West Indies (70's-80's) vs Australia (2000's)?

[manee]

No! Beefy had just one weapon - one weapon only. Whole grain wheat...nothing else!

 

[stereotype]

im probably going to sound biased but I do think Australia do have an edge.

Australia bat at a faster rate and having a guy like Warne in the side would make life very difficult for the batsmen. They wouldnt have faced a guy like Shane Warne, on a hard or dusty surface Stuart MacGill who also in his prime was an outstanding bowler, taking 200 wickets in limited appearances.

I dont like comparing one era to another, but Australia are very dominant and have been for about a decade now, although not as successful as earlier in the decade, still worthy of being the best test nation and ODI nation. The Australians went through the last two world cups undefeated and in both finals scored runs at a berserk rate.

If played under todays rules Australia would win especially with limitations to bouncers which were the Windies best weapons

stereotype added 11 Minutes and 35 Seconds later...

but also Malcom Marshall. I did read some of the earlier pages and he is the real deal. A lot of judges regard him as the best pace bowler ever and holds his head with the greats. But he wasnt overly quick, he was short for a bowler shorter than Brett Lee

Glenn McGrath IMO also deserves this tag too, he is playing in an era that favors batsmen. Remember back when Glenn McGrath got his hattrick against WI. He publicly stated he would dismiss Sherwin Campbell and Brian Lara for his 299th and 300th wicket and ended up doing it in successive deliveries then dismissed Jimmy Adams. Complete genius and he targeted players all the time and generally dominated them

 

[manee]

ODIs would be a no contest with Australia 2000s winning, but interestingly argued for the Tests.

 

[Cricket_god]

Indeed. Waqar timed 147kph as late as Natwest Series 2001; although his pace was nearer 130kph throughout that series, it showed that he was holding back due to the fragilities in his body and to concentrate on accuracy rather than an inability to bowl quick. His seven wicket haul showed the advantages of slowing down for him. Wasim was only fast-medium though, as far as I recall, timing 145kph in 1992/3 season but never consistently bowling above 140kph post-1998 in the era of speed guns - this being said, Wasim's advantage was never raw pace, but rather the quick arm. Cricket_god, I don't think you can use Wasim's estimated pace as an example of the mislead assumptions of the time, simply because Wasim's unusual action and occasionally frighteningly late swing added the illusion of pace, like no other.



Check and mate. Shaun Tait, bowling over 150kph in the era of speed guns in every game is proof that unorthodox, untaught actions can bring about pace - just as they did in the 1970s.



Furthermore, Kapil was regarded as the quickest bowler to have come out of India by many. In my opinion, his pace is only second to Javagal Srinath. Ian Botham was sharp in his prime, but agreed that he was medium-fast by the time he put on all that weight and lost his bowling form. Richard Hadlee was most certainly right arm fast, from all reports, in his earlier days and slowed down for accuracy - rather than lost his pace. Presumably, he was still able to crank up the speed if the situation demanded such.

if you say richard hadlee was rigth arm fast when he started,and you watched him bowl,i have no more comments to make

Cricket_god added 6 Minutes and 10 Seconds later...

1) Pace of pitches have nothing to do with the speed of the bowler. It won't affect how quickly a bowler releases the ball.
2) They are fitter? No, they have more complicated regimes. But, just as many bowlers are getting injured now, as they did then. They bowled a lot more overs then, that compensates for the difference in physical regimes
3) Waqar and Akram regularly bowled at 90mph, that is express pace
4) They were categorised as fast, because they were fast. Snow and Willis were quick, Thommo and Lillee were quick.
5) Those speed gun calculations were later proven to be showing slower speeds than the bowler actually bowled.
6) Like Shaun Tait?
8) That's only because we have new phrases. Back in the 70s/80s there wasn't as much emphasis on speed. It was, Fast, Swing, Seam bowlers.

1-I meant people like you are mislead by the bounce they got,also
bowlers tend to bowl fast in helpful conditions
2-if 70's bowlers played 60 odi games 20 t20 games 15 tests ayear
they would be bowling in the 120's
3-wasim akram,waqar younis bowling consistently over 90mph are you nuts?
4-they were categorised as fast as they were faster than the other playing at that time


people who are naive and still do not want to accept facts please
look at the positioning of wicket keepers and still if you do not believe the facts you are old

 

[Dare]

are you nuts ?

the video is fast,not marshall .they slow down the vidoe broadcast
today other wise you could not, see the ball at 145+,

marshall was the slowest he bowled around 130-140,
if you look at all of 4 bowlers only garner,roberts looked quick,

still the quickest at that time was 147 km/hr.

its just hype about how quick they were,but they were very skilled
marshall may not have express pace but he had a great bouncer
and swung the ball.garner used his height fully,roberts had a quick arm action

also curtly ambrose was fast medium not fast

Roberts was the fastest of the bunch without a doubt but Holding was faster than Garner. As far as I could see Garner and Marshall bowled at similar speeds.

 

[Sureshot]

1-I meant people like you are mislead by the bounce they got,also
bowlers tend to bowl fast in helpful conditions
2-if 70's bowlers played 60 odi games 20 t20 games 15 tests ayear
they would be bowling in the 120's
3-wasim akram,waqar younis bowling consistently over 90mph are you nuts?
4-they were categorised as fast as they were faster than the other playing at that time


people who are naive and still do not want to accept facts please
look at the positioning of wicket keepers and still if you do not believe the facts you are old

2 - No current teams play 60 ODI games a year, 35-40 at most. It is more International Cricket, but it is countered by how much more they played for their counties.

Bob Willis stats:

90 Tests in a career spanning 13 years from debut to last Test. England played 140 tests over that period. 2,893 overs. 32 overs per test
600 overs in 64 ODIs (91 played by England in time span)
8,000 overs in 308 FC matches spanning 15 years.
2,500 overs in 293 List A matches spanning 15 years .

*Overs done, balls divided by 6, may not be accurate for the ODIs, but put's it into a modern relative.

A bowler renowned for his run-up of over 30 yards. Who also had big injury problems early in his England career. Willis never played South Africa, Zimbabwe or Bangladesh.

Glenn McGrath stats:
124 tests in a career spanning just over 13 years (Australia played 152 in that period, only 12 more than England played in the Willis career.) 39 overs per test
250 ODIs, 2161 overs in 13 years, hardly 60 a year!
189 FC games in 14 years, just under 7,000 overs
303 List A games in 14 years, 2,615 overs.

Current bowlers play more international cricket, particularly in the ODI side. Tests are still very similar, especially when you conclude that Willis never played vs RSA, Bangladesh or Zimbabwe. But Willis played a lot more for his county. I'd be more than happy to compare Willis to a recent England bowler, couldn't think of many who have played 90 tests though. Hoggard is nearest with 67.

International crickets play very little county cricket, it evens itself out.

4 - Are you saying Lillee and Thompson were slow? Are you saying that the WIndies paceman were just normal seamers at around 82mph? Says a lot of the batsman of that time then, if so.

 

[aussie_ben91]

Australia would win 5-0.

The Windies batsman never come across a spin bowler like Shane Warne and they'd all likely be completely bamboozled.

I'd hate to see how they'd play Murali in Sri Lanka.

 

[manee]

if you say richard hadlee was rigth arm fast when he started,and you watched him bowl,i have no more comments to make

From wikipedia:
"Hadlee was a right-arm pace bowler. Initially extremely fast, as the years progressed he gained accuracy, movement off the wicket and in the air, and a reputation that probably gained him quite a few wickets on its own. Perhaps his most potent delivery was the often unplayable outswinger, which became his main weapon in the latter stages of his career."

From cricinfo:
"In those days, however, Hadlee was a tearaway, placing speed far ahead of guile, an attitude that was matched by his unkempt, long-haired appearance."

I have also read in The Fast Bowler's Bible that Richard Hadlee was a tearaway in his earlier days but realised that he had to become more accurate to succeed, after unimpressive returns in his first few games.

manee added 1 Minutes and 34 Seconds later...

As far as I could see Garner and Marshall bowled at similar speeds.

Very hard to judge though, since they had over a foot difference in height.

manee added 2 Minutes and 55 Seconds later...

Australia would win 5-0.

The Windies batsman never come across a spin bowler like Shane Warne and they'd all likely be completely bamboozled.

I'd hate to see how they'd play Murali in Sri Lanka.

Some of the earlier batsmen of the 1970s would have played spinners on uncovered pitches though, which would certainly be a very tough prospect especially since spinners of those days tended to push it through a bit quicker because the odd ball would jump off a loose piece of turf. Not comparing the spinners to Warne or Muralitharan since the latter two are obviously much greater, but the prospect would have been quite difficult nonetheless. Keep in mind that there were also Indian spinners in the 1970s and 1980s one absolute dustbowls which would have also been comparable to the threat of Warne or Murali on spinning pitch, but again, accepted that the threat of Muralitharan on a Sri Lankan pitch would be one they'd find difficult.

 

[aussie_ben91]

The Windies batsman wouldn't read Murali's doosra or action.

If the Windies of the 70s - 80s played Sri Lanka of the modern age then it could arguably one of the shortest Test matches in history.

 

[manee]

The Windies batsman wouldn't read Murali's doosra or action.

If the Windies of the 70s - 80s played Sri Lanka of the modern age then it could arguably one of the shortest Test matches in history.

Perhaps, but this is the same as Muralitharan at the beginning of his career, and he by no means anhiliated teams for 0 even just after the inception of the doosra.

 

[Cricket_god]

From wikipedia:
"Hadlee was a right-arm pace bowler. Initially extremely fast, as the years progressed he gained accuracy, movement off the wicket and in the air, and a reputation that probably gained him quite a few wickets on its own. Perhaps his most potent delivery was the often unplayable outswinger, which became his main weapon in the latter stages of his career."

From cricinfo:
"In those days, however, Hadlee was a tearaway, placing speed far ahead of guile, an attitude that was matched by his unkempt, long-haired appearance."

I have also read in The Fast Bowler's Bible that Richard Hadlee was a tearaway in his earlier days but realised that he had to become more accurate to succeed, after unimpressive returns in his first few games.

manee added 1 Minutes and 34 Seconds later...



Very hard to judge though, since they had over a foot difference in height.

manee added 2 Minutes and 55 Seconds later...



Some of the earlier batsmen of the 1970s would have played spinners on uncovered pitches though, which would certainly be a very tough prospect especially since spinners of those days tended to push it through a bit quicker because the odd ball would jump off a loose piece of turf. Not comparing the spinners to Warne or Muralitharan since the latter two are obviously much greater, but the prospect would have been quite difficult nonetheless. Keep in mind that there were also Indian spinners in the 1970s and 1980s one absolute dustbowls which would have also been comparable to the threat of Warne or Murali on spinning pitch, but again, accepted that the threat of Muralitharan on a Sri Lankan pitch would be one they'd find difficult.

manee,you really believe a whole lot of rubbish,
for being afast bowler first of all you need a action
i am sorry to say hadlee was aswing bowler,he never was tearaway quick
and pace does not decrease

Cricket_god added 1 Minutes and 44 Seconds later...

2 - No current teams play 60 ODI games a year, 35-40 at most. It is more International Cricket, but it is countered by how much more they played for their counties.

Bob Willis stats:

90 Tests in a career spanning 13 years from debut to last Test. England played 140 tests over that period. 2,893 overs. 32 overs per test
600 overs in 64 ODIs (91 played by England in time span)
8,000 overs in 308 FC matches spanning 15 years.
2,500 overs in 293 List A matches spanning 15 years .

*Overs done, balls divided by 6, may not be accurate for the ODIs, but put's it into a modern relative.

A bowler renowned for his run-up of over 30 yards. Who also had big injury problems early in his England career. Willis never played South Africa, Zimbabwe or Bangladesh.

Glenn McGrath stats:
124 tests in a career spanning just over 13 years (Australia played 152 in that period, only 12 more than England played in the Willis career.) 39 overs per test
250 ODIs, 2161 overs in 13 years, hardly 60 a year!
189 FC games in 14 years, just under 7,000 overs
303 List A games in 14 years, 2,615 overs.

Current bowlers play more international cricket, particularly in the ODI side. Tests are still very similar, especially when you conclude that Willis never played vs RSA, Bangladesh or Zimbabwe. But Willis played a lot more for his county. I'd be more than happy to compare Willis to a recent England bowler, couldn't think of many who have played 90 tests though. Hoggard is nearest with 67.

International crickets play very little county cricket, it evens itself out.

4 - Are you saying Lillee and Thompson were slow? Are you saying that the WIndies paceman were just normal seamers at around 82mph? Says a lot of the batsman of that time then, if so.

what i am saying is they were quick 140-150 but not express as some of todays bowlers

 

[aussie_ben91]

Regards of how Murali has performed lately, I highly doubt the Windies batsman who have never faced Murali before would have any success against him. I don't they've faced someone with an action like his aswell.

 

[manee]

manee,you really believe a whole lot of rubbish,
for being afast bowler first of all you need a action
i am sorry to say hadlee was aswing bowler,he never was tearaway quick
and pace does not decrease

a) What is wrong with Hadlee's action?

b) Many many sources have Hadlee as a quick bowler early in his career, what makes you more knowledgable from the majority of experts from that era?

manee added 0 Minutes and 33 Seconds later...

Regards of how Murali has performed lately, I highly doubt the Windies batsman who have never faced Murali before would have any success against him. I don't they've faced someone with an action like his aswell.

Indeed, but no one in this era had either, before facing him.

 

[aussie_ben91]

So what makes you think that he wouldn't run through them in a one-off match?

 

[Cricket_god]

a) What is wrong with Hadlee's action?

b) Many many sources have Hadlee as a quick bowler early in his career, what makes you more knowledgable from the majority of experts from that era?

manee added 0 Minutes and 33 Seconds later...



Indeed, but no one in this era had either, before facing him.

manee have you watched him bowl?
he is more of ganguly speed

he clocked higest of 127 in the 1979 speed tests,he is more of aswing bowler