Facing the facts of history - Windies greater than Aussies

[Owzat]

Anything today is better than anything that went before - FACT :

West Indies were a formidable side, a quartet of fantastic pace bowlers to back up a solid batting side. The only area the aussies were undeniably better in (until spud retired) was in the spin department, but then it's not difficult to win there since the windies didn't bother with as they didn't need?

Don't forget batting averages tend to be higher these days since the money men hate three and four day Tests, so saying X > Y doesn't necessarily mean a lot - and the advent of Zimbabwe, Bangladesh and a currently weak West Indies makes the easy to beat nations more prevalent than in the 80s. So much so in fact that Murali has something like 100 Test wickets against Bangladesh I think it is (not that the aussies deign these worthy opponents and play them as infrequently as possible) I guess Richards or Ponting is a personal preference, many of the X v Y comparisons will be. But it is about the side overall not 'individual battles'.

 

[Insomniac]

I dont think Windies would be able to beat Australia. It's because Windies put pretty much no money into cricket and Australia spend a lot of money. Just the sheer training and the coaching and everything I just dont think Windies would be able to compete. The teams weren't as good back then either. Thats my opinion so dont bother arguing. I just wish the West Indies were able to come back and Mcgrath, Warne and Gilchrist came back. We need an anti ageing pill!

Ok, thats a very... ridiculous point. If that theory was correct, India would be the greatest team on the face of the planet... no joke.

 

[Cricketdude]

Ok, thats a very... ridiculous point. If that theory was correct, India would be the greatest team on the face of the planet... no joke.

India aren't good because the dads and stuff over there are strict and want their sons to be doctors and all and playing cricket is a big gamble.

 

[Sureshot]

India aren't good because the dads and stuff over there are strict and want their sons to be doctors and all and playing cricket is a big gamble.

You went wrong in the first three words. Don't generalise too much either, I'm sure just as many Dads want their sons to be cricketers as they do to become doctors.

 

[shubhrayu]

India aren't good because the dads and stuff over there are strict and want their sons to be doctors and all and playing cricket is a big gamble.

Well Mate!!You're guess is right that sport's culture does'nt exist that much in India but yeah you gotta meet my dad that'll totally change your opinion

 

[Highlander999]

You went wrong in the first three words. Don't generalise too much either, I'm sure just as many Dads want their sons to be cricketers as they do to become doctors.

More likely and realistic to be a doctor though.

 

[Michaelf7777777]

I'm laughing at the comment that only Australia, England and the West Indies were any good in the 1980's.

Australia had a 3 or 4 year period from 1984 where Alan Border apart they were completly and utterly rubbish (Yes some players that played in this time frame became great players but they were not good in this time).

New Zealand was probably the 2nd best cricket side in the 1980's, with that 1-0 lucky victory over a Richardsless West Indies in 1980 and a 1-1 draw in 1987 as well as numerous series victories over England and Australia.

Pakistan were a highly talented team as well with bad umpiring costing them a series victory in the Caribean in 1987-88 and how about this for a bowling attack: Imran Khan, Wasim Akram, Waqar Younis and Abdul Qadir as well as Imran Khan and Javed Miandad as great batsman.

India in the 1980's had a great batting lineup with the likes of Gavaskar, Amarath, Viswanath, Vengsarker, Azharuddin and Kapil Dev even if Kapil Dev was their only truely world class bowler (I think their spin quartet was mainly the 70's although I could be wrong)

As to the issue at hand I think the recent Australians and 1980's West Indians were overall pretty well matched with the outcome of a hypothetical series depending on the pitches (Dustbowls suiting Australia, greentops and bouncy tracks favouring West Indies) and the umpiring (No doubt Australia will be wanting Fred Goodall as one of the umpires).

I do however think no matter how much some posters will probably disagree with me that the Australian side straight after WWII was the greatest side ever.

 

[Cricketdude]

I do however think no matter how much some posters will probably disagree with me that the Australian side straight after WWII was the greatest side ever.

They had one good batsman.

 

[Michaelf7777777]

They had one good batsman.

If you mean Bradman, then yes he was the main star, but they also had Barnes and Morris at the top of the order who were imo 2 of the greatest 3 Australian openners ever,

Hassett who was top quality if not AT great material a bit similar to Michael Clarke now right down to being vice captain behind the sides best batsman; a hugely talented Lefthanded batsman in Neil Harvey;

Arguably the greatest allrounder ever in Keith Miller who was an explosive Gilchrist type batsman, unpredictable fast bowler (As in one ball would be a bouncer, the next a leg spinner) who could also bowl spells of handy offspinners (Probably about Symond's level) who also only dropped 1 catch during his entire test career (he mainly fielded in the slips) and that might well have been deliberate as well as being acording to Richie Benaud the greatest captain he ever saw.

They also had in Don Tallon probably the greatest wicketkeeper ever if wicketkeeping quality is the only factor taken into account.

Ray Lindwall was an express pace, highly accurate quick who could swing and cut it both ways with a good yorker and bouncer; while Bill Johnston was one of the top five test leftarm quicks ever as well as being able to bowl left arm spin when the conditions dictated and Ernie Toshack was a highly accurate left arm medium pacer who kept the runs down.

I'll admit that the spin department looks a little weak but I'll do the same thing as the West Indian fans claiming Sobers and claim Bill O'Reilly the 70mph legspinner who imo is one of 4 equals at the top of the gretaest ever spinner list (the others are Warne, Grimmett and Murali) on the basis of his one postwar test in New Zealand in 1946 where he had match figures of 8-33

Overall a highly strong side and remember that with Bradman they've got a pretty signifigant headstart on any other test team that does not have Bradman in it.

 

[Cricketdude]

Well I heard by Richie Benaud that some people went home once Bradman got out.

 

[Tim the Wiz]

Don't forget batting averages tend to be higher these days since the money men hate three and four day Tests, so saying X > Y doesn't necessarily mean a lot - and the advent of Zimbabwe, Bangladesh and a currently weak West Indies makes the easy to beat nations more prevalent than in the 80s. So much so in fact that Murali has something like 100 Test wickets against Bangladesh I think it is (not that the aussies deign these worthy opponents and play them as infrequently as possible) I guess Richards or Ponting is a personal preference, many of the X v Y comparisons will be. But it is about the side overall not 'individual battles'.

Murali has 76 wickets against Bangladesh, less than the 100+ he has against England. However, I get what you're trying to say. In contrast to their Tests with other teams, most bowlers have much lower averages against Bangladesh/Zimbabwe than other teams. As for Murali in particular, his average against Bangladesh is 11.95 and his average against England is 20.06. Australia, his highest, is up at about 36.

 

[smssia0112]

76 wickets is a massive figure. I don't think Warne even played enough games against Bangladesh to get 76 without taking 10+ every game.

 

[Cricket_god]

76 wickets is a massive figure. I don't think Warne even played enough games against Bangladesh to get 76 without taking 10+ every game.

he got hammered in first test in bangladesh and conceded over 100runs to get 5 wickets,it is easy for guys like us to say wickets,runs against minnows
does not matter but even if you play school level cricket you will know nothing is easy be it against australia or bangladesh

no disrespect but in those days many nations were also considered as minnows

 

[aussie_ben91]

If you mean Bradman, then yes he was the main star, but they also had Barnes and Morris at the top of the order who were imo 2 of the greatest 3 Australian openners ever,

Hassett who was top quality if not AT great material a bit similar to Michael Clarke now right down to being vice captain behind the sides best batsman; a hugely talented Lefthanded batsman in Neil Harvey;

Arguably the greatest allrounder ever in Keith Miller who was an explosive Gilchrist type batsman, unpredictable fast bowler (As in one ball would be a bouncer, the next a leg spinner) who could also bowl spells of handy offspinners (Probably about Symond's level) who also only dropped 1 catch during his entire test career (he mainly fielded in the slips) and that might well have been deliberate as well as being acording to Richie Benaud the greatest captain he ever saw.

They also had in Don Tallon probably the greatest wicketkeeper ever if wicketkeeping quality is the only factor taken into account.

Ray Lindwall was an express pace, highly accurate quick who could swing and cut it both ways with a good yorker and bouncer; while Bill Johnston was one of the top five test leftarm quicks ever as well as being able to bowl left arm spin when the conditions dictated and Ernie Toshack was a highly accurate left arm medium pacer who kept the runs down.

I'll admit that the spin department looks a little weak but I'll do the same thing as the West Indian fans claiming Sobers and claim Bill O'Reilly the 70mph legspinner who imo is one of 4 equals at the top of the gretaest ever spinner list (the others are Warne, Grimmett and Murali) on the basis of his one postwar test in New Zealand in 1946 where he had match figures of 8-33

Overall a highly strong side and remember that with Bradman they've got a pretty signifigant headstart on any other test team that does not have Bradman in it.

Obviously the 1948 team is the strongest ever but only because they had Bradman in it. Take Bradman out and the Windies 70s/80s and the Australia 2000's teams would beat them convincingly.

 

[Dare]

here is a good article on this argument. its long but the read is well worth it.


Cricinfo - In praise of empires