Facing the facts of history - Windies greater than Aussies

[ZoraxDoom]

Pitches weren't flat in the 70s, 80s, 90s, arguement = FALSE
Boundries were allot bigger then the ones today, arguement = FALSE (Australian boundaries are still bigger then any ground in any era)
Bats have always been noticiably bigger in the era, arguement = FALSE (Only since 2004-2005 and both Ricky Ponting and Matthew Hayden averaged well over 50)
Pace Bowling decline arguement = FALSE (Wasim Akram, Waqar Younis, Shaun Pollock, Allan Donald, Courtney Walsh, Shane Bond, Chaminda Vaas, Mahkaya Ntini, Darren Gough, Mohammad Asif, Dale Steyn + spinners: Muttiah Muralidaran, Saqlain Mushtaq, Anil Kumble, Harbhajan Singh, Shahid Afridi, Daniel Vettori)

Matthew Hayden > Gordon Greenidge or Desmond Haynes (How anyone can arguement against this is beyhond me. Hayden looks a far better batsman on footage and has way better statistics)

Glenn McGrath > Malcom Marshall (Considering that the people that think it's easier for batsman nowadays and was harder back then for batsman then logically it was easier for bowlers back then but harder for bowlers nowdays. It's funny because that is their logic but they still think Malcom Marshall is better then Glenn McGrath so ideally, they contradict their reasons that the 70s & 80s batsman are better then the batsman of the modern age.)

Points 2) and 3) are wrong. In the modern era we have boundary ropes (from 2000ish, cause I remember an Ind-Aus test in the 90s with no ropes), and the bats are HUGE. They compared the bat someone like Bradman and Pollock would have used to a modern bat on TV once, HUGE difference. Bradman used a stick, Pollock's was big by the standards back then but even I use a bat bigger than that now. So ropes = shorter boundaries, and larger bats = easier hitting.

And there has been a pace bowling decline. Compare the names in your list to Lillee, Snow, Hadlee, Thompson, Dev, Botham, Imran Khan, Bob Willis, Fred Trueman, Sarfraz Nawaz, Chris Old, Proctor, Alan Davidson. Pollock, Donald, Waqar, Wasim, Bond, Walsh. The others don't compare. Also, I've left out the names of all the West Indies quicks, which should add another 4 or 5 to the list. Not an easy time for batsmen.

As for spinners, Benaud, Bedi, Underwood, Qadir, Chandrasekhar, Iqbal Qasim, Prasanna, Venkatraghavan and Titmus shold do okay. Not as great as the Warne-Murali-Kumble-Vettori foursome, but still very good. Again, I've left out the West Indian spinners (Sobers, Gibbs, Ramdhin and Valentine).

As for the flat pitches argument, it is debatable, but it is a fact that Cricket viewership was much higher from about 1995 than it had ever been, and that TV broadcasters and cricket boards wanted 5 days of cricket. This has been the era of the super flat pitches, especially in the subcontinent. Places like West Indies and Aus//Eng/RSA on occasion haven't been much better.

Hayden does not look better. Greenidge and Hayne were beautiful to watch, I saw a few clips of them and understood why they were great. Hayden is sheer muscle and power. Someone like Hayden or Sehwag or Symonds or Flintoff is great to watch, but not as classy as Greenidge and Haynes. Plus, they face better bowlers on better pitches, and as a pair were lethal. They worked so well together.

Marshall and McGrath is very close. I've seen a little of Marshall bowling, but he swung, cut, seamed the ball all over the place on any pitch. McGrath is just super accurate with seam movement and bounce, and has done well of flat pitches. Dunnow how Marshall would have been on flat pitches (I think he did okay on the ones he played on) but he certainly seems more lethal to face. It's like comparing Kumble and Bill O'Reily. One was lethal, the other very effective. And while Kumble's achievements are incredible, many would preffer O'Reily as he could tear a lineup to shreds on his day. Bradman said he was the best bowler he ever face, but Kumble has the third most wickets in cricket's history and a 10-fer. It's a tough comparison, but many will go for Marshall because he was brilliant, regardess of the stats.

 

[sohum]

One simple Question How many world cups do Windies have Aussies have 3?

The Aussies have 4. 87, 99, 03, 07. LOL at your "support" of them.
And the Windies have 2 (they won 75 and 79 and couldn't chase down a low score in the final in 83).

 

[cricketfrantic]

Sehwag didn't play back then. And If memory serves me right I don't think Kumble did either. I do remember some guy named Raju, and he was terrible

He may have/had a feeble body, but was as good as any spinner on those so called doctored pitches (as touring teams like to call them). He formed the famous spin trio of kumble, chauhan and raju. He had some match winning bowling performance in his name. He had a classic left-arm action for any left armer.

 

[Dare]

Matthew Hayden > Gordon Greenidge or Desmond Haynes (How anyone can arguement against this is beyhond me. Hayden looks a far better batsman on footage and has way better statistics)

Glenn McGrath > Malcom Marshall (Considering that the people that think it's easier for batsman nowadays and was harder back then for batsman then logically it was easier for bowlers back then but harder for bowlers nowdays. It's funny because that is their logic but they still think Malcom Marshall is better then Glenn McGrath so ideally, they contradict their reasons that the 70s & 80s batsman are better then the batsman of the modern age.)

lol I have never argued that they were better than Hayden but they were better than any other opener Australia had. Hayden is good but he on his own cant make up that difference.

Ben you have to take one of the 2. If it was easier for the bowlers than it was harder for the batsman back in the day. You keep saying "it was easier for the bowlers back in the day, and than you say it wasn't harder for the batsman back in the day". For as long as you are arguing for both of those cases your argument will never be taken seriously.

Ill take your point of it being easier for Marshall, I never said it wasn't because he did play on uncovered pitches but his record in India is as good as McGraths. For you to say that Malcolm Marshall couldn't get the ball of the ground in India is another case of you not knowing anything about him but arguing against him. He could bowl cutters at will on any pitch and certainly in the sub continent he would have used them to great effect.

 

[aussie_ben91]

Points 2) and 3) are wrong. In the modern era we have boundary ropes (from 2000ish, cause I remember an Ind-Aus test in the 90s with no ropes), and the bats are HUGE. They compared the bat someone like Bradman and Pollock would have used to a modern bat on TV once, HUGE difference. Bradman used a stick, Pollock's was big by the standards back then but even I use a bat bigger than that now. So ropes = shorter boundaries, and larger bats = easier hitting.

In the modern era, the Australian grounds WITH ropes are still as big as what any other ground in the world was before the year 2000. I've been to the MCG thousands of times before when I used to live in Melbourne and it's a massive ground and the WACCA and GABBA aren't far off it either.
Bats got noticiably bigger in 2004, when Hayden and Ponting had both played over a decade of International cricket.

And there has been a pace bowling decline. Compare the names in your list to Lillee, Snow, Hadlee, Thompson, Dev, Botham, Imran Khan, Bob Willis, Fred Trueman, Sarfraz Nawaz, Chris Old, Proctor, Alan Davidson. Pollock, Donald, Waqar, Wasim, Bond, Walsh. The others don't compare. Also, I've left out the names of all the West Indies quicks, which should add another 4 or 5 to the list. Not an easy time for batsmen.

If they are so much better then bowlers like Ntini, Vaas, Gough, Asif and Steyn then why don't those bowlers have immensely better records? I mean, you go around saying how easy it is for batsman these days but stats prove that the bowlers are very much level pegging from any other bowler from previous eras if we go by your logic.
The ones bolded are those who I've either never heard of before or aren't better then anyone that I originally mentioned.

Hayden does not look better. Greenidge and Hayne were beautiful to watch, I saw a few clips of them and understood why they were great. Hayden is sheer muscle and power. Someone like Hayden or Sehwag or Symonds or Flintoff is great to watch, but not as classy as Greenidge and Haynes. Plus, they face better bowlers on better pitches, and as a pair were lethal. They worked so well together.

Obviously you haven't seen enough of Hayden because he plays the most beautiful straight and cover drives that I have ever seen.
From what I remember of seeing games of Haynes and Greenidge batting, they were very much in the similar attacking mold as Hayden and Sehwag as both Haynes and Greenidge would hit the ball as hard as they could over the in-field.

Ben you have to take one of the 2. If it was easier for the bowlers than it was harder for the batsman back in the day. You keep saying "it was easier for the bowlers back in the day, and than you say it wasn't harder for the batsman back in the day". For as long as you are arguing for both of those cases your argument will never be taken seriously.

Mate, everyone's doing that. Even you are.

I can't be bothered repeating myself over and over again to newcomers to the thread. Just go read over my previous posts and your questions will be answered.

 

[ZoraxDoom]

You haven't heard of John Snow, the quickest bowler in the world in his generation? Wisden Cricketer of the year 1973? 202 test wickets at 26.6, economy 2.68 for England.

Alan Davidson? The Wasim Akram of his time? 186 test wickets, average of 20.53 in test matches for the Aussies. Economy 1.97.

Haven't heard of Bob Willis, who took 8/43 in an innings against the Aussies in that Botham's test, and ranks as one of the all-time great English seamers? 325 test wickets at 25.20, economy 2.83.

Haven't heard of Mike Procter, now match referee, who was back in his day the most lethal allrounder in world cricket, who bowled menacing pace seemingly off the wrong foot and had a career cut short due to arpathied? 42 test wickets at 15.12, economy of 2.44. Just 7 tests at that. 1417 FC wickets at 19.53. And 48 FC hundreds.

You haven't heard of Chris Old? The injury-prone English seamer? 143 test wickets at 28.11, only managed 46 tests in an injury plagued career. Could have been so much better, 1070 FC wickets at 23.48.


Your lack of cricketing knowledge is shocking. Steyn is too raw, Asif, well look where he is now, and Gough, Vaas and Ntini are no where near the quality of these players. You say you haven't heard of them and they had poorer records. For your sake just look up these players on Cricinfo, and compare them to the ones you named. Then maybe you'll find out that Snow would have played over a 100 tests if he was Australia, that Bob Willis had to run 5 miles a day to stay fit for bowling due to his constant injuries, that Davidson was the most lethal left armer of his day, that Mike Procter was the best fast bowler in the world in his time and wasn't able to play test cricket, that Chris Old is one of the finest athletes produced by England but could never reach his potential due to constant injuries.

Bats got bigger ages ago. Tendulkar's bat was always massive, even in the 1990s.

 

[aussie_ben91]

The ones bolded are those who I've either never heard of before or aren't better then anyone that I originally mentioned.

Zorax, your lack of ability to read and comprehend what I say is incredible. It's funny because your post was mainly based around trying to expose my 'supposed' lack of cricket knowledge but instead you have been exposed for not reading my post properly.

I have heard of Davidson, Willis and Procter. Not Snow or Old. Maybe because Jeff Thomson was the fastest bowler in the 1970's not Snow? You think that Snow would've been in with a shout over the likes of Lillee, Thomson and Pascoe? 100 Tests caps wouldn't of come so easy.

Vaas - Has a bowling average of under 30, bowling on dead subcontient wickets.
Ntini - Capable of bowling nearly 150kph in his hayday.
Gough - Probably the weakest of the 3 but still has a decent record.

I'd imagine that these bowlers would've dismissed allot more world-class batsman then John Snow or Chris Old.

Bats didn't get sizably bigger until probably 2004. I watched Hayden's innings of 197 against England in the Ashes series of 2002 and his bat wasn't massive. I'd imagine that they'd have bats similar to that in the 1980's.

 

[Sureshot]

I can't say I know a lot about Chris Old, but I know that John Snow is held in very high esteem by his peers.

 

[ZoraxDoom]

I have heard of Davidson, Willis and Procter.

So there records weren't good enough? Averages of 20, 25 and 15 not good enough to compare to Vaas (29.31), Gough (28.38) and Ntini (28.22) ?

Vaas has one of the toughest jobs being a seamer in the subcontinent, and he is superbly accurate, swings it around, but cannot be compared to the likes of Procter, Willis, Davidson, Snow. You could argue he is better than Chris Old, probably is, but that's it.
Gough is Gough, brilliant on his day, and I'd love to have him in my team, but he just wasn't of the same class as the guys mentioned above.
And Ntini, once batsmen figured out how to handle his angle and bounce, he really had nothing else. His angle always means he won't get LBWs, he barely swings it, so it is just pace and some seam movement. He gets good bounce too, but in the last few years he has become a decreasing threat. When he gets it right, he gets it right, but that's about it.


And since this originated from Haynes and Greenidge vs. Hayden, I'd like to see Hayden's stats vs. the 'great' bowlers of the current era. How has he fared against Pollock, Donald, Gough, Ntini, Bond, Walsh, Wasim, Waqar and Vaas?

ZoraxDoom added 21 Minutes and 49 Seconds later...

Bat from 1987.

Bat in 2004:

And ofcourse, you can assume the bats in the 1960s and 1970s to be smaller.

I've got a pic of Jack Hobb's bat if you are interested.

 

[aussie_ben91]

Pollock, Donald, Gough, Ntini, Bond, Walsh, Wasim, Waqar and Vaas?

Scored hundreds against them all apart from Bond, Gough and Wasim.

Then again, I've seen him single-handedly destroy Shaun Pollock, cart Donald around in 2002, seen him hit Wasim Akram straight over his head for six and also hit Shoaib Akhtar over his head and out of a stadium. If that's not enough, he also pulled Stephen Harmison bowling around 90kph in complete darkness in England of 2005.

And he averages in the mid-high 50's against Sri Lanka and India. The two teams that are home to 2 of the 3 leading wickettakers of all-time in Muralidaran and Kumble.

Bats got bigger ages ago. Tendulkar's bat was always massive, even in the 1990s.

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

Greg Chappell batting, 1980

Greg Chappell being bowled, 1978

Viv Richards, 1986 - When he scored the fastest 100 in Test History

Is it just me or do the bats from the 1970's and 1980's look rather similar to the bats Hayden used in 1999, 2000 and 2001?

 

[mattfb]

Chappells 1980 looks like the first Hayden bat you posted, and Viv's bat looked like Haydens 03, so did the last Chappell picture you posted for that matter.

 

[sohum]

Personally, I think posting pictures of bats is not useful evidence in either direction because you cannot really tell whatwith the angles and whatever. But you will notice that the bottom part of Hayden's bat is much chunkier than the older ones... the older ones looked flatter even on the back of the bat.

 

[mattfb]

Look at Viv's bat, the thickness of it is the same as Haydens.

 

[shubhrayu]

2003

This pic got all old great memories back

 

[aussie_ben91]

Chappells 1980 looks like the first Hayden bat you posted, and Viv's bat looked like Haydens 03, so did the last Chappell picture you posted for that matter.

The one in 1999 or the one that Zorax posted of Hayden's in 2004?