Which team was better? WI of 1970s and early 80s or Aus team of late 90s and early 2000s..

[BigBoy123]

I would go with Oz team...whats ur pick?

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

 

[90MPH]

It's easily WI. End of debate.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Well didn't WI team of the 80s had 4 ATG quality pacers steaming in every game?

That puts them ahead IMHO.

Would be interested to hear what others got to say about this.

Otherwise, I don't see what separates them. They both were so ruthless that its hard to find what's their vulnerability as a team.

 

[zabalestmsm]

Australia's team of late 90s and early 2000s.

 

[BigBoy123]

Aus had 2 ATG fast bowlers
McGrath
Lee

Greatest Leg Spinner
Warne

Greatest keeper of all time
Gilly

Great Batsman
Ponting
Damien Martyn

Greatest Opening Pair in Test
Langer and Hayden

Some were good bowlers
Gillespie , Fleming


Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

 

[BigBoy123]

Can Anybody do a man to man comparison of the two teams

I think a full strength Aussie team of that era would be (for tests)
1) Hayden
2) Langer
3) Ponting (c)
4l Steven Waugh
5) Mark Waugh
6) Damien Martyn
7) Gilly (wk)
8) Warne
9) Lee
10) Gillespe / Fleming
11) McGrath

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Lee was ATG in ODIs but not in tests.

 

[90MPH]

Wi had better batsmen and bowlers.

They only lacked a top spinner but they didn't really need one. Even the reserve pace pack was good enough. Patrick Paterson was extremely quick but didn't play much because they just couldn't find a place for him.

 

[SunTzu]

WI coz they had one of the most fearsome bowling attacks: Malcolm Marshall, Michael Holding, Joel Garner, Andy Roberts. Clive Lloyd had is easy!

 

[Pantani]

West Indies had a better side across the board: fast bowlers, opening batsmen, middle order batsmen. With the sole exception of spin (Warne) and wicketkeeper (Gilchrist).

 

[Acricketfan]

Impossible to compare the two . They not only used to destroy opponents at home , but also away from home. That's why defeating them even in your home was a massive achievement for every team.

And co-incidently , the only teams who gave them tough fight were two Asian neighbours.

 

[Acricketfan]

South Africa under Graeme Smith should be considered in the same league imo. IIRC they hav not lost an away series in more than a decade in an era where home advantage is at its peak.

 

[Junaids]

West Indies by far.

They were basically impossible to score off. And the Aussies from that era only really had Ricky Ponting who could have survived for extended periods against the West Indies.

There is no doubt that Warne, McGrath, Gilchrist and Ponting would have got into the 1976-1986 West Indies team. But none of the other Aussies would have.

 

[Itachi]

Australia.

During WI great era, there were hardly any competitor.

Australia had a full team.

Even if i disregard everything, WI doesn't even had a good spinner where as Australia had an ATG.

hence, WI wasn't a complete team to start with. It just that, they hide theor weakness well.

 

[IndianWillow]

Australia was a more balanced side, having a GOAT spinner and wicket keeper. Australia is probably marginally ahead of the WI side in batting. The WI lower middle batting order was rather weak for an ATG team, with players like Logie and Bacchus.

But WI will take this easily due to their pace attack. The WI pace bowlers were generally good regardless of the conditions, they took the pitch out of the equation and they are unlikely to feel shortage of spinners.

 

[Scrolln]

Australia slightly ahead for me.

I would rank the great Aussie batting line-up of Hayden, Martyn, Waugh bros, Ponting, Gilly over Greenidge , Haynes, Richards , Lloyd, Richardson. While the WI bowling attack was stronger because they always had four great bowlers in the side . Aus had McGrath,Warne and Gillespie but their fourth bowler was Lee who was mediocre after a spectacular debut year in tests.

West Indies of the 80's, for all the great players in the team, choked in both the WC's of the 80's. Australia were literally undefeat-able in ODI's during most part of the 00's. winning an unprecedented 3 consecutive WC's.

 

[#GreenRoars]

Never watched, but from what i have heard and read, WI easily.

 

[sajeebmcj]

Australia of late 90s and early 2000. they were better than every aspect of cricket but pace bowling.

 

[Bilal7]

South Africa under Graeme Smith should be considered in the same league imo. IIRC they hav not lost an away series in more than a decade in an era where home advantage is at its peak.

Agreed. That South African team is underrated due to their failures in World Cups. They were nearly as good as the Windies and the Australians, in tests.

I would also put the Pak team of the 90s up there, they underachieved but were still better than any others, barring the three already mentioned. India's golden generation would have also been in the same class but their bowling was relatively, very weak.

My rankings would be:

1) West Indies of the mid-70s and 80s.
2) Australia of the late-90s and noughties.
3) Tie between South Africa of the late-00s and early to mid-2010s and Pakistan of the late 80s and 90s.

 

[Haroon786]

West Indies, the GOAT team in my humble opinion.

 

[MMHS]

I think, we are talking about Test here.

Both were outstanding teams, though the Aussies looked invincible because of most of their opponents. Compared to 70 & 80s, probably only IND had a better team in Aussie period (& addition of SAF), while PAK was as good a team as anyone in 70s & 80s, though as usual they spent lots of their energy to scratch team mates ass.

WI was a better team for me because they had more impact players with bat & ball; though head to head might see 5 or even 6 Aussies in 12 men team; but those 5/6 West Indians are true ATG.

My combined team 'll be

Hayden, GG
Viv, Lloyd, Panta, Steve (Steve retired in 2002, if we don't consider him, I probably 'll go for Rowe over Martin)
Gilly,
Marshall, Warne, Holding, Mac
------------------------------------
Roberts

That's probably 6 Aussies in playing XI, but those 5 West Indians were.........

 

[WC-Passion]

WI, their bowling attack would rip apart most batsmen.

 

[CricketCartoons]

The Aussie team were the best of all eras. From the West Indies, I would only include Viv, Malcolm Marshall and Holding.

 

[IndianWillow]

Australia.

During WI great era, there were hardly any competitor.

Australia had a full team.

Even if i disregard everything, WI doesn't even had a good spinner where as Australia had an ATG.

hence, WI wasn't a complete team to start with. It just that, they hide theor weakness well.

There were no weak test teams during the WI era. Even the weakest Kiwi team was a fierce competitor. WI did not have a competitor not because other teams were weak, but because they were too good, especially with the ball. Many teams during that era had ATG all rounders, batsmen and bowlers. 70s were not that competitive but the 80s were damn competitive, the WI were ahead simply because they were so good.

 

[Scrolln]

I think, we are talking about Test here.

Both were outstanding teams, though the Aussies looked invincible because of most of their opponents. Compared to 70 & 80s, probably only IND had a better team in Aussie period (& addition of SAF), while PAK was as good a team as anyone in 70s & 80s, though as usual they spent lots of their energy to scratch team mates ass.

WI was a better team for me because they had more impact players with bat & ball; though head to head might see 5 or even 6 Aussies in 12 men team; but those 5/6 West Indians are true ATG.

My combined team 'll be

Hayden, GG
Viv, Lloyd, Panta, Steve (Steve retired in 2002, if we don't consider him, I probably 'll go for Rowe over Martin)
Gilly,
Marshall, Warne, Holding, Mac
------------------------------------
Roberts

That's probably 6 Aussies in playing XI, but those 5 West Indians were.........

I would consider the Eng team of the 00's as better than that of the 80's. Their batting was significantly better during the period while the bowling, barring Willis who retired in 84, was roughly the same too. Botham was hot n cold throughout the 80's.

 

[Scrolln]

There were no weak test teams during the WI era. Even the weakest Kiwi team was a fierce competitor. WI did not have a competitor not because other teams were weak, but because they were too good, especially with the ball. Many teams during that era had ATG all rounders, batsmen and bowlers. 70s were not that competitive but the 80s were damn competitive, the WI were ahead simply because they were so good.

Aus, Eng and Ind of the 80's were good but not great.

England;s batting was mediocre while the bowling barring Willis's last few years was ordinary. The Indian batting was good, but the bowling, despite Kapil's presence was weak. India's secong highest wicket-taker of the 80's was Shastri, operating at an avg of 40 i think.

I remember reading somewhere that Indian and Aus fielding of the 80's was quite weak too.

 

[jeetu]

There were no weak test teams during the WI era. Even the weakest Kiwi team was a fierce competitor. WI did not have a competitor not because other teams were weak, but because they were too good, especially with the ball. Many teams during that era had ATG all rounders, batsmen and bowlers. 70s were not that competitive but the 80s were damn competitive, the WI were ahead simply because they were so good.

Little known fact - NZ was the only team to beat WI in a test series during 80's.

 

[Chrish]

Wi team got away with slow overrates.. Laws weren't strict at that time regarding minimum number of overs that has to be bowled during the day. That allowed them to play with 4 pacers without fear of them breaking down. I reckon they wouldn't have been effective with this strategy in 2000s

 

[Buffet]

WI slightly ahead for me.

 

[OS_89]

West Indies by far.

They were basically impossible to score off. And the Aussies from that era only really had Ricky Ponting who could have survived for extended periods against the West Indies.

There is no doubt that Warne, McGrath, Gilchrist and Ponting would have got into the 1976-1986 West Indies team. But none of the other Aussies would have.

Steve Waugh and Justin Langer would've got into the West Indies team quite comfortably.

 

[IndianWillow]

Aus, Eng and Ind of the 80's were good but not great.

England;s batting was mediocre while the bowling barring Willis's last few years was ordinary. The Indian batting was good, but the bowling, despite Kapil's presence was weak. India's secong highest wicket-taker of the 80's was Shastri, operating at an avg of 40 i think.

I remember reading somewhere that Indian and Aus fielding of the 80's was quite weak too.

India was a formidable bowling unit at home. So was Pakistan. Though not a lot of bowlers took a lot of wickets, there were numerous bowlers who did very well over short bursts - Siva, Hirwani, Maninder, Doshi, Ayub etc. Kapil did suffer on home pitches because he didn't have a great bowling partner, but spinners did very well. England was a pretty good team in the 80s, better than they were in the 90s. NZ with Hadlee and Martin Crowe were a competitive team. Pakistan was competitive with Imran, Akram, Qadir, Qasim, Tauseef, Miandad, Saleem Malik, Zaheer Abbas etc. Australia were not a formidable team in the 80s (but by no means a pushover), so was Srilanka but SL played very few test matches back then.

 

[Adijazz1706]

The WI team. Shame about the current WI lot, they wouldn't get into 2nd XIs of that era.

 

[Couch Cricketer]

If the Wi of the 70s played the Aus of the 90s-00s they would have smashed Aus. So I would rate the WI higher.

Sent from my SM-G925I

 

[Betterpolo]

Under which rules? If the Windies had to bowl 90 overs per day and were restricted on bouncers they would maybe need to change the balance of their team. And Warne/McGrath would still cause damage to any line-up. But Windies did face some very good bowlers and did have collapses but there was always someone to come through. Ultimately, the wicket taking, physical threat and psychological damage of this quick bowlers would win the day I feel.

 

[AlizeeFan]

Wi team got away with slow overrates.. Laws weren't strict at that time regarding minimum number of overs that has to be bowled during the day. That allowed them to play with 4 pacers without fear of them breaking down. I reckon they wouldn't have been effective with this strategy in 2000s

This will be most important challenge for WI team. If they were forced to bowl 90 overs then they would not have been able to intimidate batsmen with pace that much.

 

[Betterpolo]

Mind you, easy to forget that Roger Harper played a load of games between about '83 and '85 and the Windies played a 5 man attack often in that time.

 

[IndianWillow]

Wi team got away with slow overrates.. Laws weren't strict at that time regarding minimum number of overs that has to be bowled during the day. That allowed them to play with 4 pacers without fear of them breaking down. I reckon they wouldn't have been effective with this strategy in 2000s

WI team would probably knock off their opposition in 70-80 overs. Why care about overrates? About 60% of the time, the WI bowlers dismissed their opponents for <250.

 

[msb314]

Well didn't WI team of the 80s had 4 ATG quality pacers steaming in every game?

That puts them ahead IMHO.

Would be interested to hear what others got to say about this.

Otherwise, I don't see what separates them. They both were so ruthless that its hard to find what's their vulnerability as a team.

IMO - that Australian team of the 2000's had choked during vital moments during the era. They were ruthless in WC's but messed up a few times during bilateral series which otherwise would have cemented their dominance as a great of all-time team.

For example, they really really should have won that Kolkota Test in 2001. They had no excuse not to after winning the 1st test by such a big margin and leading by 271 runs when India had followed on.. They messed up trying to win their 17th consecutive test and the rest remains history!

Similar situation during the Ashes 2005. They should have won that Edgabaston Test! Granted Kasprowicz was a tailender who made a mess of the short ball from Flintoff but victory at the Edgabaston test would gained them a 2-0 lead and completely turned that tide during that Ashes series. They should not have let England back into the contest.

Similarly, that 438 run chase by SAF should never have happened. Australia had complete dominance over SAF up until that point and, IMO, it is inexcusable for a team to lose after posting a world record score (one of the reasons hy Pakistan's semifinal defeat to Australia in the 2010 WorldT20 hurts so much more than other WC defeats)

You can argue it was bilaterials, meaningless etc. but such demoralizing defeats offers the opposition a way back into the contest and a know-how of how to defeat such a mighty team.

For the WI side of the 1970's/80's - their complete failure during the 1987 WC was a major chink in their armor considering they were such a strong team back them. They also should have won the 1983 World Cup final against India but it was just not to be.

 

[Chrish]

WI team would probably knock off their opposition in 70-80 overs. Why care about overrates? About 60% of the time, the WI bowlers dismissed their opponents for <250.

Pitches during that time were more conductive to pace bowling. Wi tailored pitches in their country (Sabrina park and kennington oval for ex). Moreover there were no restrictions on how many bouncers you could bowl.

But now situation is quite different. Playing on the flats wickets under new rule means they wouldn't be able to run through sides as they did back in their day. They will be required to bowl more overs often which would require them to have at least one spinner

Wi didn't have a good spinner during those days as far as I can remember. So attack of 3 pacers and one spinner would still be strong but not quite close to their legendary pace quartet

 

[MMHS]

I would consider the Eng team of the 00's as better than that of the 80's. Their batting was significantly better during the period while the bowling, barring Willis who retired in 84, was roughly the same too. Botham was hot n cold throughout the 80's.

Could be, but that English side was massively under rated as well. They won a Series in IND & won 3 Ashes in 80s, albeit against weaker Aussie side. Also, that side struggled with players like Gooch, Gatting, Fowler, Lamb & few others frequently travelling South Africa & got banned.

I think, we are talking about the great WI side from 1975 to 1987 vs the great AUS side from 1999 to 2006 (before losing the Ashes), or may be 2007, when the stalwarts retired. If we consider the overall period, I think, ENG under Greig, Brearley & to a certain extent Gatting, with the best days of Botham, Gower, Greig, Wills, Hendricks, Dilley & Old, I probably 'll pick that era over this one. They played consistently better opponents & were a bit better balanced team with Botham in it.

 

[Scrolln]

India was a formidable bowling unit at home. So was Pakistan. Though not a lot of bowlers took a lot of wickets, there were numerous bowlers who did very well over short bursts - Siva, Hirwani, Maninder, Doshi, Ayub etc. Kapil did suffer on home pitches because he didn't have a great bowling partner, but spinners did very well. England was a pretty good team in the 80s, better than they were in the 90s. NZ with Hadlee and Martin Crowe were a competitive team. Pakistan was competitive with Imran, Akram, Qadir, Qasim, Tauseef, Miandad, Saleem Malik, Zaheer Abbas etc. Australia were not a formidable team in the 80s (but by no means a pushover), so was Srilanka but SL played very few test matches back then.

I don't think India were ever a weak bowling unit at home, but in the 80;s we were comparatively the weakest. We had the spin quartet in the 70's, 90's and 00's we were pretty much invincible at home. n the 80's, we lost 4 , drew 4 and won 4 series at home (including one against Lanka) Kapil was not at his best for most part of the 80's either.

I would rate the English team of the 80's and 90's more or less at par. Gooch/Stewart/Gough/Fraser in the 90s were very successful.

The WI, Pak and NZ team of the 80's might've been the best teams in their country's history.

 

[MMHS]

There were no weak test teams during the WI era. Even the weakest Kiwi team was a fierce competitor. WI did not have a competitor not because other teams were weak, but because they were too good, especially with the ball. Many teams during that era had ATG all rounders, batsmen and bowlers. 70s were not that competitive but the 80s were damn competitive, the WI were ahead simply because they were so good.

And bat as well - think about someone batting at 3 in a Test era not spoiled by ICC Globalization, with a batting stats of 60/80 in Test, when the average scoring rate was <2.5 & about 20 bowlers having a career average under 30.

Rest is exactly what I say about Imran - 10 years - 50/18 stats; no free lunch...................

 

[Markhor]

Some important things to bear in mind is that the West Indies were unbeaten in Test series for 15 years. The defeat in NZ was marred by dodgy umpiring so could've been 19 years. We often talk of Marshall, Holding, Roberts, Garner, Croft, Ambrose, Walsh (Jesus, what a list) but overlook the incredible bench strength they had - bowlers like Wayne Daniel, Patrick Patterson, Kenny and Winston Benjamin who could've got into any side of that era. West Indies also had a good record in the sub-continent with bowlers who could get it done on flat pitches. Marshall was a tactical genius, a thinking man's bowler as was Andy Roberts who Ian Botham says was the greatest he ever faced. The bowling is a no-contest, that WI pace attack remains the greatest bowling unit ever assembled in the history of cricket. Who do you score your runs off ? There is no weak link.

Between October 1999 and November 2007, Australia played 93 Tests, and won 72 of them. Australia had incredible mental strength and winning mentality reflected in the numbers - they won a higher percentage of games, had a higher win-loss ratio, and had a greater difference between their batting and bowling averages than the peak WI side (Feb 1981-Dec 1989).

Australia's batting is superior, Ricky Ponting was a champion of a player at 3 and you had Gilchrist averaging around 48 at 7 to launch those blistering counterattacks along with the quality of Langer, Hayden and the underrated Damien Martyn who did well in SC.

That being said WI played good opposition throughout the 80s. There was certainly no minnow bashing then. During West Indies' dominant period, all teams except Sri Lanka had win-loss ratios of 0.9 or more against teams other than West Indies. That means Australia, England, Pakistan, New Zealand, and India were all credible opposition for them. Australia played 20 Tests during their peak vs weaker sides (modern day WI, Zimbabwe and Bangladesh). However West Indies never got to play Apartheid-era South Africa who could've been one of the top sides of that era.

Australia win the batting, West Indies win the bowling. On a flat pitch Australia could bat WI out of the match but on a surface with any assistance for the quicks you'd bet on West Indies to prevail in a low-scoring shootout.

 

[Bhaijaan]

Given how ridiculously close these teams' records are, its pretty hard to decide for those that haven't actually watched West Indies play. Australia's bowling attack seems to be very underrated in this thread, especially in pace dept. WI's 4 men attack is legendary but apart from McGrath Aussies had Gillespi and Lee both of whom were ferocious in their peak. One think i see going against them though is they were put in place by a 2001 Indian team and then the Ashes 2005 goes against them. WI weren't subject to any such defeat for good 15 years.

 

[Tusker]

Australia.

During WI great era, there were hardly any competitor.

Australia had a full team.

Even if i disregard everything, WI doesn't even had a good spinner where as Australia had an ATG.

hence, WI wasn't a complete team to start with. It just that, they hide theor weakness well.

Well said. Completely Agree.

 

[MMHS]

Some important things to bear in mind is that the West Indies were unbeaten in Test series for 15 years. The defeat in NZ was marred by dodgy umpiring so could've been 19 years. We often talk of Marshall, Holding, Roberts, Garner, Croft, Ambrose, Walsh (Jesus, what a list) but overlook the incredible bench strength they had - bowlers like Wayne Daniel, Patrick Patterson, Kenny and Winston Benjamin who could've got into any side of that era. West Indies also had a good record in the sub-continent with bowlers who could get it done on flat pitches. Marshall was a tactical genius, a thinking man's bowler as was Andy Roberts who Ian Botham says was the greatest he ever faced. The bowling is a no-contest, that WI pace attack remains the greatest bowling unit ever assembled in the history of cricket. Who do you score your runs off ? There is no weak link.

Between October 1999 and November 2007, Australia played 93 Tests, and won 72 of them. Australia had incredible mental strength and winning mentality reflected in the numbers - they won a higher percentage of games, had a higher win-loss ratio, and had a greater difference between their batting and bowling averages than the peak WI side (Feb 1981-Dec 1989).

Australia's batting is superior, Ricky Ponting was a champion of a player at 3 and you had Gilchrist averaging around 48 at 7 to launch those blistering counterattacks along with the quality of Langer, Hayden and the underrated Damien Martyn who did well in SC.

That being said WI played good opposition throughout the 80s. There was certainly no minnow bashing then. During West Indies' dominant period, all teams except Sri Lanka had win-loss ratios of 0.9 or more against teams other than West Indies. That means Australia, England, Pakistan, New Zealand, and India were all credible opposition for them. Australia played 20 Tests during their peak vs weaker sides (modern day WI, Zimbabwe and Bangladesh). However West Indies never got to play Apartheid-era South Africa who could've been one of the top sides of that era.

Australia win the batting, West Indies win the bowling. On a flat pitch Australia could bat WI out of the match but on a surface with any assistance for the quicks you'd bet on West Indies to prevail in a low-scoring shootout.

AUS never wins in batting.

You never know what GG, Lloyd, Haynes, Richardson, Rowe or Kali would have done 30 years later. I picked Hayden because his record is unavoidable without context - you put context into it, he doesn't come ahead of even Slater, let alone Desi Haynes or Fredricks.

Here in PP, Jeofrey Doujn is one of the most under-rated cricketer - before Murrey went to SAF, Doujon played 3 Tests simply as batsman in that WI line up & Marshall 'll bat at 6 for current WI team. That was an ugly side to face - they won't beat you, they would hammer you. Even all the domination, AUS 'll bat first & put a score board pressure - Lloyd used to bowl first to cover rain loss & slow over rate.

AUS was lucky that, by the time of their domination, ICC had put lots of rules to maintain over rate, loss time, flood lights for bad light etc. - they had enough time to force a result. Put the same rules in that era - 450 overs, 1 hour extension in case of rain or slow over rate, flood lights in case of bad light; artificial drainage, super swapper, helicopter, chemical ropes to dry wet out fields - that WI side would have drawn 2/3 matches in entire decade.

You can't compare teams of different era without context - but one thing for sure, these teams 'll play danda-goti with that so called "Invincibles".....

 

[Markhor]

AUS never wins in batting.

You never know what GG, Lloyd, Haynes, Richardson, Rowe or Kali would have done 30 years later. I picked Hayden because his record is unavoidable without context - you put context into it, he doesn't come ahead of even Slater, let alone Desi Haynes or Fredricks.

Here in PP, Jeofrey Doujn is one of the most under-rated cricketer - before Murrey went to SAF, Doujon played 3 Tests simply as batsman in that WI line up & Marshall 'll bat at 6 for current WI team. That was an ugly side to face - they won't beat you, they would hammer you. Even all the domination, AUS 'll bat first & put a score board pressure - Lloyd used to bowl first to cover rain loss & slow over rate.

AUS was lucky that, by the time of their domination, ICC had put lots of rules to maintain over rate, loss time, flood lights for bad light etc. - they had enough time to force a result. Put the same rules in that era - 450 overs, 1 hour extension in case of rain or slow over rate, flood lights in case of bad light; artificial drainage, super swapper, helicopter, chemical ropes to dry wet out fields - that WI side would have drawn 2/3 matches in entire decade.

You can't compare teams of different era without context - but one thing for sure, these teams 'll play danda-goti with that so called "Invincibles".....

All valid points. One caveat to that stat about Australia having better batsmen - West Indies would've had to face better bowling - Hadlee, Imran, Wasim, Botham, Willis, Dev, Qadir etc whereas Australia at their peak between 1999-2007 arguably saw an era of weaker bowling attacks especially with many of the 90s generation having retired by the mid 2000s. And as you mention the conditions becoming more favourable to batsmen.

Jeff Dujon doesn't get enough credit (arguably as he's more known now as a rather tedious commentator...), he averaged 39 at 7 and was largely responsible for West Indies' average stand of 50.61 for the sixth wicket during this peak 81-89 period.

 

[IndianWillow]

Pitches during that time were more conductive to pace bowling. Wi tailored pitches in their country (Sabrina park and kennington oval for ex). Moreover there were no restrictions on how many bouncers you could bowl.

But now situation is quite different. Playing on the flats wickets under new rule means they wouldn't be able to run through sides as they did back in their day. They will be required to bowl more overs often which would require them to have at least one spinner

Wi didn't have a good spinner during those days as far as I can remember. So attack of 3 pacers and one spinner would still be strong but not quite close to their legendary pace quartet

IMO, WI bowlers often took the pitch out of the equation. Very few teams ever made 400 against a 2/3 strength WI team. Against a full strength WI side 300 was very difficult - there was no weak link in the bowling unit. So you had to hope that all the bowlers were out of form if you wanted to cross 300. They remained virtually unbeaten in a series for 15 years in a row. Even in away matches, WI record between 1977-1989 read played 61, won 26, lost 8 - even though the era of 80s was famous for draws, WI used to win consistently even while playing away and even while playing on slow SC wickets.

 

[IndianWillow]

Given how ridiculously close these teams' records are, its pretty hard to decide for those that haven't actually watched West Indies play. Australia's bowling attack seems to be very underrated in this thread, especially in pace dept. WI's 4 men attack is legendary but apart from McGrath Aussies had Gillespi and Lee both of whom were ferocious in their peak. One think i see going against them though is they were put in place by a 2001 Indian team and then the Ashes 2005 goes against them. WI weren't subject to any such defeat for good 15 years.

WI played in an era of relatively slower scoring rates and plenty of draws. Their ability to win so many matches was surely ahead of the Aussies. The Aussie team could be beaten in theory if you can beat their bowling. With WI you would have no such luck.

 

[Chrish]

IMO, WI bowlers often took the pitch out of the equation. Very few teams ever made 400 against a 2/3 strength WI team. Against a full strength WI side 300 was very difficult - there was no weak link in the bowling unit. So you had to hope that all the bowlers were out of form if you wanted to cross 300. They remained virtually unbeaten in a series for 15 years in a row. Even in away matches, WI record between 1977-1989 read played 61, won 26, lost 8 - even though the era of 80s was famous for draws, WI used to win consistently even while playing away and even while playing on slow SC wickets.

Wi bowlers took the pitch out of equation because the law at that time permitted it..

Take Windies series against nz in 87 for example. In the 1st match nz scored 386 in 177 overs against Marshall, garner, holding, and Walsh in 2nd inning. Now under the new law they would have to bowl 90 overs in day for 2 days in this situation and there is no way they can do it without few of their pacers breaking down. They bowled at slower rate which allowed the pacers to take rest in between. This will be out of question in 2000

Also restriction on bouncers and beamer takes intimidation factor out of question (huge part of their success)

 

[Junaids]

Australia.

During WI great era, there were hardly any competitor.

Australia had a full team.

Even if i disregard everything, WI doesn't even had a good spinner where as Australia had an ATG.

hence, WI wasn't a complete team to start with. It just that, they hide theor weakness well.

No offence, but you're presumably too young to understand the development of the West Indian four-pronged pace attack.

In the mid-70's their spinner Lance Gibbs retired just after he replaced Fred Trueman as the world record Test wicket taker.

But the skipper Clive Lloyd noted that the West Indies were winning nothing with a balanced attack, even with the world record holding spinner. Then the Windies were thrashed by the Aussie pace attack just as Michael Holding and Andy Roberts were establishing themselves as ATG quicks.

At the same time, several outstanding young quicks were breaking through at domestic level - notably Wayne Daniel in 75 and Joel Garner and Colin Croft the following year and Clarke and Marshall the year after.

Each of them ended up with a similar Test economy rate to Lance Gibbs, but with a much better strike rate. The idea of playing a balanced attack was dead - and with it the future for Roger Harper and Clyde Butts.

 

[MMHS]

No offence, but you're presumably too young to understand the development of the West Indian four-pronged pace attack.

In the mid-70's their spinner Lance Gibbs retired just after he replaced Fred Trueman as the world record Test wicket taker.

But the skipper Clive Lloyd noted that the West Indies were winning nothing with a balanced attack, even with the world record holding spinner. Then the Windies were thrashed by the Aussie pace attack just as Michael Holding and Andy Roberts were establishing themselves as ATG quicks.

At the same time, several outstanding young quicks were breaking through at domestic level - notably Wayne Daniel in 75 and Joel Garner and Colin Croft the following year and Clarke and Marshall the year after.

Each of them ended up with a similar Test economy rate to Lance Gibbs, but with a much better strike rate. The idea of playing a balanced attack was dead - and with it the future for Roger Harper and Clyde Butts.

True, but there was another BIG factor.

3rd Test, PoS, Trinidad, 1976, vs IND.

WI batted first, put 350+ & got a 130+ lead. Batting 2nd, Lloyd declared with half of the innings left & 400+ lead, 11+ hours remaining. Before declaring, he had a long chat on 4th morning with his 3 spinners - Al Padmore, Rafiq Jumedeen, Imtiaz Ali & declared an hour before lunch.

IND chased 406, just for 4 down, 2 of them run outs & those 3 bowled 104 overs in between them on a turner. Lloyd was so angry that, he kept these 3 spinners at the dressing room till the scheduled end on the match & gave them mouth full. Recently, he was hammered by Lillee, Thompson & Max Walker & then this; it was too much for the proud man. That was the day, he decided that, it's 4 FAST men & Viv to rest them in between.

After that day Lloyd played over 75 Tests in 12 years & WI one more (excluding Lloyd's Packer days' Tests). In those 12 years, only once a spinner played a Test for WI - Clyde Butts.... & yes, as a replacement of injured Clive Lloyd. I am sure, had Gibbs been 10 years younger, still he won't have played more that 1 Test Butts played.

 

[Random Aussie]

WI for mine.

 

[Harpoon]

I would go with Oz team...whats ur pick?

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

I can guarantee two things:

1. Anyone who even asks that question has not seen the WI team of the 70's and 80's in action.

2. Anyone who has seen the WI team of that era, will without hesitation state that the WI team was a freak of nature. There has never been and there will never be a tam of that calibre. Ever. Just like there wont ever be a batsman of Bradmans calibre. Ever.

 

[Pace90]

Skill wise , they might be the same, except King Richard, there has not been any batsman like him since, not even Ponting, Lara and tendulkar.

What makes me pick WI , is there confidence and dominance over all the other teams. Against Australia of 2000, many good teams tried to win the tests but against WI of late 70s, other teams wanted only to stretch the test beyond 4 days or attempted to avoid a white-wash by drawing at least one test.

 

[Tusker]

No offence, but you're presumably too young to understand the development of the West Indian four-pronged pace attack.

In the mid-70's their spinner Lance Gibbs retired just after he replaced Fred Trueman as the world record Test wicket taker.

But the skipper Clive Lloyd noted that the West Indies were winning nothing with a balanced attack, even with the world record holding spinner. Then the Windies were thrashed by the Aussie pace attack just as Michael Holding and Andy Roberts were establishing themselves as ATG quicks.

At the same time, several outstanding young quicks were breaking through at domestic level - notably Wayne Daniel in 75 and Joel Garner and Colin Croft the following year and Clarke and Marshall the year after.

Each of them ended up with a similar Test economy rate to Lance Gibbs, but with a much better strike rate. The idea of playing a balanced attack was dead - and with it the future for Roger Harper and Clyde Butts.

That All out pace attack worked in the late 70s and 80s when batsmen were still adapting to that type of bowling and the rules permitted bowling ~75 overs a day where 4 bowlers were enough to go thru a day. Marshall and Co would not have the same success today in current playing conditions , protections and aggressive batting mindsets.

The WI had the same potent bowlers in the 90s too ( Amby, Walsh, Bish) but did not have the success that they enjoyed in the late 70s and 80s.

 

[Junaids]

[MENTION=134300]Tusker[/MENTION], I largely agree, except about the 1990's West Indies attack.

Ian Bishop was never the same again after his back fractures in 1991. And Courtney Walsh had only ever been a reserve from 1984-1990, and his elevation to the frontline attack really symbolised the team's decline.

I don't think that the 1995-2005 Aussies could have averaged 250 per innings against the 1976-1986 West Indies in 1980's conditions. They would be slaughtered.

But I saw enough of the Waugh twins' problems against genuine pace to know that even in "modern" conditions the West Indies would still win most of the time.

 

[Junaids]

The Waugh twins and Hayden and Martyn and Gilchrist benefitted hugely from the restriction permitting only one short ball per over. Their default foot movement was forward.

In 1991 in the West Indies they lost convincingly when the bowlers could pin them on the back foot, even though the wickets were unusually slow and flat.

The Waughs, Martyn, Hayden and Langer had been available (and had all faced and lost to the Windies apart from Hayden) before Australia knocked the West Indies off the summit in 1995.

The thing is, the Aussies only started to win once Walsh and Ambrose were in their mid-30's and bowling at around 130-135K and once Bishop's second set of back fractures had ruined his career.

 

[Tusker]

[MENTION=134300]Tusker[/MENTION], I largely agree, except about the 1990's West Indies attack.

Ian Bishop was never the same again after his back fractures in 1991. And Courtney Walsh had only ever been a reserve from 1984-1990, and his elevation to the frontline attack really symbolised the team's decline.

I don't think that the 1995-2005 Aussies could have averaged 250 per innings against the 1976-1986 West Indies in 1980's conditions. They would be slaughtered.

But I saw enough of the Waugh twins' problems against genuine pace to know that even in "modern" conditions the West Indies would still win most of the time.

The SA team of the 90s and 00s was all pace oriented .... did not have much success against AUS. The WI team itself was still a big force till the mid 90s got owned by the AUS team.

Lets look at ODI's Aus won 3 Worldcups in that perid compared to the one worldcup won by WI with 4 fast bowlers ( 1975 was before LLoyd went the 4 fast bowler route) . The best Team WI ever had was in the early 80s and they lost to India at Lords ! that sort of thing is never going to happen with Aus team of late 90s and early 00's.

 

[Convict]

Warne and Gilchrist help Australia a lot.

 

[Junaids]

The SA team of the 90s and 00s never had a quick bowler who would have got into the 76-86 West Indies team.

Donald would be the closest. He was almost as good as Roberts or Holding.

But Pollock was 20K too slow which is why he failed in Australia. De Villiers also bowled around 130K while Ntini and Kallis would in, say, 1983 have ranked below

Marshall
Holding
Roberts
Garner
Croft
Stephenson
Moseley
Davis
Daniel
Alleyne

In other words, Donald could have played for West Indies B, Pollock would have played for West Indies C and Ntini would have been in the West Indies D team.

 

[cricketAXEpert]

I would go with Oz team...whats ur pick?

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

Windies would have destroyed the Mcgrath -warne 's Australia

 

[Ironcat]

WI. You can never get that combo off your mind. Marshall, Holding, Garner, Robert, Croft, and the company.

 

[Tusker]

The SA team of the 90s and 00s never had a quick bowler who would have got into the 76-86 West Indies team.

Donald would be the closest. He was almost as good as Roberts or Holding.

But Pollock was 20K too slow which is why he failed in Australia. De Villiers also bowled around 130K while Ntini and Kallis would in, say, 1983 have ranked below

Marshall
Holding
Roberts
Garner
Croft
Stephenson
Moseley
Davis
Daniel
Alleyne

In other words, Donald could have played for West Indies B, Pollock would have played for West Indies C and Ntini would have been in the West Indies D team.

I suggest you have a look at Donald and Pollocks record in the 90s ... they are comparable to Marshall in terms of avg and SR !! Had the played in the late 70's and 80s their records would be much better. And they bowled against better Batsmen.

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...al1=span;team=3;template=results;type=bowling

 

[Random Aussie]

The SA team of the 90s and 00s never had a quick bowler who would have got into the 76-86 West Indies team.

Donald would be the closest. He was almost as good as Roberts or Holding.

But Pollock was 20K too slow which is why he failed in Australia. De Villiers also bowled around 130K while Ntini and Kallis would in, say, 1983 have ranked below

Marshall
Holding
Roberts
Garner
Croft
Stephenson
Moseley
Davis
Daniel
Alleyne

In other words, Donald could have played for West Indies B, Pollock would have played for West Indies C and Ntini would have been in the West Indies D team.

Don't agree with this one, he failed because he just bowled outside off all day - never threatened the batsmen.

 

[soso_killer]

TBF to Aus Windies dominated when most sides were weak albeit with one or two ATG in the side.
Also teams kept on losing players via rebel tours or Kerry Packer series. They never even faced the best team of that era which was SA.
The only strong candidate was Pakistan. Most sides improved vastly in the 90's like India, or Lanka in the late 90's and early 2000's. Then the reintroduction of SA which made the 90's the most competitive era. No one can tell me India or Lanka were strong in the 80's or 70's, that would be bull even for the nostalgic farts. Australia were weak as well, Border moulded a team that would dominate in the 90's and 00's, and boy did they dominate.
Australia dominated when everyone was at their strongest. Pakistan were still a decent side in the 90's and early 2000's as well. Yet Australia dominated and conquered all.
The Windies batsmen never really got tested in terms of quality bowling combined with scoreboard pressure. Most teams were lopsided, like NZ relying on Hadlee with no one else to pile the runs to create more pressure (bar Crowe) etc. Look at Viv's record against Australia (the only decent bowling unit apart from his own bowlers), hardly dominant and definitely would have struggled in SA conditions against a superior attack to that of Australia.
All in all the Windies were a great side, but there is no ways they would have gone 27 series undefeated had they played in the 90's or faced SA in the 70's & early 80's for that matter. They had a few weak players against spin as well, just that no team could pile the runs even on dust bowls as they were weak batting sides bar Pakistan. Their attack separated them from the rest, their batting not as formidable though. Viv did give them a cutting edge, but it would have been interesting if teams could actually bat and pile a mountain of runs themselves. Then scoreboard pressure would have made things interesting. I would have liked to see this 4 fast bowlers strategy against Sehwag, Tendulkar, Dravid, Dada and Laxman in India with a rampaging Kumble bowling with scoreboard pressure on this side as well.
One could argue the were more ATG in the 70's/80's but that doesn't make a competitive era. What's an ATG gonna do on his own when surrounded by 8/9 mediocre players?TBF to Australia, Windies domination happened when most teams were at their weakest with

 

[soso_killer]

*Was wondering were the bottom part went as I had to type it again on top for the opening sentence. Couldn't edit on time.....

 

[Gilly]

Two great teams, none better than the other.

 

[IndianWillow]

Wi bowlers took the pitch out of equation because the law at that time permitted it..

Take Windies series against nz in 87 for example. In the 1st match nz scored 386 in 177 overs against Marshall, garner, holding, and Walsh in 2nd inning. Now under the new law they would have to bowl 90 overs in day for 2 days in this situation and there is no way they can do it without few of their pacers breaking down. They bowled at slower rate which allowed the pacers to take rest in between. This will be out of question in 2000

Also restriction on bouncers and beamer takes intimidation factor out of question (huge part of their success)

Occasionally, the WI bowlers were off color. But they were generally successful on all kinds of wickets.

WI at their peak had like eight or nine world class bowlers who could freely walk into any test team. WI B and C teams would be full of matching winning bowlers. WI could afford to play a 6 + 5 batting/bowling combination and they could afford bowling fresh pacemen all day long. When you have five pacemen there is no chance of any pacers breaking down. This WI bowling unit was far more formidable than any bowling team Australia or SA has ever produced. The great Australian batting unit of the 90s and 00s would have struggled to get 300 most of the time against this fearsome pack of bowlers. I can foresee Hayden, Gilchrist, Steve and Mark Waugh struggling against this level of pace attack. Batsmen like Greenidge and Haynes are used to facing tough express pace bowlers in the nets, and they were very tough batsmen against genuine pace bowling.

 

[soso_killer]

South Africa under Graeme Smith should be considered in the same league imo. IIRC they have not lost an away series in more than a decade in an era where home advantage is at its peak.

No, SA has always been a lopsided side to dominate in either tests or ODI's.
It could be argued that SA had 4 ATG batsmen (Smith, Kallis, Amla & AB) and one ATG in Steyn. That's 5 ATG, Aust had only 4 for most of the 2000's after Waugh retired (Ponting, Gilly, Warne and McGrath). The big difference is that guys who weren't great in the Australian side were very very good, whereas SA had a few passengers or limited blokes. Kallis helped SA paper over the cracks as SA never had a balanced side.
We never moulded a complete side, by the time AB and Amla came into their own in 07, Kirsten had long retired.
When Steyn turned world class in 07 Pollock and Ntini were past it.
Though SA has produced good players, their careers have intertwined with one player retiring or on his last legs and another coming in/turning world class.

 

[soso_killer]

Don't agree with this one, he failed because he just bowled outside off all day - never threatened the batsmen.

He failed coz he lost his pace.
When his knee went he was never the same bowler.
Even though he still had a good record in the 00's against everyone (bar Aus) he was more of a container or striking with the new ball whereas Ntini was th strike bowler and the leader of the attack post Donald era.
In 90's Pollock had a good record against Australia including a 7-for.
His pace was around 144 and troubled batsmen including Australia's. I think he averaged around 25 in Australia.
Its laughable to hear him being mentioned in C teams, coz Pollock prior to his knee injury makes any side. Especially when his batting is taken into account.

 

[Tusker]

WI. You can never get that combo off your mind. Marshall, Holding, Garner, Robert, Croft, and the company.

When we talk about WI Pace Quartet we speak of Marshall, Holding, Garner, Roberts

But the truth is that they only featured in 6 Test Matches(4 vs Ind and 2 vs Eng). Invariably one or two of them would be missing and their places taken by others such as Croft, Clarke, Daniel etc ....


http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...r_involve_type=all;template=results;type=team

 

[Pak Warrior]

The Greatest Team In Cricket History is West Indies, no other team has had such a reserve of Fast Bowling that their 2nd and 3rd tier teams would be a challenging task for their contemporaries during that time.

Oh Yeh Sir VIV was a Game Changer, in the biggest sense possible

 

[SL_Fan]

What a contest that would have been eh. On a fast bouncy wicket WI would have to be the faves. On a flat or spinning wicket I would put Oz slightly ahead. Overall tho if I had to pick one it would prolly be Windies. Hard to look past that pace battery. Dayum!

 

[Buffet]

TBF to Aus Windies dominated when most sides were weak albeit with one or two ATG in the side.
Also teams kept on losing players via rebel tours or Kerry Packer series. They never even faced the best team of that era which was SA.
The only strong candidate was Pakistan. Most sides improved vastly in the 90's like India, or Lanka in the late 90's and early 2000's. Then the reintroduction of SA which made the 90's the most competitive era. No one can tell me India or Lanka were strong in the 80's or 70's, that would be bull even for the nostalgic farts. Australia were weak as well, Border moulded a team that would dominate in the 90's and 00's, and boy did they dominate.
Australia dominated when everyone was at their strongest. Pakistan were still a decent side in the 90's and early 2000's as well. Yet Australia dominated and conquered all.
The Windies batsmen never really got tested in terms of quality bowling combined with scoreboard pressure. Most teams were lopsided, like NZ relying on Hadlee with no one else to pile the runs to create more pressure (bar Crowe) etc. Look at Viv's record against Australia (the only decent bowling unit apart from his own bowlers), hardly dominant and definitely would have struggled in SA conditions against a superior attack to that of Australia.
All in all the Windies were a great side, but there is no ways they would have gone 27 series undefeated had they played in the 90's or faced SA in the 70's & early 80's for that matter. They had a few weak players against spin as well, just that no team could pile the runs even on dust bowls as they were weak batting sides bar Pakistan. Their attack separated them from the rest, their batting not as formidable though. Viv did give them a cutting edge, but it would have been interesting if teams could actually bat and pile a mountain of runs themselves. Then scoreboard pressure would have made things interesting. I would have liked to see this 4 fast bowlers strategy against Sehwag, Tendulkar, Dravid, Dada and Laxman in India with a rampaging Kumble bowling with scoreboard pressure on this side as well.
One could argue the were more ATG in the 70's/80's but that doesn't make a competitive era. What's an ATG gonna do on his own when surrounded by 8/9 mediocre players?TBF to Australia, Windies domination happened when most teams were at their weakest with

Some good points raised here.

In 80s, only one bowling unit averaged below 30. In 90s, we saw 4 bowling units averaging below 30. Apart from WI, no bowling attack was too great in 80s. Some had individual gun bowlers but as an unit, 90s was more difficult to score runs. SA bowling unit in 90s averaged 27 per wicket. Apart from WI of 80s, it's better than any other bowling units of the last few decades. So SA coming in 90s made a huge difference when it comes to competition in international cricket.

WI was undefeated but Aus dominated a lot more than WI. I still rank WI a bit higher, but just a bit higher and not by much. About the score board pressure - I think 4 pacers with 90 overs would have taken a huge toll.

--------

SA didn't have the team to match great WI/SA. Aus/WI dominated both formats due to having many ATGs at the same time. That was not the case with SA. I think situation would have been interesting if ban had not taken place. Then, SA would have played with many ATG players.

 

[Srtfan]

[MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION] what is your view?

 

[Giannis]

Never saw either team lol, didn't start watching cricket until the mid 2000s. My dad rates the west indies of the 70s and 80s higher, while Australia were very dominant and almost invincible in the 90s/2000s, according to my dad the West Indies had a fear factor like no other.

 

[Mamoon]

[MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION] what is your view?

I would go with Australia because of the Warne and Gilchrist factor.

West Indies did not have a proper spinner, and Dujon was not in Gilchrist’s league as far as batting is concerned.

 

[Gilly]

No, SA has always been a lopsided side to dominate in either tests or ODI's.
It could be argued that SA had 4 ATG batsmen (Smith, Kallis, Amla & AB) and one ATG in Steyn. That's 5 ATG, Aust had only 4 for most of the 2000's after Waugh retired (Ponting, Gilly, Warne and McGrath). The big difference is that guys who weren't great in the Australian side were very very good, whereas SA had a few passengers or limited blokes. Kallis helped SA paper over the cracks as SA never had a balanced side.
We never moulded a complete side, by the time AB and Amla came into their own in 07, Kirsten had long retired.
When Steyn turned world class in 07 Pollock and Ntini were past it.
Though SA has produced good players, their careers have intertwined with one player retiring or on his last legs and another coming in/turning world class.

Hayden is not a ATG.

 

[Srtfan]

Aus batting > wi batting
Aus wk > wi wk
Aus fast bowler < wi fast bowler
Aus spinner > wi spinner
Overall aus.