bowling quality of the 70s and 80s and particularly of the WI.
Dizzy, like i said, would struggle to get into the Barbados FC squad, let alone WI squad.

Warne the leading wicket-taker ?perhaps but he wouldnt be one-man army against the WI like he is aginst the saffies or the english..or the paks.
Warne is a great spinner and probably the best leggie ever...but dont forget that the likes of Bedi,Chandra,Prasanna,Qadir etc. were no bunnies with the ball, especially Bedi and Chandra...and most of the WI top order faced those two and handled them pretty well.

and they were all bowling in the high-mid 90s range, not 110...that 110 was just a metaphorical example.

As per Warne being the best spinner today...lets not go there. One certain Muttiah Muralitharan would blast that claim to oblivion.
Remember- you aint the best until you prove yourself against the best.
Best players of spin is the IND team.
Murali's figures are pretty mediocre against them but Warne's is like a schoolboy's.
 

GotSpin

Hall of Fame Member
C_C you seriously have a disliking to australia

I think the pace attack of the west indias would dominate the australian batting line up, but who knows ;)

edit: spark more debate- murali would of been a in instant chucker :), no rules and techs to somehow prove it wrong
 
Last edited:

Slats4ever

International Vice-Captain
I'm sorry but after Australia's performance on the weekend of absolutely annhiliating the Pakistan team who are supposedly the third best I don't care how good the Windies were we woulda won
 

Scallywag

Banned
The Aussie bats would make enough runs for the bowlers to rout the West Indies.

The current Aussie bats are not like the batsmen of the 70' & 80' and would not be scared and would back themselves. Plus the depth of the batting would get at least 300 every time. Thats if you played on todays pitches.

On pitches in the past they may not score as many runs but the bowling would restrict the West Indies to a gettable target. Players like Gilespie and Kaspa woulld be leathal. Warne would dominate and absolutely bamboozle the WI's.

In the program for the first test at the WACA there is an interview with Walsh and he said that this current Australian team is the best team ever.
 

C_C

International Captain
C_C you seriously have a disliking to australia
a preposterous claim, considering that i always back up my views with evidence , never denied credit where credit is due and have openly praised many OZ players.
 

C_C

International Captain
I'm sorry but after Australia's performance on the weekend of absolutely annhiliating the Pakistan team who are supposedly the third best I don't care how good the Windies were we woulda won
what has third best or 2nd best gotto do with it ?
the WI annihilated the third best teams during its time too.

The Aussie bats would make enough runs for the bowlers to rout the West Indies.

The current Aussie bats are not like the batsmen of the 70' & 80' and would not be scared and would back themselves. Plus the depth of the batting would get at least 300 every time. Thats if you played on todays pitches.
I dispute that. WI had four great bowlers...OZ have two,one good and one who's mediocre.

WI pace four prong were dominant on the placid pitches as well as the fast bowling conductive pitches.
apart from Langer,Ponting and Martyn, rest of the batsmen would struggle mightily against the WI four-prong as they got no breathing room.

On pitches in the past they may not score as many runs but the bowling would restrict the West Indies to a gettable target. Players like Gilespie and Kaspa woulld be leathal. Warne would dominate and absolutely bamboozle the WI's.
gillespie and kaspa being lethal ?
Mate- the WI batsmen had bowlers like Gillespie and Kaspa for lunch in their domestic cricket.
They wouldnt get a peep for the WI bowling team...not even for the 5th bowler spot as that is occupied by one mister Colin Croft.

Warne would dominate and absolutely bamboozle the WI's.
he would do very well..but dominate and bamboozle ?
hardly.
The likes of Haynes,Viv and Lloyd were very very proficient at playing spin and they handled great spinners like Bedi and Chandra pretty damn well.
Warne is superior to them so he'd do better...but bamboozle ? umm no.

In the program for the first test at the WACA there is an interview with Walsh and he said that this current Australian team is the best team ever.
counterbalance that with about 5x that number who think WI were better.
 

GotSpin

Hall of Fame Member
whats ur msn? C_C i wanna ask you something

Btw i don't think all of the australian batsmen would of struggled as you point out.
What about Hayden, ponting though i still think WI would of still dominated australia
 

Top