Facing the facts of history - Windies greater than Aussies

[shravi]

Jeez, stop comparing stuff like this. There is no way for you to ever find out the true answer. It's all just speculation so you can have an opinion but you can't really pass it off as a fact as has been done by both sides at various points in this thread. The only way for an adequate comparison would be to pit both teams against each other in a 5 test match series where conditions vary from conditions that were specific to the past era to the current era. That's never going to happen.

 

[mrtwisties]

You could measure the number of standard deviations separating the champions from the standard players. People have used that method to compare Don Bradman with Roger Federer, so I don't see why something as simple as comparing two different decades of the same game should present a problem.

(Don Bradman won, by the way - no-one has ever been as far ahead of his peers in any sport as Don Bradman was ahead of his)

(I confess that this doesn't account for differing levels of competitiveness within different sports, I'm not sure how you deal with that but there might be a good way)

 

[Dare]

Why would you do that though?

Waugh & Ponting's era lasted 8 years whilst Lloyd's era lasted 9 years. I was going to put only Waugh's era but it only lasted 5 years. 8 & 9 years are pretty much similar, but if I specifically put Waugh's side, then it would be allot better then Waugh & Ponting's side put together.

Well the thread is about the 15 years that WI never lost a series, and that started in 1980. Comparing the WI from 80-95 and Australia from 95 to present would actually make allot of sense because that's when they were at their most dominant.

3. The West Indies bombarded batsman with bouncers, trying to knock their heads off. That's hardly in the spirit of the game, is it?

Where in the rule books did it say that you were no allowed to do that. Its like a WI fan complaining about the last ODI against England saying "Flintoff bowled too many yorkers, its not in the spirit of the game". Bowling lots of bouncers was within the rules.

Hayden > Greenidge
Langer > Haynes
Viv > Ponting
Mark Waugh > Kallicharran
Steve Waugh > Lloyd
Martyn > Gomes
Gilchrist > Dujon

Actually Haynes or GG (whichever you prefer to compare) were equal or better than Langer. GG was definitely better, Haynes would be on par. Also I don't understand on what basis you claim that Mark Waugh is better than Kallicharran. Including Kallicharan who only played 1 year of the 15 that the WI dominated doesn't make sense. Someone like Richardson would make more sense.
I would still give the edge to Australia in the batting department but bowling is a different story.
Marshall=McGrath
Holding>Lee
Roberts>Gillespie
And I dont really feel like comparing Garner to Warne because it wouldn't make much sense. That would be the only edge that Australia had in their bowling. But its something that Big Bird could more than even out with his bowling.

 

[mrtwisties]

I agree with most of your points, Dare, but have to disagree with one.

Where in the rule books did it say that you were no allowed to do that.

This sort of thing can always be said when people act within the letter of the law, but outside its spirit. For example, there was nothing in the rules preventing Australia from bowling underarm to NZ, yet no-one would ever say that that delivery was in the spirit of the game.

The fact that the laws were later changed to restrict the use of bouncers and underarm deliveries is a pretty good indication that both practices are frowned upon.

Some people love aggressive bowling. Some people hate it.
Some people love sledging. Some people hate it.

We each have to make the judgment as to which is worse for ourselves. But there's no denying that both practices stirred up a lot of controversy and resentment throughout the cricketing world.

For this reason, I think Ben is right to suggest that there's a certain equivalency between the West Indies and Australian teams in this respect.

 

[metallics2006]

I agree with most of your points, Dare, but have to disagree with one.



This sort of thing can always be said when people act within the letter of the law, but outside its spirit. For example, there was nothing in the rules preventing Australia from bowling underarm to NZ, yet no-one would ever say that that delivery was in the spirit of the game.

The fact that the laws were later changed to restrict the use of bouncers and underarm deliveries is a pretty good indication that both practices are frowned upon.

Some people love aggressive bowling. Some people hate it.
Some people love sledging. Some people hate it.

We each have to make the judgment as to which is worse for ourselves. But there's no denying that both practices stirred up a lot of controversy and resentment throughout the cricketing world.

For this reason, I think Ben is right to suggest that there's a certain equivalency between the West Indies and Australian teams in this respect.

Then I say Brett Lee did'nt play within the spirit of the game since he bowled beamers aimed at batrsmen's face. Sounds absurd does'nt it? Same applies for bouncers.

 

[Dare]

This sort of thing can always be said when people act within the letter of the law, but outside its spirit. For example, there was nothing in the rules preventing Australia from bowling underarm to NZ, yet no-one would ever say that that delivery was in the spirit of the game.

The fact that the laws were later changed to restrict the use of bouncers and underarm deliveries is a pretty good indication that both practices are frowned upon.

Some people love aggressive bowling. Some people hate it.
Some people love sledging. Some people hate it.

We each have to make the judgment as to which is worse for ourselves. But there's no denying that both practices stirred up a lot of controversy and resentment throughout the cricketing world.

For this reason, I think Ben is right to suggest that there's a certain equivalency between the West Indies and Australian teams in this respect.

There is a huge difference between the bouncers and the underarm ball.

The bouncers come at all stages of the match, the underarm ball was used because that is the only way Australia could win the match.

The bouncer WI bowlers bowled and the underarm ball should even be compared or mentioned in the same sentence. Nothing similar between the two.

 

[mrtwisties]

Of course underarm bowling was worse, that's not even in question (although what really makes it worse is that Australia were 99% certain of winning the match anyway, they certainly didn't need to do it).

The point I'm making is that the same argument was used to justify both actions. "It's not explicitly against the rules" is right up there with "I was just following orders" as being a famously rubbish defence.

We each make our own judgments about what's in the spirit of the game, and the rules have little to do with it. I personally like a bit of aggressive fast bowling, provided that it's done in a reasonably good-natured fashion (see eg Malcolm Marshall or Mitchell Johnson). I have pretty much the same attitude towards sledging. But I think that both the Windies and Australia carried these practices entirely too far during their periods of dominance. Ambrose and Warne are probably the guys whose behaviour I really disapprove of, but they're far from being alone.

(Metallics, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Brett Lee only ever bowled beamers because he's a bit of an unco and can't control where he's placing the ball. If I thought he was doing it deliberately, he'd have to be banned from the game.)

 

[srikarr12]

I wonder why we havent made a rule which states that the "bowlers should tell the batsmen that the next bowl they are gonna bowl is a bouncer" so they should watch out otherwise its not in the spirit of the game...........:

 

[Dare]

The point I'm making is that the same argument was used to justify both actions. "It's not explicitly against the rules" is right up there with "I was just following orders" as being a famously rubbish defence.

I understand your argument but I cant recall any other time where the underarm ball was used. The bouncer has always been a part of the game. Certainly some of the WI bowlers took it too far but it was done to batsman that thought they could come out without helmets or just a helmet with no face mask thingy. To them it was disrespectful (cant find a better word) and if you had the guts to come out like that they were going to test you and see if you are really that brave.

We each make our own judgments about what's in the spirit of the game, and the rules have little to do with it. I personally like a bit of aggressive fast bowling, provided that it's done in a reasonably good-natured fashion (see eg Malcolm Marshall or Mitchell Johnson). I have pretty much the same attitude towards sledging. But I think that both the Windies and Australia carried these practices entirely too far during their periods of dominance. Ambrose and Warne are probably the guys whose behaviour I really disapprove of, but they're far from being alone.

Well these days there is a limit to the bouncers but still some bowlers go over the limit (Edwards is a good example) and the test match immediately come alive if they are quick and accurate and get the batsman of his game.
I am sure that if you gave a WI bowler from the 70s/80s the option of bowling a bouncer or the underarm ball in the same situation he would take the bouncer an day.
I myself don't like the limit on the bouncers. Batsman already come out armed to the teeth with pads and elbow guards and all other kinds of crap under the uniform and they still get other things in their favor. In the old days you could actually unsettle a batsman with the bouncers but
now with the limit you really cant do anything to a batsman.

 

[srikarr12]

I myself don't like the limit on the bouncers. Batsman already come out armed to the teeth with pads and elbow guards and all other kinds of crap under the uniform and they still get other things in their favor. In the old days you could actually unsettle a batsman with the bouncers but
now with the limit you really cant do anything to a batsman.

+1 Batsmen should step upto the bowler if they want to prove themselves rather then back off and wait for half volleys, outside off deliveries etc...

 

[aussie_ben91]

Marshall and Garner are better than McGrath.

No, they are not. McGrath bowled to better batsman, in less favourable conditions and had more success then both of them over a longer stretch of time.

Well the thread is about the 15 years that WI never lost a series, and that started in 1980. Comparing the WI from 80-95 and Australia from 95 to present would actually make allot of sense because that's when they were at their most dominant.

Well then maybe us Australians have the right to call back Greg Chappell then. He destroyed your 'great' bowling lineup on a countless ammounts of times. He was the West Indies' superior.

Actually Haynes or GG (whichever you prefer to compare) were equal or better than Langer. GG was definitely better, Haynes would be on par. Also I don't understand on what basis you claim that Mark Waugh is better than Kallicharran. Including Kallicharan who only played 1 year of the 15 that the WI dominated doesn't make sense. Someone like Richardson would make more sense.

Greenidge was better then Langer but Haynes sure as hell wasn't. I've seen Haynes bat and wasn't impressed one bit.

I would still give the edge to Australia in the batting department but bowling is a different story.
Marshall=McGrath
Holding>Lee
Roberts>Gillespie
And I dont really feel like comparing Garner to Warne because it wouldn't make much sense. That would be the only edge that Australia had in their bowling. But its something that Big Bird could more than even out with his bowling.

Bit harsh on Gillespie. He is atleast on par with Andy Roberts. Similar overall average, bowled to better batsman, on flatter pitches. Gillespie was much like Shaun Pollock in the aspect that they both played past their best but Gillespie was dynamite in the early stages of his career - outperforming Glenn McGrath.

 

[tech.007]

none of the Aussie players of today has the courage to face the legendary west indian fast bowlers......Australia is below par.

 

[Precambrian]

Surely the Australians under Ian Chappell. Not my theory, but that of a dear friend in another forum. And by gosh, his arguments sounded so bloody right.

Then the Aussies of 99-07

Then the Windies.

Then the invincibles.

 

[Dare]

Well then maybe us Australians have the right to call back Greg Chappell then. He destroyed your 'great' bowling lineup on a countless ammounts of times. He was the West Indies' superior.

Why? His last test was in 84. He has nothing to do with the Australians that dominated since 95.
I don't understand whats so hard to understand here. The thread is about the 15 years that the WI dominated and the almost 15 years that the Aussies dominated.

Greenidge was better then Langer but Haynes sure as hell wasn't. I've seen Haynes bat and wasn't impressed one bit.

I guess you can say that. Haynes was a good opener, not that far of GG and Langer.

Bit harsh on Gillespie. He is atleast on par with Andy Roberts. Similar overall average, bowled to better batsman, on flatter pitches. Gillespie was much like Shaun Pollock in the aspect that they both played past their best but Gillespie was dynamite in the early stages of his career - outperforming Glenn McGrath.

OK no biggie, switch Roberts with Ambrose or Walsh.

 

[jontyrhodes]

Dare,

Instead of looking at the number of years these teams dominated, why don't you look at number of matches they dominated?

Also, as I mentioned before, Australia played and won a hell lot of ODIs between this span.

And please guys do not compare batsman to batsman or bowler to bowler. You can never determine which TEAM was better just by comparing individuals.

By the way, In My Opinion,

Shane Keith Warne :hpraise>>>> Any WI fast bowler from 80's. Forget spinner (Holder, Hooper).

Glenn McGrath ~ Malcolm Marshall

Holding/Joel Garner/Walsh/Ambrose/ Roberts >> Lee/Gillespie/Fleming/ Reifell/Kasper

Sir Viv Richards :hpraise>> Punter (lol. no comparision)

but overall
Aussie batting line up > WI batting line up.