Facing the facts of history - Windies greater than Aussies

[Dare]

Dare,

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

Why would I, the thread is about the 15 years the WI dominated and the almost 15 years the Aussies dominated??

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.

So you say this and then below you start comparing players....

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

You comparing a spinner with a pace bowler?? now Iv seen everything.

Also Holder and Hooper?? those arent even the best spinner WI produced.

 

[King Cricket]

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

This is the most "lol"est comparison I've ever come across.
:rtfl:rtfl:rtfl:rtfl:rtfl
C'mon, why have you stopped? Next compare a batsman with a bowler. How about Zaheer Khan with Rahul Dravid?

 

[Dare]

the thing that makes it even funnier is that right above that he said don't compare players.

 

[aussie_ben91]

This is the most "lol"est comparison I've ever come across.
:rtfl:rtfl:rtfl:rtfl:rtfl
C'mon, why have you stopped? Next compare a batsman with a bowler. How about Zaheer Khan with Rahul Dravid?

Warne is a better bowler then any West Indies bowlers from the 1980's. I don't see what's so funny about that. If anything, he should be laughing at you for making such a silly assessment.

 

[Dare]

Warne is a better bowler then any West Indies bowlers from the 1980's. I don't see what's so funny about that. If anything, he should be laughing at you for making such a silly assessment.

Comparing bowlers from different eras is hard enough, comparing a pace bowler and a spin bowlers from different eras is impossible.

The only way I myself could even begin to compare them is below.

As effective as Warne was for Australia as a spin bowler on the same level Marshall and Garner were for WI.

 

[aussie_ben91]

Comparing bowlers from different eras is hard enough, comparing a pace bowler and a spin bowlers from different eras is impossible.

The only way I myself could even begin to compare them is below.

As effective as Warne was for Australia as a spin bowler on the same level Marshall and Garner were for WI.

Warne was rated in the Top 5 Wisden Cricketers of the 20th Century. He is probably the best bowler of alltime.

 

[King Cricket]

the best bowler of alltime.

And Muttiah Muralitharan, who has taken more wickets than Warne in both forms of the game playing less number of matches, is the worst bowler of alltime.

 

[metallics2006]

And Muttiah Muralitharan, who has taken more wickets than Warne in both forms of the game playing less number of matches, is the worst bowler of alltime.

Murali played for WI?:confused:

 

[Dare]

Warne was rated in the Top 5 Wisden Cricketers of the 20th Century. He is probably the best bowler of alltime.

Nobody is arguing with that. But comparing him with a pace bowlers is almost stupid.

 

[aussie_ben91]

Nobody is arguing with that. But comparing him with a pace bowlers is almost stupid.

There is nothing wrong with saying that he was a better bowler, because in hindsight, he is.

 

[nightprowler10]

Hmm, not sure how a great spinner can ever be better than a great seamer. Let's say for the sake of the argument, McGrath vs Warne. McGrath could potentially destroy a lineup in any condition regardless of how much the ball had aged. Warne, being a spinner, would be near useless with the new ball and couldn't do much on a flat pitch.

Not saying I disagree with anything, but would like for someone to explain the logic behind saying Warne > Marshall, Holding, Garner, etc.