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

[stereotype]

Richards better than Ponting? are you serious? Richards is a great attacking batsman but Ponting going by records has to be at least even if not better.

And besides ranking them like that misses the point. Richards doesnt compete with Ponting he competes with the bowlers in the Australian attack so it should be Richards v Warne or McGrath.

 

[smssia0112]

This thread is ridiculously long considering the fact that NONE OF YOU KNOW THE ANSWER BECAUSE THERE IS NONE. You guys are so serious about this when you seem to have forgotten the fact that there's no actual way to tell which is better.

 

[Michaelf7777777]

Richards better than Ponting? are you serious? Richards is a great attacking batsman but Ponting going by records has to be at least even if not better.

And besides ranking them like that misses the point. Richards doesnt compete with Ponting he competes with the bowlers in the Australian attack so it should be Richards v Warne or McGrath.

I'll agree to disagree with Ponting and Richards as it could be argued both ways.

As for the methodology I thought I'd tried out a who is better than who in 1 0n 1 comparision instead of some of the more generic but still good analysis I have seen so far.

I stand by my conclusion that it would be close but that Australia from 89 to the present would win because the West Indies of the 80's particularly had a weakness against average spinners such as Holland, Border and Hirwani and particularly the only top class spinner of the 80's Abdul Qadir. This weakness against spinner would be exploited nicely by Warne and if conditions permit either May or MacGill to give Australia a close fought victory.

I also stand by my opinion that this is a battle for second spot in the greatest cricket teams ever list behind Australia of the mid to late 1940's.

 

[nightprowler10]

Agree with the comment about the Invincibles being ahead of other eras teams, but I think I slightly disagree with some of your comparisons and would put WIndies just ahead of the Aussies.

 

[aussie_ben91]

Cricket in the 1940's? You mean when the world was a complete shamble and the majority of the world had just gotten over the depression era? Not to mention that a war had just taken place?

 

[nightprowler10]

Cricket in the 1940's? You mean when the world was a complete shamble and the majority of the world had just gotten over the depression era? Not to mention that a war had just taken place?

Do you know anything about the Invincibles? Honestly...

 

[Gilly Fan]

Cricket in the 1940's? You mean when the world was a complete shamble and the majority of the world had just gotten over the depression era? Not to mention that a war had just taken place?

To put it simply, the attacks they faced after the war weren't that good. I might post a picture of what was said in Ricky Ponting's latest book by one of the authors helping make it in a comparison. The Aussies that won the Ashes 5-0 were far better than the invincibles (Barring a few).

 

[Sureshot]

Impossible to compare, it's not just two different eras. It's two different conditions, uncovered pitches anyone? And the fact that many a good/excellent cricketer was lost in the war effort. Some of those that did come back were too scarred to play. It's often thought that post-war Cricket held together England.

 

[usy]

and maybe cricketers those days had different mindset then cricketers and sportsmen these days, *these days it money, money, sex.

Makes a difference too.

 

[nightprowler10]

Impossible to compare, it's not just two different eras. It's two different conditions, uncovered pitches anyone? And the fact that many a good/excellent cricketer was lost in the war effort. Some of those that did come back were too scarred to play. It's often thought that post-war Cricket held together England.

Not to mention it took the Invincibles something like two months to travel to England.

 

[aussie_ben91]

Impossible to compare, it's not just two different eras. It's two different conditions, uncovered pitches anyone? And the fact that many a good/excellent cricketer was lost in the war effort. Some of those that did come back were too scarred to play. It's often thought that post-war Cricket held together England.

Honestly you could imagine playing on a wet wicket? If the standard of cricket was the same back then, then it is right now then teams would've been bundled out for scores of 50 or less.

I can't imagine during that period of time that sport of any kind would be at it's peak in terms of competitiveness with all that occured during that era.

 

[manee]

Contrary to popular belief (and this is not in direct reply to any poster), sticky wickets were not that common in the era of uncovered pitches. After all, you don't always get heavy rain followed by sunshine on the eve of a Test match.

 

[Sureshot]

It's not just the 'sticky dog', Manee. The pitches were uncovered, water would've made the wicket wet, think how it would've been to bat on.

 

[manee]

My club doesn't have covers - the effect is astounding, but not to the point of consistent (although there is often days of) danger.

 

[Black Magic]

Well if what I've heard and learnt about the legendary WI team at that time is true, they would completely destroy the Aussie lineup. Ponting would be sent home to find his switz the moment he walks on the pitch. Gilli if he was in the team would have been the only person to score some runs. Everyone else would just fall apart.

On the other hand if this was against India, I would say it would be a very close match. We might win IF The Wall was at his best form he has ever been in. If god (Sachin) was playing. Ganguly was what he was in the old days (well in cricket, "first their is god, then ganguly"- Mark Taylor) VVS was in the form he is when he versus Australia. Sehwag must open. Dhoni has to captain, Kumble has to be in the team as well because he just seems to get the wickets.Our Bowling attack must be L.Balaji and J.Srinath opening. Then I.Sharma to follow, Kumble in next. Now that would be one legendary team :hpraise

Lol I just realized how biased that view is, anyway...