The bitterness in this thread is incredible as it many comes from supporters of countries that Australia have mauled in the past, such as England. The fact that England are so weak leads them to believe that some of their supporters will discredit the strongest nation of this era and say that Australia can't be the best team ever because we haven't comprehensively thrashed them in every single Test we've played against them.
It's not some sort of hate against Australia, I have nothing against Australia. I actually tend to support Australia when watching them take on other sides, apart from the last Australia-India test series, but that was only because I don't like a few of the players. My praise for the West Indian team of the 70's and 80's comes from watching documentaries about them, from watching the footage, from hearing people talk about them, people who played against them. Its nothing to do with bitterness, I am of the opinion that the Windies time of that time is better than the Australian team of the early 2000's, that's my opinion, and happens to be he opinion of almost everyone on this forum bar you.
I HATE how people claim that players would've had more success then any other batsman in this era, when they've never seen them bat live and they probably weren't alive when they were playing International cricket. To say that Viv Richards, Gary Sobers, etc would've averaged like 60-70 in the modern era is going over the top. An average of over 50 an average of over 50. Batsman were averaging over 50 in Test Cricket in the 1920's, does that make them like 10 times better then players that averaged over 50 in the 1960's? No it doesn't. Averages haven't changed over time, a bowling average of 20 is considered great and a batting average of 50-60 has been considered great and there has always been 6-7 players in every single era that acchieved theses statistics.
According to the logic on this forum (By King Pietersen, ZoraxDoom and Dare), if Wally Hammond had've played in the same era as Gary Sobers then Wally Hammond would've averaged over 80 in Test Cricket. Why? Because Hammond played in the Depression era and Sobers didn't and of course, you'd imagine that the equipment and pitches would've been allot worse in his generation aswell compared to the one that Sobers played in.
I don't think it's a coincidence that the ex-pros happen to rate the likes of Richards and Sobers ahead of the current crop. Sobers was one of the most talented cricketers to ever play the game, he had everything, and WOULD have averaged higher now than he did when he was playing. I'm not just using other peoples opinions, I've watched documentaries about both Sobers and Richards, I've seen them bat. ESPN Classic shows quite a few of the Windies games from this era against England, and they were immense. Richards could tear apart even the greatest attacks back then, and if Pietersen can do it now, then Richards would run riot, he was top, top class.
I don't happen to agree with the view that just because a player had a good average in the 50's that he'd be miles better than anyone else now, but with certain players it is the case. Players like Richards, like Sobers, like Pollock, like Bradman, etc would just smash everyone around. If a player like Michael Hussey can average in the 60's in the modern era, then someone like Pollock would eclipse that easily. You just seem to disregard the achievements of the past generation by looking purely at the stats and seeing that Ponting has a better average, then presuming he was better.
People like King Pietersen, just go off myths and what he has heard about past generations and he lets other people in higher places then him, make his opinion for him. It's funny how he says that Pietersen has the potential to be one of the greatest ever whilst the actual real Kevin Pietersen believes that players like Ricky Ponting and Matthew Hayden are still the very best batsman in the world and that his still well behind them. Yet, King Pietersen speaks the world of Kevin Pietersen but is so quick to discredit Hayden and Ponting's acchievements.
I love this personal vendetta you've got going against me, just because I happen to disagree with a few of your points. I have never once claimed that Pietersen is better than Ponting. Ponting is easily better than Pietersen, the stats speak for themselves. Pietersen is a long way behind Ponting, Tendulkar and Lara. I've never discredited either Ponting or Hayden's acheivements, they're fantastic batsmen. What I do discredit is your opinion that they're miles better than anyone else to ever play the game. Hayden is not the greatest opening batsman of all time, ask any cricket journalist around the world and you'll get the same view coming out. Jack Hobbs was far more of a player than Hayden can ever hope to be.
I'll happily admit that Ponting is one of the best players of the modern generation, not the best, I believe that Tendulkar is, but that's a different story, and I'll admit that Hayden is the greatest opening batsman of the modern era. What I won't admit is that Ponting and Hayden are better than Richards and Greenidge, as I don't believe that's the case. It's my opinion, based on what I've seen, and what I've read.
I even think that Sri Lanka team now would've been a mighty challenge with the form that Sangakkara & Jayawardena have been in and Mendis and Muralidaran would've been a massive handful.
Just 1 comment to add to this. If you honestly believe that the modern Sri Lankan team would beat the Windies side of the 70's and 80's or even give them a real good battle, then I'm not replying to a post of yours again. It's ludicrous. Possibly the most idiotic thing you've ever said.
Miracles can happen
I used to love watching that, really broadened my cricketing knowledge